To Gag or Not to Gag What's CSIRO's Policy. (May 26, 2005)

    On May 14 TFW reported on Face-off at the Gungahlin Homestead Coral where the Chief of CSIRO's Sustainable Ecosystems, Andrew Johnson, told a number of the division's Honourary Fellows that "They are guests of this division. They are not employees of the organisation. They have been told they are not entitled to make independent comment." He went on to deny that he had reprimanded Dr Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe for the criticism of Divisional policy, made by the pioneering marsupial ecologist at the launch of the second edition of his Life of Marsupials.

Now at the very outset of the remarks Dr Tyndale-Biscoe made at the book launch he stated "The views expressed in this speech are those of Hugh Tyndale-Biscoe alone and do not represent those of CSIRO in any way".

According to what TFW has been told is CSIRO's official advice to staff in answer to what appears to be the FAQ  I have a view that is contradictory to CSIRO and I want to make it public comment. What are the implications?

The answer given is: If you want to publicise your own view on an issue, but it is not authorised by CSIRO, you may do so freely as a private individual. However you must state plainly it is a personal opinion and not an official or unofficial view of CSIRO, and help the media to understand the distinction.

Apparently if you're a member of staff you may, for example, take issue with CSIRO policy so long as it's clear it's your personal assessment or opinion but if you're an honourary fellow, you may not.

All of which leads into an recent interesting decision by the Australian High Court. In a 4-1 majority, the High Court said the NSW Pawnbrokers Act did not cover Cash Counters because it "lent money on the security of chattel mortgages" and its loan documents recorded title passing to the lender.

The lone dissenter was Michael Kirby who in part of his opinion wrote, "The most that can be said for the appellant's [Cash Counters] argument is that Parliament, in enacting the 1996 act, could have defined 'pawned', and failed to do so. Yet it is possible that the word 'pawned' was not defined because the drafter in the 1996 act took this court at its word when, as it has repeatedly done, it proclaimed that the purposive and not the literal approach is the method of statutory construction that now prevails in Australia."

So when deciding as to whether Dr Tyndale-Biscoe has a right to publicly criticise CSIRO which should take precedence, the purposive or the literal approach to the definition of "staff".