Like many current and former members of the Australian Public Service, we are committed to the use of evidence in the design and implementation of policies and programs. One of the ways the use of evidence can be undermined is through the proliferation of mis- and disinformation in our society and our media.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Like many others, too, we are highly critical of the press and social media that promote and amplify lies and misinformation in the interest of "clicks", ideology or sheer malice.
Misinformation and disinformation undermine democracy. The foundation of democracy is peoples' trust in institutions (including the courts and electoral processes), governments and experts. There also needs to be respect for people who have different views to our own. The Trump presidency is an especially egregious example of how lies and misinformation undermine that trust and respect, amplify division and spread paranoia. These trends also undermine good policy - recall the lies spread about false cures for COVID such as Ivermectin, and the claim the COVID vaccine contained a microchip to track people.
For public servants, by misinformation we mean incorrect information about a government program or policy. It can occur through poor communication and is where there may be honest mistakes or unintentional misunderstandings. Disinformation is a more malignant form - lies and distortions spread deliberately to mislead or confuse.
Misinformation and disinformation are a hot topic, and there have been calls for public servants to play a more active role in countering them. There have been governance changes, such as the 2021 voluntary Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, covering digital platforms. However, the overall response from the APS has been patchy. The Australian Electoral Commission did a brilliant job to maintain trust in the electoral process in the 2022 federal election - pushing back on lies being circulated on social media in real time.
But the more usual approach by the APS is the relatively passive provision of facts on websites such as by the Department of Health on the myths around COVID vaccines.
There is currently no specific mandate for public servants to address misinformation and disinformation. The Public Service Act does not mention it. The APS code of conduct in the act contains a list of things APS officers should and shouldn't do. It mandates (section 11) that "an APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds ... the integrity and good reputation of the employee's agency and the APS". But this does not authorise public servants to specifically address lies or wrong information.
Indeed, the preference has been not to "go public". With some exceptions, such as Hank Jorgen of Centrelink, who regularly publicly explained processes and entitlements, public servants were explicitly or implicitly told they should "keep your head down ... don't draw attention to an issue ... let it die". The argument was if you go public and push back against misinformation/lies you will "only give the story oxygen".
The Voice to Parliament referendum has added urgency for a clearer role in this regard for the APS.
Since it was announced on election night in May 2022 by incoming Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the media has been awash with misinformation, distortions and lies. Some examples are that it would create an apartheid system in Australia, it would "inject race into the constitution" (race is already in the constitution), and it will create a third chamber of Parliament (it won't).
One Nation has recently released a list of alleged planned actions to be taken if a Voice to Parliament is constituted, such as a "takeover of all beaches and national parks". Others are saying Indigenous people already have a voice through the National Indigenous Australians Agency (they don't - it is not an Indigenous-only organisation, staff are public servants, and are not independent of government). The list is endless.
While there are some welcome steps by social media platforms to restrain the spread of misinformation, more will be needed. At present it appears only the public servants directly involved in the Voice policy and referendum are likely to have a role in addressing misinformation, such as those in the Attorney-General's Department or the NIAA, as well as the ABC and SBS (which do fact-checking).
This raises the question as to whether there is an appropriate role for other members of the APS in regard to lies or misinformation they may encounter on the Voice in their daily work. The risk-averse response is to say public servants should always avoid an appearance of partisanship on the referendum question. In this approach, the correct response, for example, for a Centrelink or Medicare officer who is told by a customer that the Voice will lead to Indigenous peoples controlling all the beaches and national parks, would be to remain silent.
Ignoring misinformation certainly avoids some risks, including to the officers themselves. However, the dangers of misinformation to democracy and to the APS as an institution are real.
Surely we should at least have a discussion as to whether there should be a recognised role for all public servants to at the very least, provide information to counter statements and stories that are not supported by facts? In regard to the Voice, the first step, which we understand has been taken, has been for information on ways to talk about the Voice referendum - if they choose to do so in their professional role - to be made available to all Commonwealth public servants.
READ MORE PUBLIC SERVICE NEWS:
What this highlights is the need for a strategy to address the divisive nature of mis- and disinformation. A piecemeal response is not good enough.
As part of that strategy, there needs to be deep thinking as to under what circumstances it is appropriate for public servants to push back when misinformation is being promulgated, and the possible forms this could take. Thought needs to be given to incorporating this into the current work on defining the stewardship role of public servants.
Yes there are risks, but at what point do the risks of silencing public servants outweigh the damage done to our democracy by such silence? With sound information and support, it is possible for public servants to be issue-neutral without being politically-aligned, and to help improve the public debate by ensuring better information is available.
- Wendy Jarvie is an adjunct professor at the University of NSW, Canberra; Trish Mercer is a visiting fellow at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government; and Russell Ayres is an associate professor at the University of Canberra.
