Tilahun v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency
[2016] QCAT 407
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Tilahun v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[2016] QCAT 407
- Add to List
Tilahun v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[2016] QCAT 407
Tilahun v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[2016] QCAT 407
CITATION: | Tilahun v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 407 |
PARTIES: | Demissie Tilahun (Applicant) |
v | |
Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | CML324-15 |
MATTER TYPE: | Childrens matters |
HEARING DATE: | 27 July 2016 Written Submissions 8 August 2016 and 12 August 2016 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Howard |
DELIVERED ON: | 2 November 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE OR TERRITORY JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION – blue card – where applicant issued with negative notice – whether exceptional case STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION – substance of review – orders that may be made by Tribunal – whether orders may be made about the issue of a positive notice and/or blue card Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3(c), s 4(d) Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 6, s 167, s 221, s 226, s 360, Schedule 2 Ax v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (No 2) [2012] QCATA 248 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492 Commissioner for Children & Young People v Ram [2014] QCATA 27 FMA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 210 FMA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency (No 2) [2016] QCAT 381 In the marriage of Sandrk (1991) 104 FLR 394 Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98 Neilson v Chief Executive Officer [2016] QCAT 263 Re: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s patent extension petitions [1983] VR 1 RPG v Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331 Sargent v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 333 Schwerin v Equal Opportunity Board (1994) VR 27 |
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT: | Ms A Rae, Counsel, instructed by Ashurst Australia represented Mr Tilahun |
RESPONDENT: | Ms Paula Hughes, in-house lawyer, Public Safety Business Agency represented the Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
- [1]Mr Demissie Tilahun applied to the Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency (‘PSBA’) for a positive notice and a blue card. He wishes to engage as a volunteer in education programs outside of school with children, and also wishes to seek employment working with persons who may include children who have a disability.
- [2]After considering the application, PSBA found that Mr Demissie’s case was an exceptional case and issued a negative notice to him under the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) (‘WWC Act’).
- [3]Mr Tilahun has applied for review of PSBA’s decision.
The legislative framework for the review
- [4]The paramount consideration in employment screening decisions under the WWC Act is a child’s entitlement to be cared for in a manner that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing.[1]
- [5]It is uncontroversial that Mr Tilahun has not been convicted of a serious offence.[2] Accordingly, under s 221 of the WWC Act, the PSBA is obliged to issue a positive notice,[3] unless it is satisfied it is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would be harmed if a positive notice was issued.[4] If the PSBA is satisfied that it is an exceptional case, then the PSBA must issue a negative notice.[5]
- [6]‘Exceptional case’ is not defined in the WWC Act. What constitutes an exceptional case is a matter of fact and degree.[6] It is settled law that it is a broad discretion considering the merits in each case.[7] Hardship or prejudice suffered by an applicant is irrelevant.[8] What amounts to an exceptional case must ‘take it out and beyond the ordinary circumstances reasonably expected to occur.’[9] It must be ‘of the nature of or forming an exception; out of the ordinary course, unusual, special’.[10] The passage of time alone is not determinative of whether or not a case is an exceptional case. Allegations and convictions may relate to events a number of years ago, but the passage of time alone does not detract from their seriousness. The decision-maker may consider relevant risk and protective factors.[11] Detriment to the applicant is irrelevant to deciding whether it is an exceptional case.
- [7]Section 226 of the WWC Act sets out a non-exclusive list of matters which must be considered in deciding whether an exceptional case exists in circumstances of a conviction or charge for an offence. Relevantly, consideration must be given to whether it is a conviction or a charge; whether the offence is a serious offence and if it is, whether it is a disqualifying offence; when the offence was committed; the nature of the offence and its relevance to employment that may involve children; and in the case of a conviction, the penalty imposed by the court and the court’s reasons for its decision.[12] Further, consideration must be given to anything else relating to the commission of the offence that is reasonably relevant to the assessment.[13]
- [8]In recent months, some controversy has emerged about whether the Tribunal in its review of the decision may only make a finding about whether there is or is not an exceptional case, or whether it may also make orders about the issue of, in appropriate circumstances, a positive notice.[14] In the past, it has regularly made orders about the issue of a positive notice. Here, PSBA submitted that it could not make orders about issue of a positive notice. It relied upon a recent decision of Neilson v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency[15] (Nielson) in which the Tribunal, having heard its submissions, set aside a negative notice and made a finding about whether there was or was not an exceptional case. In Sargent v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency,[16] a differently constituted Tribunal made orders to a similar effect, although in different terms. For Mr Tilahun, it is submitted that the Tribunal may issue a positive notice.
- [9]For reasons as discussed in my observations in FMA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency[17] and FMA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency (No 2),[18] it seems arguable that the Tribunal must, in deciding the review, in circumstances that it makes a different finding than the Chief Executive made about whether there is an exceptional case, set aside the negative notice and issue a positive notice.
- [10]That said, a Judicial Member of QCAT recently decided the issue in RPG v Public Safety Business Agency (‘RPG’).[19] In RPG, the Tribunal determined a contempt application against the Chief Executive. The contempt application arose out of orders made in determination of a review proceeding. Those earlier orders set aside a negative notice issued by PSBA and issued a positive notice. PSBA had required that the successful review applicant lodge an updated application for its consideration, in line with internal policy guidelines. In RPG,[20] an updated application was said to be necessary to ensure that the person concerned still proposed to engage in regulated child-related employment or business activities.[21] The contempt application alleged that the Chief Executive had deliberately defied the order.
- [11]PSBA argued that the Tribunal’s order was ultra vires and that all the Tribunal could do was substitute its review findings for the reviewable decision, leaving it for the Chief Executive to implement the decision according to law.
- [12]The Tribunal held that on review the tribunal had power to set aside PSBA’s decision that it is an ‘exceptional case’ within the meaning of s 221(2) of the WWC Act and replace it with the Tribunal’s decision that there is no exceptional case. It further held that the Tribunal had no power to order that a positive notice or blue card be issued, suggesting that the Chief Executive was obliged to issue a positive notice within a reasonable time of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal observed that failure to do so may render the Chief Executive liable for criminal prosecution.
- [13]The RPG decision was made by a Judicial Member of QCAT. Without determining whether in an administrative review proceeding, I am technically bound by the decision in RPG, it is at least highly persuasive. For reasons of consistency,[22] I consider that I should follow it.
Mr Tilahun’s criminal history
- [14]On his plea of guilty, Mr Tilahun was convicted in New South Wales in April 2011 of common assault. He was sentenced to a bond of 12 months and ordered to pay some costs of the court in sum of $79.00.
- [15]The police brief describes the incident. Because of the guilty plea, the information in the police brief was not tested and is essentially the complainant’s version of events. It records that on 21 February 2011, Mr Tilahun was walking his son to school. At the same time, the victim of the common assault was walking with her younger brother and sister to the same school. They were a short distance behind Mr Tilahun and his son. The police brief records that the accused’s son raised his middle finger, making a rude gesture towards the victim, who was at the time carrying a water spray bottle, and that she sprayed Mr Tilahun’s son, causing him to be wet. The police brief further records that Mr Tilahun then continued walking and took his son to school, and then began to walk home. About 100 metres from the school, he approached the victim who was still walking to school. It was alleged that Mr Tilahun grabbed the victim by her right shirt sleeve and turned her around so that she was facing him, and then swung his right hand and slapped her on the right side of her face with an open hand. He then walked away. The victim was aged 11 years at the time.
- [16]The police report that no photographs were taken as there were no visible injuries.
- [17]Mr Tilahun’s version of events is different from the police brief in some respects. He acknowledges that he ‘lightly’ slapped the victim across the face with an open hand. However, he says that on the day in question he had taken his son to school and that when he was walking home, the victim stood in front of him and sprayed water on him. He then slapped her.
- [18]He says he did not plan it, that it was an ‘accident’. He says that prior to this event, the victim had on a number of occasions sprayed his child with water and called him names. He considers the victim was bullying his son. He also denies that his son made the alleged gesture. However, he says the only reason that he slapped her was because she sprayed him with water.
- [19]In his witness statements he describes the slap as a form of discipline which would be acceptable in his home country of Ethiopia. He explained that in Ethiopia the village raises children: it is acceptable to discipline a someone else’s child if the parents are not there and the child requires it. He had been in Australia for only one year at the time of the event, and did not appreciate that physical punishment of children is not acceptable, and particularly that it is not appropriate to physically discipline other people’s children.
- [20]Mr Tilahun gave his oral evidence at hearing through interpretors. As I understand his oral evidence, he did not intend to discipline the victim according to Ethiopian tradition: he did not plan to slap her, rather, it was an ‘accident.’ As I understand it when he refers to the slap as an accident, what he means is that it was an impulsive act, rather than a planned act. He was immediately regretful and indeed then himself returned to the school and reported the incident. Mr Tilahun subsequently entered a plea guilty because he accepted responsibility for the inappropriateness of the action.
Mr Tilahun’s life history
- [21]Mr Tilahun was born in the 1960’s in Ethiopia. However, from 1994 until 2010 he was in a refugee camp in Kenya, following on from some 3 years in military camp because of his religious beliefs. About a year after he learned that he was to be resettled in Australia, he and his family came to Australia. Before moving to Australia, two days of general information about Australia and its culture were provided to those to be resettled. No information was given about bringing up children in Australia.
- [22]Mr Tilahun’s oral evidence is that he has not worked in paid work. However, since coming to Australia he has completed a Certificate 3 in Aged Care and a Certificate 3 in Disability Services at TAFE colleges.
- [23]He is deeply religious and involved in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewadedo Church. Indeed, it was his religious beliefs that led him to flee Ethiopia into Kenya as he and his family were being targeted for those beliefs in Ethiopia. While in the refugee camp, he met a priest, Father Taye Ejgie. Father Ejgie describes Mr Tilahun as his assistant during the time that they were both in the refugee camp, although Father Ejgie moved to Australia himself in 1999. He says he kept in contact with Mr Tilahun over the years until Mr Tilahun then came to Australian and again then engaged in church activities with him.
- [24]Mr Tilahun and his family lived in Sydney until approximately one year before the hearing. Mr Tilahun has one son. He is married to Alem Demissie Mersha. Ms Mersha is working as a family day care provider.
- [25]Immediately after the criminal charges, Mr Tilahun sought out a priest at his church to hear his confession and pray for forgiveness. Since the incident he has had extended counselling from the priest. He says he has learnt a lot from the experience and that he has not been involved in any quarrel or other trouble with the police or a court since then.
- [26]He says that he now knows the rules in Australia and respects the law and this will help him in the future. He says that he has learnt that if there is a disagreement, that he should not take any action and must approach the authorities to take the necessary action.
- [27]He provided an example of having shown that he has self-control. The example involved a situation where he was involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by a third party. The third party told him that she had a friend who could fix his car for him and asked him to attend at a stated time and place for her friend to look at the car. He did do that, but the mechanic did not attend. Mr Tilahun on that occasion, although it sounds as though he was frustrated, did not become angry. He simply asserted himself by explaining to the person who caused the accident that the insurer would now deal with all of the matters and proceeded to make a claim. It had been her request that the insurers not be involved and that she make private arrangements to have his car fixed.
- [28]Mr Tilahun also suggests that his studies in the disability and aged care areas have been instructive. The studies involved developing personalised support programs and managing personal care tasks.
- [29]Mr Tilahun attended on an intern counsellor in New South Wales for three sessions, a Mr Charlie Hayes-Walker.[23] Mr Hayes-Walker’s report refers to three counselling sessions including an anger management course, relaxation techniques and exploration of Mr Tilahun’s experience of the incident, which led to the criminal charges. More recently, he has seen a psychologist, Mr Sean Webber for five sessions, focussing on the Triple P parenting programme. He also considers this has been beneficial.
- [30]He explains that Mr Webber discussed with him a range of strategies to promote children social and emotional development and strategies to prevent and manage problem behaviour in children. He is confident that there will be no repeat of the incident which led to the criminal charges. He has now learnt about Australian culture and says he would not be physically aggressive or deal with anyone, child or adult, inappropriately. He says if the situation arose, again he would try to resolve it by discussing the issues with the child or adult person concerned and if the problems could not be resolved, he would report it to a superior for guidance on how to manage.
- [31]He explains that he has helped with children under 15 as well as a 15 to 30 aged group with bible studies for his church. He wishes to continue teaching Ethiopian students and providing multicultural support. He regrets the incident, which he describes as a one off and only happened because he did not fully appreciate how his Ethiopian culture could cause him to act in a way that is not acceptable in Australia.[24]
- [32]He wishes to live a fully productive life in Australia by working to support his community as a disability support worker.
Psychologist reports
- [33]Mr Hayes-Walker’s report states that in his professional opinion, since the incident Mr Tilahun has learnt what is and what is not culturally and legally acceptable in Australia. He records that he considers Mr Tilahun remorseful and regretful. He opines that Mr Tilahun is not a threat to his community or to children. Mr Hayes-Walker was not available for cross-examination at the hearing.
- [34]Mr Sean Webber provided two reports to the Tribunal.[25] He also provided oral evidence. He reports that he saw Mr Tilahun for five individual sessions, which focused on the Triple P positive parenting program and on a range of strategies to promote children’s social and emotional development and to prevent and manage problem behaviour in children.
- [35]He had reviewed relevant documents related to the proceedings. He is a psychologist of some 10 years, but has no particular experience with blue cards or child protection matters. All of the five sessions with Mr Tilahun occurred in April 2016. He did not have the benefit of an interpreter during the sessions.
- [36]He considers Mr Tilahun was open and honest in describing what occurred that led to the assault charge. He said that he considered that although Mr Tilahun had been raised differently, in a context where smacking children was viewed as perfectly appropriate, Mr Tilahun understood that his actions were inappropriate and had the potential to have negative repercussions for the victim.
- [37]In his own oral evidence, Mr Tilahun acknowledged that a child could be traumatised by experiencing or witnessing physical violence. Although he initially appeared to suggest that the child had no injuries, as I understood his evidence, he referred to physical injuries, having not understood the questions asked of him.
- [38]Mr Webber further opined in his reports that Mr Tilahun demonstrates clear insight into the need to be mindful of managing or dealing with difficult child behaviour. He does not consider there are any real risk factors for Mr Tilahun, which may lead to reoffending behaviour. He explains that time was spent in sessions examining approaches to management of feelings and being aware of bodily signs that indicate anger or frustrations is developing, in order to use effective relaxation techniques so that situations are more calmly dealt with. He considers Mr Tilahun had demonstrated the capacity to calmly handle situations in which a person may become angry or frustrated. He used the example of the car accident referred to earlier. He also considers Mr Tilahun’s religious and moral beliefs are protective in that they endorse the ethical value of doing no harm to others and recognising when anger is used in response to anger, that there are unfortunate results.
- [39]He speaks of preventive strategies to reduce risk for Mr Tilahun as including stress management and relaxation; positive parent strategies; and self-regulation of emotions; and Mr Tilahun’s use of prayer and family time to relax. They also discussed other prevention strategies including quality time; affection; praise and positive attention, in keeping with the key principles of the Triple P positive parenting program.
- [40]Mr Webber is aware of his responsibilities in giving expert evidence. Although his evidence was that he based his opinions on his own observations, he explained that he sought some corroborative information by contacting a referee of Mr Tilahun’s, Ms Stella Gibbs. He further opined that although he was not saying that this was the case in Mr Tilahun’s situation, that a person in his situation could reasonably be stressed in trying to assimilate into Australian society, having come from a background of escaping violence. He did not do any psychological testing.
Referee reports presented to support Mr Tilahun’s application
- [41]Mr Tilahun provided a number of referee statements/reports of persons. These include his wife, Father Ejgie and other members of the church community including Aynalem Tedla, Albert Sagigi and Tirsit Beneberu. All of them speak highly of Mr Tilahun and his gentle, caring and community minded nature, and about his remorse about the events which resulted in the conviction. They each gave evidence as to his positive engagement with children through church activities, and in Mr Sagigi’s case, in coaching his children in soccer. They considered the events which resulted in the charge of assault as out of character for Mr Tilahun. The evidence also confirmed that physical discipline by way of pinching and slapping was common in Ethiopia and that persons other than parents may discipline children as Mr Tilahun indicated.
- [42]Ms Stella Gibbs also provided supporting statements.[26] She is now retired but previously an employee of the Ipswich Library. It was in her employment she became acquainted with Mr Tilahun. She asked him to assist her with an Ethiopian family who had moved to the area. The family had seven children. She says that through this they became friends, although she does not socialise with Mr Tilahun. That said, she has sought to assist him in obtaining employment. She knew of the common assault charge. She understood that the victim had been constantly harassing Mr Tilahun’s own child for some months through name-calling and throwing water. She understood that one day the child went to throw water in his son’s face and he turned around and slapped her because, as she understood it, he was afraid the child would run onto the road. She has not seen Mr Tilahun manage misbehaviour.
- [43]She taught Mr Tilahun English and describes his English as very good.[27] That is why she requested his assistance to ensure the children in the Ethiopian family who had recently arrived were understanding lessons.
Is Mr Tilahun’s an exceptional case?
- [44]As discussed, Mr Tilahun’s oral evidence was given through an interpreter. English is not his first language. Despite the use of an interpreter some language issues remained and only careful questioning revealed them.
- [45]Mr Tilahun was earnest and, I accept truthful, in giving his evidence. Although there is apparently some degree of inconsistency between the understanding of some witnesses about Mr Tilahun’s version of events surrounding the assault, I am satisfied, because generally the witnesses who do not speak Amharic did not use interpreters when discussing the issue with Mr Tilahun: apparent inconsistencies most likely arise from those language issues. In particular, Ms Gibbs had some misunderstanding about how it occurred, although not what had occurred. Except as discussed, I also generally accept the evidence of the supporting witnesses, all of whom impressed me as truthful. I give particular weight to the support of Ms Gibbs’ evidence. She does not have a close personal relationship with Mr Tilahun, although she considers him a friend. She has also had the advantage of seeing his interactions with children.
- [46]Mr Tilahun’s criminal history is limited to one conviction, for events over five years ago, relating to what is objectively a relatively minor assault of slapping a person. There were no physical injuries. Because of Mr Tilahun’s guilty plea, the information provided by the complainant and contained in the police brief was not been tested. I accept Mr Tilahun’s version of the events on the day. The sentence imposed on him confirms that the court regarded the offence as minor.
- [47]That said, it is most concerning for present purposes that the assault was against a child. Although there is no evidence about the effect on them, it is reasonable to infer that the child, and her siblings who observed the slap, sustained some degree of psychological and/or emotional trauma as a consequence of the incident. He was immediately afterwards, and has remained since, very remorseful and regretful that the incident occurred. Mr Tilahun accepts that physical violence of any sort towards a child may be traumatising for the child, and that witnessing violence may also cause trauma.
- [48]I accept the evidence of Mr Tilahun, and others including Father Ejgie, that it is not uncommon in Ethiopian culture for children to be disciplined by neighbours/others in the village, if their parents are absent, by pinching and slapping, including on the face. I consider that it is relevant that the offence occurred within the first twelve months that Mr Tilahun arrived in Australia. I am satisfied that at that stage he was in the early stages of coming to terms with cultural norms and the law in Australia, having received little information before arriving here. He says the act was impulsive and seems to acknowledge frustration at the time. Without excusing his totally unacceptable behaviour which resulted in the criminal charge, it is apparent that the events occurred in the early days following his resettlement and during a period of assimilation in Australia.
- [49]Against that background and given the cultural norms about child discipline in Ethiopia, and again without excusing his actions at all, it is to his credit that immediately after the events, Mr Tilahun recognised that he had acted inappropriately and reported them to the school. He was then cooperative with Police and entered a plea of guilty. Despite the hardships in his earlier life in military and refugee camps, there is no evidence which suggests that Mr Tilahun has acted inappropriately, whether out of frustration or anger, or in a manner that could be considered violently, on any other occasion since he has been in Australia. Indeed, all of the evidence, which I accept, is to the effect that he is a caring, thoughtful and gentle man who seeks, through his actions, to help others. Consistently with his evidence that he now behaves according to Australian norms, his wife says that he no longer physically disciplines their son, although he did in Africa. The evidence of the witnesses attests to his patience and compassion with children generally, and the trust others have in him with their own children.
- [50]Also, Mr Tilahun saw Mr Webber, a psychologist, for five individual counselling sessions with a focus on positive parenting strategies. PSBA submitted that I should give little weight to Mr Webber’s evidence because he relied upon information from Ms Gibbs. I reject this submission. Mr Webber’s evidence was to the effect that he spoke with Ms Gibbs as means to obtain some independent corroboration, (or otherwise), of the impressions he had formed. I am satisfied that the opinion he expressed was his own.
- [51]Mr Webber’s professional opinion, which I accept, is that Mr Tilahun has insight. He considers he is genuinely remorseful and ashamed about the events leading to the assault conviction. He considers that there is no real risk of Mr Tilahun reoffending, and that he has demonstrated the capacity to calmly and appropriately manage frustrating situations. He referred to the example of the events following the motor vehicle accident. He considers Mr Tilahun is mindful of ways to manage difficult child behaviour. He considers that Mr Tilahun’s religious and moral beliefs are protective. He further spoke of strategies which he discussed with Mr Tilahun for managing stress and relax, as well as acknowledging Mr Tilahun’s use of prayer and family time to do so.
- [52]On the basis of the evidence, I am satisfied that the risk of Mr Tilahun acting inappropriately by physically disciplining any child is very minimal. He was immediately regretful about the assault and entered a plea of guilty. Since the events resulting in his conviction for common assault, he has learned the cultural norms of Australia and assimilated into Australian society. He has learned positive strategies for managing difficult child behaviour and strategies for stress management and relaxation. At the time of hearing, almost 5 and a half years had passed since the event. There is no suggestion that in the intervening time, Mr Tilahun has been anything other than caring, gentle and thoughtful in his dealings with all persons, including children. He has learnt a variety of new skills that are protective. He has demonstrated an ability to manage frustration appropriately and calmly.
Conclusions and orders
- [53]For these reasons, I am not satisfied that Mr Tilahun’s case is an exceptional case in which it would not be in the best interests of children for a positive notice to issue.
- [54]Accordingly, I set aside the PSBA’s decision that it is an exceptional case under s 221, and declare that it is not an exceptional case.
Footnotes
[1] WWC Act s 6 and s 360.
[2] Ibid, s 167 and Schedule 2.
[3] Ibid, s 221(1).
[4] WWC Act s 221(2).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Re: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd’s patent extension petitions [1983] VR 1; Kent v Wilson [2000] VSC 98; and Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492.
[7] Commissioner for Children & Young People v Ram [2014] QCATA 27.
[8] Ax v Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (No 2) [2012] QCATA 248.
[9] In the marriage of Sandrk (1991) 104 FLR 394, at 399-400.
[10] Schwerin v Equal Opportunity Board (1994) VR 279 at 287–288.
[11] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA 492.
[12] WWC Act s 226(2)(a).
[13] Ibid, s 226(2)(e).
[14] FMA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 210; and FMA v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency (No 2) [2016] QCAT 381; RPG v Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331.
[15] [2016] QCAT 263.
[16] [2016] QCAT 333.
[17] [2016] QCAT 210.
[18] [2016] QCAT 381.
[19] [2016] QCAT 331.
[20] In other cases, the requirement for an updated application has been suggested as serving a broader purpose, see FMA v Chief Executive, PSBA [2016] QCAT 210, [13] and [113].
[21] RPG [2016] QCAT 331, [5]-[6].
[22] An object of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (’QCAT Act’) is to promote consistency of decision-making: QCAT Act s 3(c) and 4(d).
[23] Exhibit 2, pages “PSBA017-018”.
[24] Exhibit 5 at [20].
[25] Exhibits 6 and 7.
[26] Exhibits 11 and 12.
[27] Exhibit 11.