The Claim
“Prohibited public servants from liking social media posts critical of the government, even if anonymous.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is substantially accurate regarding what the policy stated, though the phrasing "prohibited" oversimplifies the enforcement mechanism. In August 2017, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) released updated social media guidance that warned public servants could face disciplinary action for "liking" posts critical of the government [1].
The specific guidance stated that "liking, reposting and sharing social media content or even selecting Facebook's 'angry face' icon could breach employment conditions" [2]. The APSC guidance made clear that content criticizing the government, ministers, or agencies—whether through direct posting or engagement with others' posts—could breach the Public Service Code of Conduct by undermining the requirement to maintain impartiality [1].
However, the guidance was explicitly addressed to public servants identified or identifiable as government employees. The guidance specifically warned that anonymous posts criticizing the government, including using a pseudonym, could breach the Code because public servants "can be traced through their digital footprint or via a 'dob-in' to their department" [2].
This is a critical distinction from the claim's framing: the policy didn't prohibit liking anonymous posts by others (where the liker's identity might remain unconnected). Rather, it prohibited public servants from making anonymous criticisms themselves, recognizing that anonymity could be pierced through digital forensics.
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual factors:
1. Legal Foundation Pre-dated 2017 Guidance
The 2017 guidance did not introduce new restrictions. The Public Service Act 1999 (Section 13) established a Code of Conduct requiring APS employees to "behave at all times in a way that upholds the APS Values" and maintains impartiality [3]. The 2017 guidance was merely clarification and elaboration of existing obligations, not new prohibitions [4].
2. High Court Validation
In 2019, the High Court of Australia ruled in Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23 that the dismissal of an APS employee who ran an anonymous Twitter account criticizing the Department of Immigration and Citizenship was justified [5]. The Court found that the Code of Conduct's requirements for impartiality and apolitical behavior were constitutional and did not infringe the implied freedom of political communication [6]. This validates the legal basis for the restrictions, though it also shows the bar for enforcement is high.
3. Policy Rationale
The policy aimed to balance employee rights with the "need to be seen as trusted and impartial public servants" [7]. The APSC explicitly stated that "APS employees have a right to personal and political expression on social media. This right must be balanced with the obligations of APS employment" [8]. The guidance was framed as helping employees "strike that balance in a reasonable and proportionate way" [7].
4. Sensitivity to Democratic Participation
The guidance acknowledged the dilemma: "Government acts in every area of life and that's why the situation isn't the same as what it would be for someone working in the private sector" [2]. The CPSU union agreed this created a genuine tension between public service impartiality and democratic participation.
5. Implementation Ambiguity
While the guidance warned of potential breaches, there's limited evidence of widespread enforcement or dismissals based solely on "liking" posts [9]. The Banerji case involved sustained, voluminous anonymous criticism (9,000+ tweets), not isolated social media engagement.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source (Sydney Morning Herald article by Tom McIlroy, August 6-7, 2017) is a mainstream, credible publication. The article itself presents the union's criticism fairly while also including the government's rationale. McIlroy was a political reporter in the federal press gallery, lending credibility to parliamentary/policy context [2].
The article accurately reflects what union leader Nadine Flood said—she called it "overreach" and noted it was "unreasonable" to face disciplinary action over "liking" a post [2]. The SMH reporting is balanced, not partisan, though the headline frames the issue from the critical perspective.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor pursue similar policies?
The search for direct Labor government equivalents (2007-2013 Rudd/Gillard governments) yielded limited results, which itself is notable. However, the Public Service Code of Conduct that underpins these restrictions existed before 2017 and was not created by the Coalition. The Code's requirements for impartiality and apolitical conduct date to the Public Service Act 1999, which pre-dates both Coalition and Labor governments.
Labor governments would have operated under the same Code of Conduct framework. The 2017 guidance was not a new prohibition but rather a clarification during a period of heightened political tension (same-sex marriage debate was ongoing) [4].
Key Finding: This appears to be a structural feature of the Australian public service applying across governments, not a Coalition innovation. The 2017 guidance was an elaboration of existing restrictions, not new restrictions.
Balanced Perspective
The Coalition's Argument:
The government and APSC argued the guidance was necessary to clarify existing obligations and protect public service impartiality [7]. In an era of social media where comments spread instantly and can be misunderstood, clear guidance helps employees avoid inadvertent breaches while participating in public discussion [2].
The APSC emphasized that the guidance aimed to help employees "strike the right balance," not prohibit all political expression. Employees retain the right to express themselves, but they must do so in ways that don't undermine public confidence in the impartiality of their agency [8].
Public service impartiality is genuinely important for institutional credibility. A department cannot effectively implement government policy if staff are perceived as opposed to that policy. This is not unique to Australia—most Westminster democracies have similar expectations [10].
The Critics' Argument:
Union leader Nadine Flood and Labor/Greens critics argued the policy was disproportionate [2]. "Liking" a post is a minimal form of engagement that doesn't require the viewer to have written the criticism. Penalizing passive endorsement seems excessive, especially for anonymous posts [2].
The policy's application to private emails and anonymous speech raised genuine concerns about workplace surveillance and the chilling effect on legitimate democratic participation [2]. If public servants cannot even like anonymous posts critical of government, the policy may discourage them from engaging with political debate outside their workplace.
There was also criticism that APSC Commissioner John Lloyd had been "highly political in his time as APS Commissioner," creating a perception of hypocrisy [2].
Expert Assessment:
Legal analysis suggests the policy lies at the "extreme end" of acceptable restrictions, even acknowledging the special obligations of public servants [4]. The High Court's Banerji decision validates restrictions on anonymous criticism but focuses on sustained, systematic undermining, not isolated social media engagement [5][6].
The policy appears defensible on legal and institutional grounds but may be unnecessarily broad in its application to passive engagement (liking) and anonymous posts by others. The gap between what the guidance warns about and what would actually trigger disciplinary action remains unclear.
PARTIALLY TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The guidance did warn that public servants could face disciplinary action for engaging with (including "liking") government criticism on social media [1][2]. However, the claim's framing is imprecise in two ways:
"Prohibited" is stronger than the guidance states - The guidance warned of potential breaches and disciplinary consequences but didn't explicitly "prohibit" the action in absolute terms. The bar for actual enforcement appears higher than the guidance suggests.
"Even if anonymous" is misleading - The policy focused on public servants' own anonymous posts, not on public servants liking anonymous posts by others. The distinction matters.
The core claim—that the Coalition's public service social media policy restricted what public servants could do online, including liking criticism—is TRUE and accurately represents 2017 APSC guidance [1][2]. However, the framing suggests stricter enforcement and broader scope than the evidence supports.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The guidance did warn that public servants could face disciplinary action for engaging with (including "liking") government criticism on social media [1][2]. However, the claim's framing is imprecise in two ways:
"Prohibited" is stronger than the guidance states - The guidance warned of potential breaches and disciplinary consequences but didn't explicitly "prohibit" the action in absolute terms. The bar for actual enforcement appears higher than the guidance suggests.
"Even if anonymous" is misleading - The policy focused on public servants' own anonymous posts, not on public servants liking anonymous posts by others. The distinction matters.
The core claim—that the Coalition's public service social media policy restricted what public servants could do online, including liking criticism—is TRUE and accurately represents 2017 APSC guidance [1][2]. However, the framing suggests stricter enforcement and broader scope than the evidence supports.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (9)
-
1
smh.com.au
Does 'liking' a Facebook post or criticising the government in a private email breach new rules?
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
apsc.gov.au
Apsc Gov
-
3
legislation.gov.au
Federal Register of Legislation
-
4
claytonutz.com
New guidelines have been released by the APSC that clarify the expectations of Commonwealth public servants' behaviour on social media. It comes at a time where politically charged topics such as same sex marriage dominate the national conversation.
Claytonutz -
5
hcourt.gov.au
Hcourt Gov
-
6
claytonutz.com
The High Court has handed down its highly anticipated judgment in Comcare v Michaela Banerji [2019] HCA 23 and found that an APS employee's anonymous tweets can breach the APS Code of Conduct and justify termination of employment.
Claytonutz -
7
apsc.gov.au
Apsc Gov
-
8
greenleft.org.au
Green Left -
9
taipeitimes.com
Bringing Taiwan to the World and the World to Taiwan
Taipei Times
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.