# Scratch Australia off the list of decent places to live? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 7, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302 "2019-08-07T16:03:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/1 "2019-08-07T16:03:23Z")
[Ain’t no freedom of expression in the land down under. it seems.](https://apnews.com/99dbcb5528c643afb5f4be218127092c) > [@](#): > > Australia’s highest court on Wednesday upheld a government decision to fire a public servant who used a pseudonym to criticize government immigration policy on Twitter. > > The High Court’s seven judges unanimously overturned a lower court’s decision that Michaela Banerji’s dismissal was not reasonable and that public service rules around the use of social media and making public comment “unacceptably trespassed on the implied freedom of political communication.” > > The Community and Public Sector Union, which represents public servants, said the decision had serious implications for free speech and could potentially affect almost 2 million Australians who work for the federal, state and local governments. > [@](#): > > The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. But the High Court has previously ruled that an implied freedom of political communication exists in Australia because that is essential in a democracy. > > The tribunal upheld her appeal and her right to political communication, but the High Court decision rules out the prospect of compensation. > > A tearful Banerji said outside court that she pursued the case “to affirm the role of this freedom of speech for public servants and we failed.” > > “It’s not just a loss for me, it’s a loss for all of us and I’m very, very, very sorry,” Banerji told reporters. > > Her lawyer Allan Anforth said outside court that he expected the decision would entitle any employer to fire an employee for criticizing the boss’s stance on a political issue. > > “The logic of it does not stop at the bounds of the public service,” Anforth said. [I checked](https://www.primerus.com/business-law-articles/an-overview-of-australian-employment-practices-111414.htm) and no, employment in Australia is not “at will” like it is here in the US. Of course, this court ruling may semi-change that, if Mr. Anforth’s statement is accurate. > [@](#): > > The conservative government’s approach to social media and the public service had become even more draconian, with a social media policy released in 2017 that meant public servants could be disciplined or fired for “liking” someone else’s post or posting emojis. IMO, a country where you can’t criticize government policies isn’t at all free and open, and Australia now seems to not be quite as free and open as I’d always thought. I welcome corrections, new information and/or confirmations; anyone got any? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/2 "2019-08-07T16:21:15Z")
I think the decision is unfortunate, but it only limits the ability of public servants to criticise the government. Note that even in the good old free-speaking USA there are limits on the speech of federal employees to speak about federal government policy, so the USA is not all that different from Australia, even though the USA has the First Amendment. The decision does not affect the rights of other Australian citizens and residents – though there are other current developments, like the prosecution of “Witness K” and his lawyer, that are worrying. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-06/witness-k-to-plead-guilty-lawyer-bernard-collaery-face-trial/11387046](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-06/witness-k-to-plead-guilty-lawyer-bernard-collaery-face-trial/11387046) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/3 "2019-08-07T18:40:17Z")
Just curious: has Congress repealed the Hatch Act? ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/4 "2019-08-07T18:40:20Z")
In the UK public servants are supposed to be seen as being neutral, or apolitical. Making certain sorts of comment might be construed at compromising that impartiality, the higher up you are the greater the requirement to be seen to be impartial. It really would not do for a public servant to be seen criticising an elected representative but in return ministers are also required to refrain from criticising public servants as individuals as part of their political platform.Some ministers have failed to do this and have been dismissed from government. Ministers have to trust that public servants undertake their work in line with policy, or there is a danger that the public servant might end up enacting their own personal take on that policy. In specific roles the duties of the public servant may be such that some public statements are incompatible with their role - so for example, you would not be allowed to be a member of an organisation whose platform is racist if you are working in a field where you have to deal directly with the public. What you can do as a public servant is join a trade union and express your opposition and concerns through your own elected representatives who will raise such matters in appropriate forums. There are mechanisms to deal with such concerns. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/5 "2019-08-07T18:55:10Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Just curious: has Congress repealed the Hatch Act? No, but apparently you can ignore it if you work in the White House. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/6 "2019-08-07T19:30:09Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Note that even in the good old free-speaking USA there are limits on the speech of federal employees to speak about federal government policy… I don’t know what you’re talking about. Federal employees cannot engage in political activity (advocating for a particular candidate or party) during their work hours, and a few special types of employees (like CIA agents) are prohibited from certain electioneering activities during their own time. But I have never heard anything that prohibits a government employee from speaking about policy issues. I think you’ve been misinformed. ETA: of course if you are a political appointee and you criticize the one who appointed you, all bets are off. But this does not apply to 99% of government employees who are not political appointees. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/7 "2019-08-07T21:10:24Z")
It’s because she spoke out against refugee-torturing policies. The government just loves their refugee-torturing. She probably could have criticised tax policy, climate policy or education policy all day and all night without anyone in government doing more than roll their eyes. This is the same government which tried to have “telling people what you see in a refugee detention center” become a [crime punishable by two years jail](https://ama.com.au/ausmed/doctors-challenge-border-force-gag-laws) (spoiler alert: didn’t work. So we still do have some freedom of speech) ---
**Author:** ![Dag\_Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@Dag\_Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dag_Otto)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/8 "2019-08-07T22:25:06Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > It’s because she spoke out against refugee-torturing policies. The government just loves their refugee-torturing. Y’all just need a wall. A wall would fix that refugee problem straight away. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/9 "2019-08-07T22:26:41Z")
Screw the speech thing! Everything down there is positively lethal and actively tries to kill you! ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2019, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/10 "2019-08-07T23:09:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t know what you’re talking about. Federal employees cannot engage in political activity (advocating for a particular candidate or party) during their work hours, and a few special types of employees (like CIA agents) are prohibited from certain electioneering activities during their own time. But I have never heard anything that prohibits a government employee from speaking about policy issues. I think you’ve been misinformed. It’s not so clear. > [@](#): > > When analyzing claims by government employees who are asserting that they were fired because they exercised their First Amendment rights, under the rule set forth in _Pickering v. Board of Education_, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) the trial court must “balance … the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” _Fazio v. City & Cty. of San Francisco_, 125 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1997) Here are the _Pickering_ factors: "In performing this analysis, the court should inquire into such matters as whether the speech: (i) impairs discipline or control by superiors, (ii) disrupts co-worker relations, (iii) erodes a close working relationship premised on personal loyalty and confidentiality, (iv) interferes with the speaker’s performance of her or his duties, or (v) obstructs the routine operations of the office." ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/11 "2019-08-08T01:36:49Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > It’s not so clear. > > _Fazio v. City & Cty. of San Francisco_, 125 F.3d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1997) > > Here are the _Pickering_ factors: > > "In performing this analysis, the court should inquire into such matters as whether the speech: > > (i) impairs discipline or control by superiors, (ii) disrupts co-worker relations, (iii) erodes a close working relationship premised on personal loyalty and confidentiality, (iv) interferes with the speaker’s performance of her or his duties, or (v) obstructs the routine operations of the office." From that case: “According to the San Francisco Charter § 3.402, the position of Assistant District Attorney is an at-will position, and no cause is required for the firing of an Assistant District Attorney.“ While noting that the claim I was responding to pertained to Federal employees, and I noted that political appointees at the Federal level can be fired at any time for virtually any reason, and that such positions are not representative of the vast majority of Federal appointees, it seems reasonably clear to me that this Assistant District Attorney served in a similar role to a Federal political appointee. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scratch-australia-off-the-list-of-decent-places-to-live/838302/12 "2019-08-08T01:57:50Z")
There is an Australian Public Service (“APS”) Code of Conduct, which she knowingly breached (over 9000 tweets, some during work hours). I’m not saying I agree with the code of conduct, but if she couldn’t abide by it she shouldn’t have taken the job. Anyway she’s allowed to keep tweeting, she just can’t work there anymore.