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”
peter barrett
September 21, 2011 at 11:05 pmThe sickening state of national politics at the moment being perpertrated by our political “leaders”, particularly over asylum seekers, reminds me of the robot characters played by such as Yul Brynner in the 1973 movie Westworld. Holidaymakers enter a make believe world, their every wish is granted. Dressed up as gun wielding cowboys, challenged by Brynner to a gun fight as there isn’t enough room in the town for both of them, the robot is blown away. Overnight he is repaired, only the next day to challenge another guest and again be gunned down mercylessly. Eventually, the robots wise up and rebel and it’s hell to pay for the holidaying guests.
Over and over again Gillard pursues dud policies, fails to spend tax payers’ money wisely, then re-enters the fray the following day with more dud policies and again is trounced. The pity is there’s no chance of a robot revolt – the silent and apathetic majority who haven’t yet decided to emulate Peter Finch in the 1976 movie Network, to lean out of the window and declare “I’m not going to take this any more.” – with the likes of Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd sidelined in the wings, when will this sea of decent Australians demand their political leaders drag themselves out of the disgusting state of politics we all find ourselves drowning within.
Phillip Buster
September 22, 2011 at 1:38 amThe current trouble that Labour find themselves in is entirely of their own doing. There was a workable offshore processing model which combined with the TPV regime acted as a successful deterrent to people smugglers and unauthorised boat arrivals. The purely political step they took of dismantling the system that worked to pander to the raging loonies of the Left has now bounced straight back and hit them fair in the goolies. After poncing around in the afterglow of their new tough bur fair approach, the boats suddenly start coming gain because of the pull factors, the foot in the door began. Now they have well and truly trumped themselves and are too stupid to try out Nauru (and TPVs) because it was a Liberal policy. They dismantle a system that works then try to cobble together a similar model – bloody hypocrites.
Peter Ormonde
September 22, 2011 at 7:25 amAh … there we have it …
Phil reckons that TPV’s and “discouraging unauthorised boat arrivals” were actually just fine…. little bit illegal, bit cruel, bit inhumane … but they worked. And of course, when he says “worked” he means it stopped the boats, kept people locked up and locked out. Nothing wrong with any of that at all. Protecting our borders. DIAC is full of this stuff…. a deeply politiocised agency, claiming to be just following orders and the law. Now where have I heard that before?
Knack
September 22, 2011 at 8:42 amPeter;
serious mate, cut it out with this bloody generalisations about DIAC, you your self said you have had dealings with ’30’ DIAC staff, thats 30 out of roughly 6000, thats just demented, and thinly veiled comparisons to the final solution is just bloody low.
PB;
i guess by what your saying i have to ask the same question that i asked old truthiness boy, on what legal advice do you base your claim that Nauru is not affected by the current High Court ruling?
Peter Ormonde
September 22, 2011 at 9:01 amKnackers …
I should have put the numbers better … that’s 30 out of 30 so far … a 100% rate of unhelpfulness, of suspicion and of hostility. Not looking good so far.
But I’m sure you are correct and that somewhere in DIAC there are people who are genuinely committed to helping refugees escape persecution, who are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, who think Australia should honour its obligations under the convention. I just haven’t met any. Have you?
I’ll give you an illustration: A Indian woman who was wanting to marry an Australian citizen had her application refused because, she was advised in writing, that there was a ministerial direction dealing with this very matter. The actual direction from Ruddock (which I obtained for her) concerned the very sensible idea that no visa should be granted if the purpose was to commit a crime. No crime was suggested in this case, it was just that the DIAC officer didn’t think the marriage was fair dinkum. The woman got her visa eventually. Suspicion is enough. Saying no is safe. And the skills provided and discretion permitted of front line staff is dismal.
I’m not necessarily advocating wholesale sackings in DIAC but a major overhaul of its operations, training and the discretion permitted to officers to make reasonable judgements other than saying “no”. It is the culture of the place that’s wrong.
The ATO had the same attitude 20 years ago – that every taxpayer was trying to break the law. This has now been substantially overturned as a result of major rebuilding of the culture and the thinking that was prevalent in the place, improved training and more flexible discretionary processes. This has freed up resources to chase the real law-breakers. One starts with management… and there probably should be sackings up there.
Suzanne Blake
September 22, 2011 at 9:03 am@ Peter Ormonde and Others
Please explain to me why Rudd is travelling the world gaining support for Australia to sit on UN Security Council?
Why is this expense and seat so necessary?
Seems like more waste to me, gross waste.
Jimmy
September 22, 2011 at 9:13 amYet another random and off topic post from SB, which follows the normal pattern, she posts something attacking the govt, is challenged to produce evidence or has her statement shown to be completely wrong, she disappears (or more likely starts posting under another name) for a while and then returns with an off topic liberal party talking point.
Peter Ormonde
September 22, 2011 at 9:20 amSuzanne …
Explain? to you? What explanation would satisfy your prejudged opinions on anything to do with this “illegitimate” government? Don’t pretend your mind is open to change and explanation.
But really it’s obvious – Rudd is wanting to get a seat on the UN Security Council so that we can use those morally bankrupt climate scientists who work for the UN world guvvermint to make new laws banning people from keeping harmless birds like cockatiels in cages. Open your eyes Orstraya … it’s the thin end of the wedge!
There you go. That feel better now. More foil, Sooz, much much more foil.
Knack
September 22, 2011 at 9:38 amPeter;
What you are describing to me is in my experience a lack of training, not some evil intent on the part of a DIAC officer. It has been my observation when dealing with DIAC that the greater majority are very good people, doing a very hard job, at very low levels of pay for the enormity of the consequences that their decisions can have. They are not well trained, but it is my understanding that there is an effort to change this, i will believe it when i see it.
It needs to reminded to, that DIAC is so much more than these 30 people that you are referring to that process Asylum, and in your example above, spousal visa’s, its been my experience that generally, the public really has no real concept of the enormity of the day to day to work that DIAC undertakes here and overseas, which is a shame as a lot of great work is done, for very low wages comparative to similar agencies such as Customs.
As to what you are suggesting for changes, it would require a total overhaul of the Migration Act, and as you would probably know that requires an act of parliament, don’t see that happening any-time soon.
TheTruthHurts
September 22, 2011 at 9:42 am[“Phil reckons that TPV’s and “discouraging unauthorised boat arrivals” were actually just fine…. little bit illegal, bit cruel, bit inhumane … but they worked.”]
Nowhere in the High Court decision did it say offshore processing or TPV’s for that matter were “illegal”, simply that protections must be put in place.
The reality is and I feel like I am repeating myself, boaties are fed, housed, clothed and looked after by Australia to Australian conditions in Nauru.
It’s inconvenient for the boaties to go to Nauru because it’s hot and far far away fro Australia. Tough Tiddies.
The whole point is to deter those making the dangerous boat journey and stealing spots from real refugee’s sitting in real refugee camps.