Which country's Government is banning criticism of itself?

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Serve the Australian public? A quaint notion Ratts, however, one not in keeping with reality.

No, not when the PS have been scared by governments to not step out of line, and instead devote themselves to protecting their minister. That is a big problem in my view, and it seems you probably agree?

If you disagree, please feel free to post evidence for your reasoning.

Or you could learn to read, seeing as there have been responses to your claims for pages now yet you just ignore them and keep multi-posting. This is the sort of behaviour that actually begins to merit the 'adults' v 'children' crap the Coalition go on about. People in the PS have been told not to criticise the government, and to dob I their colleagues if they think those people have criticised the govt. There are newspaper reports saying the same, including from the Coalition's biggest supporter. You typed into Google 'loyalty' and 'common law' and post that as 'evidence' that all the govt actions listed previously (and criticised publicly throughout the mainstream media) are actually irrelevant because, um, your not quite sure. Even on page 1 of your thread hi-jack you contradict yourself repeatedly, meaning I don't have to bother going through your other posts:

Seems as if Ratts doesn't like common law

1) how ignorant. Public servants do not work for you they work for the government. You just get the right to a vote.
2) yes you have a right to be politically active but
1) you have common law obligations to your employer
2) you may have further employee duties if you are a manager or if it is in your employee contract to report others of misconduct
3) you should remain professional to have any integrity. May be this is where you problem lies.

In regards to 2, it is not against the law to bag the government even if you are an employee.

It is also not against the law to be open about government activities as a public servant.

It is however inappropriate to disclose confidential information, it is inappropriate to breach common law duties to your employer, it is apprise people behave professionally, it is appropriate employers remind employees of their obligations etc etc

So it's against the law / not against the law, but against the law / not against the law / not against the law / inappropriate to breach common law (inappropriate to breach the law??? What the? Shambolic)

 

[Maggie5]

You're right

but why would you raise that in this thread? Are you worried that has been destroyed?

If so, can you explain why you think that?

I thought I had already stated why. I don't accept your premise.
Charities funding could be withdrawn if they speak out against the government.
Public Servants not allowed,...............

 

[Power Raid]

So it's against the law / not against the law, but against the law / not against the law / not against the law / inappropriate to breach common law (inappropriate to breach the law??? What the? Shambolic)

I think that sums up the entire debate! A lot of people don't understand where the line is and what is legal and what is not legal. As it is often difficult to understand the issue, identify the area of law and applying the law.

So either the government can train every PS to become a lawyer with 10 plus years experience before coming to work; or
Put out a notice to all PS explaining they should not "assume" their activities are legal or acceptable.

That is also why I asked Divide time and time again for an example as different activities are covered by different areas of law and have different carve outs. Thus it is impossible to say whether an activity is legal or otherwise until you understand the facts.

A smart guy like yourself would understand concepts of employee common law duties, slander, whistle-blowing protection, public interest test, contract law and other case law concepts. So I doubt, you are actually as confused as you claim.

Nevertheless if an individual was seeking to breach the confidence of their employer, I would recommend seeking specific legal advice before doing so. This is consistent with the governments position and their communication with PS.

 

[Power Raid]

I thought I had already stated why. I don't accept your premise.
Charities funding could be withdrawn if they speak out against the government.
Public Servants not allowed,...............

I thought the OP was about PS not charities and there is case law protecting PS with a public interest test.

Have a google of PS and public interest tests. This is an important concept to ensure proper operation of the executive.

That is why it is enshrined in common law.

 

[Maggie5]

I thought the OP was about PS not charities and there is case law protecting PS with a public interest test.

Have a google of PS and public interest tests. This is an important concept to ensure proper operation of the executive.

That is why it is enshrined in common law.

When I first saw title of thread, I associated it with both. Charities had a clause in their agreement when Howard was PM, the Labor party removed it and my understanding is that the current government has re-inserted the clause.

With the PS due to have more cuts within their departments and possible privatisation of Human Services department, together with being warned about speaking out, you can have any law you like doubt that many would take the risk of speaking out.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

A smart guy like yourself would understand concepts of employee common law duties, slander, whistle-blowing protection, public interest test, contract law and other case law concepts.

Nah a smart guy like me knows when someone is talking out their behind like you have been for the last 5 desperate pages.

By my count you've posted literally 50% of this thread while contradicting yourself repeatedly - to the extant that you've posted multiple times in a row to ensure you completely confuse yourself and any readers. 6 times in a row on one occassion! Crazy. Quality over quantity, mate.

 

[Power Raid]

Nah a smart guy like me knows when someone is talking out their behind like you have been for the last 5 desperate pages.

By my count you've posted literally 50% of this thread while contradicting yourself repeatedly - to the extant that you've posted multiple times in a row to ensure you completely confuse yourself and any readers. 6 times in a row on one occassion! Crazy. Quality over quantity, mate.

so you do or don't know the concepts of employee common law duties, slander, whistle-blowing protection, public interest test, contract law and other case law concepts?

plus discuss and provide references rather getting so emotional.

 

[Maggie5]

Hey PR, someone told me that the Salvation Army has dismissed their whistleblower - can you recommend a lawyer?

 

[Power Raid]

A hypothetical, if I was working in the department of health in James town, South Australia. And I wrote on this forum, "**** Abbott, and **** Hockey. Stupid campaigners are destroying this country". Should I be fired?

Let's say I am a rabid Greens supporter and a coworker who is a rabid Coalition supporter, who knows I post as Floor Pie on big footy dobs me in.

So the situation is, I have given nothing away about any inside information, I have not insulted my boss, I am currently working under a local Labor Government, during a Coalition federal Government. In a small town.
I have simply aired my opinion.
What protection from being fired do I have against that?

Power Raid here is an example for you. Am I safe? Can anything happen to me, or do I have any legal defence for being fired for insulting the PM?

1) It would be a silly thing to do especially if you didn't frame your statement and qualify it as an opinion
2) it would also be a silly thing to do especially if you didn't explain why your statement was reasonable
- 1) and 2) protect you from slander
3) your statements are likely to be deemed frivolous and would go through to the keeper. Unless of course this unprofessional behaviour reflected how you operate in the work place.

So no, you should not be fired and if you were you should seek legal advice.

 

[Power Raid]

Hey PR, someone told me that the Salvation Army has dismissed their whistleblower - can you recommend a lawyer?

yes, PM me the details and I will recommend someone

but they should have done that before they decided to take that action. but better late than never.