Defence Secretary Approved Social Media Testimony Plan

Meghan Quinn, the secretary of the Australian defence department, formally approved a proposal to restrict the social media sharing of public servant testimony. The plan, developed by deputy secretary Celia Perkins, aimed to inform a Senate hearing that officials did not consent to the wide reposting of their evidence. The rationale cited potential online bullying and national security vulnerabilities for staff with security clearances.

Perkins made the statement before a committee hearing on 4 September. She declared that defence witnesses do not agree to their evidence being reposted to social media sites. This position drew criticism from across the political spectrum, including from Greens senator David Shoebridge, who argued that witnesses in an open public hearing should not have the power to censor what the Australian public sees. The committee ultimately rejected Perkins' request on the advice of the Senate clerk.

Emails obtained through freedom of information requests show the initiative was flagged with the offices of Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Assistant Defence Minister Peter Khalil. 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 to Quinn on 25 August, Perkins outlined the core arguments for the proposed language. 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 that she was very happy to support the use of such wording.

Perkins emphasized the need to settle on defensible language to maintain a safe workplace for staff. She sought feedback from deputy secretaries John Reid and Cath Patterson before the hearing. Patterson replied that the words looked fine and were polite, clear, and safe given a submission from the secretaries board of the Australian Public Service. Reid concurred, agreeing that the statement was good and made the point clearly and respectfully, though he suggested minor changes that were read at the committee.

The secretaries board had previously raised similar issues, noting that edited and embellished videos from previous hearings had generated highly inappropriate and personal commentary. This online reaction was described as distressing for staff and inviting ridicule, hostility, and abuse. While the offices of Marles and Khalil did not provide an on-record response, internal understanding indicates that neither office directed Perkins on the specific content of her statement.