Defence officials backed plan to limit social media sharing of public servant testimony

The Australian defence department’s secretary recently approved a controversial proposal from a senior official regarding the sharing of public servant testimony on social media. The plan involved informing a Senate hearing that footage of officials giving evidence should not be widely shared, as it could invite online bullying and raise national security concerns.

Emails obtained by Guardian Australia through freedom of information requests show that the initiative was flagged with the offices of Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Assistant Defence Minister Peter Khalil. Meghan Quinn, the department secretary, provided her backing for the idea put forward by Celia Perkins, who serves as the deputy secretary of security and estate.

Perkins drew criticism from across the political spectrum after making a statement on 4 September before a committee hearing. She declared that defence witnesses do not consent to the reposting of their evidence to social media sites. She cited a submission from the secretaries board of the Australian Public Service, which had raised similar issues.

The board argued that evidence could be taken out of context. It also noted that edited and embellished videos from previous hearings had generated significant, highly inappropriate, and personal commentary. This online reaction was described as distressing for staff and inviting ridicule, hostility, and abuse.

Greens senator David Shoebridge objected immediately to Perkins’ position. He stated that the evidence was given in an open public hearing and that witnesses should not have the power to censor what the Australian public sees. Following this objection, the committee rejected Perkins’ request on the advice of the Senate clerk.

The newly revealed correspondence indicates that concerns about online bullying and national security were used as a defensible reason to discourage the sharing of hearing clips. Perkins told two fellow deputy secretaries on 2 September that she had discussed the matter in a meeting with Khalil and staff from Marles’ office. She noted that both Quinn and Khalil were fully supportive of the approach.

In an email sent to Quinn on 25 August, Perkins outlined the core arguments for her statement. She explained that senior defence leaders actively discourage security clearance holders from maintaining a social media presence that identifies their roles. Perkins argued that posts designed to invite outraged responses could increase personal risks from malign online actors, including cyber and foreign intelligence threats.

Quinn responded to the proposal by writing that she was very happy to support the use of such wording. Perkins had expressed a desire to add an explicit statement that defence witnesses did not consent to their evidence being reproduced in an edited format on social media platforms. She emphasized the need to settle on defensible language to maintain a safe workplace for staff.

Before the hearing, Perkins emailed two other deputy secretaries, John Reid and Cath Patterson, to flag her intention to address the social media issue specifically. She sought their feedback on the proposed wording. Patterson replied that the words looked fine and were polite, clear, and safe given the secretaries board submission.

Reid concurred with Patterson, agreeing that the statement was good and made the point clearly and respectfully. He suggested minor changes to the original wording, and that revised version was ultimately read at the committee. While the offices of Marles and Khalil did not provide an on-record response, Guardian Australia understands that neither office directed Perkins on the specific content of her statement.