Log in

View Full Version : Public Servents Banned from criticising Government and PM



Daltron
06-04-2014, 12:23 PM
https://24.media.tumblr.com/d0b577307251fb49d6f4a5283d767f5f/tumblr_n3lap0fKEm1r3p7hso1_500.jpg


PUBLIC servants will be urged to ­dob in colleagues posting political criticism of the Abbott government on social media, even if the comments are anonymous, under new Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet guidelines.

The sweeping new rules will even cover ­public servants posting political comments anonymously, including mummy bloggers on parenting websites, if a colleague knew their online identity.

The new policy clearly states it covers the use of social media in an official and unofficial ­capacity, whether for professional or personal use. If public servants are found to have ­breached the ­Australian Public Service Code of Conduct they could be sacked. Colleagues will also be encouraged to dob in each other.

“If an employee becomes aware of another employee who is engaging in conduct that may breach this policy, there is an expectation that the employee will report the conduct to the ­department,’’ the policy states.“

“This means that if you receive or become aware of a social media communication by another PM & C employee that is not consistent with this policy, you should advise that person accordingly and inform your supervisor.”

Blogger and former public servant Greg Jericho, whose online identity as Grog’s Gamut was unmasked by The Australian four years ago, said he was stunned by the policy.

At the time, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet PM and C ruled his own posts did not breach public service guidelines.

“This is so intrusive,” Mr Jericho said.

“It is further evidence that the public service is scared of social media rather than seeing it as an opportunity to broaden the understanding of public policy, including correcting misinformation.’’ he said.

The new rules include a specific case study illustrating why public servants are not to criticise Prime Minister Tony Abbott stating being “critical or highly critical of the Department, the Minister or the Prime Minister’’ on social media could prompt sanctions.

Breaches include “harsh or extreme in their criticism of the Government, Government policies, a member of parliament from another political party, or their respective policies, that they could raise questions about the employee’s capacity to work professionally, efficiently or impartially.”

There are also sanctions for “gratuitous personal attack that might reasonably be perceived to be connected with their employment.”

The crackdown on social media posts covers posts on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Flickr, blogs, forums and Wikipedia.


Full article here (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/colleagues-told-dob-in-political-web-posts/story-fni0cx12-1226875635588).
Ahh democracy, incredible. Thoughts?

Friendly reminder this is in the CURRENT AFFAIRS forum and not the DEBATE forum. :~)

-Moniquee.
06-04-2014, 12:26 PM
Oh wow.. This just seems ridiculous as Tony Abbott gets plenty of personal attack comments everyday. He just seems to be going downhill.
Daltron do you find this pointless?

Daltron
06-04-2014, 12:29 PM
Oh wow.. This just seems ridiculous as Tony Abbott gets plenty of personal attack comments everyday. He just seems to be going downhill.
Daltron do you find this pointless?

I think the ban is not appropriate. I can understand in a smaller work environment which are within the private sector that this rule may be necessary, but for something like the government it's almost like capping free speech since it's such a different situation. If I worked for the government my view of them would not be souly based on my work environment and my political voice should not be muted.

-:Undertaker:-
06-04-2014, 12:34 PM
Entirely depends on where they are blogging/attacking from. If they are engaging in these attacks via their office desk, or if they're letting it be known that they work for the Civil Service then that to me is a breach of what the Civil Service is suppposed to be: a neutral body. It's one of the great things about the imperial Westminster system that we have a Civil Service that is neutral: something the radicals in Great Britain under the New Labour Government of Tony Blair have in recent years attempted to overturn.

But if the new rules don't meet what I wrote then obviously they're an overstep. I'd be interested though to know whether those criticising this law on the assumption that it's trespassing into the private lives of Civil Service workers also believe in things like Hate Speech laws which are also a threat to democracy and freedom of expression but which the Labor Party back to the hilt? Otherwise they could be accused of double standards.


If I worked for the government my view of them would not be souly based on my work environment and my political voice should not be muted.

Yes it would be, especially if you were a senior civil servant who decided to air his criticisms in public. That's a breach of neutrality.

The Civil Service isn't supposed to be party political.

Daltron
06-04-2014, 12:43 PM
Civil Service is suppposed to be: a neutral body.


So just curious would you say it's fair to extend the ban to also including no praising of Tony Abbott and his government for those in these position?

-:Undertaker:-
06-04-2014, 12:46 PM
So just curious would you say it's fair to extend the ban to also including no praising of Tony Abbott and his government for those in these position?

Absolutely.

Any breach of neutrality in the Civil Service should be dealt with very very harshly.

Cerys
06-04-2014, 01:29 PM
This is censorship. It is completely your business what you say out of work.

You shouldn't get threatened to be sacked for saying something which thousands of other people say without punishment.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Inseriousity.
06-04-2014, 01:35 PM
What do you mean this is the current affairs not the debate forum, they're sorta the same thing :P

I agree that neutrality of the civil service is a good thing but perhaps ignores power dynamics. To create a culture where colleagues are encouraged to snitch on each other does not seem a very nice place to work.

Kardan
06-04-2014, 01:35 PM
This is censorship. It is completely your business what you say out of work.

You shouldn't get threatened to be sacked for saying something which thousands of other people say without punishment.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

So let's say you were a headteacher, and you had a teacher in your workplace that said the age of consent should be lowered to 12, would you not consider doing anything?

Cerys
06-04-2014, 01:41 PM
So let's say you were a headteacher, and you had a teacher in your workplace that said the age of consent should be lowered to 12, would you not consider doing anything?

What teachers do outside of school time is not any of the headteachers concern, as long as its within the law. Which an opinion is. Obviously if there was a clear safeguarding issue e.g they had interests in younger children like that then yes, then something would be done.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Kardan
06-04-2014, 01:48 PM
What teachers do outside of school time is not any of the headteachers concern, as long as its within the law. Which an opinion is. Obviously if there was a clear safeguarding issue e.g they had interests in younger children like that then yes, then something would be done.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Well, a teacher could meet up with a student outside of school, and that's not against the law but I imagine the headteacher would have concerns over that.

Cerys
06-04-2014, 01:52 PM
Well, a teacher could meet up with a student outside of school, and that's not against the law but I imagine the headteacher would have concerns over that.

Yes, as that's a safe guarding issue.

Btw i'm getting my information from a family member who is currently headteacher so I imagine it's rather accurate :3

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!