Case of the twittering immigration employee

Overall, the provision (coupled with similar state and territory provisions) precludes a third of the workforce engaging in political discussion.

One could understand a provision directed at public servants commenting on their own agency, but to the whole Australian Public Service is surely a different matter.

Have such a large portion of the population excised from political discourse might well be incompatible with the free flow of information implied in the Constitution.

The restrictions obviously would prohibit public servants from standing for Parliament, especially for Opposition parties because these candidates must criticise government action. But they are prohibited from standing anyway because the constitution precludes someone holding an office of profit under the Crown from being elected. Public servants have to resign if they want to stand for election but they have a right to be reinstated after the election if unsuccessful.

In Banerji's case, the tweets were anonymous. In the US she would have been protected because a few anonymous tweets are hardly likely to affect the effective and efficient operation of the government.

I sense an over-reaction by a secretive and over-sensitive department. It seems like another case of the world trying to catch up with the explosion of social media in which everyone can publish their own newspaper.

How far will this "must at all times" provision stretch? What about an email from a personal email account to two, 10, 100, 1000 or 10,000 recipients?

In Banerji's case the judge gave fairly perfunctory attention to the constitutional issues and refused to grant relief on other grounds. It would be good to see the issue get a thorough airing.

Aside from the freedom-of-speech matter, the judge in the case, Justice Warwick Neville, pasted the Department of Immigration for hiding behind privacy provisions and engaging in "Yes Minister speak".

Banerji had accused a departmental superior of bullying and harassing her. The department investigated and reported its results to her as follows: "The allegation in this instance was investigated and appropriate action taken by the department. The matter has now been finalised. The Privacy Act 1988 prohibits further disclosure of information relating to this investigation. Accordingly, I am unable to disclose further details regarding the outcome. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me."

The judge wryly asked how a complainant "might obtain any relevant information, or ask any questions, about a grievance that involves 'serious misconduct' in circumstances where that person is advised that no relevant information can be provided.

The department also cited the Privacy Act in refusing to give The Canberra Times information about the case and routinely cites it when refusing to give information about refugees – who no doubt would dearly love their plight to be shouted from the rooftops.

One might suspect that the Privacy Act is being used more to protect the department's secrets than any concerns for individuals' rights.