Australia is helping Southeast Asian countries see more of what happens in their waters. It should now equip them to communicate what they see.
On July 21, 2026, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong announced an additional AU$10 million (US$7.1 million) in drone technology and operator training for the Philippine Coast Guard. These systems will improve Manila’s ability to detect irregular activity and build a clearer operational picture at sea. But collecting data does not guarantee public clarity.
Drones and patrol vessels can show that an incident occurred, but they are not enough for deciding how events should be explained to the public while they are unfolding. In the South China Sea near the Philippines, for instance, edited video clips can circulate without showing what happened before and after an encounter, while photographs may be shared even without an operational context.
This has been evident with ongoing confrontations between China and the Philippines, where unofficial actors use social media to publicise different angles and conflicting narratives regarding what transpired at sea. Such fragments can influence public understanding while authorities are still verifying the sequence of events.
Political pressure may then build around an early interpretation before officials have the facts needed to determine an appropriate diplomatic response. Fragmentary release of information with no or inadequate interpretation can lead to a public understanding that’s later shown to be false, undermining confidence in the authorities. When public confidence erodes, government action receives weaker support from the very people it serves.
Canberra should establish a regional maritime communication program within Australia’s existing Southeast Asia maritime partnerships. It should strengthen the ability of maritime authorities and journalists to communicate accurately to the public during routine missions and periods of heightened tension.
Without a common foundation, surveillance evidence can lead to confusion.
Philippine operational experience shows why communication belongs within maritime security.
In 2017, the Philippine Coast Guard deployed female radio operators known as Sea Angels to reassure anxious mariners facing piracy and kidnapping threats in the Sulu and Celebes Seas. The initiative later evolved into the Angels of the Sea, where operators receive training in human behaviour, foreign languages, shipboard procedures and the rule of law to de-escalate tension in the South China Sea.
Their experiences show that maritime communicators need an understanding of the environment where they operate, may they be high-risk or high-tension, in order to be effective in delivering their responsibilities.
Similar factors apply when information moves from an operation at sea to the public through the media. Drone footage and photographs still require interpretation. Maritime agencies must verify these materials and determine what can be released without exposing sensitive capabilities or personnel. Journalists working under tight deadlines must assess official claims while interpreting maritime law and operational procedures to report fast-moving incidents responsibly.
This creates a strong case for joint training among government communicators and media practitioners. A shared understanding of maritime operations and communication can strengthen both sides, assess evidence, and explain developments with greater clarity. Without a common foundation, surveillance evidence can lead to confusion.
Canberra is investing AU$160 million (US$110 million) over 10 years in Southeast Asia maritime partnerships to expand practical maritime cooperation. Separately, the Australia-Southeast Asia Media and Broadcasting Initiative promotes regional media capability.
The program should perform four functions. It should support maritime agencies in validating evidence and decide what can be disclosed. Public information officers should learn to brief journalists swiftly as situations evolve. Media practitioners should receive independent technical training covering vessel tracking, maritime law, visual evidence, and coast guard procedures. And both groups should then join simulations that test how maritime incidents are examined and explained to the public under pressure while protecting operational security and editorial independence.
Strengthening maritime security also requires credible human voices that can clarify and convey what surveillance systems document.
The model would apply to illegal fishing and piracy, as well as responses to armed robbery at sea and marine pollution. Each requires maritime agencies to articulate evolving events credibly and journalists to scrutinise information accurately.
The Philippines is a logical pilot partner. Australia is expanding its maritime domain awareness capacity-building for the Philippine Coast Guard, while the Civil Maritime Advancement through Partnerships and Support program is designed to strengthen civil maritime security and marine environmental protection.
The Philippines also has extensive experience communicating maritime incidents to domestic and international audiences under intense scrutiny, making it a practical environment to develop and refine a regional maritime communication capability. Australia and the Philippines could test the model through their existing bilateral cooperation before adapting it for other Southeast Asian partners.
Instead of creating a new regional institution, Canberra should connect its maritime assistance with independent media expertise to address a capability that drones cannot provide.
Canberra has invested heavily in enabling regional partners to monitor activities at sea. But strengthening maritime security also requires credible human voices that can clarify and convey what surveillance systems document.
Australia’s next maritime security investment should be communication.
Article reprinted with permission from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's analysis and commentary site The Strategist.