Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 8:15:22 to 8:27:13
Senators debate the public interest in sharing clips of official performance versus the risk of exposing public servants to ridicule.
Topics: Online safety, Workplace culture, Integrity
Speakers: Dr Steven Kennedy, Hon Penny Wong, Senator Barbara Pocock, Hon Jane Hume, Andrew Walter, Senator Karen Grogan, Speaker 46
>> Perhaps I could add here, Senator. The um the secretary's board uh never intended in any sense to imply that public servants would have some form of approval or consent or any of those types of arrangements. Um uh we tried to make that clear in the in the submission. We were just noting the circumstances that um the use of images and social media outside of those arrangements um provided for by the parliament um when that happens the individual hasn't provided consent from that. But if we've um inadvertently um provided the wrong uh message there, we the secretary's board and myself had no intention of implying that public servants would in any way be approached to provide consent for anything a parliamentarian would be doing. That's handled here by you in parliament.
>> Okay. Has that been reiterated to the members of the secretaries board?
>> Uh that I don't need to reiterate it to the members of secretaries of board. They're they're aware of the position. We understood the position. So the sorry
the secretaries board then has not subsequently been advised or each of the departmental secretaries that officials can't impose conditions on the lawful use of their public evidence.
>> Well Senator I think you'll recall that um in the Senate's resolution it asked for the the um that resolution to be circulated by the cler and the cler duly circulated to all secretaries.
>> So that's adequate response. Has this been discussed at a subsequent um secretaries board meeting?
>> As the secretary said, Senator, I think secretaries understand the position that wasn't the issue. If there was a uh if it could have been worded better, then there may be an issue, but I I think there's a common understanding between us all as to what the position is.
>> Okay. So, it hasn't Did you have a
>> I was going to make a more general comment. I'm happy to wait for Miss Hume to Senator Hume to finish this section of a questioning. Is that
>> I just wanted to be really clear. Has the secretary's board discussed this issue since the Senate's order was made?
>> Uh Senator, yes. Um so I chaired Secretary's board in Senator in Dr. Kennedy's absence last week. >> Uh the discussion went to the fact that Dr. Kennedy had been invited today to appear. Uh there was no substantive discussion about the question of consent that you're referring to.
>> Right. Okay. Thank you. Sure.
>> If if I can I just the >> I would just make it if I could make a few points which um I think are relevant to this. The first if you is if you read the submission itself it is very clear that the secretary's board support parliamentary accountability and recognize the roles and responsibilities of public servants in relation to committees. Uh the submission states uh states interia board's concern is not robust questioning itself. Strong scrutiny is both legitimate and necessary. The concern arises only where conduct crosses the line into behavior that demeanes, intimidates, right, >> humiliates or personally targets witnesses. Uh they also do make the comment about excerpts of committee proceedings on social media where the material is presented without context and exposes official to officials to ridicule, hostility or abuse. I would also draw your attention to page four of the submission where some of what people are being called >> on social media >> after excerpts of videos from committees are posted I think partic is is relevant senator >> now I know that but I I don't think we should be facilitating people being called and I I am hesitant to repeat some of the words that are Yeah, >> I don't think we should be participating in that. So, I think there is a reasonable question about parliamentarians recognizing the roles that public servants play >> uh and recognizing uh the way in which they become uh targets uh they can become targets on social media. Um the submission goes on to talk about uh agencies being required to conduct insider threat assessments in response to these circumstances. Um, now I know there was a very strong political response from the Australian Greens, from Senator Shoebridge, from M Senator David Po, from Senator Cash, and I understand uh why that occurred, but I would also encourage us to think about uh the the the well-being and safety of some of the people who we question. >> I think that's what the the board submission is about. I don't think it is about the secretaries um how I read it and how I've heard Dr. Kennedy today avoiding their accountability to the parliament.
>> Okay. And Senator Hume, we we will rotate the call. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm well aware. I'll just keep circulating Ryan if that's okay. Finish on that section. Um
>> Yeah, go for it. Yeah. Um, I'm sitting here thinking about a time that I did cut uh a a Senate um a uh response series of responses from the head of the Bureau of Meteor Meteorology. I don't know if you ever saw it, but all I did was take every example of I will take this on notice and then the secretary turned. He hadn't brought anyone with him. he turned to a vacant room to and it it was definitely ridiculous and he was exposed to ridicule but in my opinion and this is the thing um it's an opinion and you you don't want to be the arbiter um what you think is ridiculous or what has been misused will be different possibly from what I think but I think the Australian public deserve to see what an extremely highly paid um senior public servant who is spending well over a billion dollars uh had come to estimates uh unprepared to respond to and I think the Australian public needed to see that. It's my opinion. Um and I want to hear your response to that, Secretary, because I think uh yes, it was cut and it was it was uh did expose that person to ridicule, but I think it was in in the public interest and I think there's a place for that.
>> I guess Senator, my my view would be uh I won't comment on the specific case. I don't know it. I'm sorry I haven't seen your clip, but the um if it's fair and accurate reporting of what occurred, of course, that's the um uh and it's a matter uh and it's a matter for you, it's not a matter for that official in any way to determine uh how that should subsequently be presented. And if uh it shows um uh if some circumstance shows that official has not met their requirements, I'm not commenting on this specific case. uh and people, you know, um have that type of reaction that that is fair and accurate reporting. That is not what we're arguing against here. Um and I think uh just to go to the issue of the CEOs or of agencies or secretaries, I mean we we certainly if I could just draw a slight distinction, we we understand our full accountability for our organizations. >> The buck stops with us. There's no doubt about that. And uh um the some of my colleagues have drawn examples to where um much less senior officials appearing are feeling under considerable pressure and perhaps are a little um less hardened by the e exercise and um and really it's the senior official that is accountable senator ultimately. It is that CEO or me in this case, prime minister and cabinet. And so perhaps I guess my only reflection would be you're absolutely right to focus the approach on the person who is fully accountable and and where it's clear that the answers where people are not that public officials have a obligation to be prepared to answer questions when they come to this place. Um I was watching the previous um uh the session before myself and uh and um and watching my colleagues from the NIAA answering questions about grants and programs. It's exactly the type of thing official needs to be in place to do and it's and all I can say it's a reasonable expectation. I can't comment on the specific example but I don't >> I I I >> if we have not performed our duties uh and uh and people um think we look uh ridiculous well that's the then that's what is deserved in those circumstances. We're we're just I guess um putting some some thoughts forward to that inquiry um for around parliamentary standards that um we're trying to avoid being pulled into the the necessary political arguments that are going to take place across parties. Of course, the administration is our responsibility. The policy is the government's responsibility. We will have to serve um um governments of different persuasions in the future. We we're trying to keep the service apolitical. I've I've Senator Hume has been one of my ministers. I've worked closely with Senator Cash in the past and hopefully they found that experience effective. But the the so part of it is also just that is obviously administration and official that you were talking about in their department, but is trying to just retain um that um we're part of the executive but retaining that separation that sees us as an apolitical service but administration of these programs administr providing answers to your questions that could be reasonably foreseen is absolutely a responsibility
of all officials. Just a quick followup. Um, in your commentary this today, you have referred to um asking the removal for the removal of abusive or harmful responses. Have you ever asked for removal and it hasn't occurred? Yeah. Do you have any knowledge of the refusal to do that?
>> I'll ask Mr. Walter to comment on that.
Uh I'm not aware of any example, Senator, but um really I think we'd have to check with other departments to see if they've had that experience.
>> Our usual experiences, senators have uh I've always found my experiences, frankly, to be respect very respectful and very appropriate. I've appeared in front of you in other uh capacities and uh my understanding from one of my secretary colleagues at least is that there was a very quick uh reaction when a senator was notified of some offensive material. As I said, I I drew that out because or we drew that out because we're very appreciative of that action and uh um and um uh and it may be um and we just wanted perhaps to put it on the record that that may be something we might ask of senators more frequently if we observe that type of vile abuse. Um as the um minister said it's and as you would know as all of you would know this abuse is pretty revoling.
>> Thank you. Thanks for your answers.