Senior officials within Australia’s Department of Defence sought to discourage the sharing of public servants’ parliamentary evidence on social media, citing concerns about online bullying and national security risks, according to documents obtained under freedom of information laws.

Emails reveal that Deputy Secretary Celia Perkins, who oversees security and estate matters, proposed during preparations for a Senate committee hearing that Defence witnesses’ evidence should not be reposted on social platforms. Perkins argued that edited or embellished videos from previous hearings had resulted in distressing, personal attacks and hostile commentary targeting staff members. She warned that such exposure could increase risks from malign actors, including cyber threats and foreign intelligence agencies.

Perkins’ proposal was supported by department Secretary Meghan Quinn and other senior officials. In correspondence from late August and early September, Perkins emphasized the need for “defensible” language to prevent misuse of evidence and to uphold workplace safety. Quinn responded positively to Perkins’ suggested wording, highlighting the department’s duty to protect employees’ health and safety. Other deputy secretaries reviewed and approved the statement before it was presented during the hearing.

The Defence Department also consulted with the offices of Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Assistant Defence Minister Peter Khalil prior to the hearing. While there was no public record of explicit directives from these offices on the content of Perkins’ statement, acknowledgments in the correspondence indicate awareness and support for the department’s position.

Perkins’ comments, made publicly on September 4, drew immediate criticism from parliamentarians, notably Greens Senator David Shoebridge, who argued that parliamentary evidence is public and cannot be censored by witnesses. The Senate committee ultimately rejected the request to restrict sharing of hearing footage, based on advice from the Senate clerk.

A Defence spokesperson declined to comment directly but referred to Quinn’s remarks to the Senate estimates committee, where she reiterated support for the secretaries board submission expressing concern over staff wellbeing following public hearings.

The episode illustrates tensions between transparency in parliamentary processes and concerns over the safety and privacy of public servants, particularly in the digital age where social media can rapidly amplify and distort official records. While Defence officials stress the potential for harm from online misuse and national security risks, advocates for open government maintain that public access to evidence is fundamental to democratic accountability.