Australia’s top bureaucrats want to block sharing of clips from parliament on social media to save them from ‘ridicule’
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/07/australias-top-bureaucrats-want-to-block-sharing-of-clips-from-parliament-on-social-media-to-save-them-from-ridicule
46 points · 25 comments · view on lemmy.world
25 Comments
Seagoon_@aussie.zone · 12 pts · 1d
Then I suggest politicians stop being ridiculous
ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
This isn't the pollies, this is the public servants who work at government departments.
Pollies go into the role knowing they will be all over TV and social media. The public servants are the everyday workers, who are participating in the process of ensuring departments are transparent in what they are spending tax payers dollars on.
MisterFrog@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 1d
I also think this is part of their job too (if they're somewhere that's on livestream), the alternative: making parliament less transparent, just isn't something I think we can live with.
Defamation is already able to be sued for.
ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
I agree the government needs to be transparent, I just reckon ppl should be more respectful and remember these guys are just moving at the whims of the government of the day. Thats thier job and posting them on socials isn't the nicest thing to do. Go after the pollie that ordered them to do it.
But most can't tell the difference between a politician and bureaucrat and thier local mayor.
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 1d
Public servants have more responsibilities while on the clock; they're not just like any other job. They're representatives of both the state and the public.
Having clips shared online out-of-context with misleading captions is a negative consequence of the current state of media. I think it would fall under misinformation, or even libel or harassment, depending on severity; but good luck chasing down all the reposts.
Reducing transparency to fix this one specific problem isn't a good solution. I don't know what the good solution actually is, though.
ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Completely agree, I love the transparency we have and its levels above other modern democracies cough US cough but feel we owe these people a bit of respect. Often the policy decisions come from government and their job is to implement, regardless of their personal opinions on the matter
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
The APS should probably command more respect in general, sone very bright people work there and they manage good work despit constant meddling.
However many department heads have quite a bit of leeway in how they carry out their brief and shaping the desires of a minister is not hugely difficult. Nobody is reading past the first paragraph of the executive summary of the report.
Plus despite pretending to be they are not apolitical creatures.
Accountability is necessary, and everyone could stand to be laughed at more.
MisterFrog@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1d
The people who are asking for this are partisans, not regular employees of departments.
The people they seek to protect don't need protecting. You'll notice that this isn't coming from CPSU members, it's coming from the bosses.
ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Some are 'aligned' and swing in and out with each change in government, whilst some have been in established roles for both sides of government.
But for the record, I never stated that they were union members or reps, just that they were public servants not politicians.
(though my personal opinion is the CPSU couldn't protect a house cat if it tried)
MisterFrog@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 22h
My point is that the people calling for this are the heads of departments, not regular public servants.
We should not put in extra restrictions.
ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
OK, but the public servants should stop being ridiculous as well.
They're meant to be doing stuff for the public and if they're caught out doing dodgy shit or even just dodging questions, then it should be shared.
ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22h
100% hence we should have systems for transparency, and if they are doing dodgy shit they should be called out on it.
Dodging questions is difficult cos often they can't tell you why things are implemented (that's a decision of the government of the day), which is often what they'll say, but it is often percieved as 'dodging'. If it's not a question for government then I completely agree they should answer. And if it is about a government decision, you're asking the wrong person to answer it.
budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 15h
Their complaint is the sharing of edited clips and soundbites, especially with editorial text put on them without context to twist peoples words and subject them to abuse online from randos. Ironically, the headline sensationalizes the discussion without context, demonstrating the problem.
They are OK with full video being available for transparency, they don't want to be remixed into a 7 second tiktok with some "infuencer" overlaid pointing at them and misleading/abusive text on top.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 13h
They don't want criticism. This is completely legal in Australia and they already have laws about personal defamation in case it crosses the line. This is non-starter in my book.
budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 16m
Here's your starter: Anti-wind group sues planning minister and wind project owners, threatens public servants
Cookers threatening public servants for doing their jobs.
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
The EL 1s and above full well know they might be in front of Parliament one day. It's covered in training pretty well, in the anti corruption stuff especially. The department chiefs and the APS heads get paid very well for being regularly dragged in front of the circus and asked why they've carried out the government's instructions.
ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I'm not saying they shouldn't be in front of the camera, I'm saying they are generally hard working ppl implementing what the government has asked them to do.
I was just asking for them to be respected, if you have a problem with the policy they are implementing that's great, take it up with the politician/minister that asked them to implement it.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 1d
I mean, we all know short clips taken out of context can be used to smear people. And we know it's effective.
I have not read or thought about what he's suggesting in detail, but I don't think the headline fairly represents his position.
ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22h
100% you're on the money here..!
budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 16h
He's talking about the misleading use of editing, especially soundbites with editorial text put on them without context to twist peoples words.
Ironically, the headline demonstrates the same problem by sensationalizing the issue out of context.
Zhangles@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 1d
"This is my fault, and in upset about it!"
Taleya@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 1d
You literally embarrass yourselves all the time shut up you idiots.
Seagoon_@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1d
yes, they should be more mindful of how their words can be used against them
No1@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 7h
"MISTAH SPEAKAH!"
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14h
Absolutely ridiculous,
“They do not consent to the reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likenesses for the purposes outside the framework of the parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee,”
They are public officials, no consent is necessary. It is almost like they are trying to pretend they have copyright or some equally disturbing argument. Luckily it was rejected.