Chapter 15 - Australia's public diplomacy - Committee's findings and recommendations
15.1
The committee found that Australia's public diplomacy is spread across a
large canvas with many contributors. A significant number of government
departments and agencies are engaged in work overseas that either directly or
indirectly conveys to the world a positive image of Australia. The committee referred
to just a few of these activities including Defence's Pacific Boat Program
which is helping a number of countries in the Pacific better manage their maritime
resources. AusAID and the Australian Sports Commission are forging strong
friendly ties with other countries through the Australian Sports Outreach
Program that is designed to develop leadership, promote social cohesion and
improve the health of people in the Pacific region.
15.2
The committee also drew attention to the Australian Youth Ambassadors
for Development Program which is strengthening mutual understanding between the
people of Australia and the countries of the Asia Pacific region. Similarly the
Australian Leadership Awards Program is not only providing opportunities for overseas
students and gifted scholars to study in Australia and to learn more about the
country but to form lasting bonds with their Australian colleagues. Although on
a different scale, the various visitors' programs are also highly effective in
promoting shared understanding and strong links between people in Australia and
people overseas.
15.3
The City of Melbourne highlighted its work with overseas cities and
organisations that goes beyond a 'civic ceremonial basis into productive
connections of broad social, economic and cultural benefit to Melbourne'.[1]
15.4
Organisations complement the work of government departments. ABC
International is a 'major player' in representing Australia offshore. Through
its radio and television broadcasting and online services, it encourages 'awareness
of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on
world affairs'.[2]
The Australian Centre for Democratic Institutions conducts high-level courses
for political leaders and officials. Asialink runs 'conversations' that bring
together key leaders from ASEAN and Australia to discuss critical questions
facing the region. These were primarily established to counter perceptions that
Australia had 'turned its back on Southeast Asia'.[3]
Australian universities through a diversity of programs are actively
cultivating a network of relations between Australian students and scholars and
their counterparts overseas. These activities not only lead to better mutual
understanding of cultures and different ways of life but they strengthen
international collaboration and build a reservoir of goodwill toward Australia.
15.5
Australian cultural institutions are also aware of, and actively engaged
in, building Australia's international reputation and encouraging a better
understanding of Australia and its people. One important aspect of cultural
institutions is their ability to maintain their people-to-people associations with
an overseas country despite circumstances where formal diplomatic links may be
strained. Educational institutions have this same ability.
15.6
There are many other private organisations with overseas connections
that exert considerable influence on Australia's public diplomacy or have the
potential to contribute to it. They include NGOs, especially those engaged in
humanitarian work, sporting associations, businesses and Australia's diaspora.
15.7
The committee commends the work of Australia's government departments
and agencies, the cultural and educational institutions and the many private
organisations that are actively engaged in promoting Australia's reputation
overseas. Many of these organisations are working quietly behind the scenes and,
through word and deed, are helping to secure a presence for Australia on the
international stage: to build a reputation that helps to advance Australia's
interests internationally.
15.8
The committee notes, however, that Australia is in fierce competition
with other countries also seeking to be heard on matters of importance to them.
Some are devoting considerable resources to public diplomacy and even smaller
countries such as Norway have developed public diplomacy strategies to gain a
comparative advantage in international affairs. Canada is re-investing in its
public diplomacy and making it 'central to its work'; Germany recognises that a
modern strategic and coordinated public diplomacy can enrich and strengthen its
reputation abroad. China has embarked on a 'charm offensive' in its public
diplomacy to win international support for its peaceful rise. The UK has had
two major reviews of its public diplomacy in just over five years and, as noted
by the Director of the Public Diplomacy Institute, The George Washington
University, the US has reached the point of 'report fatigue' with regard to its
public diplomacy.[4]
15.9
To ensure that Australia's public diplomacy efforts are not overshadowed
in the highly contested international space, Australia must ensure that it
takes advantage of opportunities to capitalise on the positive outcomes from its
many public diplomacy activities. The following section looks at some areas
where it believes Australia could improve its public diplomacy achievements.
Tracking opinions in key target countries
15.10
The committee notes that to be effective, Australia's public diplomacy
must succeed in projecting messages that give greater breadth and substance to
its image. They must reach their target audiences and influence in a positive
way attitudes toward Australia. The committee believes that informed
understanding provides the basis for identifying and formulating core messages
and for delivering public diplomacy programs in the most appropriate way. Solid
research and continuous assessment such as country surveys on attitudes toward Australia
provide information for obtaining an understanding of people and organisations Australia
seeks to inform and ultimately influence.
15.11
Although overseas posts monitor local media to obtain some insight into
attitudes toward Australia and use other means such as immigration forms to
ascertain the impressions individuals have of Australia, DFAT does not use any
systematic or robust method of gathering and analysing data on overseas
attitudes toward Australia. The committee acknowledges that research tools such
as surveys are expensive but believes that for countries of vital importance to
Australia, such as Indonesia and the island states of the Southwest Pacific, DFAT
should consider using the necessary research tools to collect the data essential
for informed understanding. The omnibus survey conducted in Japan between 1980
and 2002 serves as a model and could be conducted in countries of most
significance to Australia.
Recommendation 1 (paragraph 6.36)
15.12
The committee recommends that DFAT give a higher priority to tracking
opinions on Australia in countries of greatest significance to Australia as a
means of obtaining better insights into the attitudes of others toward Australia.
To this end, DFAT should devote appropriate resources to develop a capacity to
conduct and evaluate regular assessments of attitudes towards Australia and its
foreign policy.
Domestic diplomacy
15.13
The Australian Government has acknowledged the importance of broad
community understanding of Australia's global environment and support for the
policies it pursues to advance Australia's national interests.[5]
It has stated its commitment to wide-ranging consultation within Australia to
build broad community understanding of, and support for, Australia's foreign
and trade policies.[6]
The government maintains that it consults widely with interested groups through
standing bodies and informal means.[7]
15.14
Even so, the committee found that generally Australians are not well-informed
about Australia's public diplomacy or the programs that help to promote Australia's
international reputation. It notes the recommendation by RMIT University that a
public communication strategy targeting selected publics in Australia and
overseas should be considered.[8]
Recommendation 2 (paragraph 6.49)
15.15
The committee recommends that the government's public diplomacy policy attach
greater importance to creating an awareness of public diplomacy domestically.
It recommends that the government formulate a public communication strategy and
put in place explicit programs designed:
-
to inform more Australians about Australia's 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.
People-to-people links
Exchange programs
15.16
The committee not only supports programs such as the Australian
Leadership Awards Program but also endorses measures that would increase the
opportunities for international students to study in Australia and for
Australian students to study overseas. These education programs are important
building blocks for Australia's public diplomacy.
15.17
The committee believes that the Australian Government could offer
stronger support for the various alumni organisations for foreign students who
have studied in Australia. The scope to build on their contribution to Australia's
public diplomacy warrants much closer government consideration. This
observation is supported by previous parliamentary committees that have noted
or recommended that the government 'take a more active role in working with
Australian educational institutions to develop effective alumni programs'.[9]
Recommendation 3 (paragraph 7.39)
15.18
The committee recommends that the government take a more active role in
working with Australian educational institutions to develop stronger and more
effective alumni programs for overseas students who have studied in Australia.
15.19
The committee welcomes the development of a database of overseas
students who have studied under the Australian Leadership Awards Program. It
believes that this database should have the highest priority but the committee sees
it as only the first step in the right direction toward greater and continuing
engagement with overseas students who have studied in Australia.
Visitors programs
15.20
The committee also recognises the benefits to Australia's public
diplomacy that derive from the many visitors' programs conducted by DFAT and
other agencies. It notes the comments by Asialink about providing opportunities
to build on the relationships formed during visits or meetings.
15.21
The committee believes that the organisers or sponsors of visitors'
programs should be required, when planning an activity, to take account of the
possible longer term benefits that could accrue from a visit. It suggests that any
plan for a visitors' or training program identify the measures that are to be
taken to maintain and strengthen engagement with those involved in the program.
15.22
The committee is also of the view that the organisers or sponsors of visitors'
programs should be required to report on the results of these relationship
building measures and how they have contributed to Australia's public
diplomacy. Such reports should be made available to the IDC, published on the
organiser's website and referred to in an annual report.
Recommendation 4 (paragraph 7.52)
15.23
The committee recommends that:
- all visitors' or training programs sponsored or funded by the
government have clearly identified public diplomacy objectives;
- DFAT ensure that all government sponsored or funded visitors'
or training programs adopt a longer-term perspective and include measures or
plans that are intended to consolidate and build on the immediate public
diplomacy benefits that accrue from such activities; and
- as an accountability measure, the organisers or sponsors of a
visitors' or training program report on how the program has contributed to Australia's
public diplomacy.
15.24
A number of previous parliamentary committees have recognised the
importance of developing literacy in Asian languages and encouraging a better
understanding of the different cultures in the region.[10]
The committee takes this opportunity to underline the need to support the
learning of languages, particularly Asian languages, as part of Australia's
overall strategy to strengthen bilateral ties.
Recommendation 5 (paragraph 7.61)
15.25
Consistent with the findings of previous parliamentary reports, the committee
recommends that the government consider introducing additional incentives for
Australian students not only to study an Asian language but to combine their
studies with cultural studies.
Coordination
15.26
The committee supports the general view that Australia needs a
whole-of-government approach to its public diplomacy. The committee, however,
found that, to date, the achievements of the IDC, the main body responsible for
ensuring the effectiveness of the whole-of-government's public diplomacy
programs, were very modest. It also notes that a number of witnesses identified
a need to improve the coordination of government public diplomacy activities with
some suggesting that the current approach was 'fragmented'.
15.27
Australia needs a coherent public diplomacy plan if it is to meet
today's challenges. It needs to identify core problems, devise effective solutions,
define clear objectives and formulate an overall public diplomacy strategy. To
do so, the IDC needs to assume a more decisive role in Australia's public
diplomacy.
15.28
The committee believes that the government should consider measures that
would make the IDC a more effective coordinating body. It is clear to the committee
that there is a need for a central body to have stronger oversight of Australia's
public diplomacy and to instil throughout government departments and agencies a
sense of common purpose. As a first step, the committee believes that the IDC
should be allowed the opportunity to prove itself capable of leadership, of
providing direction and setting clear objectives for DFAT and all its public
diplomacy partners. The committee believes that the IDC should be an advisory
body to all government departments and agencies on how best to coordinate and,
where possible, complement each others activities. It should also take an
active role in ensuring that there is a solid core of public diplomacy
specialists available to advise, guide and assist agencies in their public
diplomacy activities. Its first task would be to map out a long-term strategic
public diplomacy plan. To do so, it needs to be in close contact with Australia's
key foreign policy makers and fully informed about relevant foreign policies.
Recommendation 6 (paragraph 8.43)
15.29
The committee recommends that the government restructure the interdepartmental
committee on public diplomacy (IDC) so that its functions extend beyond sharing
information between departments and agencies to include coordinating and
monitoring Australia's public diplomacy activities. It recommends:
- more senior representation on the IDC than is currently the case—Departments
should be represented at the Deputy Secretary level;
- expanding the functions of the IDC to ensure that it has a
central role in planning and overseeing a whole-of-government long-term
strategic plan for Australia's public diplomacy;
- the IDC have responsibility for ensuring that the synergies among
government departments and agencies are identified and exploited in pursuit of
the government's foreign policy objectives;
- the IDC produce a coherent public diplomacy strategy that
outlines priority objectives for public diplomacy along the lines of the UK
Public Diplomacy Board;
- the government's public diplomacy strategic framework acknowledge
the potential of local governments, particularly the major city councils, to
engage in Australia's public diplomacy;
- the government's strategic framework take account of non-state stakeholders and adopt as one of its key operating principles in its public
diplomacy strategy 'work with others, including business, NGOs and Australian
expatriates';
- some cross membership on the IDC and the Australia
International Cultural Council;
- the IDC produce a report on discussions and decisions taken at
its meetings to be published on its website;
- establishing a sub-committee of the IDC with responsibility for
ensuring that non-state organisations involved in international activities, including
diaspora communities, are incorporated into an overarching public diplomacy
framework;
- establishing a sub-committee of the IDC that would
be responsible for ensuring that Australia's public diplomacy
stays at the forefront of developments in technology.
15.30
The committee does not intend the IDC to encroach on the independence of
statutory bodies such as the ABC or of NGOs bound by their own charters. The
IDC would recognise and respect their independence. Its objective would be to
work in partnership with them, advising and offering guidance and assistance
where appropriate to maximise their contribution to Australia's public
diplomacy.
Recommendation 7 (paragraph 8.45)
15.31
The committee recommends that if, after considering the above
recommendation, the government is of the view that the IDC cannot or should not
be the body to take on this leadership and whole-of-government coordinating and
advisory function, the government establish an appropriate separate and
permanent body that would do so.
Local councils and public diplomacy
15.32
The committee acknowledges the commitment by the City of Melbourne to
public diplomacy and notes that its active involvement in this area places it
in a good position to offer constructive advice on how the Australian Government
could work with councils to improve Australia's overall public diplomacy. It
also draws attention to the recommendations of the Centre for Local Government
which endorsed those of the City of Melbourne. The committee supports these
recommendations but notes in particular the call for greater recognition by the
Australian Government of the role of capital city governments in Australia's
public diplomacy and for it to engage more effectively with local governments'
international activities. It also draws attention to the suggestion that the
Australian Government explore opportunities for collaborative public diplomacy
activity between Australian capital city councils involved in promoting their
cities internationally.[11]
Recommendation 8 (paragraph 8.58)
15.33
The committee recommends that the Australian Government explore
opportunities for greater and more effective collaboration and coordination
with Australian capital city councils in promoting Australia's public
diplomacy.
Cultural institutions
15.34
The committee notes the observations made by a number of representatives
from cultural institutions that there is scope for better and more effective
coordination between the institutions and government agencies involved in the
overseas promotion of Australian culture. It is also aware of the criticism
that, at the moment, there is a lack of long-term strategic planning which
means that cultural institutions are not able to take full advantage of opportunities
to showcase Australian art and culture and to contribute more effectively to Australia's
public diplomacy.
Recommendation 9 (paragraph 9.35)
15.35
The committee recommends that the AICC take note of the evidence relating
to the coordination and planning of international cultural activities with a
view to addressing the concerns raised in evidence. Close consultation with the
relevant sections in the Department of Communications, Information Technology
and the Arts, DFAT and Australia's cultural institutions would be central to
AICC's consideration. The committee suggests that a report of the Council's
deliberations and decisions be made available to the committee and also made
public by publishing them on DFAT's and the Department of Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts' websites (also see recommendation 6).
Recommendation 10 (paragraph
9.36)
15.36
The committee recommends further that the government consider that the AICC
be co-chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Arts and
Sports. The committee suggests that this would contribute significantly to
greater coordination and cooperation in the area of cultural diplomacy.
15.37
Recommendation 9 would alert the AICC and relevant departments to the
absence of long term strategic planning that continues to frustrate and
disappoint cultural institutions endeavouring to take Australian art and
culture to the world. The recommendation would not, however, tackle the
practical problems of ensuring that the activities of government agencies,
particularly the overseas posts, and cultural institutions complement one
another. The committee believes that there is a need for a formal institutional
structure to provide the necessary framework for the long term planning and
coordination of cultural activities overseas.
Recommendation 11 (paragraph
9.40)
15.38
The committee recommends that the government establish a small but
specifically tasked cultural and public diplomacy unit in the Department for
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. In liaison with DFAT, the
unit would provide the necessary institutional framework to ensure that Australia's
cultural institutions are well placed and encouraged to take full advantage of
opportunities to contribute to Australia's public diplomacy.
Educational institutions
15.39
The comments made by Australian educators appearing before the committee
follow closely those made by the cultural institutions. Both cultural and
educational activities involve the exchange of ideas and information. They help
to bring people together to develop a greater understanding and mutual
appreciation of different cultures and ways of life. Witnesses spoke in broad terms
about the contribution that cultural and educational activities make to portray
a positive image of Australia and gave specific examples drawn from personal
experience of where an activity had made a difference. Some were concerned,
however, that 'the role and significance of universities in the conduct of Australia's
public diplomacy is poorly articulated and relatively unexplored'.[12]
They saw scope for greater 'public-private partnerships in public diplomacy'.[13]
15.40
The committee makes a similar suggestion to DFAT and DEST as it did to
the AICC. It suggests that DFAT take note of the evidence presented to this committee,
especially the comments and recommendations by RMIT with regard to the
establishment of a better framework for industry engagement that would allow
opportunities to be explored. The committee suggests that DFAT initiate and
sponsor an open and public debate on proposals designed to allow both
government departments and educational institutions to work better in
partnership to promote Australia's interests abroad. It should also work with
DEST and the universities to find ways that will achieve more productive engagement
by universities in Australia's public diplomacy.
Recommendation 12 (paragraph 9.52)
15.41
The committee recommends that DFAT ensure that its public diplomacy
framework accommodates the concerns of the educational institutions especially
with regard to industry engagement by formulating with DEST and the Vice Chancellors
of Australian Universities appropriate strategies to facilitate a more
productive engagement by these institutions in Australia's public diplomacy.
Recommendation 13 (paragraph 9.53)
15.42
The committee also recommends that DFAT initiate and sponsor a public
debate on measures that could be taken to promote a more productive partnership
between government departments and educational institutions in promoting Australia's
public diplomacy.
15.43
There are many government agencies, private sector entities and
individuals who have made, or could make, a contribution to the effectiveness
of Australia's public diplomacy. Australia is not alone in grappling with this
problem of successfully integrating the activities of many NGOs and individuals
into the one framework. A dominant theme in overseas literature on public
diplomacy concentrates on the importance of coordination and strategic
planning. Many refer to the need 'to foster synergies between activities of
governments and societal actors'.[14]
15.44
Australia's diaspora was one area in particular that attracted the committee's
attention. It believes that the opportunities to engage Australian expatriates
more actively and constructively in promoting Australia overseas are not fully
explored. Evidence to the committee reinforced previous calls for measures to
be taken to ensure that the network of Australians living abroad is regarded as
a vital part of the Australian community with significant potential to make a
valuable contribution to Australia's public diplomacy. These earlier findings
and recommendations called for diaspora engagement to be an explicit aim of
DFAT.
Recommendation 14 (paragraph
10.42)
15.45
The committee recommends that DFAT review the findings of the Lowy
report, Diaspora, reconsider the relevant recommendations made in
March 2005 by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee on
Australian Expatriates and consider the evidence set out in this report with
regard to Australian expatriates and Australia's public diplomacy. The committee
urges DFAT to formulate and implement strategies that would enable DFAT to take
advantage of the significant resource of the diaspora and encourage Australian
expatriates to engage more constructively in Australia's public diplomacy.
Training for public diplomacy
15.46
The committee recognises that DFAT faces a major challenge ensuring that
it has the skills set necessary to deliver effective public diplomacy,
including highly developed communication and public relations skills. Although
all DFAT officers should be skilled in the art of public diplomacy, the committee
accepts that not all can be trained specialists in the area of communications
and public relations. Although, the committee does not support the creation of
a unit of public diplomacy specialists, it does see a very clear need for the
department to ensure that it has the correct balance of specialists and
generalists engaged in Australia's public diplomacy. It is important for public
diplomacy to be seen as a mainstream activity and not the reserve of specialists
located in a separate unit.
15.47
The committee notes the concerns that locally engaged staff, who have a
significant role in a post's public diplomacy, may not be privy to
communications or discussions relevant to their area of responsibility and
whose knowledge of Australia may limit their ability to carry out their duties
effectively. The committee understands that DFAT has in place training programs
designed to mitigate some of these problems. Even so, the committee believes
that if public diplomacy is to be accepted as a mainstream activity, the
department should review the staffing arrangements of their posts to ensure
that public diplomacy is not relegated to junior officers or locally engaged staff
and that all staff have appropriate training.
Diplomacy as a mainstream activity
15.48
The committee notes the measures DFAT has in place to ensure that its
officers involved in public diplomacy are integrated into the department's
public diplomacy network and well briefed on the government's broader public
diplomacy objectives. The committee believes that DFAT must ensure that its
stated policy of public diplomacy as an integral part of mainstream diplomacy
is supported by action that clearly demonstrates that public diplomacy is a
highly valued activity in the department.
15.49
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 timely for DFAT to commission an independent survey of its overseas
posts to ascertain their needs when it comes to public diplomacy. The survey
would cover issues such as training and resources available for public
diplomacy, access to specialists in public relations and the media and the
effectiveness of IAB in meeting the needs of posts in carrying out their public
diplomacy activities.
Recommendation 15 (paragraphs
11.31 and 11.32)
15.50
The committee recommends that DFAT conduct an independent survey of its
overseas posts to assess their capacity to conduct effective public diplomacy
programs. The survey would seek views on the effectiveness of the post's
efforts in promoting Australia's interests, and how they could be improved, the
adequacy of resources available to conduct public diplomacy activities, the
training and skills of staff with public diplomacy responsibilities, the
coordination between agencies in public diplomacy activities; and the level of
support provided by IAB and how it could be improved.
15.51
The survey would also seek a response from the overseas posts on
observations made by the educational and cultural organisations, noted by the committee
in this report, levelled at the delivery of Australia's public diplomacy
programs. Such matters would include suggestions made to the committee
that public diplomacy opportunities are being lost in the absence of effective
mechanism for the coordination of activities. See paragraphs 7.24–7.34 (alumni
associations); 9.22–9.30 (cultural organisations); 9.41–9.44 (educational
institutions); 10.23–10.39 (Australia's diaspora).
Modern technology
15.52
In the highly competitive field of public diplomacy, Australia needs to
make sure that those responsible for managing and delivering public diplomacy
programs are taking full advantage of advances in technology to reach the
global audience. It is an area of rapid transformation. If Australia is to hold
its own in competition with other countries, it must be at the forefront of
developments in technology and have the experts able to exploit them. Australia's
public diplomacy practitioners need to be constantly alert to developments in
technology and be able to use them to best effect in their work. This need
emphasises the importance of having highly skilled and qualified communicators
who monitor the latest advances in technology, are able to think creatively in
how to apply them to public diplomacy and to educate others in their use.
Recommendation 16 (paragraph
12.15)
15.53
The committee recommends that DFAT explore the application of innovative
technologies to enhance the delivery of its public diplomacy programs.
Evaluation
15.54
The committee acknowledges that evaluating public diplomacy is not easy.
It notes the advice from a number of witnesses that, although difficult, the
evaluation of Australia's public diplomacy programs can and should be done. According
to ANAO, if an agency is asserting that their program is effective, there is an
expectation that it has 'mechanisms in place to measure that effectiveness'.[15]
The committee agrees with this assessment and is strongly of the view that DFAT
should improve its methods for measuring the effects of its public diplomacy
programs over time. At the moment there is no concrete evidence that DFAT is systematically
measuring progress in achieving its public diplomacy objectives.
15.55
Evidence to this committee on the need for DFAT to evaluate its public
diplomacy programs was compelling. It draws attention especially to observations
made by the ANAO on the importance of measuring the effects of public diplomacy
programs over time or progress toward public diplomacy objectives. As already
noted, DFAT does not have such indicators in place and as a matter of urgency,
the committee recommends that DFAT put in place performance indicators that
will allow it to monitor and assess the effectiveness of its public diplomacy
programs.
Recommendation 17 (paragraph
13.56)
15.56
The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, DFAT put in
place specific performance indicators that would allow it to both monitor and
assess the effectiveness of its public diplomacy programs.
15.57
The committee can also see a valuable role for the ANAO in assisting
DFAT improve its evaluation processes. Accordingly, the committee requests that
the ANAO conduct a performance audit of DFAT's public diplomacy programs.
15.58
The committee requests that the Australian National
Audit Office consider undertaking a performance audit of DFAT's public
diplomacy programs giving particular attention to the evaluation of the
effectiveness of such programs.
Funding
Foundations, councils and institutes
(FCIs)
15.59
The committee agrees with the view that the funding for the FCIs is
'modest'. It accepts advice from the representatives of the councils that
appeared before it that their activities are constrained by limited funding.
The committee also notes that the nine FCIs have come into existence over a
period of time and under different instruments. It suggests that it would be timely
for DFAT to review the bodies as distinct entities and then as a group with a
view to identifying any anomalies that may have arisen since the Australia–Japan
Foundation was established in 1978 and which create unnecessary duplication in
functions or in administration. The committee is in no doubt that increased
funding to the FCIs would boost Australia's public diplomacy efforts.
Recommendation 19 (paragraph
14.27)
15.60
The committee recommends that DFAT undertake a review of the FCIs with a
view to assessing their effectiveness in contributing to the conduct of Australia's
public diplomacy. The review should consider, among other matters, whether the
FCIs should receive an increase in funding.
15.61
The committee suggests that for increased accountability, the FCIs be
required to produce an annual report and for the Minister to table the report
in Parliament. This requirement would not alter the current arrangement of
DFAT's annual report containing a summary of the FCI reports.
Recommendation 20 (paragraph 14.29)
15.62
The committee recommends that each FCI produce an annual report to be
tabled in Parliament.
15.63
The committee welcomes the increased funding of $20.4 million over four
years to enhance Australia's cultural exports. It will allow Australia's
cultural institutions to continue their valuable work in promoting Australia's
reputation overseas.
Conclusion
15.64
DFAT has already undertaken to introduce a number of changes to improve
the effectiveness of its public diplomacy—using the IDC to arrive at a clear
and agreed definition of public diplomacy and including personnel from other
agencies in DFAT's pre-posting workshops. If the ANAO agrees to undertake an
audit, the results from this audit would provide further guidance on the
measures DFAT needs to have in place to determine the effectiveness of its
programs. The committee has also made a number of recommendations designed to
make Australia's public diplomacy more effective. In light of anticipated
changes and the increased funding to Australia's public diplomacy, the committee
believes that it should, in time, have the opportunity to review progress.
Recommendation 18 (paragraph
13.65)
15.65
The committee recommends that, two years after the tabling of this
report, DFAT provide the committee with a report on developments in, and
reforms to, Australia's public diplomacy programs giving particular attention
to the role and functions of the IDC and the way DFAT evaluates the
effectiveness of its public diplomacy activities.
Senator Marise Payne
CHAIR
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page