Defence backed claim that social media footage of public servants could invite bullying

Celia Perkins asked the Senate committee not to share or permit the reposting of Defence witnesses’ evidence in edited formats on social media. Her proposed wording said the witnesses did not consent to their evidence being reproduced online. The request mattered because the hearing was public, yet Defence wanted limits on how its evidence could circulate afterward.

Perkins pointed to earlier videos that had been edited or embellished. She said they led to personal commentary, ridicule, hostility and abuse. She also argued that online posts identifying senior security-cleared officials could increase risks from cyber actors and foreign intelligence services. She wanted wording that would be defensible and support workplace safety.

The committee did not accept the request. The Senate clerk advised against it, and the committee rejected it. The episode shows the tension between public parliamentary evidence and an agency’s concern for employees’ welfare and security. It also shows that witnesses cannot simply control how evidence from an open hearing is viewed.

An open Senate hearing is a parliamentary committee session held for public evidence and scrutiny. Witnesses give answers on the record while senators examine issues. The article describes Perkins’ hearing as an “open public hearing”. That openness matters because parliamentary inquiries are designed to let the public see how officials explain government actions.

Because the evidence is public, people can watch, report and discuss it outside the hearing room. Social-media users may also share clips, including edited ones. The article does not set out every rule governing recordings, but it records Senator David Shoebridge’s objection that witnesses could not censor what the public sees. The Senate clerk gave advice consistent with that position.

Public availability supports accountability. It allows journalists, senators and citizens to examine evidence rather than relying only on official summaries. It can also create risks when clips lose context or attract abuse. The dispute therefore concerns how to manage harmful consequences without turning public evidence into material controlled by the witnesses.

Perkins’ proposal received strong support inside Defence. Department secretary Meghan Quinn told her she was “very happy to support” the wording. Deputy secretaries Cath Patterson and John Reid also approved it, calling the statement polite, clear, safe and respectful. Perkins said assistant defence minister Peter Khalil supported the proposal as well.

Perkins told colleagues she had discussed the matter with Khalil and staff from Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles’ office. The article says neither ministerial office directed the statement’s content. It also says neither office gave an on-record response. Their involvement was therefore described as awareness and support, not authorship of the wording.

The Senate committee rejected the request after receiving advice from the Senate clerk. Greens senator David Shoebridge objected immediately, arguing that the evidence came from an open public hearing. The outcome shows that departmental and ministerial backing did not determine the committee’s treatment of parliamentary evidence.

The article does not state how many people attended the Senate hearing or how many could see a social-media clip. It therefore cannot provide a reliable numerical comparison. The important point is reach: a hearing has a defined setting and time, while an online clip can be copied, reposted and viewed later by people who were not present.

Perkins referred to earlier edited and embellished videos that generated significant personal commentary. Her concern was not only the original hearing audience. She argued that online posts identifying officials and their roles could invite hostile reactions and increase risks from malign online actors. The article presents this as a reason Defence wanted to discourage reposting.

The current reality is that the committee rejected the proposed restriction, so the article does not establish a limit on possible online circulation. Any precise audience estimate would require viewing or sharing data, which the article does not provide. The safe conclusion is qualitative: social media can extend exposure beyond the hearing room.

Defence said reposted footage could harm employees by exposing them to hostile online attention. Perkins described previous edited or embellished videos that produced highly personal commentary, ridicule, hostility and abuse. She said this treatment was distressing for staff and could conflict with an employer’s duty to protect employees’ health and safety.

The security concern focused on identification. Perkins wrote that Defence discouraged security-clearance holders from having a social-media presence that identified them and their roles. She argued that posts designed to invite outraged responses could increase personal risk from malign online actors, including cyber and foreign-intelligence threats. She also warned that officials could be put in danger if evidence was published online.

These concerns formed what Perkins called core arguments for her proposed statement. The department supported the wording, but the committee rejected the request after Senate clerk advice. The article does not report a specific attack caused by a repost. It reports Defence’s claimed risks and its attempt to address them through a public statement.

After Perkins made her statement, Greens senator David Shoebridge objected that the evidence had been given in an open public hearing. The Senate clerk advised the committee on the request, and the committee rejected it. The proposed non-consent wording therefore did not create a barrier to public access or reposting.

The key mechanism is parliamentary control over proceedings. Defence witnesses could express concerns about how their evidence might be used, and department leaders could support their request. But those wishes did not override the committee’s treatment of evidence given publicly. The clerk’s advice helped guide the committee’s decision in the dispute.

The result does not erase the workplace or security concerns raised by Defence. Meghan Quinn later supported the secretaries board’s concerns about staff treatment after hearings and employee health and safety. It does show, however, that appearing as a witness does not give an official the power to censor what the public sees from an open hearing.

Public access to parliamentary proceedings helps people examine how government officials answer questions. It gives senators, journalists and the public a direct view of evidence instead of relying only on departmental statements. In this case, the hearing’s openness allowed objections to Defence’s proposed limits to be heard and considered publicly.

The employee-protection side is concrete. Defence said earlier edited videos had led to distress, ridicule, hostility and abuse. Perkins also raised cyber and foreign-intelligence risks when officials’ identities and roles were linked to online posts. These concerns reflect an employer’s duty to consider staff health, safety and security, even when officials are performing public duties.

The committee’s decision illustrates the balance. It rejected Perkins’ request after the Senate clerk’s advice, preserving the public character of the evidence. At the same time, Defence can raise concerns about harmful treatment and security exposure. The article leaves no new policy beyond that decision, but the dispute shows why public scrutiny and staff protection remain competing responsibilities.