A new social media policy for federal public servants is too subjective to enforce fairly, say QUT law and social media experts.
The newly-developed guidelines for Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) staff will cover the use of social media in both a professional and personal capacity, preventing them from posting comments that could be perceived to criticise the government, politicians, policies, the PM&C and PM&C clients.
Staff who breach the policy can be sacked.
QUT criminologist Dr Mark Lauchs said the policy was consistent with other public service codes of conduct - but only if a reasonable person test would be applied to potential breaches.
"For example, if a junior administration officer in a mail room were to Facebook a comment, say, in support of asylum seekers, would that Facebook post call into question their ability to serve the government fairly and impartially?," the Faculty of Law academic said.
"A reasonable person certainly wouldn't think so, but the new guidelines are worded vaguely enough that a low-level employee in this circumstance could be deemed in breach.
"The policy should be applied reasonably - not to every single public servant for everything that appears in their Facebook page and Twitter feed."
Dr Lauchs said, applied reasonably, the social media policy had merit.
"If it were a senior public servant criticising policy decisions on social media, a reasonable person might question whether that public servant can carry out their duties impartially," he said.
"Rarely is a public servant privy to all the material used to develop policies. Therefore, if a single public official criticises a policy, they are stating opinion rather than providing a fully informed view of the policy.
"A public servant criticising a government policy could provide the public with a reasonable expectation that the policy was flawed, thereby undermining the policy agenda of the government."
The policy has come under fire for encouraging staff to dob in colleagues who criticise politicians on social media platforms, even if posted anonymously.
Dr Lauchs said requirements for informing management about cowokers' social media activities were valid.
"Logically, a person who is aware of misconduct and does not report it is considered complicit," Dr Lauchs said.
"Most codes of conduct include a requirement to report when one becomes aware of misconduct, and this policy is no different."
However, Dr Lauchs and QUT social media expert in QUT's Creative Industries Faculty Associate Professor Axel Bruns have both questioned how and by whom the new policy would be policed.
Professor Bruns said the use of the word "perception" in the policy meant it could be policed subjectively.
"Perception is in the eye of the beholder," Professor Bruns said.
"A tweet sent to Q&A that criticises a government minister might be a sign of bias against the government or it might simply be a sign the minister isn't doing a particularly good job responding to that question.
"Essentially, this policy is saying don't post anything that might reflect badly on your professionalism or the public service - but what reflects badly on the public service depends on who's looking.
"However, it needs to be read in the context of the general climate in the Australian public service.
"If people there are already worried a new government might perhaps look unkindly on what employees are saying on social media then this might feel like a bit of pointed stick warning them against saying too much."
RELATED STORIES
Public servants face cyberbullying: New QUT survey
Social media at work: new study probes boundaries between public and private use
Media contact:
Kate Haggman, QUT Media, 07 3138 0358, kate.haggman@qut.edu.au
