Finally on this topic, I’m interested in formulating language and a response. How do you work in terms of speaking to one Australian diplomat who is in that jurisdiction, whether it be what we’re seeing in South Sudan, Israel or Gaza? How are you dealing with them to get a sense check of what’s on the ground? And, secondly, how are you dealing with those countries through their embassies here? Are you prevetting language, or are you formulating it and then letting them know as a courtesy, if that makes sense?
CHAIR: Welcome back. Senator Pocock, you have the call.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: I have some questions around the advice you give to the minister around language to be used in geopolitical tensions or crises, or what we are seeing unfold in the Middle East. I am interested in the process of how that is done. Is there a framework and thresholds at which you recommend the upping of language? How does that work?
Senator Wong: It might be useful for departmental officers to come to the table to talk about this. It is a very good question because, if diplomacy is the operating system of foreign policy, one of the tools you most utilise is language. That is in what the minister says, what the secretary says and what the head of missions says, but also, at any particular moment or in response to any particular thing, there is the broader issue of narrative and how you describe who you are, the interest you have, what you are trying to do and how you engage with others. It is an important part of engagement with the world. I am hoping someone will add something more erudite to what I have said.
Ms Adams: It is a good question. It goes without saying that words really do matter in diplomacy and international affairs. We put a lot of thought into how we frame Australia’s position, Australia’s contribution to global events, negotiations and processes. In general, we try to frame from first principles. You hear us talk a lot about rules, respect for sovereignty, international order, first principles. Then, as events require, we elaborate where we think it is helpful to add momentum to international debate, or to counter narratives where we think that is also required for the broader objectives of promoting peace, stability and security regionally and globally. That is a broad frame, but my point is that we pay a great deal of attention to the words we use and the frame that we operate in. Narrative contest is part of the way you participate in shaping global regional affairs.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: How do you decide when to go from ‘concerned’ to ‘deeply concerned’ to ‘alarmed’?
Senator Wong: Or ‘dismayed’.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: Is that a discussion?
Ms Adams: Absolutely.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: Do you have some sort of existing framework, or is it more a judgement call, and you recommend on that basis?
Ms Adams: Perhaps I will cheat by saying it is a bit of both. The use of those sorts of words is deliberate and is contemplated. No, there is not a set of pre-prepared escalation points. You make judgements in the context of how Australia’s voice contributes to an international one. It can be adding momentum to a position, adding your voice to a growing voice internationally, or if there is an egregious contribution that you feel the need to strongly counter. There is a kind of a framework in that you care deeply about which words you choose, but also, judgement in context is everything.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: What is the role of working with international allies? In the last few days Australia, Canada and the UK all used the word ‘deep concern’. How does that come about?
Ms Adams: We discuss through our missions, our overseas networks, through ministers, through our direct counterparts, and through diplomatic missions here how to calibrate the message we are sending. So yes, they would be discussed in negotiating statements where you want to pitch.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: Do you take social cohesion here in Australia into account? We have heard the intelligence chief, Mike Burgess, be quite critical about some of the language used by politicians. How do you think about an international conflict, our role as a member of the international community, but then the local politics at a community level, and some of the real angst that we are seeing? Do you consult with someone like the intelligence chief on that? How are you recommending language there?
Ms Adams: Of course, social cohesion in Australia is a prime objective for government. Ministers, of course, have that objective very front of mind. We’re just not international actors, we’re acting in Australia’s interest, so it is part of the consideration—particularly, I would say, from a minister’s point of view.
Senator Wong: For me, it’s probably an expression of my personal values as well as my political position. How we try to prevent the anger and pain, particularly in relation to the Middle East conflict becoming hatred here in Australia has been one of my highest priorities and deepest concerns. Amongst the first things I’ve said in relation to this conflict was exhorting all of us to not allow distress to turn to anger, to turn to hatred and talked about how we are a country where we have differences of views but we deal with them respectfully. Why I sought—and we were pleased that it happened—a bipartisan position and a bipartisan motion in the Senate and in the House was because it’s my view that where there are issues that go to potential division in our community, particularly around issues of religion and ethnicity, it is best if the whole of the parliament comes together. It was the approach that Mathias Cormann and I took in relation to Fraser Anning’s first speech, where there was a bipartisan motion he and I moved, and it is the same approach we took on this.
That’s why I am so concerned, as you would have seen today and more generally, about some of the language used, because as politicians we can’t legitimise behaviours that are aggressive and traumatising for others. People are entitled to feel deeply distressed and they are entitled to put their view, but I am concerned about some of the tone of this debate and some of the actions that people seem to believe are appropriate in terms of expressing their political views.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: Finally on this topic, I’m interested in formulating language and a response. How do you work in terms of speaking to one Australian diplomat who is in that jurisdiction, whether it be what we’re seeing in South Sudan, Israel or Gaza? How are you dealing with them to get a sense check of what’s on the ground? And, secondly, how are you dealing with those countries through their embassies here? Are you prevetting language, or are you formulating it and then letting them know as a courtesy, if that makes sense?
Ms Adams: We would work with our diplomatic staff on the ground in whichever situation. Usually we would coordinate shared drafts of messaging to understand how it would resonate in country as well as how it reflects our position and the message that we’re putting out both domestically and internationally. We rely on our people on the ground for that perspective.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: The second question was with respect to the equivalent embassies here, or through that.
Ms Adams: We would have most day-to-day contact with our own staff overseas. That would be both formally through cable tasking or distributing strategic messaging; and, of course, any number of phone calls and emails and tick-tacking with our own network. But, of course, we also deal with the diplomatic missions here. Their job is to work into our system, conveying their country’s perspectives and requests and positions.
Senator Wong: If I may, just to take up a little more time? To some extent, the secretary is probably being a little modest about the way in which the department works. One of the things that you realise when you go from opposition to government is just how much central coordination around messages and tasking there is across our diplomatic network. It’s quite striking to come in and see how—and it might be that something has happened at post—that’s integrated into this out of Canberra. Then there are communications that are clear about how we want to talk about this, what our language is and what the next tasks are. The capacity to coordinate is quite an impressive capability. We want to enhance that even more. Mr Growder’s people are doing work on, I suppose, narrative. That’s how we talk about things because, as I have responded to Senator Birmingham, sometimes how you talk about the problem, particularly to counterparts, shapes how you might then talk about what you see as the shared solution to think through those principles and messaging.