In a statement CPSU national secretary Nadine Flood called Comcare v Banerji "one of the most important cases on the implied freedom of political communication of recent years". The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) said the High Court's decision could potentially affect 2 million Australians working in state, local and federal governments. "The more senior you become in the public service … the more your political interests and biases are relevant to your appointment." Current social media policy 'bad for democracy', union says "It's a 1960s, 1970s view that the public service is staffed by permanent professional, career public servants - they're not," he said. "They justify that by saying the public service is an apolitical, permanent, career public service."īut Mr Anforth said that view of the public service was "disjointed from reality". "It is basically saying that if you take the Queen's shilling, you surrender your rights to participate in the political process," he said. Mr Anforth said the High Court decision effectively meant anything a public servant did had to be "with loyalty to the government" and not critical of it. Ms Banerji and her lawyer Allan Anforth said they were disappointed by the decision.
![silhouette challenge gay twitter silhouette challenge gay twitter](https://www.gistvic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/chhr1.jpg)
On Wednesday a spokeswoman for APS Commissioner Peter Woolcott said the Commissioner was "giving careful consideration to the High Court's decision" and would issue a statement "in due course". It was Mr Logan who raised concerns Ms Bannerji was using the LaLegale Twitter handle, and that she was placing the department "at considerable reputational risk." Ms Bannerji retweeted a response from another Twitter user who What a rude response! And where would you suggest LaLegale take her 'policy frustration'?" If you have a policy frustration, take it where it will make a diff" "Give it a rest #DIAC celebrates success, not mired in harping. The court heard Ms Banerji tweeted approximately 9,000 times in 2012, from a private device and mostly outside of work hours.Īfter one tweet her boss Sandi Logan tweeted back: "The risk of identification which justifies that rule of thumb is obvious, and it is borne out by the facts of this case," the court said.
![silhouette challenge gay twitter silhouette challenge gay twitter](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/02/01/00/38713960-0-image-a-34_1612140983588.jpg)
It noted APS guidelines said "as a rule of thumb, anyone who posts material online, particularly on social media websites, should assume that, at some point, his or her identity and the nature of his or her employment will be revealed". "There is no reason to suppose that "anonymous" communications cannot fail to uphold the integrity and good reputation of the APS," the court said. Her lawyers argued sacking Ms Banerji was unreasonable, because while the LaLegale account was clearly critical of the Government, it did not disclose that it was operated or endorsed by a member of the public service - and therefore could not bring the APS into disrepute.īut the court's reasons explained that the APS guidelines explicitly warned that staff should not expect to be protected by anonymity when posting online. ( Twitter)ĪPS guidelines include stipulations that "an APS employee must take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with the employee's APS employment" and that an employee must "uphold the integrity and good reputation of the employee's agency and the APS". Michaela Banerji lost her job over the Lalegale Twitter account. The court needed to decide whether Ms Banerji's sacking was illegal because it breached the implied freedom of political communication guaranteed in the Constitution. It was Ms Banerji's claim for compensation - for the post-traumatic stress disorder she claimed developed after she was fired - that ultimately led to the High Court challenge. "This is a really naive decision in terms of the political realities of what exist in the community." Tweets sent from private device, mostly outside hours "The implication is that for any employee-employer relationship, if the employee is critical of the employer's position on some politically relevant social issue, they can be sacked. "The implications don't stop at the boundary of public servants," he said. Her lawyer, Allan Anforth, said he expected the decision to have far-reaching consequences. "It's not just a loss for me, it's a loss for all of us, and I'm very, very, very sorry." "The only advantage of this case and taking this action was to affirm the role of this freedom of speech for public servants, and we failed," she said.
![silhouette challenge gay twitter silhouette challenge gay twitter](https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2021/02/silhouettechallenge.jpg)
Outside the court, Ms Banerji fought back tears as she expressed her disappointment.