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”
CML
September 21, 2011 at 1:04 am@ KNACK – I certainly do not have any problems with Australia taking at least 20,000 refugees/year, but my whole argument is that they should not only be Afghanis and Iraqis. I would like to see offshore processing so that the most deserving (as determined by the UNHCR) would be offered refuge here, not only those who have the most money to pay for a place on a boat.
Hopefully, this would also stop these interminable court cases entered into by most of the current refugees when they are refused asylum. I read somewhere recently, that one of these people was into his 6th visit to court because he wouldn’t accept no for an answer. Do you have any idea how much this lunacy costs the average taxpayer? Heaps!!!
The other problem I have (at the risk of being called nasty names) is that the head of ASIO has been making rare appearances lately telling the assembled public about where we are up to on security matters. It seems there are a number of suspected terrorist cells in Oz that ASIO watches very, very closely, as they are thought to be in touch with Al Qaeda groups overseas. Guess where the Australian suspects come from? Now, in no way do I say that all Moslems are terrorists – but how do we know which ones are when they arrive here without any documents? The home-grown clerics are also a big problem – you only have to listen to their hate speech to know that. I have no evidence, but just a suspicion that the government’s persistent attempts to introduce offshore processing has more to do with these security questions than anything else. At least if asylum seekers were processed offshore with UNHCR involvement, they would still have their documents – you know, the ones they throw overboard before landing in Australia. And don’t tell me they don’t have passports – they would need one to get on a plane and fly to Malaysia/Indonesia. Something very strange going on here.
@ SM – My mother always taught me that people who have to resort to using bad language, usually have a very poor vocabulary! You really are a very nasty, arrogant, know-it-all.
Knack
September 21, 2011 at 8:16 amTTH;
so you would have no problem with 90,000? same question to you, im pretty sure i won’t get an answer as you seem incapable of answering questions, but hell, will give it a shot. If 90,000 asylum seekers were processed off-shore, say in Nauru and Manus, you would have no problem with that number being settled in Aus?
guytaur
September 21, 2011 at 8:45 amTTH
If it is one or a million people the basic question remains. On or Off Shore Processing that is the question.
I am happy because I support On Shore Processing.
The question remains. Why is it that you and others like you who want Off Shore Processing are happy to see Abbot essentially vote against Off Shore processing. Forget where it is. Just explain why you think it is such genius for Tony Abbot, a supporter of Off Shore to vote against it.
Karen
September 21, 2011 at 9:16 amJulia Gillard is one of the most determined and toughest politicians around.
She has been widely misunderstood and underestimated – notwithstanding the slings and arrows that have been hurled against her by the MSN, she has soldiered on, quietly persevering with ramming through the big picture policies that have saved this country from recession – yes, the IMF now have feathercapped Swan with being the best treasurer the developed world has now – his only other Australian predecessor is Paul Keating.
The stimulation policies – cash handouts to households and the BER have come in for special mention (so, Suzanne Blake and the rest of you right wing trolls, stick that in in your pipe and smoke it!. And you can ram all your reactionary lies about incompetence, illegitimacy, overspending etc where the sun don’t shine!)
Now, for the carbon tax (YEAH!), now for the mining tax (YEAH)), now for letting the offshore processing policy quietly die in the ars* and letting the boat people in (Julia can reduce the plane loads that come in by the same number and prosecute the visa overstayers that come here (YEAH)), and bring in gay marriage (YEAH). If Gillard does this before the 2013 election, she will go down in history as one of Australia’s greatest, most inspired, progressive leaders. I reckon she can outdo Keating and Hawke, even if she does lose in 2013.
If she survives and wins, then the further expansion of the NBN at an accelerated pace, high speed rail and investment in public transport systems generally, continued beefing up of the health and tertiary education sectors, and investment in solar thermal plants – way to go Julia!
And to think that the Australian public could even contemplate voting in those miserable, mean-spirited, small-minded, stingy, selfish men and women that dominate the Liberal opposition…
Karen
September 21, 2011 at 9:27 amJulia Gillard is one of the most determined and toughest politicians around.
She has been widely misunderstood and underestimated – notwithstanding the slings and arrows that have been hurled against her by the MSN, she has soldiered on, quietly persevering with ramming through the big picture policies that have saved this country from recession – yes, the IMF now have feathercapped Swan with being the best treasurer the developed world has now – his only other Australian predecessor is Paul Keating.
The stimulation policies – cash handouts to households and the BER have come in for special mention. And to think that the MSN, particularly, tabloid media continue to drip feed the public with politically reactionary lies about government incompetence, illegitimacy, overspending etc for the purposes of regime change.
Now, for the carbon tax (YEAH!), now for the mining tax (YEAH)), now for letting the offshore processing policy quietly die in the ars* and letting the boat people in (Julia can reduce the plane loads that come in by the same number and prosecute the visa overstayers that come here (YEAH)), and bring in gay marriage (YEAH). If Gillard does this before the 2013 election, she will go down in history as one of Australia’s greatest, most inspired, progressive leaders. I reckon she can outdo Keating and Hawke, even if she does lose in 2013.
If she survives and wins, then the further expansion of the NBN at an accelerated pace, high speed rail and investment in public transport systems generally, continued beefing up of the health and tertiary education sectors, and investment in solar thermal plants – way to go Julia!
guytaur
September 21, 2011 at 10:02 amKaren, I agree with most of your post.
The exception being on Asylum Seekers. Here I agree with John Faulkner and Doug Cameron.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 10:34 am[“so you would have no problem with 90,000? same question to you, im pretty sure i won’t get an answer as you seem incapable of answering questions, but hell, will give it a shot. If 90,000 asylum seekers were processed off-shore, say in Nauru and Manus, you would have no problem with that number being settled in Aus?”]
Why stop at 90,000 why not 250,000? Or what about 1 Million? Or 2 million? Or 6 Million?
It’s a stupid question, Australia will pay for as many as we think we can afford.
The real question is who is the best decider of the most needy of one of those precious refugee visa’s, a back-alley people smuggler in Indonesia or the Australian Government?
guytaur
September 21, 2011 at 10:41 amTTH
Read my above post again. Answer the questions. I repeat the last sentence for you. Just explain why you think it is such genius for Tony Abbot, a supporter of Off Shore to vote against it.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 10:47 am[“The question remains. Why is it that you and others like you who want Off Shore Processing are happy to see Abbot essentially vote against Off Shore processing. “]
Labor has never had offshore processing. Even if you consider CI to be “offshore” Labor brought all the boaties to the mainland because they kept burning the place down, so under Labor offshore processing has never existed.
But i’ll say this to you. I would actually support letting Labor do their Malaysian Solution. Why? Because it will be such a bungle, such a complete stuff-up that it’ll make pink batts fiasco look irrelevent in comparison.
What do you think will happen when 60 minutes, Four Corners or Sunday Night rock up with cameras in hand to record unaccompanied boat kids Labor sent working the sex trade on the streets of Kuala Lumpa? This governments inability to realise the effects of it’s policies are amazing. They introduce policies and then worry about the consequences later… they just don’t think things through!
So even IF Tony Abbott didn’t block this Labor bungle, Labor itself would end up sh!tcanning it within months of it’s operation. It’s so predictable.
guytaur
September 21, 2011 at 10:54 amTTH
Again you ignore the question. It was not about Labor it was about Tony Abbot and the Coalition.
Why do you think it is such genius for Tony Abbot to oppose Off Shore processing?
Yes or no this is the question you cannot get away from. Labor has given Mr Abbot a choice yes or no Mr Abbott.
Mr Abbott has said no.
Therefore there will be On Shore Processing and even those like me who support On Shore know it is because of Tony Abbott has done exactly what Gillard has done. Betrayed party principles for political expediency.
Gillard has done it in betrayal of party platform for On Shore processing. Abbott has done it in betrayal of the Coalition principle of Off Shore processing.
As a supporter of Off Shore I ask you again. How do you support Tony Abbott when he has proven his readiness to ditch Off Shore processing when it was in his power to make it happen?