Since writing last January about the need to rethink pro-asylum seeker campaigns, I have had people from both sides of politics share their frustration over the status quo. There is a consensus that nothing has worked, if the polls and government resolve are anything to go by. But it's hard to work out what a disruptive campaign looks like, other than getting non partisan figures as your spokespersons (say, sportsfolk and media personalities).
The complexity of the issue makes it difficult to prescribe policy outcomes. A push for a significant increase in humanitarian intake heightens anxieties around unemployment, infrastructure and 'special treatment' for 'illegal' migrants. A push for humane treatment of detainees gets entangled in arguments around deterrence, including that softening conditions would again increase the likelihood of deaths at sea.
Every proposal potentially hardens resistance. Even boycotts of companies that have profited from mandatory detention — though a legitimate, destabilising tactic — face the inertia of a disengaged public.
We are also at the point of this issue where consequent scenarios are difficult to resolve. If, for instance, the detention facilities on Manus Island were to be shut down as many have urged in the wake of the violence there, what is the feasible alternative? Where could detainees be housed and how would that affect the way their claims are processed, if they are to be processed at all? What exactly happens when no one — not PNG, Australia, a third country or even the country of origin — will provide settlement or protection?
Such questions make it difficult to mount a campaign. Pointing out that the irregular movement of people is an international issue or that Australia has humanitarian obligations have been shown to have limited appeal.
In fact it has constituted something of an efficiency problem for campaigns. After more than a decade of refugee advocacy, campaigns still cater to small 'l' liberals and progressives. They are of course critical to consolidating support for asylum seekers and sustaining political pressure. But they are inefficient in the sense that they appeal to those who are already receptive. This is far from adequate.
Change requires critical mass, momentum, tipping points. Targeting those who are natural supporters is as inefficient as trying to change the minds of hardliners. The relevant question is: how can a campaign reach out to the ambivalent middle, the superficially resistant? How can we engage them without alienating them?
In the January poll run