Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Australia’s public diplomacy: building our image, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Over recent years public diplomacy, as it is known, has attracted growing attention. In this report, the committee has considered and settled on a broad definition of public diplomacy being ‘work or activities undertaken to understand, engage and inform individuals and organisations in other countries in order to shape their perceptions in ways that will promote Australia’s foreign policy goals’. Many international commentators have noted the increasing significance of public diplomacy, with some asserting that it matters more than ever and should not be the poor relation of mainstream diplomacy. There is a very strong connection between Australia’s international reputation and its ability to influence the regional and global agenda in ways that promote Australia’s interests. Our international reputation can either promote or undermine our foreign policy objectives.

In the course of this inquiry, we have seen a significant number of government departments and agencies which are engaged in activities overseas that either directly or indirectly convey to the world a positive image of Australia. I want to mention some of those this morning. Let me start with two which I think are particularly important, which I have spent a bit of time looking at in various iterations. They are the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development Program and the Australian Leadership Awards Program, which are strengthening mutual understanding between the people of Australia and particularly the countries of the Asia-Pacific region.

There are several visitors programs which are highly effective in promoting shared understanding and strong links between people in Australia and overseas. Even the work of local councils—particularly the City of Melbourne submission—highlighted work with international cities and organisations that goes far beyond a ‘civic ceremonial basis into productive connections of broad social, economic and cultural benefit’—to Melbourne in that case.

Inevitably in Australia, through AusAID and the Australian Sports Commission, we are forging very strong and friendly ties with other countries through the Australian Sports Outreach Program. ABC International, a major player in representing Australia offshore, encourages awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs. Our universities are actively cultivating a network of relations between Australian students and scholars and their counterparts overseas and our cultural organisations are actively engaged in building Australia’s international reputation and encouraging a better understanding of Australia and its people, as are the very many other private organisations working with overseas communities, including non-government organisations—especially those engaged in humanitarian work—other sporting associations, businesses and the Australian diaspora.

We commend the work of the government departments and agencies, the cultural and educational institutions and the many private organisations that are actively promoting Australia’s reputation overseas. Many of them work quietly behind the scenes and they are helping to secure a presence for Australia on the international stage and to build a reputation that helps to advance Australia’s interests internationally.

We note in the report, however, that Australia is in fierce competition with other countries that are also seeking to be heard on matters of importance to them. On some occasions the stage is very crowded. Some countries devote considerable resources to public diplomacy and even smaller countries like Norway have developed public diplomacy strategies to gain a comparative advantage in international affairs. Canada is reinvesting in its public diplomacy and making it central to its work and Germany, the United Kingdom and the US are keenly engaged in public diplomacy. China, in particular, has recently embarked on a significant campaign to improve its global image and to influence world opinion.

To ensure our efforts are not overshadowed in this highly contested international space, we have to ensure that we take advantage of opportunities to capitalise on the positive outcomes from our many public diplomacy activities. The committee identified some areas where we believe Australia could improve its public diplomacy achievements. For example, one very pertinent observation made during the inquiry was that ‘the whole is not as great as the sum of the parts in our public diplomacy’.

In light of the importance of public diplomacy to Australia’s many interests, including trade, investment, security and those in the political arena, the committee believes that greater effort is required domestically to inform Australians about our many public diplomacy activities and the benefits that flow to the country from them. The committee has recommended that the government formulate a public communications strategy and put in place explicit programs designed to inform Australians about our public diplomacy and to encourage and facilitate the many and varied organisations and groups involved in international activities to take a constructive role in actively supporting Australia’s public diplomacy objectives.

The committee was concerned about the overall effectiveness of Australia’s whole-of-government approach to public diplomacy in producing a cooperative, coordinated and united effort by the many organisations and agencies that contribute to, or have the potential to contribute to, Australia’s public diplomacy, including the Australian diaspora. The committee noted that the importance of public diplomacy—especially as an exercise of soft power—means that an effective and effectively coordinated public diplomacy strategy is critical to the overall endeavours of Australia to effectively tackle some of our greatest foreign policy challenges, including the challenge of dealing with the threat of terrorism and developments and strategic changes in the south-west Pacific. With this in mind, the committee recommended that the government restructure the Inter-Departmental Committee on Public Diplomacy—the IDC—so that its functions extend beyond just sharing information between departments and agencies to include proper coordination and monitoring. One of its most pressing responsibilities would be to produce a coherent public diplomacy strategy that outlines priority objectives for public diplomacy.

The committee also drew attention to the observations of some cultural and educational institutions that the lack of strategic planning that we see in this area impedes more effective engagement in Australia’s public diplomacy, so we have recommended that Australia’s public diplomacy strategic plan take account of non-state stakeholders, including business, non-government organisations and Australian expatriates. The committee also recommended that the government establish a small but specifically tasked cultural and public diplomacy unit in the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. While liaising with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that unit would provide the necessary institutional framework to ensure that our cultural institutions are well placed and are encouraged and supported to take full advantage of opportunities to contribute to Australia’s public diplomacy.

To ensure that the department is able to meet the growing challenges of conducting an effective public diplomacy policy, the committee believes it would be more than timely for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to commission an independent survey of its overseas posts to assess their current activities and to ascertain their future needs when it comes to public diplomacy, and we have recommended that accordingly.

The committee acknowledges that evaluating the performance of Australia’s public diplomacy is not easy. We are firmly of the view, however, that Australia’s public diplomacy programs can and should be evaluated. We have recommended as a matter of priority that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade put in place specific performance indicators that would allow it to both monitor and assess the effectiveness of its public diplomacy programs. In other words, effective public diplomacy is not, in the committee’s view, just about listing activities page after page but, rather, also about properly contemplating the outcomes that derive from that activity.

In relation to funding, it is clear that a significant effort is required to project and establish a positive image of Australia in a fiercely contested international space. It is an expensive undertaking for a country of our size to secure and maintain international recognition as an ‘identity’ in its own right but it is fair to say that we have some natural advantages before we start. The committee notes and welcomes the increased funding allocated to cultural diplomacy announced in the 2007-08 budget—undoubtedly it will allow Australia’s cultural institutions to make an even larger contribution to Australia’s image abroad. In light of the proven capability of these institutions to contribute to Australia’s public diplomacy and their willingness and enthusiasm to do more, the committee believes that the government should consider either a significant expansion of the program or the strengthening of its commitment to supporting their public diplomacy activities more widely.

In conclusion, the committee has, in this very broad and interesting inquiry, looked at the challenges facing Australia to be both seen and heard on the world stage, the effectiveness of Australia’s public diplomacy, the coherence, consistency and credibility of its message, the network of relationships and communication systems that form the bedrock of public diplomacy and the coordination of public diplomacy activities between government departments and agencies and non-state entities. It has also looked at the training and qualifications of those responsible for the government’s public diplomacy programs, the use of technology, the evaluation of the programs and the funding available. It is a very interesting and comprehensive report. I hope that it is a milestone report in the consideration of this particular area of policy, and I commend the report to the Senate.