Australian defence chief backed plan to limit social media sharing of witness testimony

Australian Defence Department officials approved a strategy to discourage the public from sharing video clips of government witnesses on social media. The plan, finalized in August and September, relied on arguments that online reposting could expose staff to bullying and threaten national security.

Meghan Quinn, the department secretary, gave her backing to the proposal from Celia Perkins, the deputy secretary of security and estate. Perkins prepared the language for a statement to be delivered at a Senate committee hearing. Her goal was to inform the public that defence witnesses did not consent to their evidence being reposted.

Perkins made the statement during a hearing on 4 September. She cited a submission from the secretaries board of the Australian Public Service. The board argued that edited videos from past hearings often led to personal attacks and ridicule. It described the online reaction as distressing for staff who found themselves targets of hostility and abuse.

Greens senator David Shoebridge objected to the statement immediately. He argued that witnesses testifying in an open public hearing should not have the power to censor what Australians see. The committee rejected Perkins’ request on the advice of the Senate clerk, but the internal emails show the idea had high-level support before it was even read.

Correspondence obtained through freedom of information requests shows 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 with Khalil and staff from Marles’ office. She noted that both Quinn and Khalil supported the approach.

In an email to Quinn on 25 August, Perkins outlined the security rationale. She explained that senior defence leaders discourage staff with security clearances from maintaining social media profiles that identify their roles. Perkins argued that posts inviting outrage could increase personal risks from cyber and foreign intelligence threats.

Quinn responded that she was happy to support the use of the proposed wording. Perkins wanted to settle on language that would maintain a safe workplace for staff. Before the hearing, she shared the draft with deputy secretaries John Reid and Cath Patterson for feedback.

Patterson said the words looked polite, clear, and safe. Reid agreed the statement was good and suggested minor changes to the original text. That revised version was read at the committee. While the offices of Marles and Khalil did not provide an on-record response, the department understands that neither office directed Perkins on the specific content of her statement.