Well, that settles it then. Join the public service, and your speech is less free.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
We knew that before the High Court found the Immigration Department lawfully sacked ex-public servant Michaela Banerji, of course.
What's new in the ruling on Wednesday is that judges decided these restrictions are OK under the constitution.
It sounds straightforward, but for public servants trying to tweet or post without getting into trouble, it's anything but.
When does a political comment cross the line? The High Court has deliberately left such questions largely unanswered.
Not long after its decision, up came a new Twitter account called "Impartial Public Servant", spoofing the new world for bureaucrats on social media.
"Another day headed to work for the greatest government in the world!" was its hot take on Friday morning.
Nationals senator Matt Canavan started his day tweeting a graph about Australian exports. "So true!" Impartial Public Servant retweeted.
If that's the actual destiny for some of Australia's most educated, politically-engaged punters, we could be in trouble.
"How good is the Australian Public Service?" one hears in a nightmare scenario.
The court's decision probably doesn't mean public servants must become inane, pro-government boosters.
But what they can post, and what they can't, remains a perilous grey area that could end a career in 280 characters and a click on "tweet".
Bureaucrats will be glad if the public service commission does some heavy lifting in interpreting the meaning of the court decision for them.
Public servants have long been unclear where they stand, and even bosses have been frustrated, feeling unable to advise their staff.
They won't find any rules of thumb or simple formulas for public servants to follow in the High Court decision.
Justice Stephen Gageler came the closest to offering some guidance about handling the public service's code of conduct: "What it demands of a person who is an APS employee is observance of a measure of restraint or moderation in the expression of a political opinion," he writes.
"The level of circumspection in the expression of a political opinion that might properly be expected of an APS employee in a discussion with a journalist or a member of the public, for example, might not properly be expected of that same APS employee in a discussion with a close friend or relative.
"Likewise, the level of circumspection that might properly be expected may depend on the APS employee's level of seniority and responsibility."
What's OK, and what's not OK? It depends, the High Court has said. The laws themselves are constitutional. For the judges, that's enough. Now it's for the public service, and its staff, to work out the minutiae.
The public service commission has offered guidance on this before.
"Deciding whether to make a particular comment or post certain material online is a matter of careful judgement rather than a simple formula," it says.
There's a single rule beneath all its guidelines: Employees must act in a way that doesn't knock the confidence of ministers, or the public, that they can act impartially and deliver government services without bias.
From here it becomes a battleground of interpretation, enforcement and appeal. The constitutional question is answered, but the matter remains an industrial relations conundrum that could play out in many ways.
Bureaucrats could retreat, and say nothing that bears even the most infinitesimal risk of making them look biased. Supervisors could advance, and come down on staff even for "liking" a vaguely partisan post.
It's a struggle that could play out in the Fair Work Commission, or the Federal Court, again. A tax official sacked for blasting Donald Trump. An Agriculture Department bureaucrat reprimanded for commenting on a trade war that bears on Australia's exports.
Or the opposite could happen. Centrelink bosses might be OK with a frontline worker posting a thoughtful comment about climate change policy.
READ MORE:
Public servants, and bosses, will have to weigh up the risks themselves. That doesn't mean the public service can't offer them more help in doing so.
For now, there's a few things that are plain. First is that not only do public servants lack an individual right to free speech in the constitution. Everyone does.
This sounds odd in a land where mocking politicians is akin to a national sport.
Previous High Court judges have found there's an implied freedom of political communication in the constitution.
The court on Wednesday pointed out, not for the first time, that this is not the same as an individual right to free speech. This isn't America.
Australia's constitution only stops laws that put an unjustified burden on the flow of political communication needed for democracy to work.
Unfortunately for Ms Banerji, the court decided the restrictions imposed on her free speech were justified, because they upheld another thing enshrined in the constitution: An apolitical public service.
Other things are abundantly clear. Anonymity is no protection. The court found that political comments could damage the bureaucracy even if they weren't connected to a public servant. In any case, anonymous tweeters can be unmasked, the judges said.
How far the High Court decision reaches into the Australian workplace is another matter of opinion. There's little dispute it will affect state- and territory-level public servants.
Despite warnings the findings will let private sector bosses muzzle their workers, that's less sure.
Canberra employment lawyer John Wilson says the Banerji case isn't too relevant to employees outside the public sector, because of its focus on constitutional government.
The case over Israel Folau's comments could have more bearing, he says.
"Employers are increasingly impinging on what employees are allowed to say and do in their private time through contractually based codes of conduct and policies," Mr Wilson says.
"The Folau case, if it is ultimately heard and determined by a court, will hopefully shed some light on the extent to which employers can, as a matter of contract, regulate the out of hours conduct of their employees, including what they say on Twitter."
Ms Banerji's lawyer Allan Anforth quickly decried the High Court decision as naive, saying it read like a relic of a time before contractors entered the public service's ranks.
It raises an important question. Could contractors be fired for expressing political views?
Again, Mr Wilson says the Banerji decision has no direct relevance to contractors who work within departments and other Commonwealth agencies, because it looked at people employed under the Public Service Act and bound to its code of conduct.
"What the Commonwealth can do about a contractor who makes political tweets is limited to what the contract between them says," he says.
Or, where the contractor is an employee or subcontractor for a labour hire firm, what the contract between the Commonwealth and the labour hire firm or private supplier says.
"If the contract permits the government to terminate the contract or require the labour hire firm or other supplier to pull the contractor off the job if the contractor makes political tweets that the Commonwealth doesn't like, then it is able to do so. If it doesn't, then it isn't."
In other words, contractors should read the fine print before they sign the dotted line.
Anyone thinking they're on safe ground only supporting the government in public shouldn't be so confident, either. Impartiality means being non-partisan. Clear, right? The public service commission guidelines try to make it so, at least.
"Criticising your shadow minister, the leader of the opposition, or the relevant spokesperson from minor parties, is also likely to raise concerns about your impartiality and to undermine the integrity and reputation of your agency and the APS generally," it says.
As Australian National University law lecturer Dilan Thampapillai says, at the heart of the High Court's decision lies a concern with the apolitical nature of the public service.
"Logically, it does follow that a public servant who makes public comments outside of their employment strongly in favour of a political party or individual could be seen to contravene the APS values."
Impartial Public Servants, be careful. The Senator Canavans may enjoy your hearty support. Labor might be less impressed, and your employers, too.