Senator TROOD (11:44 AM) —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.