Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2021
  4. Stewart v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning) - [2021] QIRC 168

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Stewart v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)[2021] QIRC 168

Stewart v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)[2021] QIRC 168

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Stewart v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning) [2021] QIRC 168

PARTIES:

Stewart, James

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2020/430

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Temporary Employment

DELIVERED ON:

18 May 2021

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

McLennan IC

On the papers

ORDERS:

That pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld):

  1. The appeal is allowed;
  2. The decision that Mr Stewart not have his temporary employment converted to permanent employment is set aside and another decision is substituted; and
  3. Mr Stewart's temporary employment status as a Principal Project Officer (AO7) be converted to permanent employment.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – temporary employment – where the appellant was reviewed under s 149B of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) – where the outcome of the review was that the appellant was not permanently appointed – where the role was for a specified period and purpose – where the role was not permanently funded – consideration of continuing need – consideration of role which is substantially the same – where the decision is set aside and another decision is substituted

LEGISLATION AND OTHER

INSTRUMENTS:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A

Directive 09/20 Fixed term temporary employment cl 1, cl 4, cl 8, cl 9, cl 11

Directive 08/17 Temporary Employment cl 14

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 451, s 562B, s 562C, s 564, s 567

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 27, s 148, s 149,

s 149A, s 149B, s 194, s 196

Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 14

CASES:

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245

Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018)

Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr James Stewart (the Appellant) is currently employed by the State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning) ('the Respondent', 'the Department') in Brisbane. 
  1. [2]
    Mr Stewart is a Principal Project Officer (AO7) in the State Development Group.  He is employed on a temporary full-time basis and has worked in "substantially the same role"[1] within the Department for more than two years. 
  1. [3]
    Mr Stewart had notified the Department that a review was required and that he wished to be converted to permanent employment.[2] 
  1. [4]
    An email exchange between Mr Stewart and Mr Dan Jarvis[3] between 24 and 25 November 2020, established that:
  • Mr Stewart's "two year review date was missed on the reports";
  • While the Department had initially proposed that Mr Stewart's notification be dealt with as a conversion request under s 149,[4] it was later accepted that it would properly be conducted as a two year review enabling the right to appeal; and
  • Mr Stewart's eligibility date was 10 November 2020.  Whilst an initial concern was expressed that it "will not allow enough time for HR to complete your review appropriately", it was later confirmed that contact would be made with the Business Group to "expedite your review" by the due date.
  1. [5]
    That accounted for the curiosity that arose from both the Department's Review Notice[5] being provided to Mr Stewart - and thence his detailed submission with respect to the conversion criteria[6] - both being exchanged on 25 November 2020.
  1. [6]
    On 8 December 2020, the Department advised Mr Stewart that his employment status would not be converted to permanent ('the Decision Letter').
  1. [7]
    The Department acknowledged that Mr Stewart was eligible to have his temporary employment status reviewed, in accordance with s 149B of the Public Service Act 2008 ('PS Act') and Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment ('the TE Directive').  
  1. [8]
    Pursuant to chapter 7 of the PS Act, Mr Stewart has appealed the Department's decision that his employment as a Principal Project Officer (AO7) remain as temporary ('the Conversion Decision').[7] 
  1. [9]
    An Appeal Notice was filed on 18 December 2020.
  1. [10]
    There is no dispute between the parties that:
  1. Mr Stewart's appeal was filed in time;
  1. Mr Stewart was eligible for a two year review under s 149B, including the right to appeal;[8]
  1. There were no issues with respect to 'merit' that would otherwise prevent conversion to permanent; and
  1. There are no requirements of an industrial instrument that are required to be complied with.
  1. [11]
    For the reasons that follow, I find that:
  1. There was a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same;
  1. There are no genuine operational requirements of the Department that would otherwise prevent conversion to permanent; and
  1. The Department's decision not to convert Mr Stewart's employment to permanent was not fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Appeal principles

  1. [12]
    Section 562B(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') provides that the section applies to a public service appeal made to the Commission.  The purpose of the appeal is "to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable."[9]
  1. [13]
    The appeal must be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against.[10] As the word 'review' has no settled meaning, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[11]
  1. [14]
    An appeal under chp 11, pt 6, div 4 of the IR Act is not by way of rehearing,[12] but involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision making process associated therewith. 
  1. [15]
    Findings made by the Department, which are reasonably open to it, should not be disturbed on appeal.  Even so, in reviewing the decision appealed against, the IRC member may allow other evidence to be taken into account.[13]
  1. [16]
    The key issue for my determination is whether the Department's decision not to convert Mr Stewart's temporary employment to permanent was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This requires a consideration of the PS Act and of the TE Directive.
  1. [17]
    Pursuant to s 451(1) of the IR Act, this matter has been decided without a hearing.

Decision against which an appeal may be made

  1. [18]
    The TE Directive came into effect on 25 September 2020.  The conversion review date was 10 November 2020 and I am therefore satisfied that this most recent version of the TE Directive is applicable. That is not in dispute.
  1. [19]
    Clause 11.1 of the TE Directive provides that "A fixed term temporary employee eligible for review under section 149B has a right of appeal provided for in section 194(1)(e) of the PS Act in relation to a decision not to convert."
  1. [20]
    Section 194 of the PS Act identifies the categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made. 
  1. [21]
    Section 194(1)(e)(i) of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against "a decision (each a conversion decision) – under section 149B not to convert the basis of employment of an employee". This is the 'type of decision' Mr Stewart indicated was being appealed against in the Appeal Notice. Section 196(e) of the PS Act prescribes that "the employee the subject of the decision" may appeal "for a conversion decision". 
  1. [22]
    For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied the decision was made under s 149B of the PS Act and is able to be appealed.

Timeframe for appeal

  1. [23]
    Section 564(3) of the IR Act requires that an appeal be lodged within 21 days after the day the decision appealed against is given. That is the relevant inquiry with respect to timeframes. I note that despite the question posed in the Form 89 – Appeal Notice regarding when the decision was received.
  1. [24]
    The notice of the decision was dated 8 December 2020 and Mr Stewart confirmed it was provided to him that day.  That is not in dispute. 
  1. [25]
    The Notice of Appeal was filed with the Industrial Registry on 18 December 2020. 
  1. [26]
    I am satisfied that the Appeal was filed by Mr Stewart within the required timeframe.

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [27]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Industrial Commissioner may:
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. (b)
    set the decision aside and substitute another decision; or
  1. (c)
    set the decision aside and return the issue to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

Decision subject of this Appeal

  1. [28]
    The decision subject of this appeal is the Department's determination not to convert Mr Stewart's employment status from temporary to permanent. 
  1. [29]
    Specifically, the Decision Letter stated that:

I have conducted a review of your status and have determined that your employment will remain as fixed term temporary at this time.  You will continue in the role of Principal Project Officer until 30 June 2021.

Stated reasons for not converting Mr Stewart's employment status to permanent

  1. [30]
    The Decision Letter contained the Department's stated reasons for not converting Mr Stewart to permanent employment:

There are two considerations for deciding whether to convert.  These are that there is a continuing need for you to perform your role or a role that is substantially the same AND you satisfy the merit principle.  I have addressed these two aspects below with my reasons being that:

a) I have considered the conditions for conversion in the PS Act and determined that you have demonstrated merit for you to fill the role in a fixed term capacity.  However, there are genuine operational requirements of the agency that mean it is not viable or appropriate to convert you to permanency at this time.

b) There is no continuing need for you to perform your current role because the role is temporary for a specified period and purpose.  Specifically, the Defence Jobs Qld (DJQ) is current being reviewed to determine the ongoing role of the program more broadly meaning the continuing need for the Principal Project Officer role in the DJQ's Space team cannot be viably confirmed.

c) Further, there is no continuing need for you to perform a role that is substantially the same.  All potential roles have been considered and there are no vacant positions available that are substantially the same role.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [31]
    In the Appeal Notice filed on 18 December 2020, Mr Stewart stated that:
  • He has worked in "substantially the same role" on a temporary full-time basis in the same Department for more than two years;
  • The current temporary contract expires on 30 June 2021;
  • He had sought conversion to permanent employment status;
  • A written submission was provided to the Department that demonstrated how Mr Stewart met the mandatory decision criteria.[14]  In summary, the submission outlined that there were no issues with respect to either 'merit' or any 'requirements of an industrial instrument' that would otherwise prevent conversion - and the planned project implementation workload demonstrated the continuing need for his role in the medium to long term;
  • The Department refused his conversion request on 8 December 2020 as "there is no continuing need for me to perform my current role because the role is temporary for a specified period and purpose";[15]
  • He appeals the decision on the grounds that it is not "a valid or defensible reason for the department to indicate that a temporary position cannot be made permanent because it is temporary… If that were the case then no temporary position in the Government would be converted to permanency through this process";[16]
  • He had discovered that "the majority (if not all) the people who went through this process were turned down".[17]

Submissions

  1. [32]
    The parties exchanged written submissions in accordance with Directions Orders issued on 18 December 2020.

  Appellant's submissions

  1. [33]
    Mr Stewart filed submissions in support of the appeal on 15 January 2021, as summarised below:
  • The Department's Decision Letter had identified two criterion to be met for conversion to permanency: whether there is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to perform his role or a role that is substantially the same; and whether the merit principle is satisfied.

Merit

  • There is no issue with respect to merit.

Continuing need for current role or a role that is substantially the same

  • The contested issue is whether or not there is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to perform his current role or a role that is substantially the same. 
  • A number of arguments are presented with respect to that disputed point.

Vacant role not required

  • The PS Act does not require a permanent similar position to be already vacant.  This additional criteria is beyond the scope of the legislation and is not relevant to whether there is an ongoing need to perform a role that is substantially the same.
  • The Department's decision to refuse conversion was based on errored assumptions of why the position was originally made temporary for a specified period and purpose. 

Temporary nature of contract linked to budget funding cycle

  • The temporary contract end date of 30 June 2021 is related to budget funding cycle allocations and FTE caps, rather than indicating the finalisation of program of work requirements. 
  • In 2020, the state government's Queensland Space Industry Strategy was released that "…set an operational mandate for me to deliver the Queensland Space Industry Strategy until 2025 at a minimum…"  The Department has relied on the fact that its budget for the next financial year has not yet been secured as a basis for concluding that there is no continuing need for the role currently performed by Mr Stewart. 

Temporary nature of contract linked to historic position, not job requirements

  • Further, the Department has assumed that the contract length is linked to job requirements rather than "historic position decisions".  Essentially, Mr Stewart stated that when the space strategy was released in 2020 "…our team was not able to ask for additional FTEs to deliver the strategy as there were vacant positions already in the branch" and so his "…position was reallocated from another portfolio of work (a legacy position) to fill the new space industry development portfolio.  Because of this, the decision around my allocated position's end date was made long before the current operational (space team) requirements existed…"[18]

That assumption is foundationally flawed and inconsistent with the prescribed decision criteria.

Hiring four new staff

  • Mr Stewart noted that four new staff are being hired in his work unit (Defence Jobs Queensland) to support the state's growing space industry and thus increasing work demands.  "Two of the new staff being employed will be working full time under me and the program manager in the space team.  It is unlikely that my Department would hire additional new staff to support the work of the team, of which I am the principal project officer, if there was no continuing need…"[19]

Ongoing work until 2040

  • He stated that there is ongoing work until 2040.  In February 2020, the Queensland government approved an $8 million strategy to support the state's emerging space industry.  "The main mechanism for delivering the Space Strategy is through the space industry development team...(with) 36 actions from 2020-2025…There is an operational need for someone to be employed in my role until at least 2025 to deliver the Space Strategy, as it will not deliver itself."[20]  Further, Mr Stewart submitted that he was leading a significant portion of major projects under the strategy and that while "…the budget life of the space strategy is until 2025, the project life (outcomes of space strategy actions) lasts until 2030."[21]  He went on to provide two examples (of the 36 actions under the Space Strategy referred to) that had funding administered by his team up to 2026.

Federal funding programs require active state government participation

  • Over $200 million of federal funding is available from the Australian Space Agency to grow Australia's space industry.  In order for Queensland to be competitive for a share of these grant opportunities, an active space industry development portfolio is required.  Queensland now has this until at least 2025, by virtue of the released space strategy earlier referenced.  This underpins the requirement for Mr Stewart's position until at least 2028.
  • There are also tender opportunities available for Queensland based businesses through the Department of Defence.  In order to be competitive, Mr Stewart stated that there is a need for someone to be employed in a role substantially the same as his current role to support the establishment of local supplier operations in Queensland.  The Department of Defence recently announced $7 billion of new contract opportunities for Australia's space industry until 2040, however state government coordination and support is required.  "In the last three months I have helped three multinational companies find Queensland suppliers for their contracts.  This work does not end on 30 June 2021, and there is an ongoing need for me to fill this role."[22]

Respondent's submissions

  1. [34]
    The Department filed submissions on 22 January 2021 opposing the appeal, summarised below:

 Background to temporary contracts and Departmental positions held

  • Mr Stewart was temporarily employed as a Senior Policy Adviser (AO6), Defence Jobs Queensland, State Development Division from 10 November 2018 until 4 May 2020.  The temporary engagement was to backfill the incumbent employee performing higher duties elsewhere.  Mr Stewart worked on initiatives within the Defence and Aerospace roadmaps and plans.  Extensions were made to coincide with the higher duties arrangement extensions of the incumbent employee. 

Mr Stewart was temporarily employed as a Principal Project Officer (AO7) from 5 May 2020 to 30 June 2021.  That temporary AO7 role was one of two created against departmental vacancies for the space strategy initiative.  The funding and FTE associated with Mr Stewart's current temporary role "…has limited life funding.  These roles have been established for the first two years of the Space Strategy.  This project has a definite end date and funding up to June 2024.  There is no ongoing FTE available for this role."[23]

Merit

  • There is no issue with respect to merit.

Genuine operational requirements

  • The Department's decision to refuse conversion to permanency was based on genuine operational requirements, as per cl 8.2 of the TE Directive.  "This relates to the business unit's genuine operational requirements in reviewing the resourcing and funding arrangements of the Space Strategy and considering the allocation of existing permanent officers that could be devoted to this strategy."[24]

Lack of available vacancy

  • Clause 8.1 of the TE Directive requires consideration of the relevant criteria in conducting such conversion reviews, including whether there is a continuing need for the role or a role which is substantially the same.  Departments are required to operate within their established FTE and budget allocations.  While other roles substantially the same and "available for permanent appointment at the time of the review"[25] were considered, none were identified that were ongoing and allowed for permanent conversion.

Funding and resourcing

  • Funding for the development of initiatives within the Space Strategy was allocated in May 2020.  That funding ends in June 2024.  Two temporary positions were approved to be created and offset against Departmental vacancies for two years, which aligns with the current scope of the project.
  • Defence Jobs Queensland subsequently received approval to fill two Principal Project Officer AO7 roles until 30 June 2021.  Mr Stewart was appointed to one of these roles in May 2020.  "It is important to note that Defence Jobs Queensland currently consists of fourteen (14) permanent officers who could take on the delivery of the initiatives under the Space Strategy and roadmaps where temporary positions were no longer required or available."[26] 
  • Mr Stewart's "position was not reallocated from another portfolio of work (a legacy position) but is a temporary position with limited funding created within FTE staffing levels for the purposes of this role."[27]
  • The Defence Jobs Queensland team are not hiring four new staff, but rather a number of permanent roles are being backfilled where the incumbent is performing higher duties elsewhere or where it has become vacant following the incumbent's appointment to another role.
  • "No projects listed have a life cycle to 2040, nor is funding confirmed beyond 2024."[28]
  • The Whole of Government led Savings and Debt Planning process requires agencies to manage its resourcing and FTEs in line with FTE caps and budget requirements to realise savings. 

Genuine operational requirements

  • The decision not to convert Mr Stewart's employment to permanent was based on the genuine operational requirements of the Department as per cl 8.2 of the TE Directive.
  • "…in making a decision under the Directive, the Delegate must necessarily consider budget, FTE staffing levels (FTE restrictions and caps), sources and limits of project funding and the requirement to manage human resources that necessitates a mix of temporary, permanent and contingent labour to meet fluctuating and changing strategic objectives and service delivery requirements."[29]
  • Mr Stewart's fixed term temporary contract has a defined end date and limited funding.
  • "…a decision was made not to convert from temporary to permanent due to the nature of the project."[30]
  • The role was established for a specific period and purpose to support the Space Industry Strategy, consistent with s 148(2)(b) and (c) of the PS Act. 
  • The Space Strategy has a defined end date and non-recurrent funding.  "There is no ongoing need for the Appellant to be permanently appointed to a Principal Project Officer role as this would exceed operational requirements with the existing number of permanent roles in the business unit which would be relied upon following changes to the funding and resourcing of the project post June 2024."[31]

Whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same

  • "…decision making has included a review and understanding of the broader workforce planning requirements and budget considerations.  At the time of the review, no other suitable ongoing positions were identified in the department that were the same or substantially the same.  Consideration was also given to any departmental roles that were approved for filling at the time of the review.  Therefore, in addition to there not being an ongoing position, there is not an ongoing role past the current end date of the fixed term temporary engagement (i.e. 30 June 2021)."[32]

Appellant's submissions in reply

  1. [35]
    Mr Stewart filed submissions in response to the Department's submissions,[33] which have been summarised below:
  • Mr Stewart was employed as Principal Project Officer AO7 from May 2020 until 30 June 2021.  Prior to that, he was employed as a Senior Policy Officer AO6 from 10 November 2018 until May 2020.  "…while the role title and level may be different, my current (AO7) position is a continuation of previous work."  A comparison of the two roles was provided to emphasise that "The creation of my AO7 position should therefore in no way be used to suggest the current portfolio of work is new.  Even prior to the space strategy being approved there was significant work in the space portfolio."[34]

Conflict

  • A conflict exists between the Department's requirement to review conversions of employment status and the pressure to reduce FTEs and deliver FTE caps. 

Application of additional criteria beyond the PS Act

  • The Department sought to apply an additional two criteria to determining whether to convert Mr Stewart to permanent, including: whether there was a spare vacant position and requiring there to be an indefinite need rather than a continuing need.

Continuing need for role

  • Mr Stewart contends that there is a continuing need for his role for three project periods from 2021 – 2040, with funding approved until 2024 (with the intention to defer until 2026).
  • There is substantial growth planned for Queensland's space industry and FTEs are required as the industry grows.  The state government's goal is to create up to 6,000 jobs and generate $6 billion annually for the state's economy by 2036.[35]
  • The space portfolio is technical and cannot be spread across the wider team.  In addition, the 14 permanent staff in Defence Jobs Queensland each have a substantial full time portfolio of their own and cannot be expected to bear increased workload and time pressures.
  • The Department has acknowledged that the work is continuing beyond the end date of Mr Stewart's temporary contract, where it has stated that "…the team consists of 14 permanent officers who possess the skills, knowledge and capabilities to take on the delivery of initiatives under the overall roadmaps and strategies.  This includes the space strategy."[36]
  • Mr Stewart reasserted his earlier claim that both AO6 positions in Defence Jobs Queensland will work on space industry development initiatives,[37] in rebuttal of the Department's submission that only one AO6 would be allocated to his team.

COVID-19

  • In response to the Department's claim regarding the uncertainty of funding arrangements and the need to focus on economic recovery due to COVID, Mr Stewart pointed to the state government's identification of the space industry development to further this objective.[38]

Relevant provisions of the PS Act and the TE Directive

  1. [36]
    Section 148 of the PS Act states:

148  Employment of fixed term temporary employees

  1. (1)
    A chief executive may employ a person (a fixed term temporary employee) for a fixed term to perform work of a type ordinarily performed by a public service officer, other than a chief executive or senior executive officer, if employment of a person on tenure is not viable or appropriate, having regard to human resource planning carried out by the chief executive under section 98(1)(d).
  1. (2)
    Without limiting subsection (1), employment of a person on tenure may not be viable or appropriate if the employment is for any of the following purposes –
  1. (a)
    to fill a temporary vacancy arising because a person is absent for a known period;

Examples of absences for a known period –

approved leave (including parental leave), a secondment

  1. (b)
    to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date;

Examples—

employment for a set period as part of a training program or placement program

  1. (c)
    to fill a position for which funding is unlikely or unknown;

Examples—

employment relating to performing work for which funding is subject to change or is not expected to be renewed

  1. (d)
    to fill a short-term vacancy before a person is appointed on tenure;
  1. (e)
    to perform work necessary to meet an unexpected short-term increase in workload.

Example—

an unexpected increase in workload for disaster management and recovery

  1. (3)
    Also, without limiting subsection (1), employment on tenure may be viable or appropriate if a person is required to be employed for a purpose mentioned in subsection (2) on a frequent or regular basis.

Example—

an ongoing requirement to backfill multiple absences because of approved leave (including parental leave) or secondments

   …

  1. [37]
    Section 149B of the PS Act relevantly provides:

149B  Review of status after 2 years continuous employment

  1. (1)
    This section applies in relation to a person who is a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee if the person has been continuously employed in the same department for 2 years or more.
  1. (2)
    However, this section does not apply to a non-industrial instrument employee.
  1. (3)
    The department's chief executive must decide whether to-
  1. (a)
    continue the person's employment according to the terms of the person's existing employment; or
  1. (b)
    offer to convert the person's employment basis to employment as a General employee on tenure or a public service officer.
  1. (4)
    The department's chief executive must make the decision within the required period after-
  1. (a)
    the end of 2 years after the employee has been continuously employed as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee in the department; and
  1. (b)
    each 1-year period after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) during which the employee is continuously employed as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee in the department.
  1. (5)
    In making the decision-
  1. (a)
    section 149A(2) and (3) applies to the department's chief    executive; and
  1. (b)
    the department's chief executive must have regard to the reasons      for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section or section 149A in relation to the person during the person's period of continuous employment.
  1. (6)
    If the department's chief executive decides not to offer to convert the person's employment under subsection (3), the chief executive must give the employee a notice stating-
  1. (a)
    the reasons for the decision; and
  1. (b)
    the total period for which the person has been continuously employed in the department; and
  1. (c)
    for a fixed term temporary employee-how many times the person's employment as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee has been extended; and
  1. (d)
    each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section or section 149A in relation to the person during the person's period of continuous employment.
  1. [38]
    Section 149A(2) of the PS Act provides:

(2) The department's chief executive may offer to convert the person's employment under section 149(3)(b) only if-

  1. (a)
    the department's chief executive considers-
  1. (i)
    there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the person's role, or a role that is substantially the same as the person's role; and
  1. (ii)
    the person is eligible for appointment having regard to the merit principle; and
  1. (b)
    any requirements of an industrial instrument are complied with in relation to the decision.
  1. [39]
    Section 149A(3) of the PS Act provides:
  1. (3)
    If the matters in subsection (2) are satisfied, the department's chief executive must decide to offer to convert the person's employment basis to employment as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer, unless it is not viable or appropriate to do so having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the department.
  1. [40]
    The TE Directive relevantly provides:
  1.  Decision on review of status

8.1  When deciding whether to offer permanent employment under section 149A or 149B, a chief executive must consider the criteria in section 149A(2):

•  whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same

•  the merit of the fixed term temporary employee for the role having regard to the merit principle in section 27 of the PS Act

•  whether any requirements of an industrial instrument need to be complied with in relation to making the decision, and

•  the reasons for each decision previously made, or deemed to have been made, under sections 149A or 149B in relation to the employee during their period of continuous employment.

8.2  Sections 149A(3) and 149B(5) provide that where the criteria above are met, the chief executive must decide to offer to convert the person's employment to permanent employment as a General employee on tenure or a public service officer unless it is not viable or appropriate having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the agency.

8.3  If the outcome is a decision to offer to convert the fixed term temporary employee to permanent employment:

  1. (a)
    the written notification must include the terms and conditions of the offer to convert to permanent employment (e.g. full-time or part-time, days and hours of work, pay, location of the employment and any other changes to entitlements)
  1. (b)
    where the employee is part-time, an explanation of the days and hours of work offered in the decision, and
  1. (c)
    the chief executive cannot convert the fixed term temporary employee unless they accept the terms and conditions of the offer to convert.

…

8.4  Notice of a decision not to convert a person's employment must comply with section 149A(4) for applications under section 149 or 149B(6) for reviews under section 149B. In accordance with section 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the decision must:

  1. (a)
    set out the findings on material questions of fact, and
  1. (b)
    refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.
  1. [41]
    The TE Directive is a statutory instrument within the meaning of Section 7 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld).[39]
  1. [42]
    Section 14 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) provides that certain provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) apply to statutory instruments.  One of those is s 14A which provides that in the interpretation of a provision of an Act, the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the Act is to be preferred to any other interpretation. Schedule 1 to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that 'purpose', for an act, includes policy objective.
  1. [43]
    The purpose of the TE Directive is:
  1. Purpose

1.1 The Public Service Act 2008 (PS Act) establishes employment on tenure as the default basis of employment in the Queensland public service, excluding non-industrial instrument employees, and sets out the circumstances where employment on tenure is not viable or appropriate.  The PS Act also sets out the matters a chief executive must consider when deciding whether to offer to convert the employment of a fixed term temporary employee to employment as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer.

 

 The legislation indicates where employment on tenure may not be appropriate.

 …

  1. [44]
    The TE Directive relevantly provides:

4.   Principles

4.1  Section 25(2) of the PS Act provides that employment on tenure is the default basis of employment in the public service, excluding non-industrial instrument employees.  This section gives full effect to the Government's Employment Security Policy.

…

  1. [45]
    The consideration I have outlined below is one that does not frustrate the intent of government policy, as articulated in the purpose and principles of the TE Directive. Specifically, to establish employment on tenure as the default basis of employment in the Queensland public service.[40] 

Consideration

  1. [46]
    I am required to decide this appeal by assessing whether or not the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable. 
  1. [47]
    This involves a review of the decision-making process utilised and the temporary employment decision arrived at. 

Mandatory decision criteria

  1. [48]
    Section 149A(2) of the PS Act and cl 8.1 of the TE Directive contains the mandatory decision criteria for temporary employment conversions to permanent.  The decision maker must consider:
  • whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same;
  • the merit of the fixed term temporary employee for the role having regard to the merit principle in s 27 of the PS Act;
  • whether any requirements of an industrial instrument need to be complied with in relation to making the decision; and
  • the reasons for each decision previously made, or deemed to have been made, under ss 149A or 149B of the PS Act in relation to the employee during their period of continuous employment.
  1. [49]
    Clause 8.2 of the TE Directive provides that (emphasis added):[41]

…where the criteria above are met, the chief executive must decide to offer to convert the person's employment to permanent employment as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer unless it is not viable or appropriate having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the agency.

  1. [50]
    My decision turns on the question of whether there is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same. 
  1. [51]
    There is no dispute between the parties that the remaining three criterion in paragraph [48] are met.

Whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same

  1. [52]
    There are two potential pathways to conversion. The first pathway is Mr Stewart's current role. The second pathway is an alternative role which is substantially the same.

Pathway 1: Is there a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in the current

role?

  1. [53]
    In Katae v State of Queensland & Anor ('Katae'), Crow J considered the decision criteria.[42] In that matter, Ms Katae was engaged in a series of temporary contracts from July 2014 until 31 December 2018. His Honour found that there was plainly a continuing need for Ms Katae to be employed in her role, effectively because her contract had not yet concluded. It was the question of whether the role was likely to be ongoing that formed the primary basis for argument.
  1. [54]
    In that regard, his Honour's findings are particularly relevant to these proceedings (emphasis added):

It is the second element of the 9.6(a) directive which is in issue, that is, whether "the role is likely to be ongoing". Whilst the Vice President acknowledged that the department was unable to guarantee that the end of the project would have been its set end date (30 June 2018), that is an insufficient basis upon which one could fairly and reasonably conclude that the role was not likely to be ongoing. What was required was an objective analysis of whether the role was likely to be ongoing, which depends upon the meaning given to the word "ongoing" and each of the circumstances which might affect the likelihood of the role being ongoing.

As discussed with counsel, the word "ongoing" is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as "the action of going on; proceeding; continued movement." Where reference is had to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, or any other dictionary, it must be concluded that the word "ongoing" is most imprecise. Whilst it certainly does not mean "permanent" neither does it mean "temporary". It is noteworthy that within Directive 08/17 the words "permanent" and "temporary" are used. Given that s 149 is remedial, it seems to me that the directive ought to be read in a remedial manner, and the meaning prescribed to the word "ongoing" ought to be its ordinary dictionary meaning; that is, "going on" or "proceeding" or "continuing".

…

It was shown in evidence that Ms Katae was a capable person, having been in receipt of numerous temporary contracts for a period of over 3.5 years at the time of the decision. Importantly, while the project had an end date of 30 June 2018, it ought not be presumed that it would end at that date, that is, not all projects end on time. That is a matter of common experience, both in private and public enterprises. Similarly when one is considering the broad definition of "roles", it can be taken into account that prior to the decision, the experience of Ms Katae had been for a period of more than 3.5 years and throughout that period she has found similar roles within the department. A fair and reasonable conclusion on the then-available evidence was that the "role" was likely to be "ongoing". It follows that it has been shown that the appealed decision was not fair and reasonable.

Paragraph 9.7 of the directive evinces a presumption that temporary employees will be converted to permanent employees in the ordinary case. That is, ordinarily, where a person has been employed on a temporary basis for more than 2 years, there is a likelihood for the employment on an "ongoing basis". It is important to note that the criteria in paragraph 9.6(a) speaks of a role "likely to be ongoing" rather than a role being "permanent". In the present case, the materials placed before Linnane VP in respect of the senior project officer's role, show there was a continuing need for the applicant to be employed in that role or in a substantially similar role, and that role was likely to be ongoing.

  1. [55]
    Mr Stewart has been employed on a series of temporary contracts.  He commenced as a Senior Policy Officer AO6 from 10 November 2018 until May 2020.  The Department submitted that temporary engagement was to backfill the incumbent employee performing higher duties elsewhere and say that extensions were made to coincide with the higher duties arrangement extensions of the incumbent employee(s). 
  1. [56]
    Mr Stewart was then temporarily appointed as a Principal Project Officer AO7 from May 2020 until 30 June 2021.  The Department submitted that the funding and FTE associated with Mr Stewart's current temporary role "…has limited life funding.  These roles have been established for the first two years of the Space Strategy.  This project has a definite end date and funding up to June 2024.  There is no ongoing FTE available for this role."
  1. [57]
    Mr Stewart contended that "…while the role title and level may be different, my current (AO7) position is a continuation of previous work."  He attached to his submission a comparison of the two roles in order to further demonstrate that "The creation of my AO7 position should therefore in no way be used to suggest the current portfolio of work is new.  Even prior to the space strategy being approved there was significant work in the space portfolio."[43]
  1. [58]
    Mr Stewart is clearly a highly capable person with an ability to perform a range of work within his area of expertise. 
  1. [59]
    Mr Stewart's present contract is said to expire on 30 June 2021. In that sense, there is a continuing need for him to be employed in his current role until next month at least. 
  1. [60]
    The central issue in this appeal, as it was in Katae, is the pertinent consideration of whether there is a continuing need for him to do so beyond that time.
  1. [61]
    The Department has submitted that funding uncertainty for the various initiatives within the space industry strategy – together with the project having a specified period and purpose - confirmed the appropriateness of the temporary nature of Mr Stewart's current role, consistent with s 148(2) of the PS Act.
  1. [62]
    Additionally, the Department argued that the impact of COVID-19 - and the subsequent heightened budgetary pressure to review resourcing priorities, comply with established FTE caps and make savings wherever possible - had compounded matters.  This resulted in the Department deciding that the continuing need for Mr Stewart's role "cannot be viably confirmed."[44]
  1. [63]
    I note that the provision at s 148(2) indicates only that employment on tenure may not be viable or appropriate if it is "to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date" and / or "to fill a position for which funding is unlikely or unknown" – and that neither of those circumstances are precisely met in this case. 
  1. [64]
    While Mr Stewart's current contract expires as at 30 June 2021, the evidence before me supports his contention that there are many ongoing initiatives within the space industry strategy that will continue to require his involvement beyond next month.  Mr Stewart has argued that the continuing need for him to be employed in the role is demonstrated by a work program of planned project implementation in the medium to long term and has pointed to the release of the Queensland Space Industry Strategy in 2020 to illustrate the operational mandate in place until at least 2025 at minimum.  Taken at its highest, the Department's most conservative estimate is that the project has a definitive end date and funding up to June 2024, whilst noting there is no ongoing FTE available for this.
  1. [65]
    Specifically, as in Katae, the suite of project initiatives underway will not neatly conclude simply as a matter of convenience to coincide with Mr Stewart's contracted arrangements.  Nor is it conceivable that some of the existing 14 permanent staff the Department referred to will seamlessly absorb an increased workload in a technically specialised content area.  It cannot be true.
  1. [66]
    Similarly, the phraseology of the Decision Letter with respect to the review of the need for Mr Stewart's position stated that it "cannot be viably confirmed."  That is much more equivocal than the more strident representations in the Department's submissions regarding the budgetary pressure due to the whole of government Savings and Debt planned approach. 
  1. [67]
    The Department has submitted that "The Whole of Government led Savings and Debt Planning process requires agencies to manage its resourcing and FTEs in line with FTE caps and budget requirements to realise savings.  Departments have also been requested to meet further savings targets to support economic recovery in response to the COVID-19 health pandemic…This has subsequently created a high degree of uncertainty regarding the funding arrangements of departmental projects and resourcing of work priorities."[45] 
  1. [68]
    Though Mr Stewart's recount of his own experience was that "The State Development Group (my branch) has an operational resource budget until the end of June 2021.  Many temporary staff (including myself) have contracts ending at that date until budget bid outcomes become clear for the 2021-22 financial year."[46]  He asserted a requirement to apply for his own role three times while working in the department due to his position constantly ending on 30 June every financial year, each time having secured his role until 30 June the following year. 
  1. [69]
    I would observe that the claimed twin objectives of 'maximising permanent employment' and 'adherence to budgetary requirements' need not be at odds.  Where work is required to be performed, public sector workers will be required to be paid regardless of whether they are employed on a permanent or temporary basis.  Further, while the PS Act and TE Directive are in place there is a mandatory criteria to decide conversion reviews at prescribed intervals that must be faithfully applied.
  1. [70]
    While it is manifestly obvious that the COVID-19 health pandemic is changing priorities in private and public enterprises, the acceleration of recovery energies would foreseeably still require need for appropriate investment attraction in the space industry as an economic and jobs driver.  So much is borne out in the Queensland Government's media releases and strategy material supplied by Mr Stewart in this appeal.
  1. [71]
    In adopting the rationality of Crow J, it ought not be assumed that the current engagement will conclude on time in circumstances where Mr Stewart's previous temporary engagements have been extended and where there is a significant amount of industry, federal and state government investment also at stake.
  1. [72]
    The insecure nature of the funding source for a role may be a valid reason for utilising temporary employment, pursuant to s 148(2)(c). So too may be performing work for a particular project or purpose with a known end date, under s 148(2)(b).  In that sense, those matters can also remain relevant in considering conversions to permanency. However, while it may perhaps be considered an appropriate reason for an initial temporary engagement, after more than two and a half years of temporary engagements said to be based on such insecurity, there a comes a point where it is no longer fair and reasonable to rely on such a reason not to convert Mr Stewart to permanent employment. That point has now been reached. It is not necessary that a role is certain to be continuing – nor that it must indefinitely continue. That is not the test to be applied in these circumstances, rather it is the much lower bar of whether there is a continuing need.
  1. [73]
    The Department has also submitted that the delegate has had regard to a number of departmental-wide factors, evidence or other material on which those findings were based is not before me.  It is unclear what the Department seeks that I make of such a submission in circumstances where I am required to consider the fairness and reasonableness of the decision.
  1. [74]
    In considering all of the material before me, and bearing particular mind to Mr Stewart's history of temporary employment with the Department in same or similar roles, I find that the decision maker's conclusion regarding s 148(2) was unfair and unreasonable. There is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in his role as Principal Project Officer AO7, or a role which is substantially the same. 
  1. [75]
    It is on that basis, and in the absence of any genuine operational reasons to the contrary, that I will convert Mr Stewart to permanency.

Pathway 2: Is there a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in a role which is substantially the same?

  1. [76]
    For the sake of completeness, I will also consider the second pathway to permanent conversion of alternative "substantially the same" roles. 
  1. [77]
    While the matters under s 148(2) are certainly factors that may inform the Department's considerations of whether there is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in the role, it is not the exclusive consideration. 
  1. [78]
    It appears to me that the Department has stopped short of considering the remaining element of the mandatory criteria in s 149A(2)(a)(i) simply on the basis of Mr Stewart's temporary engagement in a project where funding is uncertain together with the limitations on FTE caps and budgetary pressure. 
  1. [79]
    In the Decision Letter, the Department asserted that "All potential roles have been considered and there are no vacant positions available that are substantially the same role."[47] 
  1. [80]
    But that is not the test.  The PS Act and TE Directive contains no requirement that one be converted into a 'vacant position' or one available within the Department's currently budgeted permanent FTEs. 
  1. [81]
    In Katae v State of Queensland & Anor, Crow J considered the definition of "same role" in the previous TE Directive.  His Honour noted that the legislation was remedial, and went on to find:

.. through the expansive definition of "same role" in s 14 of Directive 08/17, "same role" may be interpreted to be quite different roles, as long as the roles have substantially the same capability requirements.[48]

  1. [82]
    I acknowledge that the current TE Directive does not contain a definition of 'same role'; however, in the absence of the term being otherwise contemporaneously defined I will rely on the definition in the previous TE Directive to which Katae refers:[49]

The same role includes a role which has the same or substantially the same capability requirements, either at level or at a higher classification (e.g. a payroll officer may provide a service to different client groups), or a role with a generic role description involving a range of duties (e.g. rotation through financial and payroll processing duties under a generic entry-level role description).

  1. [83]
    It is entirely foreseeable that a requirement may be worded slightly differently between role descriptions, while still maintaining the same or substantially the same capability requirements.  It is the substance of the requirement, rather than merely the form, that is relevant.
  1. [84]
    The Decision Letter did not define the role currently performed by Mr Stewart nor demonstrate the Department's analysis of the capability requirements. 
  1. [85]
    No specific search efforts undertaken by the Department to ascertain whether there were other roles that may be suitable to convert Mr Stewart into were referred to in the material before me. 
  1. [86]
    By the Department's own admission, any such search was limited to 'vacant positions' and was seemingly conducted with some haste[50] between the issuing of the Review Notice[51] and the Decision Letter[52] – 9 working days.
  1. [87]
    The combination of those failures has resulted in foundationally flawed efforts to identify another role which may be substantially the same within the Department that Mr Stewart may be converted into.
  1. [88]
    In considering whether there is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in a role which is substantially the same, I am also conscious of the extensive program of initiatives to be undertaken and the public expression of its significance to economic recovery as a jobs and investment driver. 
  1. [89]
    I have found above that there is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in his current role.  However, in the alternative, I would also find that there is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in a role which is substantially the same. 

Genuine operational reasons

  1. [90]
    The Department contends that the genuine operational requirements relied on not to convert Mr Stewart to permanent are that budgetary constraints have necessitated a review of the program able to be delivered and associated staffing.  It suggests that the existing 14 permanent staff may be able to absorb work overflow.  Mr Stewart had energetically rebutted that proposition.  In my view, an expectation that an already ambitious, technical and apparently economically significant program of work be foisted on the small complement of permanent staff appears unsustainable. 
  1. [91]
    It does however indicate the Department's view that the role is continuing in some form.  Indeed it goes on to explain how it intends to progress the program as I have described above.  As such, I find that the role is continuing.
  1. [92]
    It may also be inferred that the Department contends that while the role is continuing, there is not a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be involved in the role post 30 June 2021.
  1. [93]
    As I have observed, the phrase "…cannot be viably confirmed" does not convey a high level of certainty on the part of the Department that there is no continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in the role. 
  1. [94]
    Notwithstanding I have established that the role is continuing, the real controversy between the parties was whether (or not) there is a continuing need for Mr Stewart to be employed in the role. 

Conclusion

  1. [95]
    I accept that the particular circumstances may have constituted reasons for the Department to initially employ Mr Stewart on a temporary employment contract.  However, I do not consider it reasonable for the Department to rely on that indefinitely.
  1. [96]
    On the material before me, I have found that there is a continuing role, being the role Mr Stewart is currently performing, and that there is a continuing need for him to be employed in that role.
  1. [97]
    In the alternate, I have explained my concern with the Department's failures with respect to the exploration of any role which is substantially the same and the absence of any evidence of its analysis and assessment of such capability requirements inherent in either the role currently performed by Mr Stewart or others that may be substantially the same.  (Further impeded by the Department's failure to define these terms - and the particulars of any search conducted for same).
  1. [98]
    In arriving at this conclusion, I am conscious that the PS Act and TE Directive are purposed with encouraging and maximising security of public sector employment.  That purpose is furthered by the undertaking of careful reviews of factual circumstances in the context of the relevant criteria prescribed in the TE Directive and legislation. Those efforts allow for the achievement of the purpose of the TE Directive.[53]
  1. [99]
    In my view, the Department's decision to the contrary was unfair and unreasonable because appropriate weight was not given to the relevant factors set out above.
  2. [100]
    It is on that basis, and in the absence of any genuine operational reasons to the contrary, that I will convert Mr Stewart to permanency.
  1. [101]
    I order accordingly.

Orders:

That pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld):

  1. The appeal is allowed;
  2. The decision that Mr Stewart not have his temporary employment converted to permanent employment is set aside and another decision is substituted; and
  3. Mr Stewart's temporary employment status as a Principal Project Officer (AO7) be converted to permanent employment.

Footnotes

[1] Appeal Notice filed 18 December 2020, Attachment 1.

[2] In accordance with Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment, cl 9; 'the Conversion Request'.

[3] Senior HR Consultant, People and Performance, Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning; Mr Stewart’s assigned contact for the review.

[4] That cannot be appealed.

[5] Correspondence to Mr J Stewart from Mr J Kyriakidis (Manager Business Partner, Human Resources), Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation, dated 25 November 2020.

[6] Appeal Notice filed 18 December 2020, Attachment 2.

[7] Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 149B(6).

[8] Pursuant to the email exchange 24 - 25 November 2020 noted at paragraph [4] of this Decision.

[9] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3).

[10] Ibid.

[11] Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245, 261.

[12] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5 as to the former, equivalent provisions in s 201 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld).

[13] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 567(2).

[14] Appeal Notice filed 18 December 2020, Attachment 2.

[15] Appeal Notice filed 18 December 2020, Attachment 1.

[16] Appeal Notice filed 18 December 2020, Attachment 1.

[17] Appeal Notice filed 18 December 2020, Attachment 1.

[18] Appellant’s submissions filed 15 January 2021, pages 2 – 3.

[19] Appellant’s submissions filed 15 January 2021, page 3.

[20] Appellant’s submissions filed 15 January 2021, page 3.

[21] Appellant’s submissions filed 15 January 2021, page 3.

[22] Appellant’s submissions filed 15 January 2021, page 4.

[23] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 1.

[24] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 2.

[25] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 2.

[26] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 2.

[27] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 2.

[28] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 3.

[29] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 3.

[30] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 4.

[31] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 5.

[32] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, pages 2 - 3.

[33] Appellant’s submissions in reply were filed 29 January 2021.

[34] Appellant’s submissions in reply filed 29 January 2021, page 1.

[35] According to a Media Release dated 16 February 2020.

[36] Appellant’s submissions in reply filed 29 January 2021, page 4.

[37] Mr Stewart indicated that he could supply a list of projects to evidence this claim, if required.

[38] According to a Queensland Government Media Release dated 28 July 2020.

[39] Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225, [26] (“Katae”).

[40] Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment cl 1 Purpose and cl 4 Principles.

[41] This is also mirrored in s 149A(3) of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld).

[42] [2018] QSC 225.

[43] Appellant’s submissions in reply filed 29 January 2021, page 1.

[44] Decision Letter.

[45] Respondent’s submissions filed 22 January 2021, page 3.

[46] Appellant’s submissions filed 15 January 2021, page 2.

[47] Decision Letter.

[48] [2018] QSC 225.

[49] Temporary Employment Directive 08/17 cl 14

[50] Due to missing Mr Stewart’s review date on the report, see paragraph [4].

[51] 25 November 2020.

[52] 8 December 2020.

[53] Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment cl 1.1.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Stewart v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Stewart v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 168

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member McLennan IC

  • Date:

    18 May 2021

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 183 CLR 245
Cite 2 - (1995) 183 CLR 245
Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 319
Cite 2 - [2018] QSC 319
Katae v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 225
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 225
Cite 2 - [2018] QSC 225
Cite 3 - [2018] QSC 225
Cite 4 - [2018] QSC 225

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Burchall v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 1831 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.