Defence official claimed she flagged plans for social media ban request

A senior Department of Defence official said she had approval from a government minister to try to block the public release of her evidence to a parliamentary hearing due to concerns about "vile" social media commentary.

Deputy secretary Celia Perkins said she had approval from Assistant Defence Minister Peter Khalil when she told a parliamentary committee hearing last month that she did not "consent" to her evidence appearing on social media.

The request was swiftly rejected by committee chair senator Jess Collins, on advice from parliamentary officials.

"It is our right as senators and members of the public to disseminate the evidence that is provided by the witnesses today in the manner in which we see fit," Senator Collins said.

Emails between Defence officials ahead of the hearing, obtained by the ABC through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, reveal Ms Perkins told colleagues she raised her plans to make the statement with Mr Khalil and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles's office two days before the hearing.

"(Department secretary Meghan Quinn) is fully supportive, as is AMINDEF. I discussed today in a meeting with AMINDEF and staff from DPMO and his office," she wrote in the email.

"I'll pass the opening statement to them tomorrow."

AMINDEF refers to Mr Khalil, and DPMO is the Deputy Prime Minister's office.

The ABC understands Mr Marles's office provided no input to Ms Perkins's statement before she made it. Comment has been sought from both Mr Khalil and Mr Marles.

During a Senate estimates hearing this week, Senate Clerk Richard Pye was asked about the advice he provided the committee after Ms Perkins request.

"It's absolutely not something that a witness can do," he said.

"It was profoundly unhelpful, I thought on the day, for the matter to be raised in that way without any notice to anybody, not through the secretariat, not to the chair and not to other members of the committee."

But he added that there were genuine concerns about the effect of footage from committee hearings on social media.

"This is not to minimise the fact that there are some people who have been very bruised by their experiences before Senate and House committees and the treatment of footage that has come out of those," he said.

Concerns over 'vile' commentary

The emails reveal some of the reasoning Ms Perkins put forward before her request.

In an email to Ms Quinn a week before the hearing, she raised her plans.

"You may recall after the last hearing we had some unpleasant social media posts and reactions," she wrote.

"I also want to test with you this idea: I'd like to add an explicit statement that the Defence witnesses appearing do not consent to our evidence being reproduced in edited format on social media platforms."

She said the main argument was that she had to maintain a "safe workplace" for Defence staff, and that online commentary could be "distressing".

"Social media posts using footage from previous hearings in edited and embellished formats had generated significant vile, personal commentary that was distressing for staff and invited online bullying," she said.

Ms Perkins also suggested the posts could raise security concerns, including assisting foreign espionage.

"As senior leaders in Defence — we actively discourage security clearance holders from a social media presence that identifies us and our roles — and these post (sic), designed to invite outraged responses, increase the personal risk from malign online actors, including cyber and foreign intelligence threats."

While Ms Perkins's request was immediately shut down, the Secretaries Board, made up of all federal government departmental secretaries, soon after took up the issue, suggesting new standards were needed to guide the use of evidence given to parliamentary hearings online.

This week Steven Kennedy, head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, told estimates he did not support censoring footage, but did have concerns.

"Conduct that demeans, intimidates, humiliates or personally targets witnesses is inconsistent with the behaviour code for parliamentarians," he said.