By -

A special envoy is a high-level diplomatic position that is neither ministerial nor an elected or necessarily bipartisan position. Ultimately, a special envoy is employed on a temporary basis to advise and advocate on a specific cause. It is common for past ministers to be appointed roles in negotiations, diplomacy, and foreign representation for anywhere from a few months to five years or more.

Federal Member for Macquarie Susan Templeman has been the incumbent Special Envoy for the Arts since June 2022, Luke Gosling is Special Envoy for Defence and Veterans’ Affairs since his appointment in July last year, Senator Nita Green is the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef since her appointment in June 2022, following Warren Entsch’s inaugural term from May 2019 to April 2022 (2 years, 317 days). There are, amongst many others, Special Envoys for Social Cohesion, Trade, Indigenous Australia, and Disaster Recovery.

In 2018, then Prime Minister Scott Morrison appointed Tony Abbott as Special Envoy for Indigenous Affairs, and Barnaby Joyce as Special Envoy for Drought Relief. Following the announcement, an ABC article questioned “Is this just a job to keep them busy?” It posited that these positions are means for the incumbent government to keep potentially meddling or destabilising former ministers from involvement in factional politics or challenging the party in media. Still, special envoys have riled taxpayers in the past, not least for their exorbitant expenses. In May 2017, former Special Envoy for Human Rights, Philip Ruddock was reported to have spent more than $200,000 visiting 23 countries since his appointment in February 2016.

The role – how envoys are chosen, employed, the scope of their powers and the budget they’re allocated – has received renewed attention since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Jillian Segal as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in July last year. In the interim period before Aftab Malik was appointed for a three-year term as Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia in September, Peter Khalil MP was employed as Special Envoy for Social Cohesion in August last year.

The appointment of envoys might appear to the cynical as reactionary measures to public demand for action where the usual, lengthy and involved process of policymaking or commissions don’t satisfy an inquisitive and critical media or opposition party.

The role of Special Envoy has altered with the decades. In the two decades following Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s appointment of Foreign Affairs and Trade Secretary Richard Woolcott as Special Envoy for the Creation of APEC in the 1980s, the position was viewed as largely ambassadorial. The appointees were mostly public servants with specific knowledge and networks applicable to the cause they were appointed to (public servant and experienced diplomat Sandy Hollway was appointed as both Special Envoy on Whale Conservation, and also assigned a similar role for the Kakadu Trail).

From 2015, the position appeared to be used as a means of appeasing former ministers or friends. Ruddock was appointed Special Envoy for Human Rights by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull also appointed Andrew Robb, proceeding his retirement announcement, to Special Envoy for Trade, which lasted up to the point that Robb accepted a generously-paid consulting role with Landbridge the day before his envoy role ended.

Potential conflicts of interest are nothing new in the choice or scope of Special Envoys, whether under Labor or Coalition governments. The appointment of ad hoc diplomats has also been a challenge for the US, leading former President Joe Biden to sign into law the Department of State Authorization Act of 2021, requiring the nomination, followed by advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint “Ambassadors, other public Ministers … and all other Officers of the United States.”

Section 5105 under that US Act strengthens the requirement to seek greater consensus on appointments that had, at most, required the president to obtain advice and consent for appointments to specific positions.

The lack of transparency around the nomination, advice sought, and appointment of Special Envoys has come under fire in the case of Albanese’s appointment of Jillian Segal. In recent weeks, media focused on her husband John Roth’s donation to Advance Australia, a right-wing political lobby group that has previously labelled Palestinians in Australia as a “risk to security”, and referred to Labor, Green and independent politicians as taking “the same side as Hamas”.

In a statement following the revelations published in The Klaxon, Segal said she had no influence on the donations made by Roth’s trust. “No one would tolerate or accept my husband dictating my politics, and I certainly won’t dictate his. I have had no involvement in his donations, nor will I,” she said.

The suitability of appointed Special Envoys is a murky area, and without a legislative requirement for advice, consensus, and transparency regarding the process of appointing these positions, there is concern that lobbyists and industry might have undue influence on the Prime Minister’s choice of envoy.

In a 2022 feature, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute questioned whether Australia needed an ASEAN special envoy, the author argued that there were existing, highly experienced ambassadors in similar positions, with similar duties and there were significant risks of stepping on toes, doubling up duties, and pushing the budget to set up an office and staff for such an appointee.

Arguably, in regard to doubling up, there are already laws and policies that address racism and discrimination, not least the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and work underway by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Following Segal’s report, which recommends measures to more strictly police universities, media, and public institutions, Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman responded.

Sivaraman says a comprehensive national approach to addressing all forms of racism will help make Australia a safer place. To that end, the Australian Human Rights Commission is set to deliver results of a study into racism in university settings to the Australian government in December.

In a press release, Sivaraman referred to the AHRC’s National Anti-Racism Framework, which “acknowledges that different communities experience racism in different ways and that community-led solutions should inform the development and implementation of all anti-racism efforts under the Framework.”

“The Framework also recommends updating the Racial Discrimination Act to include a ‘positive duty’ which is a requirement for those with obligations under the Act – such as employers and service providers – to take active steps to prevent racial discrimination from happening in the first place. This would be a significant reform that would address many concerns raised in the Envoy’s [Segal’s] report,” his statement said.

“While Ms Segal’s report outlines a range of issues, it contains only limited detail on how proposed actions would be implemented. I note concerns have been raised about the human rights implications of her recommendations. The Commission has requested a briefing from the Special Envoy to further discuss her proposed reforms and these implications.”