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”
SBH
September 21, 2011 at 1:38 pmstrike ‘either’
Suzanne Blake
September 21, 2011 at 1:41 pm@ SBH
The amount your refer to is an additional potential liability.
They paid $800 million after they did the deal at the same time they agreed to take the 4,000 people already in Malaysia. I am not sure if the 4,000 are still coming or indeed if some are already here. Some of the 4,000 were interviewed on Australian TV last month.
SBH
September 21, 2011 at 1:44 pmNo they didn’t. What evidence do you have for such an outlandish claim?
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 1:48 pm[“Read yesterday’s Australian. Morrison admits Nauru would be open to legal challenge. “]
Of course it’s open to legal challenge.
Everything is open to legal challenge. It doesn’t mean they would lose that challenge however.
Suzanne Blake
September 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm@ SHB
Sarah Hanson Young was talking about it on the weekend, in passing on why onshore processing was cheaper than offshore processing
SBH
September 21, 2011 at 2:05 pmSo, no evidence then? Geezus you really take the biscuit.
Suzanne Blake
September 21, 2011 at 2:07 pm@ SHB
Sarah Hanson Young would be more authoritive on this that you would be?
guytaur
September 21, 2011 at 2:20 pmTTH
Abbot is going to vote for On Shore processing. To put Off Shore beyond legal doubt is what Gillard is doing.
If you want Off Shore you should support that. Otherwise you vote with the Greens against Off Shore policy knowing that means On Shore Processing because of the High Court decision.
Tony Abbott cannot have it both ways. He will either vote for the Labor policy or the Greens one.
There is no other choice.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm[“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.”]
You are right, it was only $300 Million.
You see Labor signed this CONTRACT with Malaysia that we would take 4000 of their refugee’s and we’d give them 800 boatpeople and we’d pay the Malaysians a large sum of money to upgrade their detention centres(paid for by the little aussie taxpayer).
Well the deal was signed by both parties so is now legally binding.
It’s not Malaysia’s fault Labor stuffed up yet again, so we’ll still be taking the 4000 Malaysian refugee’s and we’ll still be paying. Labor should have put a clause in the agreement that if there were legal problems with the plan going ahead the contract would be null and void… but of course this is Labor we are talking about and they NEVER think of the consequences of their policies.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 2:26 pm[“Abbot is going to vote for On Shore processing. “]
Actually Labor get to vote for offshore processing because Abbott will be putting his amendments for processing in UNHCR signatory countries to a vote.
If Labor votes this down, this means they aren’t interested in offshore processing at all and have been simply posing.
Anyways I have already given you my answer I think Abbott should vote to allow Malaysia Non-Solution so we can watch another Labor bungle in the making. I’ll get the popcorn.