Banerji and Comcare (Compensation) [2018] AATA 892 (16 April 2018)
Division:General Division
File Number(s): 2014/5055
Re:MichaelaBanerji
APPLICANT
AndComcare
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Gary Humphries Dr B Hughson, Member
Date:16 April 2018
Place:Canberra
The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 1 August 2014 and instead finds that on 13 September 2013 Ms Banerji suffered an adjustment disorder characterised by depression and anxiety, being an injury pursuant to s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
........................................................................ Deputy President Gary Humphries
Catchwords
COMPENSATION – adjustment disorder characterised by depression and anxiety – mental injury significantly contributed to by Ms Banerji’s employment – whether termination of Ms Banerji’s employment for breaches of the APS Code of Conduct was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner – reviewable decision set aside.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – implied freedom of political communication – whether the APS Code of Conduct burdens this implied freedom – whether the Code is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end
PUBLIC SERVICE, PROFESSIONS AND TRADE – duty of fidelity and loyalty – whether the implied freedom of public servants is restricted in certain circumstances – preserving the capacity of the APS to deliver effective and professional services to the Australian government
Secondary Materials Christopher Erskine, ‘The Bennett Decision Explained: The Sky is Not Falling!’ (Paper presented at an AIAL seminar, Canberra, 27 April 2005)
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Code of Conduct Guidelines
Australian Public Service Commission, Circular 2012/1: Revisions to the Commission’s guidance on making public comment and participating online (social media) (at 10 January 2012)
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, ‘What is Public Comment?’ Workplace Relations and Conduct Section Fact Sheet, Department of Immigration and Citizenship
REASONS…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Banerji and Comcare (Compensation)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Banerji and Comcare (Compensation) [2018] AATA 892
Case
[2018] AATA 892
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Banerji against a decision by Comcare to refuse her claim for workers' compensation for an adjustment disorder characterised by depression and anxiety. The claimed condition arose as a consequence of the termination of her employment with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The central dispute was whether the termination of her employment constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, as required by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, or if it fell outside this exclusion due to the implied freedom of political communication.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the termination of Ms Banerji's employment was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, considering the exclusion in section 5A(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This determination hinged on whether the termination was affected by the implied freedom of political communication, which is a constitutional consideration. The Tribunal also had to consider the obligations of public servants under the Public Service Act 1999, including the APS values and the Code of Conduct, in the context of Ms Banerji's use of social media.
The Tribunal found that Ms Banerji had, on one occasion during business hours, retweeted a comment critical of her employer. While acknowledging the extensive nature of her tweeting and her general assiduousness in avoiding posting during work hours, the Tribunal accepted the documentary evidence and Ms Banerji's earlier written concession that this specific incident occurred. However, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that this finding did not alter the outcome of the case. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the legal principles governing reasonable administrative action and the limitations on public servants' implied freedom of political communication, particularly in relation to their duty of fidelity and loyalty to the APS.
The Tribunal set aside the Comcare decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
On 18 October 2013 Ms Banerji lodged a claim for workers compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act). A delegate of Comcare refused this claim on 24 February 2014, and, following reconsideration, that decision was affirmed on 1 August 2014. Ms Banerji lodged an application for merits review by the Tribunal on 30 September 2014.STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS AND ISSUES There have been many interlocutory steps in the progress of Ms Banerji’s application before the Tribunal – including proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court, the Federal Court and the High Court – which have had the effect of delaying its hearing. A hearing was eventually set down before the Tribunal in November 2017, but shortly before the hearing the parties reached agreement on a statement of facts and issues, allowing the matter to be heard (except in one respect) on the papers. That statement is reproduced here (cross-referencing is omitted):Decision under review1.The decision under review is a decision by a Comcare Review Officer (RO) dated 1 August 2014, which affirmed the determination dated 24 February 2014, denying the applicant’s claim for compensation under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) for a psychological condition (the claimed condition).Agreed Facts2.The parties agree that the following statement and the annexed documents constitute the facts and evidence on which the Tribunal will determine the remaining issue in this proceeding.Background3.On 10 April 2006, the applicant was offered and accepted employment as an ongoing APS 6 employee within the Ombudsman and HREOC section of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). 4.The date of commencement to the ongoing position was agreed to be 29 May 2006. The applicant commenced her ongoing role on that date.Current claim for compensation5.On 18 October 2013, the applicant submitted a further claim for compensation under s 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) for a psychological condition (‘post-traumatic stress disorder’) arising from events leading to and including the termination of her employment for a breach of the Public Service Code of Conduct.6.The date of injury was given as 13 September 2013. This was the date on which the applicant was advised that her employment was terminated for misconduct. The effective date of the termination was 27 September 2013.7.As a consequence of the termination, the applicant suffered a ‘disease’, being an ailment that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the applicant’s employment with the Commonwealth within the meaning of s 5B(1) of the Act.8.The date of onset of the disease was 13 September 2013 being the first day that the disease resulted in an impairment and incapacity for work.9.The correct diagnosis of the ailment is ‘an adjustment disorder characterised by depression and anxiety’ being an aggravation of an underlying psychological condition. 10.The ailment was suffered as a result of the termination of the applicant’s employment with the Commonwealth. The applicant would not have suffered the ailment if the termination of her employment had not occurred.11.The termination of the applicant’s employment was administrative action taken in respect of the applicant’s employment.12.The parties agree that the termination of the applicant’s employment was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the applicant’s employment unless the applicant can establish that the termination of her employment with the Commonwealth falls outside the exclusion in s 5A(1) of the Act, having regard to the implied freedom of political communication.The termination decision13.Prior to 7 March 2012, Ms Banerji tweeted using the twitter handle Lalegale. The identity of Lalegale was not at that time publicly known. LaLegale commented on matters relevant to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship portfolio [now known as the Department of Home Affairs] but did not disclose confidential information obtained in the course of her employment. 14.On 7 March 2012, the Workplace Relations and Conduct Section received a complaint from an employee of the Department, Ms Mardi Stewart, Director Internal and Strategic Communications copied to Mr Sandi Logan, National Communications Manager. The complaint alleged that the Applicant was inappropriately using social media in contravention of the APS Code of Conduct. 15.After reviewing the 7 March 2012 complaint, Geofrey McKinnon, Director, Workplace Relations and Conduct Section, decided that the complaint made by Mr Logan did not contain sufficient material to proceed with a formal APS Code of Conduct investigation in relation to the Applicant's alleged conduct. Mr Logan was advised of this decision orally.16.On 9 May 2012, the Workplace Relations and Conduct Section received a second, more detailed complaint from Mr Logan in relation to the Applicant's conduct. On the basis of the information contained in the 9 May 2012 complaint, on or around 15 May 2012, Mr McKinnon decided to initiate an investigation in relation to whether the Applicant's alleged conduct gave rise to possible breaches of the APS Code of Conduct. 17.On 23 July 2012, the Workplace Relations and Conduct Section of DIBP informed the Applicant of the decision to initiate an investigation in relation to whether the Applicant's alleged conduct gave rise to possible breaches of the APS Code of Conduct.18.Between 15 May 2012 and 13 September 2012, Ms Lidija Hary, Assistant Director, Workplace Relations and Conduct Section conducted an investigation into whether the Applicant's alleged conduct gave rise to possible breaches of the APS Code of Conduct. Ms Hary prepared an investigation report dated 13 September 2012. 19.On 20 September 2012, Robyn White, Director, Workforce Design and Strategy and authorised delegate sent a letter to the Applicant setting out a proposed determination of breach of the APS Code of Conduct. The letter invited the Applicant to provide a response to the proposed determination of breach. 20.On 20 September 2012, the Applicant sent an email to the Workplace Relations and Conduct Section providing a response to the proposed determination of breach. 21.On 15 October 2012, Ms White provided a determination of breach to the Applicant. She determined that the Applicant had breached the APS Code of Conduct, and proposed a sanction of termination of employment. The Applicant was provided with 7 days to provide a response to the proposed sanction of termination of employment. 22.On 19 October 2012, Ms White and Mr McKinnon held a meeting with the Applicant (and her union representative) at the Applicant’s request. An accurate summary of that meeting is included in the letter of Ms White dated 26 August 2013. Ms Banerji admitted that she had tweeted under the name @LaLegale under which she criticised government immigration policy and her direct supervisor. 23.On 19 October 2012, the Applicant sent an email to Mr Logan offering an ‘unreserved’ apology.24.The Applicant requested and was granted a number of extensions of time to provide a response to the proposed determination of sanction, including on 2 November 2012.25.On 1 November 2012, the applicant sought an injunction in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia to prevent the Department from proceeding with the proposed sanction of termination of employment26.On 2 November 2012, the Applicant submitted a response in respect of the proposed sanction of termination of employment. 27.On 2 November 2012, the Applicant's representative, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance submitted a written response to the proposed determination of sanction. 28.On 9 November 2012, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance submitted a further response to be considered. 29.On 11 November 2012, the Applicant submitted a further response dated 9 November 2012. 30.On 17 November 2012, the Applicant withdrew the confession and apology she gave on 19 October 2012 via an email to Mr McKinnon because she alleged that the investigative process for the Code of Conduct investigation and termination decision was flawed. 31.The decision of the Federal Circuit Court in the matter of Banerji v Martin Bowles, Acting Secretary, Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCCA 1052, dismissed the injunction application on 9 August 2013. 32.On 15 August 2013, Mr McKinnon wrote to the applicant setting out the steps the Department proposed to take to finalise the process relating to the applicant’s breaches of the APS Code of Conduct given the interim injunction application had been dismissed. The letter noted that the Department proposed to undertake the following process to finalise the sanction decision, namely:32.1.Ms White would consider all of the information provided to her by the applicant in response to the 15 October 2012 decision;32.2.Ms White would then write to the applicant, inviting her to make any further submissions regarding the sanction (if any) to be imposed, and provide her with a period of 7 days in which to respond, in addition to the opportunities that had already been provided to be heard; and32.3.Ms White would then complete the review process and make a determination under section 15(3) of the Public Service Act 1999 to decide what sanction (if any) would be imposed.33.The letter of 15 August 2013, also noted that any sanction imposed would not be implemented until 14 days after Ms White has made her determination about any sanction that might apply. On 26 August 2013, Ms White provided the applicant with a further opportunity to respond to the proposed sanction of termination in line with the process set out in the letter of 15 August 2013. 34.On 30 August 2013, the Applicant provided a response to Ms White in relation to the proposed sanction of termination. 35.On 12 September 2013, Ms White wrote to the applicant setting out her final decision to impose a sanction of termination of employment under s 15(1)(a) of the Public Service Act 1999. 36.On 13 September 2013, Mr McKinnon wrote to the applicant and provided her a notice of termination of employment under s 29(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. Mr McKinnon was acting at that time as the Assistant Secretary, People Services and Systems Branch and held a delegation to exercise the power to make decisions under that section. In making the decision to issue the notice to terminate Mr McKinnon took into account the terms of s 29, Ms White’s decisions that the applicant had breached the APS Code of Conduct and the final sanction of termination of employment. He notified the applicant that the termination decision would take effect from close of business on 27 September 2013. 37.On 28 March 2014, the Applicant entered into a Deed of Agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Department, agreeing to settle proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in matter no NSD 21 of 2014. Agreed Issue38.With respect to the applicant’s claimed condition, the only issue before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is: 38.1.whether or not the termination of the applicant’s employment with the Commonwealth falls outside the exclusion in s 5A(1) of the Act, having regard to the implied freedom of political communication. PRINCIPAL ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
There have been many interlocutory steps in the progress of Ms Banerji’s application before the Tribunal – including proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court, the Federal Court and the High Court – which have had the effect of delaying its hearing. A hearing was eventually set down before the Tribunal in November 2017, but shortly before the hearing the parties reached agreement on a statement of facts and issues, allowing the matter to be heard (except in one respect) on the papers. That statement is reproduced here (cross-referencing is omitted):Decision under review1.The decision under review is a decision by a Comcare Review Officer (RO) dated 1 August 2014, which affirmed the determination dated 24 February 2014, denying the applicant’s claim for compensation under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) for a psychological condition (the claimed condition).Agreed Facts2.The parties agree that the following statement and the annexed documents constitute the facts and evidence on which the Tribunal will determine the remaining issue in this proceeding.Background3.On 10 April 2006, the applicant was offered and accepted employment as an ongoing APS 6 employee within the Ombudsman and HREOC section of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). 4.The date of commencement to the ongoing position was agreed to be 29 May 2006. The applicant commenced her ongoing role on that date.Current claim for compensation5.On 18 October 2013, the applicant submitted a further claim for compensation under s 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) for a psychological condition (‘post-traumatic stress disorder’) arising from events leading to and including the termination of her employment for a breach of the Public Service Code of Conduct.6.The date of injury was given as 13 September 2013. This was the date on which the applicant was advised that her employment was terminated for misconduct. The effective date of the termination was 27 September 2013.7.As a consequence of the termination, the applicant suffered a ‘disease’, being an ailment that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the applicant’s employment with the Commonwealth within the meaning of s 5B(1) of the Act.8.The date of onset of the disease was 13 September 2013 being the first day that the disease resulted in an impairment and incapacity for work.9.The correct diagnosis of the ailment is ‘an adjustment disorder characterised by depression and anxiety’ being an aggravation of an underlying psychological condition. 10.The ailment was suffered as a result of the termination of the applicant’s employment with the Commonwealth. The applicant would not have suffered the ailment if the termination of her employment had not occurred.11.The termination of the applicant’s employment was administrative action taken in respect of the applicant’s employment.12.The parties agree that the termination of the applicant’s employment was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the applicant’s employment unless the applicant can establish that the termination of her employment with the Commonwealth falls outside the exclusion in s 5A(1) of the Act, having regard to the implied freedom of political communication.The termination decision13.Prior to 7 March 2012, Ms Banerji tweeted using the twitter handle Lalegale. The identity of Lalegale was not at that time publicly known. LaLegale commented on matters relevant to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship portfolio [now known as the Department of Home Affairs] but did not disclose confidential information obtained in the course of her employment. 14.On 7 March 2012, the Workplace Relations and Conduct Section received a complaint from an employee of the Department, Ms Mardi Stewart, Director Internal and Strategic Communications copied to Mr Sandi Logan, National Communications Manager. The complaint alleged that the Applicant was inappropriately using social media in contravention of the APS Code of Conduct. 15.After reviewing the 7 March 2012 complaint, Geofrey McKinnon, Director, Workplace Relations and Conduct Section, decided that the complaint made by Mr Logan did not contain sufficient material to proceed with a formal APS Code of Conduct investigation in relation to the Applicant's alleged conduct. Mr Logan was advised of this decision orally.16.On 9 May 2012, the Workplace Relations and Conduct Section received a second, more detailed complaint from Mr Logan in relation to the Applicant's conduct. On the basis of the information contained in the 9 May 2012 complaint, on or around 15 May 2012, Mr McKinnon decided to initiate an investigation in relation to whether the Applicant's alleged conduct gave rise to possible breaches of the APS Code of Conduct. 17.On 23 July 2012, the Workplace Relations and Conduct Section of DIBP informed the Applicant of the decision to initiate an investigation in relation to whether the Applicant's alleged conduct gave rise to possible breaches of the APS Code of Conduct.18.Between 15 May 2012 and 13 September 2012, Ms Lidija Hary, Assistant Director, Workplace Relations and Conduct Section conducted an investigation into whether the Applicant's alleged conduct gave rise to possible breaches of the APS Code of Conduct. Ms Hary prepared an investigation report dated 13 September 2012. 19.On 20 September 2012, Robyn White, Director, Workforce Design and Strategy and authorised delegate sent a letter to the Applicant setting out a proposed determination of breach of the APS Code of Conduct. The letter invited the Applicant to provide a response to the proposed determination of breach. 20.On 20 September 2012, the Applicant sent an email to the Workplace Relations and Conduct Section providing a response to the proposed determination of breach. 21.On 15 October 2012, Ms White provided a determination of breach to the Applicant. She determined that the Applicant had breached the APS Code of Conduct, and proposed a sanction of termination of employment. The Applicant was provided with 7 days to provide a response to the proposed sanction of termination of employment. 22.On 19 October 2012, Ms White and Mr McKinnon held a meeting with the Applicant (and her union representative) at the Applicant’s request. An accurate summary of that meeting is included in the letter of Ms White dated 26 August 2013. Ms Banerji admitted that she had tweeted under the name @LaLegale under which she criticised government immigration policy and her direct supervisor. 23.On 19 October 2012, the Applicant sent an email to Mr Logan offering an ‘unreserved’ apology.24.The Applicant requested and was granted a number of extensions of time to provide a response to the proposed determination of sanction, including on 2 November 2012.25.On 1 November 2012, the applicant sought an injunction in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia to prevent the Department from proceeding with the proposed sanction of termination of employment26.On 2 November 2012, the Applicant submitted a response in respect of the proposed sanction of termination of employment. 27.On 2 November 2012, the Applicant's representative, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance submitted a written response to the proposed determination of sanction. 28.On 9 November 2012, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance submitted a further response to be considered. 29.On 11 November 2012, the Applicant submitted a further response dated 9 November 2012. 30.On 17 November 2012, the Applicant withdrew the confession and apology she gave on 19 October 2012 via an email to Mr McKinnon because she alleged that the investigative process for the Code of Conduct investigation and termination decision was flawed. 31.The decision of the Federal Circuit Court in the matter of Banerji v Martin Bowles, Acting Secretary, Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCCA 1052, dismissed the injunction application on 9 August 2013. 32.On 15 August 2013, Mr McKinnon wrote to the applicant setting out the steps the Department proposed to take to finalise the process relating to the applicant’s breaches of the APS Code of Conduct given the interim injunction application had been dismissed. The letter noted that the Department proposed to undertake the following process to finalise the sanction decision, namely:32.1.Ms White would consider all of the information provided to her by the applicant in response to the 15 October 2012 decision;32.2.Ms White would then write to the applicant, inviting her to make any further submissions regarding the sanction (if any) to be imposed, and provide her with a period of 7 days in which to respond, in addition to the opportunities that had already been provided to be heard; and32.3.Ms White would then complete the review process and make a determination under section 15(3) of the Public Service Act 1999 to decide what sanction (if any) would be imposed.33.The letter of 15 August 2013, also noted that any sanction imposed would not be implemented until 14 days after Ms White has made her determination about any sanction that might apply. On 26 August 2013, Ms White provided the applicant with a further opportunity to respond to the proposed sanction of termination in line with the process set out in the letter of 15 August 2013. 34.On 30 August 2013, the Applicant provided a response to Ms White in relation to the proposed sanction of termination. 35.On 12 September 2013, Ms White wrote to the applicant setting out her final decision to impose a sanction of termination of employment under s 15(1)(a) of the Public Service Act 1999. 36.On 13 September 2013, Mr McKinnon wrote to the applicant and provided her a notice of termination of employment under s 29(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. Mr McKinnon was acting at that time as the Assistant Secretary, People Services and Systems Branch and held a delegation to exercise the power to make decisions under that section. In making the decision to issue the notice to terminate Mr McKinnon took into account the terms of s 29, Ms White’s decisions that the applicant had breached the APS Code of Conduct and the final sanction of termination of employment. He notified the applicant that the termination decision would take effect from close of business on 27 September 2013. 37.On 28 March 2014, the Applicant entered into a Deed of Agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Department, agreeing to settle proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in matter no NSD 21 of 2014. Agreed Issue38.With respect to the applicant’s claimed condition, the only issue before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is: 38.1.whether or not the termination of the applicant’s employment with the Commonwealth falls outside the exclusion in s 5A(1) of the Act, having regard to the implied freedom of political communication. PRINCIPAL ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Counsel for Comcare sought to tender Ms Banerji’s leave record. Ms Banerji objected to the tender, but the objection was later withdrawn. The tendered leave record appears to disclose that Ms Banerji took no leave from work on 5 March 2012.Consideration Ms Banerji appears to have been a prolific tweeter. Ms Hary noted in her investigation report that LaLegale had made over 9000 tweets. Yet a cursory examination of the tweets in evidence before the Tribunal suggests that she had usually been careful, even assiduous, in avoiding posting tweets during working hours. The Tribunal understands Comcare’s contention to be that Ms Banerji deviated from this policy on only one occasion, at 3.14pm on 5 March 2012, when she retweeted a tweet critical of the Department’s spokesman. If there were other tweets purportedly made during working hours, they were not drawn to the Tribunal’s attention. The Tribunal takes official notice that 3.14pm on a working day would fall within core public service hours, and that Monday, 5 March 2012 was not a public holiday in the ACT. Ms Banerji conceded, in writing on 9 November 2012, that she had on one occasion tweeted during business hours. When confronted with that concession in the witness box she seemed to retract it, and was unable to explain why she had made it in the first place. Even if the Tribunal accepts that the statement was written under extreme stress, it is difficult to understand why the statement would emphatically restate the prudent approach she took to tweeting generally but then include a specific carve-out for a particular incident (which she admitted happened on 5 March 2012) unless that is what had actually happened. The written concession was made eight months after the incident in question; by contrast, her recollection of this day in the witness box 5 years later seemed confused and erratic. Her evidence was initially to the effect that any tweet sent during public service business hours must have been posted on a day when she took sick leave. The Tribunal accepts the documentary evidence that she did not take sick leave on 5 March 2012. Ms Banerji’s late suggestion that the tweet may have been made while she was taking a walk outside her workplace is unpersuasive. Because we were asked by the parties to make a finding of fact on this question, we find that Ms Banerji did retweet a comment critical of her employer on Monday, 5 March 2012, in the course of her employment. However, as indicated below, we believe nothing turns on this finding.OBLIGATIONS ON PUBLIC SERVANTS The Public Service Act 1999 (the PSA) sets out, inter alia, the APS values and the Code for public servants. It has been amended from time to time; the provisions quoted in this decision were those applying in 2012, when Ms Banerji posted her tweets and when the investigation was conducted by the Department. Section 10 of the PSA provided:10 APS Values(1) The APS Values are as follows: (a) the APS is apolitical, performing its functions in an impartial and professional manner…(g) the APS delivers services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public and is sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public…