Tony Burke was late to the National Press Club to announce the government's migration policy on Thursday.
After the embarrassment of having to abort his earlier press club appearance, followed by senior ministers faffing around over the details, and unsuccessful negotiations between government and opposition, Burke produced a package that, on his own admission, did not include everything he'd wanted.
It attacks some problems. But the government will be wedged between those who think the changes don't go far enough and critics who believe they're draconian.
The government will stop the entry of most overseas students' families, which will make life harder for some and discourage others from coming at all. Universities will be concerned.
Working holiday-makers wanting to stay two or three years will face the luck of the draw, under a new ballot system.
Only 5,000 will get a third year, compared to 31,000 last year. Some farmers and businesses in regional areas looking for labour will be worried.
A proposed "No Further Stay" condition for visitor visas is a blunt instrument, but it aims to address a provision being exploited.
Burke candidly anticipated he'll come under attack for toughening compliance measures, with greater use of detention as the government tries to deport overstayers.
But again, a challenge remains in a system where enforcement has become too loose.
The measures won't satisfy those who desire a much smaller migration program.
They are about achieving the budget target of 225,000 Net Overseas Migration (NOM) by 2027–28, not going lower.
Voters wanting a bigger squeeze on total intake will still look to One Nation, or wait for the Coalition, which is still wrestling with its own alternative.
In terms of numbers, it's a delicate balance. As Burke told parliament: "If you make cuts too deep, too hard in the immigration system, you trash the Australian economy."
The government's changes to prioritise skilled workers in areas such as health care and construction will be well received. This should have been done years ago.
Equally, the enforcement action on "rogue" migration agents is long overdue.
Burke would have liked to act against those he called "disingenuous protection claims" — people who, coming to the end of their visa hopping, launch a protection claim that might give them "up to nine years working in Australia" while their appeals drag on.
"To give a sense of the gravity of this, if we took the people who apply from countries where more than 85 per cent of the applications fail, that constitutes 80 per cent of our caseload. This is an issue I'd like to be able to deal with."
But that needs legislation, and no agreement was reached in two recent meetings between Anthony Albanese and Angus Taylor.
With One Nation effectively "owning" the immigration issue on the right these days, the opposition would like to move on from it, but eventually felt it could not afford to give too much ground to Labor.
One wonders, however, if the government should not have just included the measure to deal with bogus claims, to see whether the opposition might give in under parliamentary pressure.
Burke's belated appearance came days after One Nation did its pre-emption act, with its own policy launched on Monday — albeit a plan that has been criticized by opponents, stakeholders and many experts.
Inside and outside Labor, Burke's untidy handling of what is a central issue has had some people scratching their heads.
When he was installed in the home affairs portfolio, replacing Clare O'Neil, who'd attempted in the job, Burke was widely seen as both competent and the classic "safe pair of hands".
After all, he's one of the group competing to lead Labor eventually.
Burke's mistake was getting ahead of his colleagues by lining up the press club before the policy process had been finalised.
When the draft went to senior ministers, they had issues.
Burke was reluctant to cancel his speech, which made the last-minute pull-out look worse.
Reports of a big split between Burke and Treasurer Jim Chalmers over the policy were overblown; indeed, Chalmers tried to facilitate Burke's attempt to meet his initial timetable.
But Chalmers's general stance on immigration is forward-leaning, putting him close to that of South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, who recently warned about "the prospect of mainstream politics entering a political race to the bottom for who can cut migration numbers the most".
The migration policy changes proposed by the various parties will have big fallouts for stakeholders and the economy. But many discontented voters may just make their judgements on the bottom line numbers.
It doesn't take the ubiquitous opinion polls to tell us the electorate is in a bad mood, with angst about immigration just one strand in this.
Within Labor they talk about the mid-term blues. They've been in this territory before, of course — remember, close to the last election, the government's future appeared at possible risk. Now it has a large majority to protect it.
On the other hand, in previous times, One Nation hadn't become the mini-monster now confronting both conservative and Labor parties.
On Monday the government will release the latest Intergenerational Report, which charts the economic and budgetary challenges for the coming four decades.
These are formidable, especially for a country with fundamental problems, a seeming inability to boost productivity and the pressures of an aging population.
The challenges of the future 40 years will seem theoretical to many people, given how quickly things change.
Forty years ago, the power of social media and AI, which obsess us now, was well over the horizon.
What won't pass people by is another rise in interest rates, at present considered a high prospect when the Reserve Bank meets at the end of this month.
Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.