Comcare v Banerji and the Implied Freedom of Political Communication

Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23

In the case of Comcare v Banerji, public servant Ms Ms Michaela Banerji’s employment was terminated on the basis that she had allegedly breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. The conduct relied upon by her employer as the basis for the breach was Ms Banerji’s use of a Twitter account to post some 9,000 tweets which were highly critical of the then government, the then minister and certain policies of her public sector employer.  

Ms Banerji contended that the termination of her employment was unlawful and in breach of the implied freedom of political communication identified by the High Court in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25;  (1997) 189 CLR 520. 

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal held the termination trespassed on the implied freedom of political communication and Ms Banerji’s dismissal was therefore unlawful.   See details here.  Dr B Hughson, the Member who presided over the matter, observed that employees, even in private, should exercise a measure of restraint in badmouthing their employer.  Nevertheless, the burden of that duty did not go so far as to limit Ms Banerji’s implied freedom to express political opinions, given that in doing so, she occasioned minimal damage to her employer by virtue of her opinions being expressed anonymously. 

In 2019, the High Court considered an appeal brought by Ms Banerji’s employer, Comcare.  

The High Court observed the implied freedom of political communication is not a personal right of free speech. It is instead a restriction on legislative power which arises as a necessary implication from a reading of the relevant sections of the Constitution and, as such, extends only so far as is necessary to preserve and protect the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution.   

The significance of the High Court decision is that the principles of the rule of law remain paramount.  This case confirms that protections must remain in place to allow citizens to speak out against the government.  Australia’s system of government not only provides important checks and balances on the use of government power in accordance with the true meaning of democracy, it also ensures that the government will be held accountable to public scrutiny.    Furthermore, even if a law significantly restricts the ability of an individual or a group of persons to engage in political communication, the law must not infringe the implied freedom of political communication unless it has a material unjustified effect on political communication as a whole. For all of these reasons, the Tribunal’s decision at first instance was set aside.   

The High Court unanimously allowed the appeal, rejecting Ms Banerji’s arguments. By majority, Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ confirmed that the provisions in the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct did not impose an unjustified burden on the implied freedom, and that the termination of Ms Banerji’s employment was not unlawful.