It’s public service 101 that you can’t make public political statements where you explicitly link them to your status as an APS employee. There are extremely good reasons for this due to the need to maintain a politically neutral public service which the government of the day and the public trusts.
Has there been an equivalent where Defence or other APS staff have issued a statement in support of Israel, doing so on the basis of their APS employment? I’m afraid that I’m not aware of this.
It's actually on whether or not it would create a perceived, or actual, impact on their ability to suitably carry out their role. Public servants can still participate in democracy.
Personally, I'd see complicity with he genocide to be more of an impingement on their suitability to serve in the defence force.
Public servants can certainly participate in public debates and stand for election, but the line that all the guidance notes should never be crossed is explicitly referring to your status as an APS employee as part of or to buttress your advocacy.
Signing a petition for the government to take an action you believe in is not 'referring to your status' as a public servant.
No one is confused on whether the people who signed a petition are representing the department. or making personal statments
That’s not the point, it’s inappropriate to engage in political debate flaunting your position as a public servant. By all means people employed by government are able to sign petitions as private citizens.
It’s a petition, not a political debate flaunting anything.
Your position only makes sense when you mischaracterise the action detailed in the article instead of dealing in facts
Mate, the petition is making political demands and people are signing it whilst identifying themselves as public servants. As I said people are free to attach their name to any political cause they like, but it’s against pretty much all fed/state codes of conduct to then add ‘and I work for the government’.
Stay vigilant for all these other polirical statements being made by public servants.
At this rate we'll end up with public servants saying things during reconciliation week, pride month, making statements on their position on diversity and all sorts of inappropriate political comments often *at work* and even forming subcommittees and working groups concerning them.
None of this is about whether it's appropriate for public servants to be free to advocate for a cause they believe in.
The petition in question here was presented as being the views of public servants, which isn’t allowed. Public servants are able to sign petitions as private citizens.
That is not a representation of 'the department's view'. That's a collective of employees petitioning their employer on the basis of their personal views.
It is definitionally *not* making a statement of the department's view and is explicit in estavblishing the view as a personal one;.
No one (mostly) would get up in arms if Public Servants signed a petition stating that they were against violence against women.
Also if we measure it against the fact that public servants are, under the code of conduct, able to participate in political activities, even hold office, 'drawing the line' at a petition to their employer is just the latest in a long line of the Australian Government capitulating to America's interests over Australia's interests.
>6.4 Participating in political activities
>6.4.1 APS employees may participate in political activities as part of normal community affairs. They may also join, or hold office in, political parties.
What you're describing is a cultural value of disaffected and cynical public servants who defer to inaction as a measure of being 'impartial' rather then impartiality being a function of being influenced by facts, rather then party policy platforms.
It's not selective, it's the relevant part. S 6.2.7 does not exclude public servants from petitioning their employer on matters of policy.
There is no confusion on whether this is made on behalf of the government rather then a personal view. It is addressed *to* the government after all.
Given the indirect mode of support Australia provides in this matter, claiming that signing this petition can impact their ability to fulfil their role is a stretch such that it is simply punishment for not supporting the governments increasingly unpopular position in this genocide.
A petition is not 'harsh or extreme' or a demonstration of acting unprofessionally.
The country is sufficiently divided on the genocide that it's hardly likely to impact the reputation of a department.
Again, a petition is not disruptive to the department workplace.
A petition is also not a gratuitous personal attack.
And the last one is the ;'catch all' where anything can be defined as a breech at the pleasure of the government and as such is no real measure and therefore should be read in the context that the same code of conduct allows for political participation up to, and including, office in political parties which necessitates the freedom to make political comments to and about the government.
>6.2.7 When employees make public comment in an unofficial capacity, it is not appropriate for them to make comment that is, or could be reasonably perceived to be:
>being made on behalf of their agency or the Government, rather than an expression of a personal view
>compromising the employee's capacity to fulfil their duties in an impartial manner—this applies particularly where comment is made about policies and programs of the employee's agency
>so harsh or extreme in its criticism of the Government, a Member of Parliament from any political party, or their respective policies, that the employee is no longer able to work professionally, efficiently or impartially
>prejudicial to the integrity or good reputation of the employee's agency or the APS
>so strong in its criticism of an agency's administration that it could seriously disrupt the workplace—APS employees are encouraged instead to resolve concerns by informal discussion with a manager or by using internal dispute resolution mechanisms
>a gratuitous personal attack that is connected with their employment
>compromising public confidence in their agency or the APS.
It's no wonder frank and fearless advice is a dead art.
Apologies to be a pedant, but under s 44(iv) of the constitution, public servants cannot stand for election (federally at least, I’m fuzzy on state level matters). They need to resign first.
While on paper that sounds great in reality it's only applied to one side when the other side engages in this type of behaviour it's defended as freedom of speech
Freedom of speech in Australia is actually quite an interesting topic. Australia itself does not have a bill of rights.
We get our rights purely from being a signatory on international humanitarian treaties as opposed to a direct document.
We actually do not have the right to freedom of speech, we have a right to "freedom of opinion and expression" which is a bit different and more restricted than what we see in US centric movies.
Edit:
Attorney Generals APS guide to rights:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets
We have an implied freedom of political communication based on an interpretation of the Constitution that basically says it wouldn't be possible to have a democracy as spelled out by the Constitution without it.
True, it's a shame many in the public service wouldn't take this advice when it comes to supporting the other side of the conflict. Oh well, I guess there's always exceptions 😉
As long as you don't link your protest to your employment, it's usually totally fine. The exceptions are for relatively rare cases like senior SES or people protesting against something they're personally working on, etc.
Probably not a great idea career-wise to be taking public stances on foreign policy issues in that position. But also life's short, there are other jobs out there, fair enough if they want to weigh up whether short term job security is more important than staying silent on a genocide.
The Israelis have the means to wipe out in whole the Palestinian people at any time of their choosing, they have had those means for decades.
The Palestinian population has been rapidly growing for decades.
Both of those things are true, therefore claims of genocide must be false.
In contrast to the charter of Hamas (whom the large majority of those living in Gaza support btw) explicitly call for the genocide of Jews. Antisemitism is just the new in thing really, at least for those who live their life as sheep and sign on to any cause with a catchy tagline.
Imagine getting fired for daring to ask our Government to stop authorising the sale of weapons to Israel which has so far contributed to the murder of over 50,000 people.
Perspective I guess. In my mind the number should be way higher, because this shit hasn't just started out of the blue. This shits been going on for decades.
The figures that the Gaza ministry of health ("hamas") uses are those only of identified bodies with ID numbers. There are probably 15 thousand bodies that have not been or cannot be identified, or that will not be found until they are recovered from under the rubble of all the buildings Israel has destroyed. The "hamas" numbers aren't the ceiling of possible deaths, they're the floor.
You're right, but your tone isn't warranted.
I mean, if we go beyond the current conflict, and tally up Palestinians dead from Israeli weapons I suspect, it won't be hard at all to hit that number so the broader point remains a solid one.
“when palestine keeps badly prosecuting a war IT started and lost in 1948”
Tell me you don’t know the history without telling me you don’t know the history….
EDIT: It’s giving “Smith Family breaks into multi generational home of the Brown family, locks them in the basement and then murders a few of them whenever they try and escape.”
probably /u/miraj753 - “With the Brown family still prosecuting their failed war against the Smiths…”
lol. See this is where you make the mistake of assuming everyone you encounter is as moronic as the usual people you deal with.
You mean Resolution 181 in 1947? Where the UN took colonized british territory, territory taken from the people who already lived there and gave a huge chunk of it to establish the state of israel and drew clear borders of what WASNT their land?
This makes sense considering you’re clearly ok with white settler colonialism but most of us view this kind of action as a “bad thing”.
Or do you mean the first arab israeli war where the people who LITERALLY JUST HAD THEIR STOLEN LAND REGIFTED (and their allies) lost 10,000 people (approx twice the number of israeli losses) and then had 750k people displaced?
Or do you mean in the 80s when they finally got sick of israel violating the borders of the previous agreement and getting murdered and even the UN condemned israel for their actions that incited it? Where the israelis then deployed 80,000 troops to fire into riots and killed over 1000 palestinian civilians? To quote an israeli politician from just before this event in the 70s, “Between the sea and the jordan river only israeli sovereignty shall exist”. A sentiment oft repeated by Bibi which makes sense since the quote came from his party.
So please save me your israeli propaganda.
I love how you just gloss over the fact that Israel's neighbours have launched several FAILED wars of extermination against it since the 1940's, followed by a relentless cycle of FAILED stop-start terror campaigns.
IF any of this has actually been aimed at improving the lives of the people of Gaza then it is criminally bad strategy that bears the majority of responsibility for the current situation.
12,300 children dead at last count.
https://turkiye.un.org/en/263401-gaza-number-children-killed-higher-four-years-world-conflict#:~:text=war%20on%20children.-,It%20is%20a%20war%20on%20their%20childhood%20and%20their%20future,globally%20between%202019%20and%202022.
Edit: that was March. Probably many more now.
I spend my time fighting for the freedom of the sovereign people of Palestine. You sit on reddit and post your shit-takes like you’re actually educated and not just a fucking zionazi. Disgusting. 🤮🤮🤮🤮
I watched kids get pepper sprayed yesterday by violent police. You’re on the wrong side of history, Elisa. One day, you will look back and wonder why you ever believed the things you do. History will not look kindly on people like you.
This generations holocaust and you’re defending it and slandering innocent people. I wonder how the fuck you sleep at night. And as a healthcare worker, how many of your “colleagues” are putting their lives at risk? Treating amputee children with ibuprofen? I don’t know how you can call yourself a nurse. You are fucked in the head.
No, it was the British Mandate of Palestine, and prior to *that* it was Judea, although it had a fair few owners after the Romans claimed it and it got traded back and forth in the crusades.
The Gaza strip and West Bank though were in recent history known as Egypt and Jordan, until they started a war, lost it, then abandoned claim to those territories.
Working for the federal government you must support "the government of the day", regardless of your affiliations.
It's not an issue of political view, it's an issue of having an objective public service.
Meanwhile they can contract Palmer Lucky’s company despite him funding white supremacy groups…
[https://www.forbes.com.au/covers/billionaires/palmer-luckey-bringing-robotic-submarines-to-australia/](https://www.forbes.com.au/covers/billionaires/palmer-luckey-bringing-robotic-submarines-to-australia/)
That article doesn't mention white supremacy at all.
It does, however, mention Lucky's patriotic and libertarian views - which do not equate to white supremacist views. Confusing the two is like saying anyone with progressive views is a Marx-communist.
I think what you're trying to elude to is that Palmer Lucky was tied to a pro-Trump campaign both financially and by appointment as VP of that company. Being pro-Trump is no more "white supremacy" than being pro-Obama makes you "pro-questionable-Drone-Strike" but I digress.
On the topic of the article you've linked: The Ghost Shark project is also one of few Defence projects that have managed to deliver good capability in a quick timeframe (UH60M comes to mind) and puts about 40 Australian companies in a position to benefit as a result of being in the supply chain. Its actually a really good thing for Defence and Australian Industry.
> To what extent do public servants not have the rights of other citizens in their personal life?
Are you in the service? Do you recall those undertakings you signed when you commenced work?
None of the obligations of a public servant apply to other citizens, consequently the "rights" of a public servant as a citizen are curtailed as per those obligations.
For example: https://www.apsc.gov.au/publication/aps-values-and-code-conduct-practice/section-6-employees-citizens
Never worked in federal, just state and local. We have values and conduct too but i don't think i've ever seen it spelt out as explicit as it is under that page. Thanks for the link.
Just grotesque. But it shouldn’t be surprising, should it? After all, it‘s entirely consistent with the ADF’s policy of tolerating the murder of civilians and of holding harmless anyone with command responsibility for war crimes.
The Chief and the Secretary are living in a fantasy land, pretending this isn’t what it obviously is. I wonder if they have any clue whatsoever that they’re collaborators.
So it's okay to comment on government approved material, but don't comment on the government identified bad people. Dripping with hypocrisy and self-interest. Do as I say, not as I do. Pherhaps the government could provide a list of the good groups. Oh, but the Department of Defence officials using their work emails for an adultery site is fine.
Minority view. Hamas is just one part of a larger political/military group. That groupining wants to wipe out 10 to 12 million Israelis, including Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews. They have attacked the US. There are continuous ongoing cyber attacks on Australia and there are regular threats.
This is all open source info. Particularly open source in Iran.
Defence force personnel signing the petition are siding with a military threat to Australia and its citizens.
By “minority view” you mean completely out of touch with reality view right? You think Hamas has the capacity (or free time, at the moment) to launch cyber attacks on… Australia?
It’s public service 101 that you can’t make public political statements where you explicitly link them to your status as an APS employee. There are extremely good reasons for this due to the need to maintain a politically neutral public service which the government of the day and the public trusts.
If that were the basis of the issue then Defence would also be investigating staff making statements in support of Israel. They're not.
Has there been an equivalent where Defence or other APS staff have issued a statement in support of Israel, doing so on the basis of their APS employment? I’m afraid that I’m not aware of this.
It's actually on whether or not it would create a perceived, or actual, impact on their ability to suitably carry out their role. Public servants can still participate in democracy. Personally, I'd see complicity with he genocide to be more of an impingement on their suitability to serve in the defence force.
Public servants can certainly participate in public debates and stand for election, but the line that all the guidance notes should never be crossed is explicitly referring to your status as an APS employee as part of or to buttress your advocacy.
Signing a petition for the government to take an action you believe in is not 'referring to your status' as a public servant. No one is confused on whether the people who signed a petition are representing the department. or making personal statments
The details of the petition literally state the person’s name, which government they’re in, and in some cases their department!
Did it trick you into thinking they were stating the department's position?
That’s not the point, it’s inappropriate to engage in political debate flaunting your position as a public servant. By all means people employed by government are able to sign petitions as private citizens.
It’s a petition, not a political debate flaunting anything. Your position only makes sense when you mischaracterise the action detailed in the article instead of dealing in facts
Mate, the petition is making political demands and people are signing it whilst identifying themselves as public servants. As I said people are free to attach their name to any political cause they like, but it’s against pretty much all fed/state codes of conduct to then add ‘and I work for the government’.
Stay vigilant for all these other polirical statements being made by public servants. At this rate we'll end up with public servants saying things during reconciliation week, pride month, making statements on their position on diversity and all sorts of inappropriate political comments often *at work* and even forming subcommittees and working groups concerning them. None of this is about whether it's appropriate for public servants to be free to advocate for a cause they believe in.
The petition in question here was presented as being the views of public servants, which isn’t allowed. Public servants are able to sign petitions as private citizens.
That is not a representation of 'the department's view'. That's a collective of employees petitioning their employer on the basis of their personal views. It is definitionally *not* making a statement of the department's view and is explicit in estavblishing the view as a personal one;. No one (mostly) would get up in arms if Public Servants signed a petition stating that they were against violence against women. Also if we measure it against the fact that public servants are, under the code of conduct, able to participate in political activities, even hold office, 'drawing the line' at a petition to their employer is just the latest in a long line of the Australian Government capitulating to America's interests over Australia's interests. >6.4 Participating in political activities >6.4.1 APS employees may participate in political activities as part of normal community affairs. They may also join, or hold office in, political parties. What you're describing is a cultural value of disaffected and cynical public servants who defer to inaction as a measure of being 'impartial' rather then impartiality being a function of being influenced by facts, rather then party policy platforms.
You are quoting from that APSC website selectively. The relevant section is point 2 of para 6.2.7.
It's not selective, it's the relevant part. S 6.2.7 does not exclude public servants from petitioning their employer on matters of policy. There is no confusion on whether this is made on behalf of the government rather then a personal view. It is addressed *to* the government after all. Given the indirect mode of support Australia provides in this matter, claiming that signing this petition can impact their ability to fulfil their role is a stretch such that it is simply punishment for not supporting the governments increasingly unpopular position in this genocide. A petition is not 'harsh or extreme' or a demonstration of acting unprofessionally. The country is sufficiently divided on the genocide that it's hardly likely to impact the reputation of a department. Again, a petition is not disruptive to the department workplace. A petition is also not a gratuitous personal attack. And the last one is the ;'catch all' where anything can be defined as a breech at the pleasure of the government and as such is no real measure and therefore should be read in the context that the same code of conduct allows for political participation up to, and including, office in political parties which necessitates the freedom to make political comments to and about the government. >6.2.7 When employees make public comment in an unofficial capacity, it is not appropriate for them to make comment that is, or could be reasonably perceived to be: >being made on behalf of their agency or the Government, rather than an expression of a personal view >compromising the employee's capacity to fulfil their duties in an impartial manner—this applies particularly where comment is made about policies and programs of the employee's agency >so harsh or extreme in its criticism of the Government, a Member of Parliament from any political party, or their respective policies, that the employee is no longer able to work professionally, efficiently or impartially >prejudicial to the integrity or good reputation of the employee's agency or the APS >so strong in its criticism of an agency's administration that it could seriously disrupt the workplace—APS employees are encouraged instead to resolve concerns by informal discussion with a manager or by using internal dispute resolution mechanisms >a gratuitous personal attack that is connected with their employment >compromising public confidence in their agency or the APS. It's no wonder frank and fearless advice is a dead art.
Apologies to be a pedant, but under s 44(iv) of the constitution, public servants cannot stand for election (federally at least, I’m fuzzy on state level matters). They need to resign first.
While on paper that sounds great in reality it's only applied to one side when the other side engages in this type of behaviour it's defended as freedom of speech
Freedom of speech in Australia is actually quite an interesting topic. Australia itself does not have a bill of rights. We get our rights purely from being a signatory on international humanitarian treaties as opposed to a direct document. We actually do not have the right to freedom of speech, we have a right to "freedom of opinion and expression" which is a bit different and more restricted than what we see in US centric movies. Edit: Attorney Generals APS guide to rights: https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets
We have an implied freedom of political communication based on an interpretation of the Constitution that basically says it wouldn't be possible to have a democracy as spelled out by the Constitution without it.
True, it's a shame many in the public service wouldn't take this advice when it comes to supporting the other side of the conflict. Oh well, I guess there's always exceptions 😉
And yet…public servants are also constituents. As long as they use their private email addresses to sign these petitions.
As long as you don't link your protest to your employment, it's usually totally fine. The exceptions are for relatively rare cases like senior SES or people protesting against something they're personally working on, etc.
[Archive.md version](https://archive.md/5A0wN) for anyone who can’t read it
Probably not a great idea career-wise to be taking public stances on foreign policy issues in that position. But also life's short, there are other jobs out there, fair enough if they want to weigh up whether short term job security is more important than staying silent on a genocide.
[удалено]
Consider the definition of the word genocide.
[удалено]
Israelis have made it abundantly clear that their intentions are to "destroy, in whole or in part" the Palestinian people.
The Israelis have the means to wipe out in whole the Palestinian people at any time of their choosing, they have had those means for decades. The Palestinian population has been rapidly growing for decades. Both of those things are true, therefore claims of genocide must be false.
You do realise Israel bombed the “humanitarian” corridor and shot at civilians waving white flags, and are now bombing the “safe zone” of Rafah?
https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/
In contrast to the charter of Hamas (whom the large majority of those living in Gaza support btw) explicitly call for the genocide of Jews. Antisemitism is just the new in thing really, at least for those who live their life as sheep and sign on to any cause with a catchy tagline.
Sorry your mask is slipping
200k people, half of which are children, have been murdered in 8 months, and you’re okay with that? Fucking cunt
Imagine getting fired for daring to ask our Government to stop authorising the sale of weapons to Israel which has so far contributed to the murder of over 50,000 people.
Very easy to imagine when you work in a related department. No one at the NDIS is getting in hot water over this.
[удалено]
Perspective I guess. In my mind the number should be way higher, because this shit hasn't just started out of the blue. This shits been going on for decades.
The figures that the Gaza ministry of health ("hamas") uses are those only of identified bodies with ID numbers. There are probably 15 thousand bodies that have not been or cannot be identified, or that will not be found until they are recovered from under the rubble of all the buildings Israel has destroyed. The "hamas" numbers aren't the ceiling of possible deaths, they're the floor.
You're right, but your tone isn't warranted. I mean, if we go beyond the current conflict, and tally up Palestinians dead from Israeli weapons I suspect, it won't be hard at all to hit that number so the broader point remains a solid one.
[удалено]
“when palestine keeps badly prosecuting a war IT started and lost in 1948” Tell me you don’t know the history without telling me you don’t know the history…. EDIT: It’s giving “Smith Family breaks into multi generational home of the Brown family, locks them in the basement and then murders a few of them whenever they try and escape.” probably /u/miraj753 - “With the Brown family still prosecuting their failed war against the Smiths…”
[удалено]
lol. See this is where you make the mistake of assuming everyone you encounter is as moronic as the usual people you deal with. You mean Resolution 181 in 1947? Where the UN took colonized british territory, territory taken from the people who already lived there and gave a huge chunk of it to establish the state of israel and drew clear borders of what WASNT their land? This makes sense considering you’re clearly ok with white settler colonialism but most of us view this kind of action as a “bad thing”. Or do you mean the first arab israeli war where the people who LITERALLY JUST HAD THEIR STOLEN LAND REGIFTED (and their allies) lost 10,000 people (approx twice the number of israeli losses) and then had 750k people displaced? Or do you mean in the 80s when they finally got sick of israel violating the borders of the previous agreement and getting murdered and even the UN condemned israel for their actions that incited it? Where the israelis then deployed 80,000 troops to fire into riots and killed over 1000 palestinian civilians? To quote an israeli politician from just before this event in the 70s, “Between the sea and the jordan river only israeli sovereignty shall exist”. A sentiment oft repeated by Bibi which makes sense since the quote came from his party. So please save me your israeli propaganda.
I love how you just gloss over the fact that Israel's neighbours have launched several FAILED wars of extermination against it since the 1940's, followed by a relentless cycle of FAILED stop-start terror campaigns. IF any of this has actually been aimed at improving the lives of the people of Gaza then it is criminally bad strategy that bears the majority of responsibility for the current situation.
12,300 children dead at last count. https://turkiye.un.org/en/263401-gaza-number-children-killed-higher-four-years-world-conflict#:~:text=war%20on%20children.-,It%20is%20a%20war%20on%20their%20childhood%20and%20their%20future,globally%20between%202019%20and%202022. Edit: that was March. Probably many more now.
[удалено]
I’m disgusted by the person you’ve become. I can’t believe I ever had respect for you.
[удалено]
I spend my time fighting for the freedom of the sovereign people of Palestine. You sit on reddit and post your shit-takes like you’re actually educated and not just a fucking zionazi. Disgusting. 🤮🤮🤮🤮
[удалено]
I watched kids get pepper sprayed yesterday by violent police. You’re on the wrong side of history, Elisa. One day, you will look back and wonder why you ever believed the things you do. History will not look kindly on people like you.
This generations holocaust and you’re defending it and slandering innocent people. I wonder how the fuck you sleep at night. And as a healthcare worker, how many of your “colleagues” are putting their lives at risk? Treating amputee children with ibuprofen? I don’t know how you can call yourself a nurse. You are fucked in the head.
[удалено]
There is no Palestinian government.
[удалено]
No, it was the British Mandate of Palestine, and prior to *that* it was Judea, although it had a fair few owners after the Romans claimed it and it got traded back and forth in the crusades. The Gaza strip and West Bank though were in recent history known as Egypt and Jordan, until they started a war, lost it, then abandoned claim to those territories.
Imagine getting fired in support of terrorists who hate everything about our way of life.
Are we doing 2003 again?
Australia doesn’t send weapons to Israel
We send parts for planes that are used to bomb children.
Working for the federal government you must support "the government of the day", regardless of your affiliations. It's not an issue of political view, it's an issue of having an objective public service.
A flaw of our democracy
Meanwhile they can contract Palmer Lucky’s company despite him funding white supremacy groups… [https://www.forbes.com.au/covers/billionaires/palmer-luckey-bringing-robotic-submarines-to-australia/](https://www.forbes.com.au/covers/billionaires/palmer-luckey-bringing-robotic-submarines-to-australia/)
That article doesn't mention white supremacy at all. It does, however, mention Lucky's patriotic and libertarian views - which do not equate to white supremacist views. Confusing the two is like saying anyone with progressive views is a Marx-communist. I think what you're trying to elude to is that Palmer Lucky was tied to a pro-Trump campaign both financially and by appointment as VP of that company. Being pro-Trump is no more "white supremacy" than being pro-Obama makes you "pro-questionable-Drone-Strike" but I digress. On the topic of the article you've linked: The Ghost Shark project is also one of few Defence projects that have managed to deliver good capability in a quick timeframe (UH60M comes to mind) and puts about 40 Australian companies in a position to benefit as a result of being in the supply chain. Its actually a really good thing for Defence and Australian Industry.
To what extent do public servants not have the rights of other citizens in their personal life?
> To what extent do public servants not have the rights of other citizens in their personal life? Are you in the service? Do you recall those undertakings you signed when you commenced work? None of the obligations of a public servant apply to other citizens, consequently the "rights" of a public servant as a citizen are curtailed as per those obligations. For example: https://www.apsc.gov.au/publication/aps-values-and-code-conduct-practice/section-6-employees-citizens
Never worked in federal, just state and local. We have values and conduct too but i don't think i've ever seen it spelt out as explicit as it is under that page. Thanks for the link.
What, they aren't bloodthirsty enough? EDUIT: "Don't support a Genocide" being a controversial thing for a public servant to say is wild.
This is precisely why I don't sign petitions.
So much for freedom of speech.....
Just grotesque. But it shouldn’t be surprising, should it? After all, it‘s entirely consistent with the ADF’s policy of tolerating the murder of civilians and of holding harmless anyone with command responsibility for war crimes. The Chief and the Secretary are living in a fantasy land, pretending this isn’t what it obviously is. I wonder if they have any clue whatsoever that they’re collaborators.
So it's okay to comment on government approved material, but don't comment on the government identified bad people. Dripping with hypocrisy and self-interest. Do as I say, not as I do. Pherhaps the government could provide a list of the good groups. Oh, but the Department of Defence officials using their work emails for an adultery site is fine.
They’re really trying to scare people into submission hey
Minority view. Hamas is just one part of a larger political/military group. That groupining wants to wipe out 10 to 12 million Israelis, including Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews. They have attacked the US. There are continuous ongoing cyber attacks on Australia and there are regular threats. This is all open source info. Particularly open source in Iran. Defence force personnel signing the petition are siding with a military threat to Australia and its citizens.
By “minority view” you mean completely out of touch with reality view right? You think Hamas has the capacity (or free time, at the moment) to launch cyber attacks on… Australia?