This post continues our series on the Australian public sector’s use of social media (read part one, part two and part three). Having outlined the social media restrictions placed on Australia’s public servants, this article explores how increased use of social media could enhance public sector participation, effectiveness and rebuild citizen trust. Constitutional Law expert Professor George Williams AO shares his ideas for change in this interview with Propel’s Managing Director, Roger Christie.

Professor George Williams: social media knowledge is power, not risk.

George Williams AO is the Dean, the Anthony Mason Professor, and a Scientia Professor at UNSW Law. He has written and edited 35 books, including Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia and Human Rights under the Australian Constitution. He spoke with me about the benefits of increased freedom of speech in Australia’s public service, the role of social media and what needs to change.

Roger Christie (RC): Thanks for making time today, Professor. Before we dive into the barriers and opportunities specific to social media, could you explain the context and climate around freedom of speech in the public sector?

Professor George Williams (GW): There are some important underlying issues here. Interestingly, most people think we have a Bill of Rights – 62% of Australians according to one report. But Australia is actually unique among democratic nations in not having protections for freedom of speech. There are things to that effect in our Constitution, but they’re very weak. Unlike, say, the US and its First Amendment protections for free speech that are very clear and permissive to public engagement.

What this means is we don’t have an established baseline to discuss and assess issues of free speech and public participation, as we’ve seen recently with a number of new anti-terror laws that permit the jailing of journalists. There’s no bedrock in Australia which then leads us to a place where there is a clear sense of what’s appropriate and inappropriate. It then follows that there’s no clear precedent when using new mediums like social media and no certainty around what can and cannot be said. This confusion leads to fear and inaction. 

RC: Practically speaking, how does this impact the decisions and actions of Australian public servants?

GW: Unlike the US that encourages public debate and more constructive discussions for public servants, their Australian counterparts are restricted – and even discouraged – from open dialogue. But when you consider the current state of political distrust and citizen appetite for greater authentic interaction with the public sector, something needs to change. Rather than limiting access, we should proceed from the basis that public servants are citizens first and then determine where and when that should be limited.

We’ve already seen how this ambiguity plays out in practice with the ComCare v. Banerji case. In 2012, Ms Banerji, who was then an employee of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, anonymously tweeted critical comments about the Department. When her employment was terminated for breaching the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, she filed for compensation with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The matter will be heard again in March, and the process to date reflects the current uncertainty around use of social media.

RC: How do these sorts of restrictions impact public sector engagement and effectiveness, particularly in the context of social media?

GW: Well the real danger to government agencies comes when conversations are happening in social media and they can’t or are unwilling to respond. At present they’re not entirely sure where they stand, particularly at an individual or ‘unofficial spokesperson’ level. But these conversations are already happening online – ignore them at your peril.

Agencies need to know where they stand so they can respond and act accordingly. Sure, there are risks in engagement. But there are also risks in disengagement. Do those agencies want to be part of the conversation and participate to provide their perspective or do they want to be left out? And certainty or clarity to this question comes back to the lack of known, established and agreed rights for Australian public servants. When it comes to social media, agencies and decision makers are faced with uncertainty that leads to poor choices, errors and increased risk.

RC: You’ve touched on a key point there from my perspective: social media participation. As you suggest, the current attitude across government agencies appears to be one of abstinence. Is that an adequate solution?

GW: Telling a public servant who uses social media in their daily life to avoid it is outdated. It’s as sensible as telling a teenager to be abstinent. It doesn’t work. Social media is inescapable, so the real question is how best to manage it, not whether to avoid it.

RC: Agree and, in fact, the ABC does a great job of this with its Social Media Self-Defence Training Course. It’s recognised social media engagement is a reality and, rather than blocking its ears and humming, has decided to tackle it head on through education and empowerment.

GW: That’s great. Rather than telling staff to avoid social media and creating a culture of fear and risk, it would be wise to instead educate them on how best to manage their own profiles.

There’s a real opportunity here for public sector agencies to interact with and build trust among the community. This can only help improve public perceptions of agencies and their performance. Take the Supreme Court of Victoria for example. That would have to be one of the most sensitive and high-risk environments, yet it is considered an industry world leader in social media.

That said, I’m not a gung-ho evangelist for social media. There must be clarity of purpose and a safe, sophisticated operating environment for public sector agencies to ensure they get value. But, for me, that’s more of a reason to know and understand this new environment rather than avoid it. It’s not good enough to be on certain forums only these days – if you’re only looking at TV to engage citizens, you’re missing out on real benefits. If the Victorian Supreme Court can work that out, others can too.

RC: Looking beyond the freedom of speech and social media policy aspects we’ve discussed, are there any other barriers preventing widespread consideration and use of social media?

GW: I think it’s fair to say that technology is changing so fast, it’s hard to keep up. And often people in senior positions don’t have the knowledge required to make decisions around social media that impact public servant empowerment and citizen satisfaction.

Because of this, it’s so important to find internal champions who do understand this space and draw on their knowledge. Learning from other successful examples across the public sector will also help address current knowledge gaps. But we need to set a framework or baseline so public sector agencies can act with confidence.

That’s a really key point. It’s about knowing your rights to avoid risk and help public servants make the right choices with social media. We’ve already seen cases where the lines are blurred and we’re getting into this territory without a framework to refer to. Public servants are already on social media so it’s not a question of ‘if’ but ‘how’. Many are unaware of the risks they run and it’s now up to those bodies responsible for setting the policies that guide public servants to get that right.

RC: Thank you so much for your time and perspective today, Professor.

Given the clear evidence and rationale for change, what’s next?

So how should public sector leaders respond to comments like these? Rather than being a ‘problem’, could social media in fact be a solution to resolving the enormous trust crisis facing Australia’s public sector? When it comes to government and social media, it’s time to shift thinking beyond stereotypes: participation does not equal risk.

I’ve shared a few alarming statistics from the Edelman Trust Barometer already in this series, but the stark disconnect between governments and citizens is clear. Without trust, the public sector cannot operate effectively. Leaders cycle in and out on the waves of popular opinion. Efficiency is sacrificed for layer upon layer of process, so individuals avoid being the one caught out. And the cost of policy development snowballs as extra steps are needed to convince a sceptical society of its merit.

Numbers always help quantify impact. In a commercial context, Accenture places this cost of distrust at $6.6 trillion per year globally. In terms more relevant to the public sector, the OECD states:

“A decline in trust can lead to lower rates of compliance with rules and regulations. Citizens and businesses can also become more risk-averse, delaying investment, innovation and employment decisions that are essential to regain competitiveness and jumpstart growth.”

Conclusion: rebuilding trust in the public sector with social media.

Social media isn’t the public sector’s only answer, but it offers the infrastructure on which trust can be rebuilt.

You can of course point to fake news, Brexit or Russian interference as examples where social media has led citizens astray. But the opportunity for the public sector in social media lies in empowering individual public servants – those whose success is forged on their connection and understanding of citizens – to build and foster meaningful relationships. In fact, despite popular opinion, if the public sector embraced social media at an individual level it would help mitigate risks like these high-profile examples and make it harder for the wrong people to influence public perceptions.

Of course, this won’t – and shouldn’t – change overnight. It requires careful consideration, understanding of the online environment and way citizens want to engage, and prudent measures around governance and training of public servants. But these are steps that can be taken and should no longer be delayed.

If public sector leaders withhold preconceptions and judgement on social media and instead focus on the value gained by re-engaging the community, both sides only stand to benefit.

Want to learn more and missed parts one, two and three of the series?

• Part one: What Trump’s Twitter ruling means for Australia’s public sector.
• Part two: To post or not to post: shifting the social mindset from risk to opportunity.
• Part three: What rights do public servants have on social media?

If you’d like to contact Professor George Williams about any ideas raised in this interview, he can be found on Twitter via the handle @ProfGWilliams.