This is a complex area of the law, but in some ways, also very straightforward. Mr Hull distills the essential aspects of the matter. There is only one thing that I would like to correct for the record, and that is, that I did not seek an unfettered right before Neville J, Instead, I referred to cases which show that a an act may still be deemed valid where it fetters the implied freedom of political communication arising out of the Constitution, citing two recent cases, but I submitted that in those cases, the relevant by-laws were deemed by the court to be reasonable, adapted and to a legitimate end. I submitted the Public Service Act, to the extent that it has been interpreted in my case, creates a class of persons, public servants, who are not able to criticise government as private citizens, and that this is not to a legitimate end. However, Neville J did not refer to those submissions in his judgment, referring that aspect of the matter to a higher court.

Quote ...."The High Court has made it plain that the Australian Constitution does not provide a right to free speech along the lines of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Rather the court has struck down statute law and changed the common law in cases where they are incompatible with the functioning of the representative democracy provided in the Constitution "

So where Statute Law is at odds with the Constitution , the Constitution prevails.

That's basic, surely ? Courts interept The Constitution , Australian Voters , alone, change it.

Why would a Person join the Public Service when that employment is conditional upon the " Australian Public Service Code of Conduct",Especially if they do not agree to those Conditions ?

Good article, This is an area that has long concerned me as a public employee working in the health sector.
Health is an area that is constantly in the news for one reason or another. Unfortunately debate in this area is generally filled with government propaganda or opinions based on ignorance. The people who are in a position to make valid criticisms and sensible suggestions for change, ie doctors, nurses and other health professionals, are excluded from the debate, myself included. While the AMA or the Nurses union may have a public voice, these organizations have their own interests to protect, and are generally only interested in an efficient and accountable system as far as that will affect their members.
Aspley asks why a person would join the public service when they disagree with being silenced. I think a more reasonable question is why such a large and well informed portion of the population should be excluded from public debate on their very area of expertise?
Teachers excluded from commenting on education reforms.
Police excluded from commenting on criminal law reforms.
Doctors and nurses excluded from commenting on health reforms.
Environmental scientists excluded from commenting on the effects of prescribed burning or carbon taxation or water policy.
How can this policy possibly lead to better governance? Less embarrassment for government certainly, but better governance?

Why would a Person join the Public Service when that employment is conditional upon the " Australian Public Service Code of Conduct",Especially if they do not agree to those
Aspley,
because the lurks & perks outweigh all that is in the above. Anyone who has the mentality to leave integrity out in the parking lot when they go to so-called work will get a position in the Public service. As they say unity is strength, just ask the public service union.