12 October 2013

So when is a social media sackable offence not a sackable offence??

| Masquara
Join the conversation
30

Well, when the offender is a former politician.

A relatively junior public servant, Michaela Banerji, was sacked from the APS for expressing negative views about current policy on asylum seekers, yet public servant Jon Stanhope appears to be allowed complete freedom to express similar views (the journalist disguised the comments as referring to “ALP” policy, but Stanhope is clearly referring to the present day).

Join the conversation

30
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

this article has one tweet. there were a few more I think in news I read.

I think it wasn’t her views as such, but that she directly took on her own boss – eg he was head of public affairs, and she was in public affairs area.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-servant-loses-fight-over-twitter-attack-on-government-20130812-2rsgn.html

beejay76 said :

Hi Willow…

OK, thanks anyway. I don’t know whether she’s toned down her comments since all this happened. Her Twitter account makes what some might say are inappropriately political comments, but they’re not inflammatory or what I could harsh. I just can’t be arsed finding the comments from a year ago, because it takes too long to scroll down through her feed.

The PS is so incredibly touchy when it comes to the big scary monster that is Social Media. People who are completely incompetent and impossible to get along with are seemingly impossible to sack. But make one even vaguely controversial remark on FB / Twitter and you’re gone.

howeph said :

Nope – where on that link does it talk about The Administrator i.e. Stanhopes position?

Err this bit:
State-level Government is replicated by the Australian Government and the Minister responsible for Territories. An Administrator, appointed by the Governor-General, represents the Minister in the Indian Ocean Territories and resides on Christmas Island.

davo101 said :

howeph said :

Hi Davo101, I think that should be:

“When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Monarch and not employed under the Public Service Act.”

Nope, it’s the Minister.

Nope – check the Act. It’s a Governor-General appointment, the same as the Norfolk Island Administrator, and Governors of states.

davo101 said :

howeph said :

Hi Davo101, I think that should be:

“When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Monarch and not employed under the Public Service Act.”

Nope, it’s the Minister.

Nope – where on that link does it talk about The Administrator i.e. Stanhopes position?

“Unlike the Australian states, each of which is a possession of the Crown in its own right and which therefore possesses a Governor directly representing the Queen, all Australian territories are possessions of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth of Australia and the sole direct representative of the Crown therefore remains the Commonwealth Governor-General. Unlike the states, the territories fall within the exclusive legislative and administrative competence of the Commonwealth. In respect of several territories the Governor-General is represented in the territory by an Administrator appointed to administer the territory on his or her behalf. In those territories with an Administrator, the Administrator can be considered the indirect representative of the Queen in the territory.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrator_(Australia)#Administrator_of_a_Territory

howeph said :

Hi Davo101, I think that should be:

“When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Monarch and not employed under the Public Service Act.”

Nope, it’s the Minister.

WillowJim said :

A number of people here (beejay76, c_c) have knowledge of Banerji’s “harsh and extreme” tweets.

Can they repost them here? I have no opinion on this case, but I’m very interested in it. The trouble is that so much has been said about the matter without anyone actually bothering to post a list of the apparently many offending tweets. Not even the court decision quoted them.

Hi Willow,

I don’t claim any special knowledge about the Banerji case. The tweets were judged as ‘harsh and extreme’ by the department who were then supported by the judge.

My point wasn’t about the Banerji case, but about the fact that the OP claimed that Stanhope was receiving special treatment. There is no way saying you disagree with the Opposition’s position can be construed as ‘harsh and extreme’ criticism of the Government. The OP also claimed some sort of journalistic collusion to protect Stanhope, of which there is not one shred of evidence.

I found it to be irritatingly inflammatory, as is much of what he/she posts. I was just trying to put it back into perspective.

thebrownstreak69 said :

a … country still needs effective border controls, and a means of ensuring that those who present as refugees are processed as quickly as possible to ensure the genuine cases are identified and helped appropriately.

Yes, I agree.

And how exactly does progressives policies, such as those offered by the Greens, not support “effective border controls, and a means of ensuring that those who present as refugees are processed as quickly as possible to ensure the genuine cases are identified and helped appropriately”?

The policy is NOT “let them all come”.

So before you answer find out what the policy actually is. Read it. Consider it as a whole and don’t cherry pick from it when providing your considered analysis.

thebrownstreak69 said :

The thing the morons don’t understand is that …

… But it’s much easier just to generalise and throw insults, isn’t it.

Apparently so.

A number of people here (beejay76, c_c) have knowledge of Banerji’s “harsh and extreme” tweets.

Can they repost them here? I have no opinion on this case, but I’m very interested in it. The trouble is that so much has been said about the matter without anyone actually bothering to post a list of the apparently many offending tweets. Not even the court decision quoted them.

thebrownstreak699:44 am 14 Oct 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

milkman said :

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

You don’t have to be poor to be persecuted, you know…

Yep, yet moronic rabid bigots don’t seem to understand this…

The thing the morons don’t understand is that a stable and wealthy country still needs effective border controls, and a means of ensuring that those who present as refugees are processed as quickly as possible to ensure the genuine cases are identified and helped appropriately.

But it’s much easier just to generalise and throw insults, isn’t it.

davo101 said :

So when is a social media sackable offence not a sackable offence??

When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Minister and not employed under the Public Service Act.

Hi Davo101, I think that should be:

“When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Monarch and not employed under the Public Service Act.”

To answer your question Masquara, it’s quite simple – the Administrator appointment that Stanhope holds is not a public service appointment. In fact, it’s not even a merit-based appointment – it’s a similar appointment to a Governor of a state. They are not bound by public service rules or codes, and they can express whatever views they wish. Of course most don’t, in an attempt to preserve opportunities for when their appointment expires but Stanhope is obviously not that intelligent.

Do a little research before making assumptions.

So when is a social media sackable offence not a sackable offence??

When you are appointed by the Governor General to represent the Minister and not employed under the Public Service Act.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

milkman said :

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

You don’t have to be poor to be persecuted, you know…

Nor do you have to be persecuted to attempt to enter Australia as a refugee.

Look, a lot of these people are the real deal and their stories are sad as hell, but quite a few aren’t also. It’s just a shame our govt can’t process their applications a bit more effectively.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:41 pm 13 Oct 13

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

milkman said :

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

You don’t have to be poor to be persecuted, you know…

Yep, yet moronic rabid bigots don’t seem to understand this…

Maybe we can send our excess criminals to Christmas Island, with some of our homeless/public housing trash, and let Stanhope give them their human rights?

Is there gay marriage on Christmas Island yet?

Hell we are getting Stanhope, and he is still out on that rock . Imagine what it would be like if he was home here, with a federal conservative government; The crimes and 666 would be all over him. .. We need another rock . How about that Easter Island rock, might they want him. He has rock experience.

Queen_of_the_Bun10:38 am 13 Oct 13

milkman said :

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

You don’t have to be poor to be persecuted, you know…

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

I think he is Canberra-based still.

Robertson said :

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

In reality, quite a few of these people arrive with very large wads of US dollars…

Stanhope is desperate to be sent home.

In reality, he has seen the cashed-up Iranians having their boxes of TVs, laptops and other gear carried off the RAN vessels for them while they go straight to the medical officer to demand their botox treatments.

Blen_Carmichael6:10 pm 12 Oct 13

c_c™ said :

That this has become an issue of free speech is Banerki’s doing to try and confuse the issue and deflect blame. And that a supposed legal practitioner would try to misrepresent the settled law of the country to such an extent just shows what a warped character she is. She should consider a career in criminal defence.

Certainly, she attempted (rather unsuccessfully) to conflate the issue of her conduct with the principle of free speech, but sophistry is a cornerstone of the legal profession. This affair highlights two adages in particular: first, that a little learning is a dangerous thing; and second, that the lawyer who represents him/herself has a fool for a client.

Masquara said :

I think you are wrong there. APS managers are warning their staff off expressing the mildest of disagreement with government policy – whether or not relevant to the portfolios they work for. The “Grog Gamut” days are long gone.

Indeed, I may be wrong. However, Stanhope’s comment doesn’t even qualify as “mildest disagreement”, it’s only implied disagreement, which is in stark contrast to the Banerji case. There is also still no evidence of some sort of journalistic distortion.

Perhaps, rather than trying to whip people into some sort of foaming rage about politicians being given unfair advantage, you could have just said “Not sure if this line of public engagement is sensible from Stanhope, given that public departments are becoming less tolerant of dissent, for example, Michaela Banerji.” This is where you seem to have ended up and it’s a very long way from your original post. It is, however, a lot more sensible and defensible.

beejay76 said :

In order to be censured the criticism has to be ‘harsh and extreme’.

I think you are wrong there. APS managers are warning their staff off expressing the mildest of disagreement with government policy – whether or not relevant to the portfolios they work for. The “Grog Gamut” days are long gone.

Masquara said :

Stanhope was wording the journalist up very cautiously – but it was clear that his message is that he found the previous government’s policies inhumane – so given that the present government’s policies are more strenuously of the direction that Stanhope dislikes, he is clearly criticising the current government policies. The fact that he is going about it in a wily way goes with the “former politician” territory. The present government could presumably take issue with his comments. But, as he isn’t a powerless junior public servant, he gets away with it. I don’t agree with Banerji’s MO. But I think that, as she was caned and sacked for expressing her opinions, it’s surprising that Stanhope is being kept in a role where isn’t content to simply disagree in private with his bosses – past and present (the way all other public servants are required to, if they so disagree). He is proactively going on the record to publicise his opinions.

In order to be censured the criticism has to be ‘harsh and extreme’. Nothing he has said is either of those, by any stretch of the imagination. All Stanhope has said is that he disagreed with Labor policies. There is absolutely no similarity, on any point, with the Banerji case.

You state that he is being “cautious” and “wily”. How about: he’s not violating the APS code of conduct and therefore hasn’t been ticked off by the government? I’ve never received a speeding ticket. That doesn’t make me somehow “wily”. I just obey the rules.

beejay76 said :

I disagree. He is not referring to the present day, only insofar as his views are well known and can therefore be extrapolated. Quotes from Stanhope such as “I find the Labor Party’s current position on asylum seekers odious” are hardly evidence of some collusion of journalists trying to “disguise” Stanhope’s aversion to Coalition policy. He’s said the Labor Policy on asylum seekers is not consistent with the values of their supporters. This is not an ambiguous statement. How on earth you can make the leap to that being a ‘harsh and extreme’ criticism of the Coalition I have no idea. He has prudently avoided all mention of the content of Coalition policy, stating only that he acknowledges widespread public support for it. You would have done better to argue that the *previous* government treated the two cases differently, rather than the bit about journalists “disguising” things.

Stanhope was wording the journalist up very cautiously – but it was clear that his message is that he found the previous government’s policies inhumane – so given that the present government’s policies are more strenuously of the direction that Stanhope dislikes, he is clearly criticising the current government policies. The fact that he is going about it in a wily way goes with the “former politician” territory. The present government could presumably take issue with his comments. But, as he isn’t a powerless junior public servant, he gets away with it. I don’t agree with Banerji’s MO. But I think that, as she was caned and sacked for expressing her opinions, it’s surprising that Stanhope is being kept in a role where isn’t content to simply disagree in private with his bosses – past and present (the way all other public servants are required to, if they so disagree). He is proactively going on the record to publicise his opinions.

I’m wondering if the OP has actually read Banerji’s tweets for which she was sacked. A lot of them weren’t intellectual contributions to the debate, and some of them constitute personal attacks on individuals in the public service. Quite different to offering a mere opinion on an issue.

If you rang up your branch head on the phone and called him an inhumane scumbag, you wouldn’t be shocked to find yourself facing disciplinary action. So a tweet doing the same things shouldn’t be any different.

That this has become an issue of free speech is Banerki’s doing to try and confuse the issue and deflect blame. And that a supposed legal practitioner would try to misrepresent the settled law of the country to such an extent just shows what a warped character she is. She should consider a career in criminal defence.

I disagree. He is not referring to the present day, only insofar as his views are well known and can therefore be extrapolated. Quotes from Stanhope such as “I find the Labor Party’s current position on asylum seekers odious” are hardly evidence of some collusion of journalists trying to “disguise” Stanhope’s aversion to Coalition policy. He’s said the Labor Policy on asylum seekers is not consistent with the values of their supporters. This is not an ambiguous statement. How on earth you can make the leap to that being a ‘harsh and extreme’ criticism of the Coalition I have no idea. He has prudently avoided all mention of the content of Coalition policy, stating only that he acknowledges widespread public support for it. You would have done better to argue that the *previous* government treated the two cases differently, rather than the bit about journalists “disguising” things.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

HiddenDragon12:02 pm 12 Oct 13

It’s early days yet, but perhaps the new Government has decided (if so, shrewdly in my view) to deny Stanhope the pleasure and honour of martyrdom.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.