Does the Public Service Act 1999 Cth fetter the implied constitutional right of Australians to be free to express political opinion in a democracy on Twitter or other media? If so, does this create a class of persons (public servants) who are alone as a class of persons prohibited from expressing political opinion? Does the Public Service act (or executive action in its implementation) need to be reasonable, adapted and to a legitimate end in order to avoid creating such a class of persons. How relevant, whether more or less, in an election year?

Yes they should be free to speak, but they should have to state they are public servants.

Then at least then we would know they were they had no idea on anything, & could ignore anything they said.

LaLegale, yes public servants are limited in their ability to express a political opinion, as are members of the defence force, judges and the Governor General. This limits their ability to participate in public debate of issues, but does not prevent it completely. I spent two years as a public servant while President of the Australian Computer Society. I was able to manage this conflict of interest. The press and MPs understood this and even when I was giving evidence to parliamentary committees (for ACS) there were no problems. It did get a little silly when I helped write a question in Parliament to all Ministers in my ACS capacity, then had to write the answer for the Minister for Defence in my public services capacity. When I declared my conflict to my boss at Defence he said: "Well if you wrote the question, you are the perfect person to answer it".

I now teach IT students about professional ethics: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/professional_ethics/

LaLegale,

I suspect you are mixing metaphors to make your case?

The issue is that it may be inappropriate or even against some institutional rules to make political statements whilst being seen as “representing” that institution.

Military personnel, whilst on duty or in uniform are rightly restricted in what they can say publicly, but not in the pub.

The same basic ground rules would be expected of Beurocrats and public officials. The views they have can be expressed privately but not in a way that is used as an endorsement by their “position of authority”.

Given that attitude often drives behavior we have seen those in public office sometimes doing both. The contentious issues are not the loss of rights by anyone, just restrictions imposed on the position they hold.

Only those wishing to bend the rules would have a problem with this

Dear Tom, I'm sure that I am mixing more than metaphors with all the bees buzzing in my head!

Just two questions: If military men can express their political opinion in the pub after work, is that not the same as a public servant expressing her political opinion on Twitter after work? If a military man can express his political opinion in the pub after work dressed in civvies, no one knowing that he is a military man, can a public servant use a pseudonym on Twitter without needing to declare herself as a public servant?

Dear LaLegale (or should that be LeLegale?)

I think you have now mixed me (spindoc) up with tomw?

You have yet to post a link to the specific Public Service Act 1999 in order for us to verify that what you assert as a “restriction” on public servants and twitter is true.

Having checked the government web site there are lots of Public Service Acts, I can’t find anything specific to your assertion. Please provide reference links otherwise we will put you down a vexatious poster.

Links please.