Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 1:39:31 to 1:45:03
Examination of witness rights regarding the publication of testimony and the impact of social media clips and online commentary on public servants.
Topics: Parliamentary privilege, Online safety
Speakers: Mr Henry Pike, Hon Jane Hume, Unknown Speaker
>> All right. Thank you. Uh, with regards to the application of parliamentary privilege within the context of a committee hearing or or a proceeding, does a witness have the capacity to determine the manner of the publication of their testimony?
>> Uh, no, Senator. Um, that's a matter for committees within the um powers that are delegated to them by the Senate and by the House. Right. >> Um committees are responsible for um the the publication of their proceedings, the integrity of their proceedings um subject as I say only to um any guidance or or rules that the Senate applies to their work.
>> Thank you. All right. So obviously you're aware that recently um a a public seven appeared before a committee and stated that public servants [clears throat] didn't consent to the use of their images on social media. You provided some advice on that matter. That's correct.
>> I I provided some advice to the committee at that stage. Yes. I think it was referred to by the the chair and another member of that committee as the hearing then progressed.
>> Yes. And what was that advice? Well,
simply that it's uh absolutely not something that a witness can do and that there are wellestablished paths for witnesses, potential witnesses, other people who are um engaging with the work of committees or giving evidence, making submissions to committees. There are welltrodden paths for people to raise these matters through the secretariats, with the committees themselves, to raise matters with the Senate department, through um our staff who are responsible for um the management of committees. >> Um it it uh this is not to minimize the fact that there are some people who have been very bruised by their experiences before. um Senate and House committees and the the treatment of footage that has come out um of those. I was um looking at some footage on the weekend and some commentary underneath the footage on social media. I won't go to the um the the hearing wasn't something that was posted by a senator. It was posted by someone who's who's obviously got it from the the web feed and the commentary underneath it was horrendous. The reflections on the witness were atrocious. Exactly the sort of thing that um we would hope that the code of conduct for instance in this this place, the behavioral codes seek to guard against. Um, so I understand that people have been bruised and um and um really deeply affected by some of these issues, but it it's profoundly unhelpful I thought on the day for the matter to be raised in that way without any notice to anybody u not through the secretariat, not to the chair, not to other members of the committee. Um when the secretaries board had had raised the matter um in a submission to the joint committee on parliamentary standards the that submission had not been tabled had not sorry had not been published been received but it had not been published. No one here had any notice of the matters that the witness was going to. And I just thought that it was not a useful way to introduce a discussion of something that is is a um is going to be a difficult discussion. It's going to require a lot of sensitivity and ingenuity to make sure that in trying to clean up the conduct associated with the way in which social media clips are are dealt with um we need to remind ourselves that um the accountability that is involved in these in these processes the scrutiny particularly in that case of of of um contested government policy that that can't be thrown out in these issues. That needs to be something that is given a great deal of weight. And I I've I've reflected um elsewhere that the um the the the submission from the secretar's board and I don't want to get ahead of the work of that committee but the submission from the secretar's board does identify that um these are matters for the parliament and its members and its committees to determine and that it it is a process of finding ways to improve um proceedings and improve improve the um downflow effects I guess of of with uh great respect for the work of the committees, the work of senators and members and the importance of ensuring that matters are properly dealt with by the parliament and not um by way of other people um purporting to um rein in the activities of the senator's
>> Thank you. Thank you, CL. Thank you,