0
Decision by the High Court, I assume the law talking guy's sentences that I've bolded will be interesting moving forward for the Folau camp?
A former public servant at the centre of a landmark free speech case has lost her High Court fight after it was found tweets she sent critical of the Federal Government breached the public service code of conduct.
Michaela Banerji argued she had been unlawfully fired in 2013, from what was then the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
She had operated the Twitter profile LaLegale, which frequently posted opinions critical of the Australian Government, its immigration policies, and its treatment of immigration detainees.
Ms Banerji was sacked from her role for breaching the Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct, after an internal investigation linked her to the Twitter account.
She took her case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which found her sacking had impeded her implied right to freedom of political communication.
But today the High Court unanimously ruled that was not the case, and that the APS code was proportionate to its purpose of maintaining an apolitical public service.
The decision has also ended Ms Banerji's hopes for compensation.
"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.
"It's not just a loss for me, it's a loss for all of us, and I'm very, very, very sorry."
Her lawyer, Allan Anforth, said he expected the decision to have far-reaching consequences.
"The implications don't stop at the boundary of public servants," he said outside the court.
"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.
"This is a really naive decision in terms of the political realities of what exist in the community."
Mr Anforth said the decision effectively meant anything a public servant did had to be "with loyalty to the government" and not critical of it.
"It is basically saying that if you take the Queen's shilling, you surrender your rights to participate in the political process," he said.
"They justify that by saying the public service is an apolitical, permanent, career public service."
But Mr Anforth said that view of the public service was "disjointed from reality".
"It's a 1960s, 1970s view that the public service is staffed by permanent professional, career public servants — they're not," he said.
"Most of the public service is contractors and others they come, they go — they're appointed for their political views.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-...ision/11377990