There are periods in public life where the ship of state wallows becalmed. In the Sargasso sea of myth, sails flap, prodigies are seen and ships do not move, crews are frightened and rumours spread.
A distant cloud is claimed to be the Marie Celeste, reefs and rocks are made of air, albatrosses die on the deck, and Musulman sailors are unmasked as Jonahs. In response captains speak of discipline, strengthen ship's regulations, gather the crew to salute the flag and put the purported Jonahs in irons (perhaps for their own protection).
The challenge facing the serious person on the ship, usually the ship's doctor, is to avoid responding to each rumour and each proclamation — to respond would just invest nonsense with credibility — and to keep focused on what matters. What is needed is to sustain the spirits of the crew and to plan the continuation of the journey when the wind again fills the sails.
In Australian public life we are becalmed in a sea where the trade winds of political will, imagination, ability to agree, trust in politicians and firm direction do not blow. We search for portents in the United States skies and hope for wind from the budget.
In the meantime we see discord among the officers, unrest among the crew, windy statements of maritime values designed to name and shame the various Jonahs blamed for threatening the ship and its traditions, and a rewriting of the ship's regulations to impose fraternity.
So how to respond? The temptation — for serious members of the crew and nation alike — is to engage with the rumours, the revision of regulations and the proclamation of values. They should be recognised for what they are: a frustrated response to being becalmed, and an attempt to scapegoat vulnerable and innocent members of the crew or nation.
Having dismissed these diversions, we may then ask what matters in the issues underlying them and what might be lost if they were acted on. In the case of the rewriting of the 457 visa regulations this is simple. Regulations should ensure that we welcome people into Australia to work when it is to our mutual advantage, that they are fairly paid, and that local workers are not disadvantaged by their presence.
These interlocking conditions demand effective public scrutiny of the treatment of immigrant workers. The previous scheme became contentious because of the evidence that the exploitation of