Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a few remarks in relation to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Australia’s public diplomacy: building our image. Public diplomacy is essentially about Australia’s reputation and image abroad. In modern international relations I think countries increasingly appreciate the importance of their image and reputation and the vital importance they can have to the conduct of their wider foreign policy. It is an increasingly crowded field of international affairs. The United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and countries in Europe all conduct very considerable public diplomacy programs. They are all very well funded and, I think I can fairly say, they are increasingly providing further funds to advance those programs. So Australia, in relation to its image and reputation, has to compete in a very crowded international space. This poses very considerable problems and challenges for our broader foreign policy.

The committee’s report seeks to make a constructive contribution to understanding these challenges and to making suggestions as to how they may be met in the future. The purpose of the inquiry was not to determine the nature of Australia’s reputation and image it projects overseas; but we can fairly say that we received a lot of evidence that that image and that reputation were very favourably received in large parts of the world. It is reassuring that that is the case and it is, perhaps, not surprising because there is a great deal of public diplomacy activity which Australia projects into the international arena. One of the interesting findings of the report is the extent to which this activity takes place. The following are manifestations of this activity: the considerable work done in our posts and missions abroad, the profile of members of the Australian diaspora around the world, the activities of AusAID, the activities of Australian sporting teams, the many performing arts companies which contribute to Australia’s cultural diplomacy and the very active role of Australia’s universities in promoting education overseas. These activities all contribute to the building of Australia’s image and its reputation abroad. Despite all this activity, public diplomacy in general—and this was a finding of the committee—is not as well coordinated as it might be. There are some areas of public diplomacy which the committee is of the view might be considerably better funded—not exhaustively, but I think increased funding would certainly improve the effectiveness of the program.

In the report, the committee acknowledges the very important and valuable work undertaken by the Images of Australia Branch within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade but believes its effectiveness could be improved by some modest reforms. Most of the recommendations in the report focus on strengthening policymaking in the department, improving coordination of our general cultural and public diplomacy programs and reviewing the need for additional funding.

The report contains 20 recommendations. I will save the Senate the time of going through each of these recommendations, but I think all of them deserve close attention. They will all materially improve the way in which Australia conducts its public diplomacy. All I want to do in the time which is available to me is mention the four most important recommendations.

Recommendation 6—and Senator Payne referred to this in her remarks—refers to the strengthening of the operation of the interdepartmental committee process within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This is actually the pivot of Australia’s public diplomacy activity, and the widespread view of the committee is that this needs considerable strengthening.

Recommendation 11 of the report suggests the creation of a new unit in the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, largely to more effectively coordinate the conduct of Australia’s cultural diplomacy. One very interesting finding of the inquiry was that there are a large number of arts organisations contributing to Australia’s cultural diplomacy abroad. They are contributing with great enthusiasm. Indeed, the impression the committee had was that there are other arts companies and other arts organisations which, given the opportunity, would very much like to contribute to that kind of activity. Those organisations which gave evidence were certainly of the view that these organisations which were contributing in such a constructive way were doing so without clear and obvious strategic purpose. So the creation of a unit in DCITA, we think, will help to address that particular problem effectively.

Recommendation 19 of the report suggests that there should be a review of the small foundations, councils and institutions—these bilateral organisations—which the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has set up over the last few years. The evidence to the committee was that each one of these small councils, institutions and foundations is doing very effective work in its own way in the pursuit and conduct of Australia’s public diplomacy. Indeed, my own experience, as a member of the Australia-Indonesia Institute board some years ago, reinforces my impression that they are a very effective way of conducting Australia’s public diplomacy. The point is that, essentially, these organisations have not been reviewed since they were created. A review would be productive to see whether or not they could, perhaps, be more focused. I would hope that the review would take into account that many of these organisations should perhaps receive increased funding to conduct their activities.

Finally, recommendation 17 suggests that there be a strengthening of the mechanisms for measuring the conduct of Australia’s public diplomacy. Senator Payne referred to this matter as well. There are plenty of outputs which we saw as members of the committee, but the effectiveness of these outputs—the way in which they actually make a difference to Australia’s image and reputation abroad—is a matter that concerned the committee. Our sense of it is that they probably do in many ways make a very considerable contribution but, since we are dealing with public moneys here and since we are dealing with a policy program that is of vital importance to the nation’s future, we think they need to be better monitored and that closer attention should be paid to ensure that the programs are actually delivering what they are claiming to deliver.

In conclusion, the reforms will require greater involvement in public diplomacy activity by the government and a stronger commitment to the conduct of this area of policy. In the last budget $20 million was advanced for the public diplomacy program through the Australia on the World Stage program. I know the former Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator Rod Kemp, has taken a close interest in this matter, and that is very much welcomed by the committee. This is a very narrow part of public diplomacy in relation to cultural diplomacy, and Australia should not be shy in making a greater contribution financially to the conduct of what is a very important dimension of our foreign policy.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Australia’s public diplomacy: building our image. I would first of all like to indicate that I am going to direct my remarks essentially to chapter 9. I have not had time to read the full report in the brief time since it was tabled but, from what I have read in the summaries and, particularly, in chapter 9, I would like to extend my congratulations to Senator Payne and her committee, including Senator Trood, who is in the chamber and has spoken on the report. I think they have been very effective in identifying a magnificent opportunity for Australia; that is, the role that our cultural institutions and our artists can play in the public diplomacy area—in particular, their capacity to show to the world the sophistication of Australia and what Australia has been able to achieve culturally.

A great deal is happening in this area at the moment. You only have to read the press to see that companies as diverse as the Bell Shakespeare Company, the Australian Ballet, Opera Australia and our theatre companies are active on the world stage. But my judgement is that a great deal more can be done. I took great heart from the last budget when a new program, Australia on the World Stage—referred to by Senator Trood—was announced with funding of some $20 million over four years. It is a start—but, I have to say, only a start. That funding is welcomed and the establishment of the program is welcomed but, in order to conduct the strategic initiatives which have been so well explained in the report, more funding needs to be provided and there needs to be a greater capacity to undertake long-term planning. The committee have reflected on the organisational aspects of this, and they have made, to my mind, some very helpful suggestions as to how the program can be better coordinated and form the basis for a larger strategic program in the arts.

We have performing arts centres opening up around our region. They will be hungry for important cultural events, and Australia can be a major supplier of these activities. Would it not be wonderful, for example, if Opera Australia were able to plan major tours each year through our region—travelling, for example, to Shanghai, performing in the wonderful new opera house in Beijing or travelling to Seoul, Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur? Just imagine the interest that would create and the opportunities it would provide for Australians in those countries to come into contact with the politicians, the businesspeople and the cultural people in those countries. Those sorts of events do provide a wonderful opportunity for that.

Opera Australia is only one such company that would benefit. The Australian Ballet is another one. Indeed, all the major performing arts companies would see the wonderful potential of having a well-funded program, as they would have the confidence to undertake long-term planning for major cultural initiatives in the region. Of course, I am talking not only about the major performing arts companies but also about our artists. One can easily project the exhibitions that could be held in the regions under a global vision type of program.

The report has effectively identified a wonderful opportunity for Australia. It is now up to the government to carefully consider the recommendations. My judgement is that to have a well-funded program along the lines which this report has outlined would probably cost in the order of $15 million to $20 million a year. That is not a small sum, but the amount of activity that that could help underwrite would certainly have a very substantial impact on our region and would be very useful in further promoting Australia and its cultural activities in Europe and America.

I welcome the report, the analysis that has been done and the insights which have been given. I certainly hope that the government will be able to give careful consideration to these proposals. Hopefully we will see further action on this extremely important front so that we can see a properly funded and organised program along the lines of Australia on the World Stage.

Question agreed to.