'Sovereignty' commissioner touted as possible counter to foreign interference: National Security College

The threat of foreign interference has long existed but is now playing out in the homes of everyday Australians, an Australian National University National Security College policy paper outlined on Wednesday.

It comes as the country's most senior intelligence figures have repeatedly warned of intensifying campaigns over recent years, focusing on education institutions and all levels of government.

The college's senior public policy adviser Katherine Mansted said while it once targeted foreign governments, it could now influence entire foreign populations through social media.

"Previously governments only really tried to influence other governments so it was very much an elite, closed door practice," Ms Mansted told The Canberra Times.

"Now we see foreign governments explicitly trying to influence politicians, civil society leaders and ordinary, everyday Australians by means like social media."

Laws cracking down on foreign interference in government were introduced two years ago. New teams were established in the Department of Home Affairs for cyber interference while DFAT and ASIO would deal with foreign disinformation and human-centred interference attempts, respectively.

But to address the changing landscape, Ms Mansted proposed four recommendations to government that would see an improved whole-of-society approach to the growing threat.

One of those solutions is to establish an Australian Sovereignty Commissioner, or something with a similar standing, that could pull together a coordinated response from the various departments and become a central public resource.

Like similar statutory agencies, such as the information commissioner, a sovereignty watchdog could help to administer the foreign influence laws and dispel confusion to Australians with clear messaging.

"Ultimately, in a democracy, it's actually up to ordinary Australians, businesses, and civil society to make decisions about what influence is acceptable to them and [whether it's] in line with their organisational and personal values," Ms Mansted said.

"There's no one place that brings all that information together, that provides a context as to why influence happens and how it is happening, so that when people make decisions in their own lives, they can see that in the broader geopolitical and political context in which is occurring."

READ MORE:

It was also important to differentiate between influence and interference, Ms Mansted added.

Foreign influence was not always a bad thing but needed to be transparent and regulated just like domestic political influence was.

"It's great if foreign governments and foreign organisations are invested in Australia but that influence has to happen in a way that's consistent with Australia's sovereignty, our interests and our values," Ms Mansted said.

"Just as we regulate political influence domestically, we also need to think about how we regulate foreign political influence."

The binary between influence and interference also needed a rethink. Rather than having a discussion, or legislation, that focused on the serious end of interference, it needed to be considered as more of spectrum.

A register was introduced in late 2018 for anyone undertaking activities on behalf of a foreign principal and intending to influence politics or government processes. Individuals or entities need to register on the list within 14 days or face criminal penalties.

Ms Mansted said being on that register, however, was seen as being put on a black list.

"It should be something that people can look to to understand context, and understand how influence is operating in politics, which is an important public informational resource," Ms Mansted said.

"There needs to be a more graduated, more inclusive approach to that register so that the penalties are calibrated to the purpose of the register, which is facilitating transparency."

Foreign interference laws first passed Parliament in 2018, carrying heavy jail time for political interference attempts that are deemed coercive, covert or deceptive.

Only one individual has been charged under the laws since they were introduced. Di Sanh Duong, a 65-year-old Melbourne man, was charged in late 2020 and is facing up to 10 years in jail for his alleged offences.