#streisand-effect — Public Fediverse posts

This is the department that has responded to increasing embarrassment about its poor performance on major projects by refusing to allow the auditor-general to publish details in the annual Major Projects Report series, which is mandated by a parliamentary committee. The Albanese government — the most transparency-hostile government in history — tried to kill off the series altogether before the Senate prevented it.

In short, Defence hates the whole system of parliamentary accountability — not just the committees that might attempt to hold it up to scrutiny, but the ministers that parliament appoints to oversee it and make decisions, and the independent agencies that are specifically charged with vetting its internal workings.

Perhaps at the next hearings, Perkins will demand that Hansard no longer be published, or that all hearings involving Defence be held in camera. Then again, surely it would be better for national security if Defence never faced any questioning at all?

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
3/3

This is the department that has responded to increasing embarrassment about its poor performance on major projects by refusing to allow the auditor-general to publish details in the annual Major Projects Report series, which is mandated by a parliamentary committee. The Albanese government — the most transparency-hostile government in history — tried to kill off the series altogether before the Senate prevented it.

In short, Defence hates the whole system of parliamentary accountability — not just the committees that might attempt to hold it up to scrutiny, but the ministers that parliament appoints to oversee it and make decisions, and the independent agencies that are specifically charged with vetting its internal workings.

Perhaps at the next hearings, Perkins will demand that Hansard no longer be published, or that all hearings involving Defence be held in camera. Then again, surely it would be better for national security if Defence never faced any questioning at all?

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
3/3

This is the department that has responded to increasing embarrassment about its poor performance on major projects by refusing to allow the auditor-general to publish details in the annual Major Projects Report series, which is mandated by a parliamentary committee. The Albanese government — the most transparency-hostile government in history — tried to kill off the series altogether before the Senate prevented it.

In short, Defence hates the whole system of parliamentary accountability — not just the committees that might attempt to hold it up to scrutiny, but the ministers that parliament appoints to oversee it and make decisions, and the independent agencies that are specifically charged with vetting its internal workings.

Perhaps at the next hearings, Perkins will demand that Hansard no longer be published, or that all hearings involving Defence be held in camera. Then again, surely it would be better for national security if Defence never faced any questioning at all?

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
3/3

This is the department that has responded to increasing embarrassment about its poor performance on major projects by refusing to allow the auditor-general to publish details in the annual Major Projects Report series, which is mandated by a parliamentary committee. The Albanese government — the most transparency-hostile government in history — tried to kill off the series altogether before the Senate prevented it.

In short, Defence hates the whole system of parliamentary accountability — not just the committees that might attempt to hold it up to scrutiny, but the ministers that parliament appoints to oversee it and make decisions, and the independent agencies that are specifically charged with vetting its internal workings.

Perhaps at the next hearings, Perkins will demand that Hansard no longer be published, or that all hearings involving Defence be held in camera. Then again, surely it would be better for national security if Defence never faced any questioning at all?

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
3/3

This is the department that has responded to increasing embarrassment about its poor performance on major projects by refusing to allow the auditor-general to publish details in the annual Major Projects Report series, which is mandated by a parliamentary committee. The Albanese government — the most transparency-hostile government in history — tried to kill off the series altogether before the Senate prevented it.

In short, Defence hates the whole system of parliamentary accountability — not just the committees that might attempt to hold it up to scrutiny, but the ministers that parliament appoints to oversee it and make decisions, and the independent agencies that are specifically charged with vetting its internal workings.

Perhaps at the next hearings, Perkins will demand that Hansard no longer be published, or that all hearings involving Defence be held in camera. Then again, surely it would be better for national security if Defence never faced any questioning at all?

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
3/3

Perkins’ failed attempt to control the social media behaviour of democratically elected officials is ironic given her own past: 15 years ago she headed Defence’s communications area, a clutch of more than 100 bureaucrats who, if their responsiveness to queries from independent and mainstream media alike is anything to go by, are paid to sit around and do nothing. As The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out in a piece on then-minister Stephen Smith jacking up about Defence media’s poor performance, Perkins had zero background in media or communications. Of course, that’s irrelevant, given the purpose of Defence media is to obscure and hide, not communicate.

But the fact a very senior defence official thought she could tell senators what hearing excerpts to put online (of material that’s already online to begin with), attempt to claim a weird sort of copyright over the likenesses of bureaucrats appearing at a public hearing, and wave “national security” and “someone might upset my bureaucrats” over it all to wish away any scrutiny, is yet another assault in what can, without too much exaggeration, be called Defence’s war on democratic accountability. Forget Defence media’s refusal to pick up the phone to journalists; this is about the department’s hostility to parliament and the parliamentary processes.

For public servants, actively avoiding cooperation with Senate committees is business-as-usual. Providing the most minimal amount of information possible, with the speed of blood being squeezed from a stone, is the universal approach to, say, Senate estimates hearings. But Defence is unusual in extending its hostility further to its own ministers and to key government accountability agencies.

This is the department that, according to auditor-general reports, routinely withholds important information from or even actively misleads its own ministers. And it has repeatedly refused to follow directions from successive governments in relation to major procurements — particularly directions that it purchase cheaper off-the-shelf designs with a proven track record, or benchmark Defence’s preferred new designs to proven platforms to justify additional spending.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
2/3

Perkins’ failed attempt to control the social media behaviour of democratically elected officials is ironic given her own past: 15 years ago she headed Defence’s communications area, a clutch of more than 100 bureaucrats who, if their responsiveness to queries from independent and mainstream media alike is anything to go by, are paid to sit around and do nothing. As The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out in a piece on then-minister Stephen Smith jacking up about Defence media’s poor performance, Perkins had zero background in media or communications. Of course, that’s irrelevant, given the purpose of Defence media is to obscure and hide, not communicate.

But the fact a very senior defence official thought she could tell senators what hearing excerpts to put online (of material that’s already online to begin with), attempt to claim a weird sort of copyright over the likenesses of bureaucrats appearing at a public hearing, and wave “national security” and “someone might upset my bureaucrats” over it all to wish away any scrutiny, is yet another assault in what can, without too much exaggeration, be called Defence’s war on democratic accountability. Forget Defence media’s refusal to pick up the phone to journalists; this is about the department’s hostility to parliament and the parliamentary processes.

For public servants, actively avoiding cooperation with Senate committees is business-as-usual. Providing the most minimal amount of information possible, with the speed of blood being squeezed from a stone, is the universal approach to, say, Senate estimates hearings. But Defence is unusual in extending its hostility further to its own ministers and to key government accountability agencies.

This is the department that, according to auditor-general reports, routinely withholds important information from or even actively misleads its own ministers. And it has repeatedly refused to follow directions from successive governments in relation to major procurements — particularly directions that it purchase cheaper off-the-shelf designs with a proven track record, or benchmark Defence’s preferred new designs to proven platforms to justify additional spending.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
2/3

Perkins’ failed attempt to control the social media behaviour of democratically elected officials is ironic given her own past: 15 years ago she headed Defence’s communications area, a clutch of more than 100 bureaucrats who, if their responsiveness to queries from independent and mainstream media alike is anything to go by, are paid to sit around and do nothing. As The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out in a piece on then-minister Stephen Smith jacking up about Defence media’s poor performance, Perkins had zero background in media or communications. Of course, that’s irrelevant, given the purpose of Defence media is to obscure and hide, not communicate.

But the fact a very senior defence official thought she could tell senators what hearing excerpts to put online (of material that’s already online to begin with), attempt to claim a weird sort of copyright over the likenesses of bureaucrats appearing at a public hearing, and wave “national security” and “someone might upset my bureaucrats” over it all to wish away any scrutiny, is yet another assault in what can, without too much exaggeration, be called Defence’s war on democratic accountability. Forget Defence media’s refusal to pick up the phone to journalists; this is about the department’s hostility to parliament and the parliamentary processes.

For public servants, actively avoiding cooperation with Senate committees is business-as-usual. Providing the most minimal amount of information possible, with the speed of blood being squeezed from a stone, is the universal approach to, say, Senate estimates hearings. But Defence is unusual in extending its hostility further to its own ministers and to key government accountability agencies.

This is the department that, according to auditor-general reports, routinely withholds important information from or even actively misleads its own ministers. And it has repeatedly refused to follow directions from successive governments in relation to major procurements — particularly directions that it purchase cheaper off-the-shelf designs with a proven track record, or benchmark Defence’s preferred new designs to proven platforms to justify additional spending.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
2/3

Perkins’ failed attempt to control the social media behaviour of democratically elected officials is ironic given her own past: 15 years ago she headed Defence’s communications area, a clutch of more than 100 bureaucrats who, if their responsiveness to queries from independent and mainstream media alike is anything to go by, are paid to sit around and do nothing. As The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out in a piece on then-minister Stephen Smith jacking up about Defence media’s poor performance, Perkins had zero background in media or communications. Of course, that’s irrelevant, given the purpose of Defence media is to obscure and hide, not communicate.

But the fact a very senior defence official thought she could tell senators what hearing excerpts to put online (of material that’s already online to begin with), attempt to claim a weird sort of copyright over the likenesses of bureaucrats appearing at a public hearing, and wave “national security” and “someone might upset my bureaucrats” over it all to wish away any scrutiny, is yet another assault in what can, without too much exaggeration, be called Defence’s war on democratic accountability. Forget Defence media’s refusal to pick up the phone to journalists; this is about the department’s hostility to parliament and the parliamentary processes.

For public servants, actively avoiding cooperation with Senate committees is business-as-usual. Providing the most minimal amount of information possible, with the speed of blood being squeezed from a stone, is the universal approach to, say, Senate estimates hearings. But Defence is unusual in extending its hostility further to its own ministers and to key government accountability agencies.

This is the department that, according to auditor-general reports, routinely withholds important information from or even actively misleads its own ministers. And it has repeatedly refused to follow directions from successive governments in relation to major procurements — particularly directions that it purchase cheaper off-the-shelf designs with a proven track record, or benchmark Defence’s preferred new designs to proven platforms to justify additional spending.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
2/3

Perkins’ failed attempt to control the social media behaviour of democratically elected officials is ironic given her own past: 15 years ago she headed Defence’s communications area, a clutch of more than 100 bureaucrats who, if their responsiveness to queries from independent and mainstream media alike is anything to go by, are paid to sit around and do nothing. As The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out in a piece on then-minister Stephen Smith jacking up about Defence media’s poor performance, Perkins had zero background in media or communications. Of course, that’s irrelevant, given the purpose of Defence media is to obscure and hide, not communicate.

But the fact a very senior defence official thought she could tell senators what hearing excerpts to put online (of material that’s already online to begin with), attempt to claim a weird sort of copyright over the likenesses of bureaucrats appearing at a public hearing, and wave “national security” and “someone might upset my bureaucrats” over it all to wish away any scrutiny, is yet another assault in what can, without too much exaggeration, be called Defence’s war on democratic accountability. Forget Defence media’s refusal to pick up the phone to journalists; this is about the department’s hostility to parliament and the parliamentary processes.

For public servants, actively avoiding cooperation with Senate committees is business-as-usual. Providing the most minimal amount of information possible, with the speed of blood being squeezed from a stone, is the universal approach to, say, Senate estimates hearings. But Defence is unusual in extending its hostility further to its own ministers and to key government accountability agencies.

This is the department that, according to auditor-general reports, routinely withholds important information from or even actively misleads its own ministers. And it has repeatedly refused to follow directions from successive governments in relation to major procurements — particularly directions that it purchase cheaper off-the-shelf designs with a proven track record, or benchmark Defence’s preferred new designs to proven platforms to justify additional spending.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
2/3

Move over, Streisand: Bureaucrat pushes Defence’s hatred of accountability to new heights

Defence’s attempt to prevent senators from publishing videos of bureaucrats giving evidence to public hearings is yet another example of the department’s war on transparency.

Bernard Keane
7 Sep 2026

https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/09/07/celia-perkins-defence-department-accountability-transparency-senate-hearings-streisand/

Congratulations to Celia Perkins, the Department of Defence’s deputy secretary of security and estate. For years, many of us have been trying and generally failing to get the public interested in her department’s pathological hatred of democratic accountability. But in one laughable Streisand Effect moment at a Senate committee hearing on Friday, Perkins put that hatred up in lights.

Reading with a robotic monotone from her prepared notes, Perkins kicked off the hearing examining the Albanese government’s plan to divest 67 Defence sites with an attempt to pre-emptively prohibit, from senators, the “reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likeness for the purposes outside the frame of the parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee”.

A bureaucrat attempting to dictate what senators can and can’t do in a committee hearing was never likely to end well. The Greens’ David Shoebridge instantly fired back that it was a public hearing by public officials paid for by taxpayers, and that Defence did not get to censor what the public sees. After an adjournment to consult the clerks, committee chair Jess Collins told Perkins that senators and the public could disseminate evidence as they saw fit.

Perkins’ directive was doubly stupid because senators posting clips online of what they believe are wins over either ministers or bureaucrats in committee hearings is now one of their primary KPIs. Dumber still, Perkins attempted this stunt in a references committee — the committee examining Defence’s fire sale of properties to fund the AUKUS debacle — which is controlled by a non-government senator, not a legislation committee controlled by the government. She at least might have received some rhetorical support from the committee chair in the latter.

After Perkins was told that senators could in fact do what they liked, she doubled down, justifying her demand — while still droning from her notes — on the basis that her bureaucrats might be mocked on social media as a result of the clips, and that posting videos increased the security threat from “malign online actors, including cyber and foreign intelligence threats”. Presumably Perkins believes China’s Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army only access Australian parliamentary proceedings through David Shoebridge and James Paterson’s social feeds, having not yet worked out how to navigate the torturous task of watching committee proceedings at the APH site.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
1/3

Move over, Streisand: Bureaucrat pushes Defence’s hatred of accountability to new heights

Defence’s attempt to prevent senators from publishing videos of bureaucrats giving evidence to public hearings is yet another example of the department’s war on transparency.

Bernard Keane
7 Sep 2026

https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/09/07/celia-perkins-defence-department-accountability-transparency-senate-hearings-streisand/

Congratulations to Celia Perkins, the Department of Defence’s deputy secretary of security and estate. For years, many of us have been trying and generally failing to get the public interested in her department’s pathological hatred of democratic accountability. But in one laughable Streisand Effect moment at a Senate committee hearing on Friday, Perkins put that hatred up in lights.

Reading with a robotic monotone from her prepared notes, Perkins kicked off the hearing examining the Albanese government’s plan to divest 67 Defence sites with an attempt to pre-emptively prohibit, from senators, the “reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likeness for the purposes outside the frame of the parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee”.

A bureaucrat attempting to dictate what senators can and can’t do in a committee hearing was never likely to end well. The Greens’ David Shoebridge instantly fired back that it was a public hearing by public officials paid for by taxpayers, and that Defence did not get to censor what the public sees. After an adjournment to consult the clerks, committee chair Jess Collins told Perkins that senators and the public could disseminate evidence as they saw fit.

Perkins’ directive was doubly stupid because senators posting clips online of what they believe are wins over either ministers or bureaucrats in committee hearings is now one of their primary KPIs. Dumber still, Perkins attempted this stunt in a references committee — the committee examining Defence’s fire sale of properties to fund the AUKUS debacle — which is controlled by a non-government senator, not a legislation committee controlled by the government. She at least might have received some rhetorical support from the committee chair in the latter.

After Perkins was told that senators could in fact do what they liked, she doubled down, justifying her demand — while still droning from her notes — on the basis that her bureaucrats might be mocked on social media as a result of the clips, and that posting videos increased the security threat from “malign online actors, including cyber and foreign intelligence threats”. Presumably Perkins believes China’s Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army only access Australian parliamentary proceedings through David Shoebridge and James Paterson’s social feeds, having not yet worked out how to navigate the torturous task of watching committee proceedings at the APH site.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
1/3

Move over, Streisand: Bureaucrat pushes Defence’s hatred of accountability to new heights

Defence’s attempt to prevent senators from publishing videos of bureaucrats giving evidence to public hearings is yet another example of the department’s war on transparency.

Bernard Keane
7 Sep 2026

https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/09/07/celia-perkins-defence-department-accountability-transparency-senate-hearings-streisand/

Congratulations to Celia Perkins, the Department of Defence’s deputy secretary of security and estate. For years, many of us have been trying and generally failing to get the public interested in her department’s pathological hatred of democratic accountability. But in one laughable Streisand Effect moment at a Senate committee hearing on Friday, Perkins put that hatred up in lights.

Reading with a robotic monotone from her prepared notes, Perkins kicked off the hearing examining the Albanese government’s plan to divest 67 Defence sites with an attempt to pre-emptively prohibit, from senators, the “reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likeness for the purposes outside the frame of the parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee”.

A bureaucrat attempting to dictate what senators can and can’t do in a committee hearing was never likely to end well. The Greens’ David Shoebridge instantly fired back that it was a public hearing by public officials paid for by taxpayers, and that Defence did not get to censor what the public sees. After an adjournment to consult the clerks, committee chair Jess Collins told Perkins that senators and the public could disseminate evidence as they saw fit.

Perkins’ directive was doubly stupid because senators posting clips online of what they believe are wins over either ministers or bureaucrats in committee hearings is now one of their primary KPIs. Dumber still, Perkins attempted this stunt in a references committee — the committee examining Defence’s fire sale of properties to fund the AUKUS debacle — which is controlled by a non-government senator, not a legislation committee controlled by the government. She at least might have received some rhetorical support from the committee chair in the latter.

After Perkins was told that senators could in fact do what they liked, she doubled down, justifying her demand — while still droning from her notes — on the basis that her bureaucrats might be mocked on social media as a result of the clips, and that posting videos increased the security threat from “malign online actors, including cyber and foreign intelligence threats”. Presumably Perkins believes China’s Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army only access Australian parliamentary proceedings through David Shoebridge and James Paterson’s social feeds, having not yet worked out how to navigate the torturous task of watching committee proceedings at the APH site.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
1/3

Move over, Streisand: Bureaucrat pushes Defence’s hatred of accountability to new heights

Defence’s attempt to prevent senators from publishing videos of bureaucrats giving evidence to public hearings is yet another example of the department’s war on transparency.

Bernard Keane
7 Sep 2026

https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/09/07/celia-perkins-defence-department-accountability-transparency-senate-hearings-streisand/

Congratulations to Celia Perkins, the Department of Defence’s deputy secretary of security and estate. For years, many of us have been trying and generally failing to get the public interested in her department’s pathological hatred of democratic accountability. But in one laughable Streisand Effect moment at a Senate committee hearing on Friday, Perkins put that hatred up in lights.

Reading with a robotic monotone from her prepared notes, Perkins kicked off the hearing examining the Albanese government’s plan to divest 67 Defence sites with an attempt to pre-emptively prohibit, from senators, the “reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likeness for the purposes outside the frame of the parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee”.

A bureaucrat attempting to dictate what senators can and can’t do in a committee hearing was never likely to end well. The Greens’ David Shoebridge instantly fired back that it was a public hearing by public officials paid for by taxpayers, and that Defence did not get to censor what the public sees. After an adjournment to consult the clerks, committee chair Jess Collins told Perkins that senators and the public could disseminate evidence as they saw fit.

Perkins’ directive was doubly stupid because senators posting clips online of what they believe are wins over either ministers or bureaucrats in committee hearings is now one of their primary KPIs. Dumber still, Perkins attempted this stunt in a references committee — the committee examining Defence’s fire sale of properties to fund the AUKUS debacle — which is controlled by a non-government senator, not a legislation committee controlled by the government. She at least might have received some rhetorical support from the committee chair in the latter.

After Perkins was told that senators could in fact do what they liked, she doubled down, justifying her demand — while still droning from her notes — on the basis that her bureaucrats might be mocked on social media as a result of the clips, and that posting videos increased the security threat from “malign online actors, including cyber and foreign intelligence threats”. Presumably Perkins believes China’s Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army only access Australian parliamentary proceedings through David Shoebridge and James Paterson’s social feeds, having not yet worked out how to navigate the torturous task of watching committee proceedings at the APH site.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
1/3

Move over, Streisand: Bureaucrat pushes Defence’s hatred of accountability to new heights

Defence’s attempt to prevent senators from publishing videos of bureaucrats giving evidence to public hearings is yet another example of the department’s war on transparency.

Bernard Keane
7 Sep 2026

https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/09/07/celia-perkins-defence-department-accountability-transparency-senate-hearings-streisand/

Congratulations to Celia Perkins, the Department of Defence’s deputy secretary of security and estate. For years, many of us have been trying and generally failing to get the public interested in her department’s pathological hatred of democratic accountability. But in one laughable Streisand Effect moment at a Senate committee hearing on Friday, Perkins put that hatred up in lights.

Reading with a robotic monotone from her prepared notes, Perkins kicked off the hearing examining the Albanese government’s plan to divest 67 Defence sites with an attempt to pre-emptively prohibit, from senators, the “reposting of our evidence to social media sites or the reproduction of our likeness for the purposes outside the frame of the parliament and the transparent public proceedings of this committee”.

A bureaucrat attempting to dictate what senators can and can’t do in a committee hearing was never likely to end well. The Greens’ David Shoebridge instantly fired back that it was a public hearing by public officials paid for by taxpayers, and that Defence did not get to censor what the public sees. After an adjournment to consult the clerks, committee chair Jess Collins told Perkins that senators and the public could disseminate evidence as they saw fit.

Perkins’ directive was doubly stupid because senators posting clips online of what they believe are wins over either ministers or bureaucrats in committee hearings is now one of their primary KPIs. Dumber still, Perkins attempted this stunt in a references committee — the committee examining Defence’s fire sale of properties to fund the AUKUS debacle — which is controlled by a non-government senator, not a legislation committee controlled by the government. She at least might have received some rhetorical support from the committee chair in the latter.

After Perkins was told that senators could in fact do what they liked, she doubled down, justifying her demand — while still droning from her notes — on the basis that her bureaucrats might be mocked on social media as a result of the clips, and that posting videos increased the security threat from “malign online actors, including cyber and foreign intelligence threats”. Presumably Perkins believes China’s Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army only access Australian parliamentary proceedings through David Shoebridge and James Paterson’s social feeds, having not yet worked out how to navigate the torturous task of watching committee proceedings at the APH site.

#AusPol #StreisandEffect
1/3

Because like, there must have been a reason for that strange and comical dash to cover it up like a dead person! And I feel like that idea probably didn't come from anyone who understands social media. Robots falling over: all the online-ish people have seen that multiple times by now. The black cloth draping was kind of #StreisandEffect.

#FallingOverRobot

Because like, there must have been a reason for that strange and comical dash to cover it up like a dead person! And I feel like that idea probably didn't come from anyone who understands social media. Robots falling over: all the online-ish people have seen that multiple times by now. The black cloth draping was kind of #StreisandEffect.

#FallingOverRobot

Because like, there must have been a reason for that strange and comical dash to cover it up like a dead person! And I feel like that idea probably didn't come from anyone who understands social media. Robots falling over: all the online-ish people have seen that multiple times by now. The black cloth draping was kind of #StreisandEffect.

#FallingOverRobot

Because like, there must have been a reason for that strange and comical dash to cover it up like a dead person! And I feel like that idea probably didn't come from anyone who understands social media. Robots falling over: all the online-ish people have seen that multiple times by now. The black cloth draping was kind of #StreisandEffect.

#FallingOverRobot

Because like, there must have been a reason for that strange and comical dash to cover it up like a dead person! And I feel like that idea probably didn't come from anyone who understands social media. Robots falling over: all the online-ish people have seen that multiple times by now. The black cloth draping was kind of #StreisandEffect.

#FallingOverRobot