In September, we learned that the secretaries’ board, which includes all federal department heads, was pushing for new rules to stop sharing public testimony on social media because it could expose officials to ridicule, hostility, or abuse.
The board’s request appeared to be in response to the recent actions of Celia Perkins, Deputy Secretary of Security and Estate at the Department of Defence, who opened a public Senate committee hearing by reading a prepared statement that attempted to prohibit the reposting of Defence evidence on social media and the reproduction of the likeness of Defence officials outside the formal parliamentary context:
“For the record, the Defence witnesses appearing before the committee today are pleased to take your questions. But they do not consent to the reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likenesses for the purposes outside the framework of the Parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee”, Perkins said.
Former independent senator turned anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex Patrick, has published an article at MichaelWest.com.au arguing that Celia Perkins’ Senate committee statement was not an isolated comment but part of a coordinated effort within the public service to limit public dissemination of committee evidence.
Around the same time, members of the Commonwealth Secretaries Board were preparing a submission to a parliamentary committee that also advocated limits on using committee hearing footage on social media.
According to documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests, Patrick claims that:
- Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn supported Celia Perkins’ approach.
- Departmental discussions occurred before the Senate appearance.
- The statement was allegedly consistent with broader views being developed by the Commonwealth’s Secretaries Board.
The evidence reflects a deliberate strategy to “manage” parliamentary committees rather than simply respond to concerns about social media use.
Patrick argues that some senior public servants are no longer acting as politically impartial public servants but are instead protecting ministers and governments from scrutiny via:
- avoiding answering questions directly;
- taking questions on notice unnecessarily;
- engaging in evasion or misdirection; and
- prioritising political considerations over accountability.
This behaviour runs counter to the values set out in the Public Service Act, which requires openness, accountability and integrity.
Patrick also takes aim at the Albanese government’s transparency record, noting:
- the government increasingly resists parliamentary scrutiny;
- Freedom of Information access has been weakened;
- whistleblower protections remain inadequate;
- requests for official documents are often resisted; and
- parliamentary accountability mechanisms are being undermined.
The proposed restrictions on sharing committee evidence reflect a broader culture of secrecy and information control within government.
The Digital Duty of Care Bill is the next phase:
The Albanese government is also trying to censor debate via its Digital Duty of Care Bill, which passed the lower house last week and would make the eSafety Commissioner the central regulator with significantly expanded powers to police what we say online.
The Bill is essentially a repackaged version of the government’s abandoned misinformation and disinformation bill. It contains broad definitions of “harm” and “misinformation” and gives the Minister for Communications and the eSafety Commissioner wide discretion.
For example, on pages 27-28 of the Bill’s Exposure Draft, clause 25C, sub-section (2), states that “the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine material or conduct, or a combination of material and conduct, that the Minister is satisfied may cause serious harm”.
Thus, the Minister doesn’t need to go back to Parliament; under this legislation, they could add new categories of harmful content through legislative instruments.
The threshold for intervention is also low, requiring only a belief that material may cause harm. Definitions of “harm” and “serious harm” are broad and open to subjective interpretation.
The Minister for Communications and the eSafety Commissioner could therefore shape what speech is allowed online, effectively becoming the central gatekeeper of what we can discuss.
The Bill also creates strong incentives for platforms to remove or suppress content beyond what is strictly required. The eSafety Commissioner would gain broad investigative powers, and platforms that fail to comply would face multi-million-dollar fines.
Because the penalties are large and the rules are unclear, platforms will likely err on the side of caution, overcomply to avoid penalties, remove lawful content, and create a “chilling effect” on free speech.
Thus, the Digital Duty of Care Bill would create a vast, discretionary, and draconian regulatory regime and represent an undemocratic expansion of government power that could enable unprecedented online censorship, force platforms into extreme over‑compliance, and ultimately restrict what Australians can say and see online.
Because of these concerns, various groups, including legal experts, civil liberties advocates and the Human Rights Commission, have cautioned that the Bill has overreached in regulating speech.
The reality is that politicians and bureaucrats sitting in their Canberra ivory towers are responsible for the loss of trust and derision.
They have done an appalling job, as evidenced by the collapse in Australian living standards. And now they want to prevent us from holding them to account.
Little by little, Australia is creeping towards authoritarianism.
