Former APS commissioner calls for greater transparency from government

0:00The heads of government departments are on a collision course with senators across the political spectrum. It comes after departmental secretaries requested a ban on video footage from parliamentary hearings to be edited and shared on social media. Take a listen. Chair, in closing, I would note for the record that 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. That was a Department of Defence Deputy Secretary of Security and the State's Celia Perkins speaking before a parliamentary inquiry last week. Well, a submission authored by the nation's top bureaucrats alleges the comments sections on social media videos of officials often descend into quite highly offensive and sometimes defamatory vitriol causing harm to the safety and well-being of government officials.

1:05Andrew Podger is the former Commissioner of the Australian Public Service and joins me now. Andrew, welcome to breakfast. Hello, Sally. This audio grabbed quite a bit of attention, particularly on Friday, with the senior public servant pushing back. Other concerns of these top public servants valid or is public scrutiny part of the job description for departmental heads, especially when they front up to estimates and other hearings? Well, look, I think some of the reaction to what the public service leaders have been saying reflects concerns about their attitudes last year towards FOA acts arrangements and the way they've been answering parliamentary questions. But in fact, the submission on the Secretary's Board, led by the head of the Prime Minister's Department, has a lot of sensible stuff in it. It does draw attention to the parliamentary behaviour standards and behaviour code that

2:07was introduced after the Jenkins report. It refers to parliamentary committee conventions about the way the Parliament behaves in trying to be respectful towards all those who are giving evidence. And also draws attention to the existing rules for broadcasting except from the Parliament. And it just notes that in the case of the social media arrangements, they seem to be allowing things to happen, which would not be allowed to happen through any of those existing sets of rules and conditions. So I think that there's a lot in it. You need to have a respectful arrangement. You've got to remember the public servants have to be apolitical. They don't set the policies of the government. And if their evidence is then used by social media, even if it's used accurately and awful lot of times, of course, it's not, public servants aren't really able to respond

3:11because they get drawn into the political sphere. So if you have a look at what they're actually recommending, it's not all that radical at all. It's not really trying to cut back transparency. It mostly calls on these new codes, the education of MPs, a firm are controlled by committee chairs. They ask for options for event harmful use of committee evidence to be considered, as the terms they use. Then they say if such options are not adopted, then at least be better guidance for MPs consistent with the rules for broadcast and parliament. What is the, I think in that sense, it's pretty reasonable. Andrew, what's the current evidence that senior public servants are being exposed to harm through this current process, particularly of footage from these hearings being reposted on social media? Well, I think there is evidence of it with the social media user and it's being used no actively for political purposes and then it'll have a capture on it or extra material will be edited.

4:12It does things in ways which are not allowed for the broadcasting of the parliament. So news organizations can show things from the parliament except for them, but they are rules about making sure that it is fairly represented. It's not misusing things and it doesn't add the social media. So the Sen. So the media? So the public gets a picture though. Well, if they are actually using footage of the public servants, that's a point. They're using footage of the public servants evidence to parliament committees and it's that area that the senior public servant is saying, look, we're not trying to stop it entirely, but we're saying that there are limits to this that ought to be applied. There ought to be some rules around this. Some senators have raised issues with department secretaries not being forthcoming during inquiries to provide answers on notice. Do you understand the frustration of some senators to the answers that they receive or delayed

5:14answers? Absolutely. I mean, I think that's why what they're saying here is not getting the hearing that it deserves because some of the behaviour of senior public servants have not shown the respect to the parliament that this do. And people are therefore looking at this submission in a more critical way than would otherwise be the case. I think this submission is fine, but I think there have been attitudes by senior public servants in the way they've answered questions to parliament. But also, their attitude to the FOA act, I think, has not helped their case when they say that they really are in favour of transparency and accountability, that there have been some things done over the last few years, which raised legitimate concerns about that. Could the restriction of this content being edited and reposted online? Could that limit public scrutiny at a time when an increasing number of Australians don't get their news from established organisations?

6:14They get it from social media. If I go back to what the submission actually calls for, while it does ask for options to be developed to prevent harmful use of committee evidence, that some options should be developed and considered, it then says, but if in the event, that seemed to be too hard, at least to have better guidance for the way these things can be used. And I think that's where I think there can be sensual things done, which would not stop any use of these things in social media, but it would put some constraints on it. And I think that is probably entirely appropriate, particularly when it's being done by politicians and ministerial and politicians officers themselves. I think trying to draw the public servants into the political arena is not in the public interest. Andrew Podja, we'll need to leave it there.

7:15Thank you very much for joining me this morning. Okay, thank you.