Australia, explained.
It is helpful for Canberra to comprehend just how much international engagement occurs outside of the federal government (Getty Images)
A “whole of nation” approach can better connect the various elements of Australia’s international engagement.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Putting “Australia” at the centre of the country’s foreign policyPutting “Australia” at the centre of the country’s foreign policy
Australians need to update their mental model of who does foreign policy. Yes, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Department of Defence pursue international policy as their core mission. But there are a range of other actors that also interact internationally. What is needed – to use a popularised phrase – is “a whole-of-nation approach”. Think of it as the federal government being regarded more as a conductor, rather than a soloist.
We have set out this idea in a new report into Australia’s international engagement. It was launched in Canberra last week by both Foreign Minister Penny Wong and her opposition shadow Simon Birmingham. Fostering bipartisanship is illustrative of the more complex external environment Australia faces, and that this requires a purposeful coordination for how the country best protects and enhances its interests and influence.
Rather than a top-down approach that would see Canberra implement a more controlled and standardised foreign policy, the report outlines a “whole-of-nation approach”. Some of this is already evident in the activities of other federal departments and national institutions as well as state, territory and local governments. But the lens needs to be wide. Many overlapping sectors have international impact, including science and technology, business and investment, education, First Nations, diaspora groups, civil society, culture, sport and media.
The aim should be to enable a whole suite of other actors within Australian society to see themselves as having significant agency to enhance and advance Australia’s international influence. This, for example, would involve recognition that the business community often sees things that government doesn’t see, and that the relationships and networks established by business and industry groups can form powerful bonds of mutual interest that can augment Australia’s conventional diplomacy. And that goes both ways, with business sometimes not across the full suite of government priorities or concerns.
Australians see themselves as active in the world, both as individuals and as associations and industry groups that work globally.
It is helpful for Canberra to comprehend just how much international engagement occurs outside of the federal government. Feeding into this would be a greater awareness of future industries and the educational pathways that lead to them. There is an opportunity to identify the industries that Australia will require for the future, how these industries relate to the country’s economic and security interests – as well as environmental responsibilities – and how Australia’s education systems can best facilitate these desired outcomes.
In another example, Australia’s education systems should have the ambition for the country to be a leader, not a follower, in many areas of science and technology. There is a disconnect between Australia’s research capabilities and what it is commercialising. A whole-of-nation approach can better understand why the country’s research capabilities aren’t being utilised effectively, with the intention of building an innovation economy that matches – or exceeds – Australia’s peers in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Australians see themselves as active in the world, both as individuals and as associations and industry groups that work globally. They are often interested and energetic, but this is not harnessed as effectively as it could be. The ideal objective would be to better coordinate this activity to drive clear and tangible results, tied to overarching foreign policy strategy and goals. That’s not a suggestion to pack up every Australian heading off abroad with a set of DFAT talking points – but to better understand skill sets to which each sector and civil society group can contribute.
Australia, as a multicultural nation, has the world within its own borders, and a whole-of-nation approach would understand the advantages this provides. It gives Australia a reach into the world, and a more intimate understanding of each global region that few other countries have. True, for the often competing interests of diaspora groups this can create challenges to shaping foreign policy. But it also provides enormous opportunity to harness the knowledge and talents of its diaspora group for international influence. This influence can also be enhanced by First Nations communities and the global linkages they have developed. Particularly with Australia’s neighbours in the Pacific.
Australia’s state, territory and local governments also play a significant role in international engagement. There are currently around 100 overseas offices run by state and territory governments, and in some countries their footprint is bigger than DFAT and Austrade. These governments often have a more intimate understanding of their own local interests than Canberra may. Although, this has led to mis-matches – legislation introduced in 2020 to “protect and manage” Australia’s foreign relations under the powers of the Commonwealth sought to make sure Canberra’s wider lens on Australia’s interests takes precedence.
While sub-national and non-state actors may view the language of “whole-of-nation” as top-down directives from Canberra, this doesn’t need to be the case. As a liberal democracy, the ability for a variety of organisations and institutions to have agency as international actors is an essential asset. A whole-of-nation approach to international engagement should be built on the federal government inspiring this recognition.
About the authors
Melissa Conley Tyler
Melissa Conley Tyler is Program Lead with the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue.
Grant Wyeth
Grant Wyeth is a writer and foreign affairs analyst. He is currently a Research Fellow at the Australian India Institute and columnist for The Diplomat.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
