In a landmark decision that is sure to send shockwaves through the Australian public, the High Court has backed the decision to fire a public servant who made social media posts critical of the Government’s immigration policy. The verdict effectively spells out that public servants can be fired for expressing their political views.
As reported by The Guardian, in an unanimous decision, the High Court chose to back the Immigration Department who fired public servant Michaela Banerji, who took to an anonymous Twitter account to share her opinion on current immigration policy.
The tweets in question were deemed to conflict with the public service code of conduct which urges all public servants to be apolitical “at all times”.
The code also reads 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”
As per ABC News, Banerji tweeted from her private Twitter handle, LaLegale, 9,000 times in 2012 and mostly outside of work hours. Banerji was exposed as the tweeter by her then-boss Sandi Logan, who engaged with the account before raising concerns about the activity, deeming it a “considerable reputational risk” for the department.
Banerji challenged her sacking first with an unsuccessful unfair dismissal claim, however she received more traction via a workers’ compensation case where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal agreed that Banerji sacking on account of the tweets was unreasonable, on the grounds of freedom of political communication.
The decision by the High Court, handed down on Wednesday, effectively overturned that decision, rendering Banerji’s sacking within the limits of reasonable.
As the nation is gripped in an on-going discussion/debate around freedom of speech, the High Court’s verdict to uphold the sacking is sure to have a lasting impact on the discourse.
As The Guardian reports, there are more than two million people currently working for federal, state and local governments who must now understand that they aren’t protected by freedom of communication.
