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”
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 6:04 pmPeter;
Systemic failure of the process is a problem with the process, not as you say the people administering the process.
Border security is multi layered, and DIAC is a key part of that, as Australia has a universal visa regime, it is DIAC job, both in the off-shore and on-shore context to administer that, for an example of this, look up Airline Liaison Officers.
I have read Dinstars post and i know enough of how Departments work to know that you don’t tar a whole entity just because you dislike the opinions of a former employee of that entity.
Peter Ormonde
September 20, 2011 at 6:11 pmKnackers…
I’ve had a lot of dealings with immigration then DIAC over the last decade. These attitudes, suspicions and antagonisms that I refer to are endemic… top to bottom.
A fish rots from the head – and to my nose at least – Metcalfe is well on the turn.
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 6:35 pmPeter;
No arguments on Metcalfe, about as good as his no retired mate Bob Corell.
But back to your requirements, you say that the minister should be monitoring the refusals that go to the RRT personally? And directly intervening with the management of said officers? Really?
As to the 25% of refused cases that are sent to the RRT for determination, and you have top admit thats not all cases that are refused, that not a particularly high number, i would argue that its not some systemic problem that as you would have it, requires the total dismantlement of DIAC.
You are a migration agent aren’t you!??!!!
Suzanne Blake
September 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm@ CML
Yes I saw Bandt with foot in mouth as well. I bet Bob Brown has him over his knee after that gaff
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 6:47 pmSo CML,
using your logic, you would have no problem if 90,000 odd Afghani’s or Iraqi’s were offered places here in Aus, as long as they were processed off-shore?
Really?
Peter Ormonde
September 20, 2011 at 6:49 pmKnackers …
No no no – not a migration agent … don’t think one should do these things for money.
Hopefully Bowen has got more to do with his personal time than monitoring the results of individual minions – but it’s a simple thing to get a monthly report showing that Fred Nerk of Sydney has had seven cases knocked back in the RRT in the last three months for example.
You’ve got the numbers arse-about on the RRT – it’s that 25% of all the cases that go to the RRT end up with the initial DIAC decision being overturned. All the cases involve refusals – but a significant number are found to be incorrect, unsubstantiated or unjustified. That means that one in four of the refusals would be sent back to well god knows what actually – not our problem?
Not advocating a total dismantlement of DIAC – I’m sure there a few decent people with humanitarian values who can hold their suspicions in check or at least wait for evidence before reaching conclusions. But retraining, increased individual accountability and moving unsuitable people onto photocopying – you bet.
And the first thing that must occur is a cultural change that breaks down this notion of DIAC being some sort of bureaucratic wing of our “border protection” … that is not up to them at all.
Knack
September 20, 2011 at 8:36 pmPeter;
sorry, badly worded on my part, thats what i meant with the 25%, it does seem a small number, but on balance i can see your point.
As to the rest, i agree but with one small part, whilst i can see from your previous posts why you might form the opinion that DIAC is ‘some sort of bureaucratic wing of our “border protection” … that is not up to them at all.’ but as i said above, due to the nature of our universal visa regime, which i for one think is a good thing, DIAC is an arm, for good or bad of the Border Security process, it has on-shore and off-shore officers doing a good and valuable job, for example at the border in air and sea ports and off-shore in Airports that are the last port of embarkation before arrival in Australia.
Its truly not a cultural notion, its firmly entrenched in the Migration Act, and has been for quite some time, again, its a matter of opinion as to whether or not you think that’s a good or bad thing.
Peter Ormonde
September 20, 2011 at 9:09 pmShepherdmarilyn…
Really mate I don’t think the angry language helps your argument nor do I think you are actually correct on the Vietnamese resettlement.
My recollection is that the new Vietnamese Government actually facilitated people leaving – it required their co-operation and people were allowed to leave. I am unaware of any returns of the poor or the uneducated.
Other than a desire to spew out moral indignation in all directions, you got any evidence at all for those accusations?
TheTruthHurts
September 20, 2011 at 9:40 pm[“using your logic, you would have no problem if 90,000 odd Afghani’s or Iraqi’s were offered places here in Aus, as long as they were processed off-shore?”]
We already take 13,750 per year.
The question for the left is should people smugglers decide who takes those spots, or the Australian government.
Philip Ross
September 20, 2011 at 11:10 pmWe live in the 3rd most sparsely populated country in the world so surly we can fit more refugees in? But I live in Melbourne and I can tell you the roads are seriously overcrowded and the hospitals and schools are stretched to their limits. We are a very wealth nation in relatively good economic shape since the GFC so surly we can afford to let a few more refugees in? But we already have the second highest refugee intake of any country per head per capita of any other country in the world so how many refugees is enough? How many refugees should we take in before the greens and the lefties are satisfied?
From my personal point of view I am in the top rate of tax payers and I am very sensitive to how much money is wasted by all levels of government in all areas including the wasted expenditure in processing asylum seekers either on shore or off shore. I am very happy for the government to spend my taxes on my behalf to pay for a significant number of refugees to resettle in Australia (via legal or illegal arrival means) so that I can feel that Australia is living up to its international moral obligations. I currently feel that this is being met so I do not have the overwhelming desire that the greens and the lefties have to invite the other 7 million refuges to our shores.
I have a mixed race fiancée and mixed race kids so I can hardly be described as white xenophobe. Quite a number of my staff are former refugees and I notice with irony that all of them are against the illegal immigrants. It certainly suits the greens and the lefties to label me the inhumane racist when the truth is that the government and the opposition are really pandering the electorate at large and this electorate is made up of multicultural people who are in fact against illegal immigrants!
We all know what is happening in countries like France and Italy and we have a genuine right to be afraid of that happening to us. Maybe if we didn’t make it thru the GFC so well then we would be more concerned with just keeping our own jobs, but with unemployment running at 5% we are more concerned with preserving our high standard of living.
Refugees may come from war torn parts of the planet but make no mistake they have internet access. Generally only middle and upper class refugees can afford to sell up all their possessions and make the perilous journey on a leaky boat to a Western country. Don’t you think these middle class people would have done their due diligence and researched their prospective destination country and googled the political situation towards illegal immigrants? These people know exactly what is going on and the difference between Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Abbot. They probably know more about Australia’s current immigration policy than the average Australian does.
The only logical, humane and cost effective solution is on shore processing with women, children and some men allowed into the community during the assessment process pending security risk assessment. It is inhumane to lock up people who have done nothing wrong other than to flee persecution. BUT we do not reward illegal immigrants and DO NOT encourage them so unfortunately we must bring back temporary protection visas. No illegal immigrant should be allowed to “jump the queue” (I hate that term). If and when Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran settle down then they must return.
The greens and lefties can set an appropriate figure that makes them happy for the number of refugees Australia takes in each year and we take the entire sum from the millions of refugees sitting in the queues in refugee camps around the world.
It is not immoral and it is not inhumane to decide who comes in to our country. If I got on a boat and turned up unannounced on the shores of any other country in the world I would expect to be placed in immigration detention and I would not accuse that country of being inhumane, I would call it completely logical.