Referral
1.1
On 25 February 2021, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 17 June 2021:
The contribution of government funding for public research into current and emerging foreign policy issues affecting Australia, with a focus on our key interests in the Indo-Pacific, including examining:
(a)
current funding by Australian Government departments and agencies in this area;
(b)
the quality and diversity of publicly funded think tanks focused on foreign policy;
(c)
ways of enhancing greater public understanding of foreign policy issues;
(d)
how the Australian Government involves states, business, civil society, unions, universities, think tanks, diasporas and the wider community in developing and implementing foreign policy;
(e)
strategies the Australian Government should adopt to build the knowledge needed to support more effective future foreign policy; and
1.2
On 15 June 2021, the reporting date was extended to 12 August 2021.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.3
Details of the inquiry were placed on the committee's website at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate_fadt. The committee also contacted a number of relevant individuals and organisations to notify them of the inquiry and invite submissions by 31 March 2021. The committee continued to receive submissions after the closing date. Public submissions received are listed at Appendix 1.
1.4
The committee held two public hearings in Canberra on 10 June and 7 July 2021. A list of witnesses who gave evidence at the public hearings is available at Appendix 2. Submissions and the Hansard transcripts of evidence may be accessed through the committee website.
Acknowledgment
1.5
The committee thanks the organisations and individuals who provided submissions and participated in the committee's hearings.
Background information
Scope of the inquiry
1.6
The committee received evidence on what matters should be considered in the course of the inquiry. This included evidence debating the definition of 'foreign policy research', and the challenges in classifying the types of organisations which conduct this research. The evidence is explored below.
Definition of foreign policy, and foreign policy research
1.7
It can be difficult to define 'foreign policy', and the committee received evidence arguing for both narrow and broad definitions of the term. For example, the Australian National University Department of Pacific Affairs took a 'broad definition of foreign policy issues that encompasses aid and development, security and stability, and geopolitics and strategy.' Similarly, Mr John McCarthy, Senior Advisor, Asialink, stated that foreign policy research includes 'economic policy and defence policy'. Alternatively, Mr Trent Hagland provided a narrower definition which excludes defence and strategic studies.
1.8
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) told the committee that foreign policy is evolving, with the definition broadening and becoming increasingly complex. Mr Nigel Stanier, Assistant Secretary, Strategic Policy Contestability and Futures Branch, DFAT, told the committee:
…one trend that we see is foreign policy becoming increasingly broad. By that I mean that in the department, and in all places that deal with foreign policy, we deal with an increasingly wide scope of issues that constitute foreign policy.
1.9
Mr Stanier explained that two factors are contributing to the broadening in the definition of foreign policy, namely:
One factor is that we see new issues emerge all the time, and these issues emerge in addition to, not instead of, old issues. A second factor is that the distinction between foreign and domestic policy is becoming increasingly blurred and it's harder to disentangle the two. We find that foreign policy increasingly reaches deeper into domestic policy and domestic policy increasingly has some sort of foreign policy aspect or angle to it.
1.10
Mr Fergus Hanson and Ms Danielle Cave argued that a 'broad view of foreign policy issues' is required as it is increasingly 'counter to good policymaking to look at global issues in narrow silos'.
1.11
Professor Rory Medcalf also called for a creative 'reimagining' of what research can mean:
The terms of reference for this inquiry rightly widen the aperture beyond what academics in the social sciences typically define as research: that is, peer-reviewed specialist material prepared principally for an audience of other academics and students, to advance the development of particular scholarly disciplines and, correspondingly, the professional standing of the authors. The terms here go far beyond that narrow definition, to incorporate public understanding of relevant policy issues, the need for an inclusive national approach to develop and implement policy, and in particular an imperative, as identified in the terms of reference 'to build the knowledge needed to support more effective future foreign policy'.
1.12
For the purposes of this inquiry, the committee has accepted a broad definition of both foreign policy, and foreign policy research in order to explore all the evidence provided.
Organisations conducting foreign policy research
1.13
Broadly speaking, entities conducting foreign policy research fall into one or more of the following categories: universities, university-affiliated think tanks, non-university-affiliated think tanks; and government. The contribution of business and business councils to foreign policy research was also explored.
1.14
It was noted that although the inquiry's terms of reference explicitly refer to think tanks, the inquiry offers an 'opportunity to look more broadly at the research landscape'.
Think tanks
1.15
The committee heard that without a standard definition of 'think tank', a range of views on the elements which are required to meet the description exist. For example, Mr Trent Hagland suggested that any institute that generates policy-oriented research, analysis and advice be included in the category. Mr Hagland also noted that there is 'nothing to stop anybody from setting up something that they call a think-tank'.
1.16
Mr Gordon Flake, Chief Executive Officer of the Perth USAsia Centre, outlined elements which he considered unique to foreign policy think tanks:
The foreign policy think-tank community has a relatively unique characteristic in that we're not government but we work closely with government; we're not academics, but we work closely with academics, although there are some real academics as well; we're not the military, but we work closely with the military; and we're not private sector, but we work closely with the private sector. So much of our work, our programming, our events and our research is designed to be additive in nature, where two plus two must equal more than four, otherwise there's no reason for our existence.
1.17
Several submitters referred to the Global Go To Think Tank Index Report produced by the University of Pennsylvania's Lauder Institute, and noted that several Australian think tanks engaged on foreign policy issues appear in that report.
1.18
For the purposes of this inquiry, the committee has accepted a broad definition of think tank in order to explore all the evidence provided.
Structure of the report
1.19
The report consists of five chapters with Chapter 1 providing an introductory chapter outlining the context and administrative details of the inquiry; and an overview of the differing views on the scope of the inquiry. The remainder of the report is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 outlines the government funding available for foreign policy research;
Chapter 3 discusses the role of foreign policy research;
Chapter 4 discusses some of the issues with the current funding models and research outputs; and
Chapter 5 details the committee's conclusions and recommendations.