A decided ennui has overtaken Canberra, or at least the Press Gallery. There’s a general sense that politics at the moment is truly wretched, a Sisyphean ordeal. Just as Labor is apparently condemned to roll (or perhaps rickroll), a policy rock up a hill, only for it to roll down again, and the task commence anew, so the media must exhaustively cover, and comment upon, every nuance of the repetition, over and over.
Clash of the titans it ain’t. And pace Albert Camus, there are, alas, no absurd heroes in this building. There’s plenty of absurdity, yes, but heroes? Sorry, we’re all out of them.
So the carbon pricing package debate, over ostensibly the most important piece of legislation to be debated this term, has been reduced to scenic backdrop. Instead, Labor and the Coalition are going hammer and tongs over several thousand asylum seekers — a diversion of the national attention span so manifestly disproportionate that it would be comical if there wasn’t, in the possibility of people drowning trying to get here, a deadly serious policy issue that is being furiously ignored by everyone except those with the responsibility of actually developing and implementing policy.
Everyone else — refugee advocates, the Greens, the media, Labor backbenchers, and most of all the Opposition — can play dress-ups in the clothes of compassion while the government is stuck with the task of trying to work out how to stop people drowning themselves trying to get resettled here.
For Labor, perhaps the better mythic metaphor at the moment is that of Prometheus, eternally chained to a rock and condemned to have his liver eaten over and over again. It was an eagle that feasted on his liver in the original; a turkey would be more apt round here. That’s Labor’s lot for now and the immediate future. There’s to be no escape, no salvation, so there must simply be acceptance. Even a leadership change now would be useless.
In that regard, at least, if in few others, Julia Gillard is the ideal leader. She may not be much chop as a political tactician but her resilience is impressive. No matter what body blows strike her Prime Ministership, she dusts herself off and keeps going. Keeps going the wrong way, many critics inside and outside the party insist, but on she goes, pushing that rock up the hill, certain in the knowledge that it will roll straight back down again, if only because it has every other time she’s done it in the last twelve months.
One doubts if, like Camus’ absurd hero, Gillard has found contentment in the futility of her task. But she works away at a policy agenda anyway, and a solid one — more solid than Kevin Rudd’s, although he had the excuse that the GFC substituted keeping the economy functional for any ambitious reform program.
The government’s proposed asylum seeker policy is by no means ideal. We shouldn’t be keeping people in detention unnecessarily, we should be resettling far more people than we do, and we should be providing a lot more funding for the UNHCR. But I can’t see another policy around at the moment that better marries the twin goals of fulfilling our moral obligations to assist people fleeing persecution and discouraging them from risking their lives.
It’s not the best policy option by any stretch, but it’s the least worst one currently on offer. There’s nothing particularly heroic about prosecuting the case for such a policy, but as in a lot of other policy areas, the government’s fate is to doggedly pursue second-tier policies that only have the single redeeming feature of not being nearly as bad as what their opponents are offering.

108 thoughts on “Politics is a Sisyphean ordeal, and Gillard’s ideal for it”
Phillip Buster
September 22, 2011 at 2:05 pmPeter – please explain at what point the offshore processing model in Nauru was found to be illegal? There were legal challenges at the outset of the Pacific Solution as well as during and the model was not found to be illegal.
Knack – I’m not a lawyer mate and don’t claim to be so am unable to provide an explanation. But the idea of going straight back to the Malaysian model is a bad one because there are conditions of the agreement in it that are not legally binding. The Malaysians will never becomes signatories to the UN Refugee Convention.
guytaur
September 22, 2011 at 2:13 pmTTH
We will do exactly the same as we do today.
As for appeals well that is the legal system for you. Do not like that then change the legal system.
Asylum Seekers do not need to be housed in Mandatory Detention while appeals are going on.
Instead they can be put under a parole style system to keep track of them. The process is not finished until the last appeal fails.
guytaur
September 22, 2011 at 2:22 pmTTH
No matter what you say you cannot change what is going to be fact.
Government puts legislation that says it decides the manner in which people come and if they will stay.
Abbott will vote no or yes to that. He says no.
TheTruthHurts
September 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm[“We will do exactly the same as we do today.”]
So you do support appeal after appeal after appeal, extending the time in detention centres because illegal immigrants don’t get the message? Thats why people are stuck in detention for months, they just won’t take the refs decision.
[“As for appeals well that is the legal system for you. Do not like that then change the legal system.”]
Thats what I’m suggesting Labor and the Libs to do.
1 appeal. Fail the appeal then out of the country within 48 hours.
Peter Ormonde
September 22, 2011 at 3:51 pmMr Buster …
Any scheme or arrangement designed to punish, deter or make life difficult for boat arrivals seeking asylum is designed to avoid or obligations under the UN convention.
That should have been the basis of challenges to Nauru but wasn’t. It will be now.
So yes…little bit illegal (in the sense of avoiding our legal obligations), little bit cruel and inhumane. But it worked – yes stopped the boats. And that mate is shirking our responsibilities.
People have a right to turn up uninvited and ask for asylum. Anything we do to discourage or penalise them for that is designed to dodge our obligations.
If you really really want to stop the boats all we have to do is just skip out of the UN Convention – easy. Then you can start shelling them and turning them back or towing them back out to sea… whatever you like.
TheTruthHurts
September 22, 2011 at 6:55 pm[“Any scheme or arrangement designed to punish, deter or make life difficult for boat arrivals seeking asylum is designed to avoid or obligations under the UN convention.”]
Oh get OVER IT already.
There are 7 Million sitting in camps and all you care about are a few cashed up queue jumpers who burn their ID.
Why aren’t you out there crusading for the ones who have sat in the camps for 20+ years? Doesn’t pull on the heart strings like Armani dressed Pakistani’s with a sob story and no ID.
Peter Ormonde
September 22, 2011 at 7:04 pmTroofie …
Can’t you find anyone of a like mind to talk to? Do people run when they see you coming? Have you been banned from your local pubs? Why do you persist with annoying decent people … let alone people wot can spell? It’s Pakistanis , not “Pakistani’s”.
Why can’t we have a citizenship test … nothing but apostrophes and grammar – no appeals – one strike and you’re on a plane to Somalia? Seems fair to me.
More foil in the hat old chum … lots more and make sure those big ears are well covered up.
Policeman MacCruiskeen
September 22, 2011 at 8:11 pmBoi cheesus, and ain’t that roight that oi go ta’all th’effort ta get Ole Walleye to translate a reasoned argument for Knackers and it now appears that, typical of his astroturfin’ koind, what he does is turn up only to p*ss all over the leg of a debater and then p*ss off. The Truncheon is fair throbbin’ for tha boy. Oil give ‘im a lesson in incivility tha Mutton Bird Island way that won’t be forgot for many a wild and stormy nouight, bedad ,when oi lay moi ‘ands on ‘im. We’ll see ‘ow funny ‘e is when he trois ta run in gumboots, fer sure (snort). Oi’ve been over in South Ozzie takin’ lessons in Policin public places and oi’ve got a few new tricks for tha loiks o’ him.