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”
Jimmy
September 21, 2011 at 11:00 amTTH – Further to Guytaur’s point there is a good article in the Australian today that points out that Nauru being a signatory to the UN convention (if the actually sign) will not be enough to meet the standards set by the High Court. Further more “turning the boats around” and taking them back to Indonesia where their rights and protections will be the same as under the “Malaysian Solution” will also breach Abbott’s current position for humane treatment.
So please answer Guytaur’s question.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 12:10 pm[“Why do you think it is such genius for Tony Abbot to oppose Off Shore processing?”]
Abbott has said yes to offshore processing in UNHCR countries, why do you keep lying?
And I’ve already given you my answer, Abbott should allow the Malaysian Solution to go ahead and sit back and watch the fireworks.
Suzanne Blake
September 21, 2011 at 12:13 pm@ TheTruthHurts
I think Abbott should hold firm and deny Malaysian Deal and watch Gillard and Bowen explain why they have already given them $800 million ….for what
guytaur
September 21, 2011 at 12:26 pmTTH
Now it is you who is lying.
You know this. You know it is Labors legislation.
What you refer to is an excuse for TonyAbbott to say no to Off Shore.
Abbott is voting No to Off Shore in Parliament.
That is fact. So why are you such a fan?
Knack
September 21, 2011 at 12:28 pmJimmy;
‘turning the boats around’
We can’t do that under the law of the sea, generally the boast are not sea worthy so we have to render assistance, or they self sabotage, which then totally obligates us under the laws of the sea.
TTH;
You still havent answered as to why you think Nauru would meet the test as set out in the High Court under 198 (a), im genuinely interested.
Also, what, and i mean exactly, leads you to claim ‘pink batts’ was a fiasco, im still unsure exactly why people think it was ‘a disaster’, happy to be informed.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 12:31 pm[“I think Abbott should hold firm and deny Malaysian Deal and watch Gillard and Bowen explain why they have already given them $800 million ….for what”]
Yeah that will be delicious to watch but I still reckon Abbott should just let the Malaysian Solution bungle go through and sit back and watch the fireworks.
There have been 900 boatpeople in the 3 months after the Malaysian Solution was announced.
Seeing as the limit is 800 everyone will be asking Gillard, now you have filled the quota, what now? Another multi-million dollar cheque to Malaysia and another 4000 people?
And then as I stated we’ll have Four Corners, 60 Minutes or Sunday Night in Malaysia to let us know how the boatpeople are going. The Labor left and Gillard’s Green masters will go absolutely ballistic and demand she shut down the program, ending it shortly after it begins.
Then years from now it will be revealed Australia is still paying for Labors Malaysian Boatpeople.
I mean it’s just a policy filled with so many holes and flaws it’s not funny. The Labor hacks in here put their fingers in their ears and go “lalalala” as always but do they really think this stuff won’t happen?
I don’t know who Labor gets to advise on their policy announcements, but I reckon a bunch of monkeys could do a better job.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 12:35 pm[“You still havent answered as to why you think Nauru would meet the test as set out in the High Court under 198 (a), im genuinely interested.”]
Because:
1. We do the processing
2. We provide shelter, food, health and education to Australian standards
3. We provide protection by Australian staff to Australian standards
If we can’t process boatpeople in Nauru, we can’t process people on the mainland.
Not only that Nauru is signatory to the UNHCR convention and are willing to change any domestic laws to bring themselves into line with the High Court agreement.
These are all the requirements of the High Court decision. The High Court did NOT say Offshore processing was illegal as the left keep lying about, it simply said that protections had to be guaranteed.
Peter Ormonde
September 21, 2011 at 12:40 pmTroofie…
“…We provide shelter, food, health and education to Australian standards.”
Eye fink wee wood bee cape able off due wing allot maw gooder then thet, doncha fink?
guytaur
September 21, 2011 at 12:52 pmTTH
Read yesterday’s Australian. Morrison admits Nauru would be open to legal challenge.
Again you are not answering the question. Why do you an Off Shore supporter think it is good for Abbott to vote against Off Shore. Abbott had the chance to vote yes. He said no yet again.
He cites human UN Treaties etc as an excuse. This did not worry him as a cabinet member in sendin asylum seekers to Nauru or for the Intervention when the Aboriginal Rights Act was repealed. So we know it an excuse to say no for him.
For you it is why do you support him voting no when you know that otherwise those of us saying On Shore have been right all along? You cannot abide by UN refugee and human rights treaties and have Off Shore processing.
The High Court cleared that up for once and for all.
SBH
September 21, 2011 at 1:36 pmI think Abbott should hold firm and deny Malaysian Deal and watch Gillard and Bowen explain why they have already given them $800 million ….for what
Again Suzanne Blake with another lie, again repeated by truthie. The Australian Government hasn’t given the Malaysian Government $800 million dollars. Even the organs of News limited don’t make such an outlandish claim.
Not even the opposition claim this has happened ‘already’ or in fact is ever likely to happen Here’s their claim:
The combined (my emphasis) cost of the new Malaysian policy, increased staff numbers to deal with cases and the expansion of detention facilities could see the Immigration budget blow out by more than $800 million, claimed the Opposition.
Suzanne when are you going to either stop telling such stupid and easily exposed lies?