The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is seeking to further tighten its social media policy to ban any online comment on politics or government policy of any kind by its staff, and require that staff not use, even in a private capacity, social media sites that might reflect poorly on the department.
A revised policy circulated to staff “for comment” represents an even more draconian limitation on private expression by PM&C staff than the previous iteration of the department’s policy. That policy, revealed by Samantha Maiden, caused consternation with its Stasi-like demand that staff inform on each other if they suspected a colleague of anonymously or pseudonymously making political comment. The proposed policy simply bans any comment at all, instructing staff not to:
“Make, like, share and/or retweet any statement/s or comment/s that may be interpreted as advocating or criticising Government policies or the policies of other political parties or groups.”
The draft policy explicitly contradicts advice from the Australian Public Service Commission, which recognises that “APS employees have the same right to freedom of expression as other members of the community” but instructs public servants, in commenting online, not to comment on behalf of the government or their agency, not act in a way “compromising the APS employee’s capacity to fulfil their duties in an unbiased manner. This applies particularly where comment is made about policies and programmes [sic] of the employee’s agency”, not engage in harsh or extreme criticism of the government or other politicians or the APS, or engage in gratuitous personal attacks or in compromising public confidence in the agency or the APS.
It also goes much further than the policy it revises, which reflected the APSC approach of recognising public servants’ right to political comment but restricting it to expressions that did not bring the APS into disrepute or raise questions about a public servants’ ability to do their job effectively.
However the draft policy goes further than banning any form of political expression and seeks to dictate what social media platforms staff might use in their private lives, demanding staff “ensure the social media site you’re using does not conflict with APS Values or departmental policies, and does not bring the Department’s reputation into disrepute”.
Exactly what this means isn’t clear: perhaps 4Chan might fit those vague criteria. But what about Reddit, where stolen celebrity nude photos were posted? Problem is, politicians use Reddit for AMAs (Ask Me Anything sessions). What about dating or hook-up sites? What about mainstream sites where people express a wide range of political views, often in extreme or even abusive terms? The implication would seem to be that PM&C Secretary Ian Watt would simply prefer his staff pretended the internet didn’t exist at all.
What I hate about this is that while APS staff are directed
‘“compromising the APS employee’s capacity to fulfil their duties in an unbiased manner. This applies particularly where comment is made about policies and programmes [sic] of the employee’s agency”, not engage in harsh or extreme criticism of the government or other politicians or the APS’
an APS employee will be penalised for criticism of the government of the day however no mention of Love bombing said same policies and how it may show bias against a future government, because its not like I can go back and look at a persons internet activities from prior years…
If he’s worried about things reflecting badly on his dept. he should concentrate more on what the PM&C do and say than anything his staffers get up to in their own free time (if that concept actually exists for them).
Fuck DPM&C for trying this. For even THINKING of trying this.
Nothing new here, move along. Dr Peter Shergold, then head oif PM&C told the Press Club, in the wake of the Customs airport case,that he would always set the Praetorian Guard/AFP onto breaches of confidence because, “…public servants do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, have the right to act on their conscience if it conflicts with government policy…“.
He is now in acedemia so might benefit from sitting in on some history, something like the Nuremberg Trials, circa 1946.
“This applies particularly where comment is made about policies and programmes [sic] of the employee’s agency”
I’m just wondering why the [sic] was inserted. Aren’t you aware of how to spell ‘programmes’ Bernard? Or that ‘programs’ is the americanised version of the english word ‘programmes’.
Other than that, surely the defence in this instance is to always use a pseudonym. If nobody knows that you are a public servant, how can it reflect badly upon the department.
Shergold’s comments by AR above, and this fat cat, just shows that they don’t understand the basic principle behind the public service, that being that you are apolitical in your professional dealings, not that you don’t have an opinion or can’t express it.
In fact the best public service is the one that advises that Minister that “that would be a very courageous decision, Minister.”
Or better still, “only a brain dead ideologue would try to foist such rubbish policy on the australian public, Minister.”
Or, “Clearly, the Minister has no idea of what he is talking about”
The A-G could have used some stout advice of recent times.