APS increasingly stranded on social media

Yesterday we looked at what happens when someone at the heart of the APS decides to write a book about the processes he saw there. But the greater difficulty for the APS is not from the James Buttons of the world, but from a changing communications landscape and the changed expectations it brings with it.

The Australian Public Service’s guidelines for how public servants are to behave online, in either an official or a private capacity, were a long time coming: some interim guidelines were released in December 2008, were revised a year later and revised again at the start of this year. In between the second and third iterations came The Australian’s assault on Greg Jericho.

The iterations have seen a move from an earlier, more permissive approach, in which it was emphasized that public servants “are entitled to comment in a personal capacity on public issues” but should do it from home and not work, and always observe the Public Service Code of Conduct, to longer, more restrictive and detailed guidelines that urge public servants to ask themselves questions like “are these comments in line with how the community in general expects the public service to operate and behave?”

But at the same time, responding to the Gov 2.0 Taskforce, the government was encouraging “online engagement by public servants, involving robust professional discussion as part of their duties or as private citizens,” which it believed “benefits their agencies, their professional development, those with whom they are engaged and the Australian public”.

All iterations of the guidelines are predicated on two assumptions: that the public scours blogs and social media for evidence of bias among public servants or even people who are suspected public servants, so anything that calls into question a public servant’s ability to do their job professionally or impartially is problematic. The other is that employees of the government are in an important sense always on duty, are always somehow representing government, no matter in what context, no matter if they are speaking anonymously or pseudonymously; that they must always behave as if they are gathered round the meeting table at work.

Both are decidedly 20th century assumptions. But both retain some value. The Australian polity needs widespread confidence that the public service, as a whole, will impartially work to implement the policies of whichever party comes to power. The comments of individual public servants can influence that confidence, no matter how unrepresentative they might be. And engagement as a public servant brings with it certain responsibilities beyond those normally imposed on employees in the private sector.

There’s also the basic issue, of course, of keeping confidences. “The APS expects its staff to respect their duties of confidence to Ministers and colleagues. That expectation has not changed irrespective of the nature of new media formats,” a spokesperson for Prime Minister and Cabinet told Crikey.

In practice, the guidelines are poorly enforced and widely ignored. As an educated, wealthy and politically-informed community, Canberra is a natural cluster of online engagement. Large numbers of public servants are active on Twitter, often but not always pseudonymously, often but not always without identifying their departments. But anyone with any profile can expect a harder time. Ex-journalists appears to be a particular target for nervous public service managers. Freelance journalists Tim Byrnes was sacked by the Department of Broadband after less than a week for “serious reputation and security issues”, and when he told Fairfax of his sacking, the Department contacted ASIO.

Crikey is also aware of another recent case in which the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency ordered an officer, who had previously worked as a journalist, not to tweet at all in relation to politics or policies of any kind whatsoever, in a direct violation of the APSC social media guidelines; the Department then dismissed the officer after an anodyne tweet of theirs about Howard government policies appeared on the ABC’s Q&A feed. That decision was all the more bizarre given another team member had tweeted critically of government policy in other areas.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page

Tags: , , ,

Categories: Federal, Online, TECHNOLOGY

3 Responses

Comments page: 1 |
  1. Any member of the public has great power to obtain emails, briefs etc - in theory if not in practice - through Freedom of Information legislation, which is intended to keep government transparent.

    Does this imply that anything which can be accessed through FOI is ok for Public Servants to talk about? I doubt it!

    Even guiding a member of the public in suggesting ‘where to look’ with FOI would constitute a breach of the PS code of conduct i expect.

    by a_swann on Sep 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm

  2. The reason for Sedgwick’s new circular:

    The Government and its agencies are now making direct threats to all APS employees regarding their freedom of speech. Apparently making criticisms of a harsh nature regarding a Government official or administration of an Agency, even if true, can risk, wait for it, the required impartiality of an employee to carry out their duty in the APS lol

    Yes — -passion and concern for public administration is apparently a reputational risk…only drones allowed…Interesting they don’t cite any laws to support their flawed perspective!!!

    I am gathering that there are rumblings of revolutions in the troops!!!

    by Serenatopia on Sep 20, 2012 at 12:18 am

  3. Public Servants should be seen but not heard.

    If there is public statements to be made/commented on, it should be the ministers who make them (or the senior executives and PR people form the departments), not a drone trying to “big note” themselves.

    Have we learned nothing from the Godwin Grech affair.

    by Scott on Sep 21, 2012 at 9:59 am

« | »