Australia’s most senior bureaucrats have been put on notice by the Senate over a push to restrict how footage of public servants appearing before parliamentary committees can be used.
Fri 11 Sep 2026 16.27 AEST
Photo: Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Michaelia Cash (AAP Image/Dominic Giannini)
The Greens' recent leadership change from Larissa Waters to David Shoebridge was both rapid and polite. But while the change might have come as a surprise, what is more predictable is the hand wringing from much of the commentariat and the Prime Minister about whether the Greens should be 'populist' or 'pragmatic', and whether they should act like a ‘party of government’ or a ‘party of protest’.
Victoria’s anti-corruption watchdog has been given new powers to investigate non-criminal misconduct and trace public money into private organisations, as part of the Labor Government’s broader reform push ahead of the November election.
Australia’s most senior bureaucrats have been put on notice by the Senate over a push to restrict how footage of public servants appearing before parliamentary committees can be used.
The Coalition, Greens and independent Senator David Pocock teamed up to pass a joint motion rejecting attempts by government departments and agencies to control how footage of public hearings can be edited and shared online.
“The open and accountable conduct of Senate committees is a vital democratic function of the Senate,” Senator Michaelia Cash told The Point.
“Any move to impinge in any way on the open and accountable conduct of the Senate will always be fiercely fought by the Coalition.”
The unusual cross-party intervention came after the Secretaries Board – which includes the heads of government departments – raised concerns about how committee footage was being shared on social media.
It asked Parliament to consider restricting its “potentially harmful” use, arguing its exchanges could be taken out of context and exposed officials to “ridicule, hostility or abuse”.
As an alternative, the board proposed that exerts be shared in full, without edits or added captions, and with comments disabled.
“More and more of our political conversation is happening online,” said Greens senator Steph Hodgins-May.
“Of course debate should be respectful, and there are proper processes for dealing with genuine concerns about the safety of witnesses.
“But we’re heading into dangerous territory if people who are accountable to the Parliament can start dictating how the Parliament scrutinises them, or how the public gets to see that scrutiny.”
The tensions came to a head last Friday at a parliamentary inquiry, when Defence deputy secretary Celia Perkins told the committee her colleagues did not consent to having their evidence clipped and posted on social media.
It sparked immediate pushback from Greens senator David Shoebridge, who described it as an “extraordinary” attempt at censorship and said he wouldn’t be “silenced” by public servants.
Quality research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts you can trust.
Senators argued Parliament had a responsibility to hold the public service to account.
“The officials in question are not junior public servants in need of protection, they are senior executives on a base salary over $400,000 whose role includes responding to this kind of scrutiny,” said Senator Pocock.
“Transparency is essential to a healthy democracy, and these demands are frankly outrageous.”
Senator Pocock also questioned whether the government had played a role in the push.
“Real questions remain over whether this stance was encouraged or orchestrated by the government,” he said.
Senator Cash was much more direct.
“This is an issue that goes directly to transparency, which the Albanese Government has proved time and again it is allergic to.”
In its August submission, the board said that “it is not uncommon for public servants to be accused of ‘hiding’ things, ‘covering up’ for the government, or ‘being a liar’.”
But Bill Browne, director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program, said public servants do sometimes “hide things and cover up for the government” or to “serve their own interests”.
“Departments spend time and money training public servants to dodge Estimates questions. And when they do so, ridicule (though never abuse) is an appropriate response,” he said.
Mr Browne also pointed to comments last year made by then Australian Public Service Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer about public servants writing their “genuine thoughts” on Post-it-notes rather than formal records.
“They are the elite 0.1% of the public service, in sought-after roles of significant power and influence. It is entirely appropriate that they are subjected to public scrutiny,” Mr Browne said.
