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”
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 3:32 pm[“And it hasn’t been paid ‘already’. “]
Who paid to upgrade their detention centre facilities recently?
FAIL.
We’ve already put a majority of the money down for detention centres we’ll never get to use.
Jimmy
September 21, 2011 at 3:33 pmI believe you about the UNHCR, it just adds more confusion to the whole thing (especially when you factor in the indonesian issue we covered earlier), which is the way Abbott seems to like it as it helps him avoid scrutiny.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 3:35 pm[“Knack – Then why is it that it ahs been widely reported that Nauru may (stress may) be able to get through but PNG definitely wouldn’t after the High Court Ruling?”]
There has been talk that the country upon which the boaties must go must have in their domestic laws protections for them.
Easy for Nauru which has a population of 9,000 people.
We could ask the Naruan government to stand on their heads, rub their bellys and recite the Australian national anthem and they would do it.
I think Abbott is on solid ground when he says he doesn’t need new legislation for Nauru to work, we just need Nauru to work inside the legislation.
Jimmy
September 21, 2011 at 3:38 pm“We’ve already put a majority of the money down for detention centres we’ll never get to use.” We could easily use them if Abbott would pass the legislation he himself will need if/when he takes govt, the waste will be on his hands.
And if we have paid to upgrade the facilities won’t that bring them into line with Australian standards, making the difference between Nauru and Malaysia less?
Knack
September 21, 2011 at 3:40 pmTTH;
‘I think Abbott is on solid ground when he says he doesn’t need new legislation for Nauru to work, we just need Nauru to work inside the legislation.’
Subtext to that mate is that we need to pay Nauru a gang of cash.
Whats the correlation between such a small population and implementing new domestic laws to provide for protections?
Jimmy
September 21, 2011 at 3:41 pmTTH – Ah yes, why democratically change our laws when we can force another country to do whatever we want for a few shiny pennies.
TheTruthHurts
September 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm[“Whats the correlation between such a small population and implementing new domestic laws to provide for protections?”]
Well Nauru is miles from anywhere, they will never have an asylum seeker problem… so giving protections to boatpeople we send to them won’t bat an eye lid.
Try getting somewhere like Malaysia to sign up to the same sort of protections. LOL
[“TTH – Ah yes, why democratically change our laws when we can force another country to do whatever we want for a few shiny pennies.”]
Nauru is a democracy, Australia is a democracy.
We aren’t forcing them to do jack all, they will choose to do it because the detention centre is a big boost for their economy.
If Abbott wins in a landslide it will be the democratic will of the Australian people for Nauru to be reopened again. If the Greens and Labor try stonewalling the plan then this is Plan B. Labor never had a Plan B for their Malaysian Solution if it ran into legal problems, they just have excuses.
SBH
September 21, 2011 at 4:13 pmTruthie you bone head. Blake says $800 million dollars has been paid ‘already’. It’s a tense thing. You know like before and after.
This is a common mistake bonehead blake makes because she doesn’t understand the difference between Treasury projections and actual spending. Like how she can’t count or tell the difference between 200 public servants and two dozen .
But please, by all means, show me a single piece of evidence, point me to the source that shows that the Australian Government has paid $800 million or $300 million or what ever the latest made up figure is, to the Malaysian Government.
come on, dazzle me
Jimmy
September 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm“We aren’t forcing them to do jack all, they will choose to do it because the detention centre is a big boost for their economy.”
“We could ask the Naruan government to stand on their heads, rub their bellys and recite the Australian national anthem and they would do it. ”
No we aren’t forcing them, it’s more of a bribe isn’t it.
“If the Greens and Labor try stonewalling the plan then this is Plan B” What is plan B? The only way the Greens and the ALP could stone wall is if the coaltion were trying to pass legislation, if they want to pass legislation then obviously Nauru isn’t a legal option currently which is at odds with what they are currently saying.
SBH
September 21, 2011 at 7:45 pmcrickets