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”
GocomSys
September 20, 2011 at 3:30 pmSUZANNE BLAKE posted Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 3:10 pm
Please do not rudely interrupt an adult’s debate. This also applies to the other kiddies TTH and Troy C. Go play somewhere else!
shepherdmarilyn
September 20, 2011 at 3:31 pmAnd there is no such thing as off shore frigging processing of protection claims, there is only offshore assessing of migration claims and those two things have nothing at all to do with each other.
Peter Ormonde
September 20, 2011 at 4:11 pmJimmy …
Yes in some ways the Malaysia deal had some good things going for it – not the least taking 4,000 people out of those hell holes. But – and it’s a BIG BUT – nothing should involve taking people who have made a perilous journey back to a hell hole as some sort of “deterrent” aimed at “sending a message” and “breaking the people smugglers business model”…. but yes allowing rapid processing of people in Malaysia and Thailand and elsewhere – subject to humane laws and administration would be a sensible thing to do in my opinion.
Jimmy
September 20, 2011 at 4:27 pmPeter – This is where I freely admit I don’t know the answer, I don’t think the numbers coming here currently are a massive issue and I think processing them here would be fine but I also don’t want people, especially children making that trip in those boats so don’t we need some sort of “deterrent” for want of a better word. Surely the goal is not to have to take the people back but to encourage them to apply for asylum in Malaysia or elsewhere by taking more people from those countries.
Flying them back to Malaysia has to be better than “turning back the boats”
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 4:32 pmPETER ORMONDE;
‘total re-orientation of DIAC away from xenophobic white Australia racism and paranoiac “border protection”’
Wah?
I take it you mean that the Migration Act should be re-written then?
Seriously, your over the top mate, you paint the entire DIAC border control process because you don’t agree with Refugee processing? Border control is so much more than that.
And what are your facts that prove that DIAC is so terribly and deeply affected by ‘xenophobic white Australia racism’ through all its levels?
Your taking the piss surely? Why not include the Customs Service, the Navy and the AFP whilst you are at it, all of-course staffed solely by WASP males.
TheTruthHurts
September 20, 2011 at 4:55 pmThere are 7 Million sitting patiently in camps, so we must turn back every single boat.
I don’t want an immigration system run by back-alley people smugglers in Indonesia, I want an immigration system run by the Australian Government whereby we decide who comes here and circumstances in which they come.
Why should those in camps who have waited patiently for 10 Years with ID papers in hand get their spots stolen by cashed up queue jumpers from Pakistan?
Oscar Jones
September 20, 2011 at 5:05 pmCould it be that the Malaysian debacle was deliberate, knowing it would fail and that on-shore processing which is the cheapest, easiest and most sensible policy was the desired result ?. Perhaps wishful thinking.
To begin we could all face reality and accept the fact that we are responsible for refugees fleeing places that we blew up for some insane reason-countries who had never harmed Australia.
Just as we joined the Yanks and helped destroy large parts of Vietnam forcing many to flee to here-the problem went away eventually as Vietnam settled. But it took 20 years and yet we are still in Afghanistan.
We have a responsibility to these people. They weren’t fleeing the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, odious as they were.
But while we have the wretched media we now have-that just want a story, any story and narrative, all sense flies out the window.
Ms Suzanne Blake-I may be an old lefty but all my dear friends are landed gentry and National Party members and each of them expresses total disinterest in Tony Abbott.
Someone should tell him the rabble out the front of Parliament as shown on 4 Corners last night are not representative of country folk and he’s probably lost the ‘doctor’s wives’ as well.
CML
September 20, 2011 at 5:42 pmI watched QT from the HOR this afternoon, and Adam Bandt thought he would be smart by asking the PM something along the lines of: we successfully brought 90,000 refugees here from Vietnam in the 1970’s…….offshore processing is now dead……when will you accept that we must use onshore processing?
The PM replied by agreeing with him that the Vietnamese refugees of that time settled very well in Oz, but was he aware of the fact that nearly all 90,000 Vietnam refugees were PROCESSED OFFSHORE? Gotcha!!
As I suspected, these people don’t know what they are talking about. If it was acceptable and produced very orderly results then, what the hell is the problem now????
Peter Ormonde
September 20, 2011 at 5:42 pmKnackers …
The head of DIAC – Metcalfe was Phil Ruddock’s Chief of Staff 1996-97 …. that is a political appointment – ie he took leave from the Public Service to do it. His thumb prints are all over the offshore processing debacle, and the entire “boat people” mismanagement subsequently and the continuation of policies of the Howard era. For some reason Rudd and now Gillard have left this bloke in place and are undoubtedly getting the same advice he gave Ruddock et al. You know the advice about “blood in the streets and riots” that he (didn’t) give to journalists the other week.
As for DIAC’s endemic anti-refugee attitudes – don’t let me have the last word – read the RRT’s reports. One in four of the cases brought against DIAC refusals are found in favour of the applicant. That is a dismal record and indicates a systemic failure in the assessment process – yet no one is ever removed for consistently getting it wrong.
As I suggested – have a read of Dinstar’s post of a few days ago – if I could be half bothered I’d find it for you … but the comments and attitudes expressed give a real insight into how DIAC officers view their role… where suspicion is sufficient grounds- where evidence is not necessary, where statements are disbelieved.
“Border protection” as you call it is not actually DIAC’s role – they are responsible for implementing the Migration Act and also the Australian obligations under the refugee convention. This they consistently fail to do adequately, with the result that the RRT routinely bounces them.
It is a simple thing for Bowen to be monitoring the cases that are bounced in the Tribunal and the individual officers concerned and getting them out of the process.
shepherdmarilyn
September 20, 2011 at 5:51 pmThe case of the Vietnamese was before the fucking convention was domestic law and is completely different. We set up the so-called regional processing so we could deny entry to most and only accept the richest and smartest.
Most of all we set it up so that other countries like Malaysia and Indonesia could jail them and force them home.
That is the reality of that scam.