When senior Defence bureaucrat Celia Perkins shocked senators by demanding that they not post public evidence on social media, she had cover from the highest levels of government. Rex Patrick reports on a contemptuous plot by Executive Government to ‘manage’ committees of the Senate.

On September 4, Defence Deputy Secretary Celia Perkins appeared before a Senate Committee. At the end of her opening statement she tried to impose censorship on the senators.

Cover-up. Government conspiracy to ‘manage’ the Senate revealed

by Rex Patrick

“In closing, I would note for the record that the Defence witnesses appearing before the committee today are pleased to take your questions but do not consent to the reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likenesses for purposes outside the framework of the parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee. Thank you.”

What wasn’t apparent at the time, and is only known now thanks to a Freedom of Information application, was that Perkins’s statement was very much in alignment with the “intent” of Defence Department Secretary Meghan Quinn 

“to strengthen our management of [Senate] committees”.

Quinn had only taken up the position of Defence Department Secretary in May (total remuneration just short of $1 million per annum), but it’s clear she didn’t hold back in wanting to shut down pesky senators who might publicise departmental evasion or doublespeak.  

Quinn wrote that email eleven days before Perkin’s statement.  That shot fired at senators was part of a bigger game plan.

There are a couple of reasons why senators post videos of public evidence by public servants on social media.

One of the main ones is to inform their constituents of what government is doing. 

Another is to share their frustration with their constituents when officials do whatever it takes to avoid answering a question. Some of their tactics include repeatedly answering a question that wasn’t asked, engaging in blatant evasion and misdirection, or taking a question on notice when they actually know the answer but simply don’t want to say it in public.

Public servants are not supposed to serve ministers or the government. If that were the case, they’d be called ‘minister servants’ or ‘government servants”. 

They are supposed to serve the public.

In the conduct of that service, officials are required to be professional, act with integrity, be respectful and be open and accountable to the Australian community. That’s not this author’s view, it’s Commonwealth law (Section 10 of the Public Service Act 1999).

But a growing cohort of senior officials are choosing to be unprofessional, putting the political interests of their ministers first, operating with failing integrity as a closed book at parliamentary hearings. It’s these officials that often find a video of themselves on social media.

As Quinn was writing her ‘manage committees’ email, her heads of department brethren on the Commonwealth’s top level Secretaries Board were drafting a submission to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards calling for the same censorship proposition that Perkins would try to assert on a Senate Committee.

In the paper, they blamed parliamentarians for the negative community reactions to the performances of senior bureaucrats posted on social media.  

That paper was dishonest.

Of course, senators should respect officials, but respect is a two-way street, and an official avoiding the answering of a question is disrespectful to senators who are there to perform their constitutional task. 

And yet secretaries sit quietly … almost with pride … as officials don’t answer parliamentarian’s questions.

Section 12 of the Public Service Act states “An Agency Head must uphold and promote the APS Values and APS Employment Principles.” 

I’ve never seen a Secretary look at one of his or her departmental officers and direct them to be “open and responsive when providing evidence” as the Secretaries Board suggests should happen, or properly “explain a government policy and its implementation”.

Indeed, sometimes it’s the Secretary themselves that’s chosen to be unprofessional, or operate with failing integrity, and operate as a closed book at parliamentary hearings.

Perkins’ statement on September 6 was orchestrated. Ms Quinn has had given it her blessing and sent Perkins a draft of the Secretaries Board’s paper to use as a ‘cross check for the language”.

The Secretaries were in ‘manage the Parliament mode’.

We already have a Parliament where question-time questions are not answered by ministers, and Senate ‘orders for [the] production of documents’ are ignored. Managing Senate committees would be yet another mechanism for minimising executive accountability.

Two days before Perkins aired the social media demand, she wrote to John Reed, Deputy Secretary Governance at Defence, to forewarn him of her statement.

She advised Reed that the approach being adopted had the support of the Assistant Defence Minister and staff from the Deputy prime Minister’s office.

The Albanese Government has failed on accountability. They promised a great deal on coming to power, but have not delivered.  On the contrary, they’ve set out making things worse.  

They have offered little support to whistleblowers. They attempted a full-on assault on our freedom of information laws. Information control and secrecy are default settings in ministerial offices and across the bureaucracy. As a pièce de resistance they’re now trying to “manage”, that is stifle, parliamentary inquiries.

That’s the reality under Anthony Albanese.

https://michaelwest.com.au/cover-up-government-conspiracy-to-manage-the-senate-revealed/

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

NOTHING NEW HERE....