Table of Contents

Part A

Part B


Foundations of Law - Part A


a) The Act shows that an employee who criticizes the agency or administration for which he or she operates is generally considered to be a violation of the Code. The more the work environment of the employee is attacked, the more likely the violation is to be identified. It points out that criticism of the Minister of the Agency or of the Primes is risky and that it criticizes the Shadow Minister, the Opposition Party or the appropriate minority spokesman. This is said to be risky because 'Your Agency, as well as the APS in general, will probably suffer from an integrity and reputation.' The guide notes that "strong anti-government comments" could lead to an inquiry into the code, because readers may ask whether a person who has such opinions could really represent the public and act as an unfair and competent official[1].

The act warns against doing anything about unjustified material that somebody else shared on APS staff social networking accounts, as Rebe not only chose to not take action against her friend's anonymous TikTok account, but to publish videos. This says that "liking," even though the employee does not agree with the message, will usually be considered a supporting feature for posting the content.

b) The APS Code of Conduct has been granted statutory force under Article 13 of the 1999 Public Service Act (Cth)[2]. APS personnel shall comply, in accordance with the Code of Conduct, with the relevant guidelines from their employers. The APS considers that its social media policy is so fair in its substance. This might in other phrases be seen as a breach of the Code of Conduct if a staff member does not adhere to Rebe's Guide and the staff member is responsible, such as the firing, for the disciplinary proceedings.

c) The royal assent was on June, 2014.

d) The act commenced on 1 July 2014.

Q.2) The case of Rebe of has loose ends as she has personally breached most of the professional conduct, but still on a lot of law citations, she can support her case and make it a bit stronger. A law that is viable in this situation is the implication of freedom of political communication. Albeit Australian law doesn't have an express assurance of free speech, the High Court has recognized in different choices that a suggested opportunity of correspondence exists under the Constitution in connection to political and government matters. The extent of this opportunity also, the test to be applied to decide the legitimacy of a law confining it, be that as it may, has been the subject of much discussion. The suggested opportunity acts to confine the forces of the official and council and is certifiably not an individual right conceded to people. It incorporates discourse, yet in addition non-verbal correspondence with respect to political and government matters, and its application isn't bound to political decision periods.

The court initially found the suggested opportunity was gotten from the thought of delegate majority rule government, be that as it may, in Lange the court expressed it was the content and structure of the Constitution which offered ascend to the suggestion. The High Court held that the Constitution built up frameworks of agent and dependable government specifically under segments 7, 24, 64 and 128 and that the opportunity to talk about political and government matters was essential to these frameworks of government. The way that a law encroaches upon the opportunity doesn't really mean the law is invalid. Hence, the case of Rebe can invoke this law to support her case by saying that it was her freedom of presenting opinion on the government authorities and other authority figures, and the law has to give her immunity for it. Having said all of that, she did breach a lot of standard procedures and she has to account for them.

Q3) In two landmark cases from the beginning of the 1990s, the Australian High Court recognized that political freedom of communication is inherent in the Constitution's reflective and accountable government[3]. It was deemed necessary for this software to operate efficiently. The following terms are written by Mason CJ:

Only by exercising liberty can citizens communicate their views in the wide variety of areas which may require or are relevant to policy action or decision-making. Citoyans can only criticize government decisions and action through the exercise of this right, the effort to bring about change, the call for actions where government decisions and actions are necessary

Chief Justice Mason said freedom implied included free partnerships among all people, associations and institutions of society. Media for public discussion and open access and participation in that speech included judgments by voters, a representative, and candidates on the views of all parties concerned.

His honor distinguished itself from communication constraints that were targeted at thoughts or information and that limited a media activity or mode of communication that conveyed ideas or information. The laws of former variety on correspondence based on their substance and purpose were true, even if there was convincing argument.

On the basis of the above-mentioned law, the Rebe can argue that the provisions of the act could be invalid because they violate Australian constitutional freedom for political communication.


  1. A particular research approach has adapted to properly discern the facts related to the study. The amendment history of public service act was taken into consideration and the date of royal assent and commencement was taken into record.
  2. She can avoid a claim on breach of any professional conduct and under the preservation of ecosystem provisions which will build a strong case for me. This will assist her case and provide the necessary leverage.
  3. The implied freedom of political communication ensures and acknowledges the right of electors to present their statement and opinion. This will assist and support the woman’s case in terms of authenticity.

Foundations of Law - Part B

1. Many scholars have talked about the importance for democracy of freedom of expression and autonomy. Archibald Cox observed "the flow of knowledge can be assured only by uninhibited publications and only by freedom of expression and political power and power of leadership can the citizens be aware of persons, measures and government behavior."[4]

In McCloy v New South Wales (McCloy) a small majority took a three-stage strategy involving connectivity and proportionality testing. (a) whether a law effectively implies freedom of communication on public or political matters in terms of functioning or impact; (b) whether the aims of a law and its instruments are valid and consistent with the protection of representative democracy (testing of compatibility); If there is no clear, convincing, comparatively realistic replacement, it is important to achieve the same goal or result with far less restrictive effects on freedom. Recently, the High Court has been firmly open to laws against protest. Owing to the value of the goals of the restrictive measures and the degree to which the freedoms enforced may be adequate in its balance[5]. The Community and PSU indicated that two million Australians in state , federal and local administrations may be affected by the High Court Decision.

The High Court's ruling. Nadine Flood, CPSU national supervisor, called "one of the most important political freedoms in the last few years," said Comcare against Banerji. The work of Orwellians is not a product of censorship, but because of where they work, it is necessary to maintain the normal rights of the people working in the commons as citizens. Ms. Flood said in years since the case is under way, the use of social media by the officials is "even harder." "The judgment is cynical, but it is obliged at the end of the day to maintain freedom of expression," she said. The Morrison government must demonstrate that it gives priority to democracy and reflects a social media policy. It is obviously absurd to publish a Facebook article on marriage equality without jeopardizing the work of the gay mommy at Centrelink. The government's overreach of the social media was awful to the public sector and awful for our democracy.

The main right to dissidence is the right to freedom of expression and to freedom of conscience. The freedom to differ, the right to criticize and to take a certain view is here implicit in the people of the world. It is more than clear that they all hold the view that the right to protest, in my opinion, is the strongest constitutional right. In a disputed ruling against freedom of speech, the Court ruled that an official was suspended during working hours after posting to the Federal government anonymous social media page. In 2013, when she was found to have operated a Twitter report in which she published critical opinions of the government's immigration policy and the treatment of asylum seeker, Michaela Banerji was knocked out of her work at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The government alleged that it also inofficially had violated social media laws and made public statements. The High Court found that Ms Banerji violated the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, a prerequisite of her work since she failed to maintain 'values' and her 'good reputation' for public servants. With 2 million employees in federal, state and local governments, this Policy would undoubtedly have consequences outside the public service of the Commonwealth; the law definitely affects their private, out-of-work understanding of political or political opinion. The judges have indicated a politically neutral and competent public servant must have a reflective and accountable administration.

2. The sources are gathered from the case studies and amendments relating to the recognition of public speech and opinion[6]. Many different documents and case files have been reviewed to match and justify the case sustainability, so that the values of the law can be acknowledged and revised as per the standards.

Bibliography for Foundations of Law


"Public Service Act 1999", Legislation.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2020)

"Delegations Under The Public Service Act 1999 And Subordinate Legislation", Australian Public Service Commission (Webpage, 2020)

"TRANSFORMING FREE SPEECH", Publishing.Cdlib.Org (Webpage, 2020)


"Freedom Of Speech And The Public Sector" (2018) 43(1)



ACT Public Service Code Of Ethics ([ACT Dept. of Urban Services], 1999)

[1] "Delegations Under The Public Service Act 1999 And Subordinate Legislation", Australian Public Service Commission (Webpage, 2020)

[2] "Public Service Act 1999", Legislation.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2020)

[3] ACT Public Service Code Of Ethics ([ACT Dept. of Urban Services], 1999)

[4] "TRANSFORMING FREE SPEECH", Publishing.Cdlib.Org (Webpage, 2020)

[5] "Freedom Of Speech And The Public Sector" (2018) 43(1)


Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help

Get It Done! Today

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Not Specific >5000
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

Add Money to your MAS Wallet
Pre Book your Next Semester Assignments
Enroll Now


  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

  • Total

  • Let's Start

500 Words Free
on your assignment today

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS
Order Now

Request Callback

Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

Get 500 Words FREE
Ask your Question
Need Assistance on your
existing assignment order?