Senate committee rejected the request on advice of the clerk
Emails obtained by Guardian Australia under freedom of information show the secretary of Australia’s defence department approved a senior official’s plan to tell a Senate hearing that footage of public servants giving evidence should not be shared on social media. Deputy secretary Celia Perkins proposed the statement, department secretary Meghan Quinn backed it in writing, and the plan was flagged with the offices of deputy prime minister Richard Marles and assistant defence minister Peter Khalil.
Perkins — the department’s deputy secretary of security and estate — made the statement to a committee hearing on 4 September, drawing criticism across the political divide. She said defence witnesses “do not consent to the reposting of our evidence to social media sites.” Greens senator David Shoebridge objected immediately, saying: “This is evidence given in an open public hearing … These witnesses do not get to censor what the Australian public sees.” The committee rejected the request on the advice of the Senate clerk.
The correspondence shows how the department prepared the statement. In a 25 August email, Perkins told Quinn she wanted “to add an explicit statement that the Defence witnesses appearing do not consent to our evidence being reproduced in edited format on social media platforms,” and that the department would “need to settle a form of words that is defensible.” She raised concerns about maintaining a safe workplace for staff, said previous hearings had led to “significant vile, personal commentary that was distressing for staff and invited online bullying,” and warned of cyber and foreign intelligence threats. Quinn replied: “Very happy to support you using such words.”
Perkins told Quinn that officials could be put in danger if their evidence before public committees was published online, and outlined “core arguments” to support her statement. “As senior leaders in Defence – we actively discourage security clearance holders from a social media presence that identifies us and our roles,” she wrote, adding that posts “designed to invite outraged responses – increase the personal risk from malign online actors, including cyber and foreign intelligence threats.”
Two days before the hearing, Perkins told two fellow deputy secretaries: “Meghan is fully supportive, as is [Khalil]. I discussed today in a meeting with [Khalil] and staff from [Marles] and his office.” According to Guardian Australia, neither office directed Perkins on the content of her statement, and neither provided an on-record response when contacted for comment.
On 2 September, Perkins emailed two other deputy secretaries, John Reid and Cath Patterson, flagging her intention to make the statement and “to specifically call out the social media posting matter.” Patterson replied that the words “look fine – polite and clear and safe given in the Sec Board submission.” Reid responded: “I agree with Cath; this is a good statement and makes the point clearly and respectfully.” He suggested minor changes to Perkins’ original wording, and that revised version was read at the committee.
In the statement, Perkins pointed to a submission from the secretaries board of the Australian Public Service that raised similar concerns about evidence being taken out of context. She alleged “edited and embellished” videos from previous hearings had “generated significant highly inappropriate and highly personal commentary that was distressing for staff and invited ridicule, hostility and abuse.”
Defence did not supply a response to Guardian Australia for the report. A spokesperson pointed instead to Quinn’s opening statement to a Senate estimates committee on Thursday, in which she said she supported the submission from the secretaries board and argued that the treatment of staff after committee hearings could sometimes conflict with an employer’s duty to ensure the health and safety of employees.
Guardian Australia requested the documents under freedom of information from the defence department. The released emails show senior colleagues and superiors strongly endorsed Perkins’ proposed statement before it was read, and the committee’s rejection on the advice of the Senate clerk left the department without the restriction it had sought on social media sharing of witnesses’ evidence.