Cooperation between federal and subnational Australian governments on national security must continue to evolve in the face of the complex terrorism, espionage and foreign interference threats.
The tensions exemplified by Canberra’s unprecedented 2021 decision to revoke Victoria’s Memorandum of Understanding with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2019—culminating in the enactment of the Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020—highlight the misalignments that can occur. Establishing cohesive national security policies necessitates collaboration across all levels of the Australian government, particularly in light of ongoing developments such as AUKUS.
Australia’s political system, shaped by its unique blend of US federalism and the British Westminster system, allocates sovereignty between the national and state governments. This federal structure has distinct advantages: it allows for policy diversity, accommodates varied regional perspectives, and enables state and territory (S&T) governments to tailor policies to local needs. However, this system also has its pitfalls, particularly regarding national security. The potential for divergence between federal national security and S&T economic priorities can lead to inconsistencies and national security vulnerabilities.
Despite these challenges, a cooperative approach between federal and S&T governments offers several benefits. A unified strategy enhances national security and reassures public trust in the federation and Australia’s democracy. Collaboration creates a more formidable defence against external threats. It presents a unified stance to authoritarian regimes that would otherwise benefit from the creation of disunity and division. It ensures a proactive approach to addressing national security vulnerabilities and mitigating risks.
A coordinated response to the AUKUS agreement, which involves substantial investments in South and Western Australia’s defence infrastructure, demonstrates how federal and state cooperation can bolster national security while promoting regional economic benefits.
Historically, there have been instances in which S&T have pursued international relations that diverge from federal policy, creating friction. For example, Mark McGowan, then premier of Western Australia, visited China in April 2019. During this visit, McGowan focused on strengthening economic ties and promoting trade opportunities between Western Australia and China. This visit was controversial in the context of Australian foreign policy. The Australian federal government, particularly under then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison, was wary of China’s growing influence and activities in the region, particularly its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Some saw McGowan’s visit as challenging the federal government’s stance on China, which was increasingly critical of Chinese influence and involvement in Australian affairs. The federal government was concerned that state-level engagements with China could undermine a unified national approach to managing relations with Beijing and address issues like foreign interference and security.
This challenge isn’t just about the S&Ts and their diplomatic efforts. The federal government, including the national intelligence community, must understand the drivers behind subnational diplomacy and play a proactive role in managing and guiding these engagements to ensure they align with national security priorities.
The COVID-19 pandemic empowered S&Ts to make decisions independently of the federal government. While federal policies often address national concerns, they often fail to align with the immediate economic needs of individual states. For instance, the then-Victorian premier Dan Andrews criticised the federal government’s veto of its engagements with China, viewing it as neglectful of local economic interests. Similarly, Mark McGowan criticized federal figures for misjudging China’s importance to WA’s economy. Such tensions reinforce the necessity for a national security strategy that integrates federal and state priorities.
S&Ts pursuing foreign policies independent of national policies risks creating security vulnerabilities. Authoritarian regimes may exploit federal systems to weaken national unity and erode democratic trust. As observed with Victoria’s MoU, foreign entities may view subnational agreements as opportunities to bypass or undermine federal policies. Such actions can create confusion and weaken the overall effectiveness of national strategies.
A unified approach is essential for national security policies to succeed. Initiatives such as AUKUS require coordinated efforts from both federal and state governments. Additionally, programs like the US Force Posture Initiative, which includes several states, necessitate cohesive planning and execution. Effective national security strategies hinge on all levels of government working together to address emerging threats and challenges.
Existing efforts to enhance cooperation, such as the Centre for Counter-Terrorism Coordination and the National Counter-Terrorism Plan, illustrate what can be achieved when federal and S&T governments work together.
These initiatives provide a platform for sharing intelligence, coordinating responses and developing joint strategies—and they offer lessons for further improving cooperation. For example, increasing state involvement in national intelligence briefings and establishing dedicated channels for subnational diplomacy could improve coordination.
As ASPI argued in our report last year on subnational diplomacy in the US alliance, the federal government should consider setting up a new branch within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that focusses on subnational diplomacy and further consider appointing an Ambassador for Subnational Diplomacy. Granted, these measures could face challenges such as resource allocation, coordination with existing diplomatic structures (such as DFAT State Offices), and potential conflicts with federal foreign policy. Still, in spite of the challenges and the effort required, these initiatives could further bridge gaps between federal and state governments.
A strong and unified approach to national security requires robust cooperation between federal and state governments. By enhancing coordination and communication, Australia can navigate the increasingly complex security challenges it will continue to face in the coming years. The success of national security initiatives depends on the kind of partnership in which S&T are not just recipients but active participants in national security policy.