Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Green v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation) - [2025] QIRC 151

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

Green v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation)[2025] QIRC 151

Green v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation)[2025] QIRC 151

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Green v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation) [2025] QIRC 151

PARTIES:

Green, Anthony

Appellant

v

State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation)

Respondent

CASE NO:

PSA/2025/54

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against promotion decision

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2025

MEMBER:

O'Neill IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

The orders contained in paragraph [118] of these Reasons for Decision.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – CLASSIFICATION, PROMOTION OR TRANSFER – appeal against promotion decision – where the appellant is permanently employed by the respondent as a Senior Investigator (AO6) – where the appellant applied for Principal Investigator (AO7) position – where the appellant's application was unsuccessful – consideration of whether the recruitment and selection process was deficient – appeal upheld – promotion decision set aside with directions.

LEGISLATION:

Appeals (Directive 04/23), cl 10, cl 18

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

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), s 44, s 45

Recruitment and Selection (Directive 07/23), cl 8, cl 9, cl 12

CASES:

Bayntun v State of Queensland (Department of Tourism, Innovation and Sport) [2022] QIRC 361

Clare v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 492

Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 16

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

Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252

Pope v Lawler [1996] FCA 1446

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr Anthony Green ('the Appellant') is currently employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation) ('DETSI') ('the Respondent') as a Senior Investigator. This position is classified as a level AO6.
  1. [2]
    The Appellant applied for the position of Principal Investigator, which is classified as a level AO7. The Appellant was interviewed for the position and placed on the merit list, however, was not the successful applicant.
  1. [3]
    Twenty-nine (29) applications for the position were received, with nineteen (19) of those internal (Queensland Government).[1]
  1. [4]
    The selection panel reviewed and assessed all of the applications individually prior to meeting for the shortlisting discussion.[2]
  1. [5]
    The selection panel agreed on five (5) shortlisted applicants to be interviewed (including the Appellant).[3]
  1. [6]
    The selection panel subsequently interviewed all five shortlisted applicants.
  1. [7]
    The Appellant was assessed as suitable for the position and appears to have been ranked fourth in the order of merit. The selection panel selected Ms AM[4] as the person best suited to the position and this decision was approved by the delegate Ms Jackie McKeay on 26 February 2025.
  1. [8]
    The appointment was publicly notified in the Queensland Government Gazette, Vol. 398 on 21 March 2025.
  1. [9]
    The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the promotion decision on 2 April 2025, pursuant to chapter 3 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act').
  1. [10]
    I am satisfied that the promotion decision appealed against was not fair and reasonable and the Appellant has established a deficiency in the selection process. I have set aside the promotion decision and returned the matter to the decision-maker with directions.
  1. [11]
    My reasons follow.

Appeal Principles

  1. [12]
    The appeal must be decided by way of reviewing the decision appealed against to consider whether it was fair and reasonable.[5] The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing but rather involves a review of the decision and the associated decision-making process.[6]
  2. [13]
    The issue for my determination is whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[7] Findings which are reasonably open to the decision maker are not expected to be disturbed on appeal.

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [14]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') provides that the Industrial Commissioner may:
  1. confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. set the decision aside and return the issue to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions permitted under a directive of the commission chief executive under the PS Act that the Commission considers appropriate.
  1. [15]
    Clause 18.2 of the Appeals (Directive 04/23) ('the Appeals Directive') provides that the Commission member may issue any direction they consider necessary, including:
    1. a direction that, within one month, the chief executive is to revoke the appointment and publish a gazette notice that the appointment is revoked;
  1. a direction that the chief executive either recommences the recruitment and selection process from the point of advertising the vacancy or continues with the process from a particular time or event as identified by the IRC member; or
  1. a direction that a new selection committee is to be formed and a direction regarding the composition of the new selection committee, where a decision is made that a chief executive is to recommence the recruitment and selection process.

Is the Appellant entitled to appeal?

  1. [16]
    Section 131(1)(e) of the PS Act provides that a promotion decision is a type of decision against which an appeal may be made. Section 133(e) further provides a promotional appeal may be made by a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis, who is aggrieved by the decision, and is entitled to appeal under a Directive.
  2. [17]
    Section 129 of the PS Act defines a promotion decision to mean a decision to promote a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis.
  3. [18]
    Clause 10 of the Appeals Directive outlines the requirements for promotion appeals.
  1. [19]
    The Appellant is a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis, who is aggrieved by the promotion decision. The Appellant applied for the role subject of the decision and requested post-selection feedback in accordance with the relevant provisions.
  2. [20]
    Section 564(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') relevantly provides:
  1. In this section—

appeal period, for an appeal against a decision to an industrial tribunal, means the period within 21 days after—

…

(c) if the decision is a promotion decision—the decision is publicly notified under the Public Sector Act 2022; or

…

  1. [21]
    In the present case the promotion the subject of the appeal was published in the Queensland Government Gazette on Friday, 21 March 2025. The appeal was filed in the Industrial Registry on 2 April 2025, well within the 21 days provided by s 564(3)(c) of the IR Act.
  1. [22]
    I am satisfied that the Appellant is a person who may appeal the promotion decision and that he lodged his appeal within the relevant timeframe, following the public notification of the successful applicant.

Relevant legislative provisions and Directives

  1. [23]
    Section 562C(2) of the IR Act provides:

In deciding an appeal against a promotion decision, the commission may set the decision aside only if the commission finds that the recruitment or selection process was deficient, having regard to whether the process complied with the Public Sector Act 2022, a regulation or a directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner under that Act.

  1. [24]
    Section 44 of the PS Act relevantly provides the following:

44 Principles underpinning recruitment and selection

  1. The purpose of this section is to ensure the recruitment and selection of a high‑performing, apolitical and representative public sector workforce.
  1. A person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity, including, for example, making a decision about employment of a public sector employee, must undertake the process in accordance with the principles mentioned in subsection (3).
  1. The principles are—
  1. recruitment and selection processes must be directed to the selection of the eligible person best suited to the position; and
  1. recruitment and selection processes must be fair and transparent; and
  1. recruitment and selection processes must reflect the obligations under chapter 2 relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.
  1. [25]
    Section 45 of the PS Act also provides:

45 Employment on merit and for equity and diversity

  1. A person selected for employment in or to a public sector entity must be the eligible applicant best suited to the position.
  1. In deciding the eligible applicant best suited to a position, a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity—
  1. must consider each eligible applicant's ability to perform the requirements of the position; and
  1. may consider—
  1. the way in which each eligible applicant carried out any previous employment; and
  1. the potential of each eligible applicant to make a future contribution to the entity; and
  1. the extent to which the proposed decision would contribute to fulfilment of the entity's obligations under chapter 2, including, for example, the objectives, strategies and targets stated in the entity's equity and diversity plan.
  1. [26]
    The Appeals Directive and the Recruitment and Selection (Directive 07/23) ('the Recruitment and Selection Directive') are both relevant to this promotion appeal.
  2. [27]
    The Appeals Directive relevantly provides:

10. Promotion decision appeal

  1. 10.1Section 131(1)(e) of the Act provides that a promotion decision may be appealed.
  2. 10.2Section 129 of the Act provides for the definition of promotion decision.
  3. 10.3Who may appeal a promotion decision under section 133 of the Act:
  1. a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis who is aggrieved by the decision and is entitled to appeal under a directive.
  1. 10.4Further to clause 10.3, a public sector employee is only entitled to appeal a promotion decision:
  1. where the decision relates to a promotion of a permanent public sector employee that has been published in accordance with section 84(2) of the Act, and
  1. where the aggrieved employee submitted an application for the role that is the subject of the promotion decision, and
  1. if the aggrieved employee's application for the role that is the subject of the promotion decision, was received by the deadline for the receipt of applications, or in the case of continuous applicant pools, the application was received prior to the initial date that applications were distributed to the selection panel, and
  1. the aggrieved employee has sought post-selection feedback in accordance with the relevant provisions of the directive relating to recruitment and selection, and
  1. in the case of a promotion decision resulting from a limited advertising process conducted in accordance with the directive relating to recruitment and selection, the aggrieved employee must have been eligible to apply.
  1. 10.5Decisions that cannot be appealed as a promotion decision under section 132 of the Act:
  1. a non-appealable appointment (refer to clause 17 for more information)
  1. a decision to promote a public sector executive, unless the decision is declared under a directive to be a decision against which an appeal may be made
  1. a decision to promote a person as a chief executive, a senior executive or a senior officer
  1. a promotion decision if:
  1. the person employed under the promotion decision had been redeployed within one year before the promotion, and
  1. the promotion is to a classification level that is not higher than the classification level of the person employed under the promotion decision immediately before the redeployment.
  1. [28]
    The Recruitment and Selection Directive relevantly provides:

9. Selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position

…

Selection panels

…

  1. 9.8To promote integrity and diversity in recruitment, selection panels must:
  1. consider and declare any actual, potential or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest between each panel member and the applicants, or, the absence of such conflicts of interest
  1. consider elements of conscious or unconscious bias that may impact the process, including mitigation strategies
  1. consider how the selection process can be accessible, inclusive and culturally safe (as relevant to each circumstance and organisational context)
  1. provide candidate care, including through timely and regular communication with applicants
  1. for senior executive vacancies, include one member from outside the ministerial portfolio.

…

Assessment of the person best suited to the position

  1. 9.10When selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position, a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process must:
  1. comply with any relevant direction given by the chief executive under clause 7.6
  1. conduct a holistic assessment of eligible applicants in the context of the role requirements and the factors provided for in section 45(2) of the Act
  1. clearly document why a person is assessed as being the eligible applicant best suited to the position, including a comparative assessment where there is more than one applicant in a process.
  1. 9.11Assessment processes for advertised positions must:
  1. consider contemporary and best practice selection techniques relevant to the requirements of the position and the entity's operating context
  1. incorporate selection techniques that enable a sufficiently comprehensive and holistic assessment of each applicant within the context of being best suited to the position
  1. consider all the information before the selection panel, rather than rely or focus on one aspect of the process, such as interview performance
  1. incorporate referee checks and pre-employment checks as appropriate and required
  1. be consistent with the obligations set out in chapter 2 of the Act relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.

(emphasis added)

…

12. Post-selection matters

Feedback

  1. 12.1All applicants are to be advised that they may request feedback from the selection panel. In cases of graduate program applicants, this requirement only extends to applicants who were interviewed.
  2. 12.2Applicants who request feedback must receive timely, specific and constructive feedback from a member of the selection panel. The mode of feedback is at the discretion of the panel member providing feedback, and must be reasonable in the circumstances.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [29]
    In his Notice of Appeal filed on 2 April 2025, Mr Green outlined his Grounds of Appeal as follows:
  • The panel did not make a 'fair and reasonable' merit assessment and failed to consider all the merit information contrary to the criteria set out in section 45 of the PS Act.
  • The panel placed too much weight on the Appellant's interview and did not adequately afford weight to the Appellant's resumes, statement addressing role requirements and how the Appellant carried out current and previous roles. This is contrary to [the] Recruitment and Selection Directive.
  • The panel interview questions did not associate to the capabilities and competencies required of the position, as outlined in the position description, and therefore did not provide for assessment of the Appellant's ability to meet the role requirements of a Principal Investigator.
  • The successful applicant was awarded merit for skills that were not outlined as a requirement of the role in the Position Description. The Appellant was therefore not afforded the opportunity to speak to their comparable skills.
  • The panel members have insufficient training and experience in the recruitment process, have not completed relevant training within the last 1 months and have previous complaints or negative QCAT outcomes relating to recruitment decisions.

Appellant's Submissions

  1. [30]
    The Appellant filed his submissions in the Industrial Registry on 15 April 2025. They can be summarised as follows:
  • The Appellant submits that he possesses an Advanced Diploma of Public Safey (Police Investigations) and prior to commencing with the Department, he was a police officer for a period of 24 years at a rank of Senior Constable. The Appellant contends that he has over 25-years' experience in conducting, leading and managing complex investigations across a wide range of Queensland legislation.
  • Within his current Senior Investigator role with DETSI, the Appellant submits that he possesses a thorough knowledge of the legislation administered by the Department. He states that he has undertaken thirty-five (35) investigations with eleven (11) proceeding to a full brief of evidence.
  • The Appellant contends that as part of the recruitment process for the position he submitted his current resume and a two-page statement addressing his ability to meet the requirements of the role and showed him to be highly suitable to the role.
  • On 3 March, the Appellant received feedback on his application and interview. Within this feedback, the Appellant contends that he was advised by Mr Martyn Hughes and Mr Matt Barr that his resume and statement were only used as a tool to progress applicants to the interview stage.
  • The Appellant submits that when considering overall suitability for the role the panel did not make a 'fair and reasonable' merit assessment as they did not adequately afford weight to his resume, statement, current performance while relieving the Principal Investigator role,  referee reports and his potential to make contributions to the Department.
  • The Appellant submits that the feedback provided indicated that the decision whether he was successful in his application for the position was determined solely by his performance during the panel interview.
  • The Appellant contends that the Department's guidelines on Talent Acquisition (Recruitment) state that interview questions should link back to the capabilities and competencies required of the position, as outlined in the Position Description. The Appellant submits that the question asked during the interview did not associate the key role requirements of the position. He further contends that the interview questions posed by the panel did not afford him the opportunity to provide examples of his ability to undertake the role requirements.
  • The Appellant provides an example of a question asked in relation to search warrants. He contends that the application and execution of search warrants is a task that is very rarely undertaken by a Principal Investigator. The Appellant submits that the weight of the question on 'search warrants' is not a true reflection on the requirements of the role.
  • The Appellant contends that the panel in appointing the successful applicant have taken into account a skill being surveillance work which is not mentioned at all in the Position Description. He submits that if merit has been awarded in this area, all applicants should have had the opportunity to outline their compatible skills so that the assessment process fair and equitable.
  • The Appellant contends that it is not known whether the panel members have undertaken current training in the recruitment process and have previously been subject to complaints and negative findings in relation to their roles during selection processes.

Respondent's Submissions

  1. [31]
    The Respondent filed their submissions in the Registry on 2 May 2025. The submissions can be summarised as follows:
  • The Respondent submits that it has complied with the requirements of the Recruitment and Selection Directive as:
  • The vacancy was advertised appropriately;
  • A holistic assessment was conducted of the shortlisted applicants with multiple selection techniques;
  • The proposed successful applicant was referee checked;
  • Post selection feedback was provided to the Appellant both verbally and in writing;
  • The process undertaken was clearly documented and included the reasons why the successful applicant was determined to be best suited to the position.
  • The Respondent submits that the process does not have to be perfect in order for it to be considered reasonable.[8]
  • In response to the Appellant's submissions, the Respondent contends that the panel chair, Mr Martyn Hughes, commenced in the Principal Investigator role in 2019. Further, the panel also consisted of Mr Barr, Manager, State Investigation, Environmental Services and Regulation, and Ms Emilija Rupsys, Principal Lawyer from Litigation, Office of the Deputy Director- General, Environmental Services and Regulation.
  • All panel members reviewed and assessed the applications individually prior to the shortlisting discussion. The Respondent contends that the selection report does not show bias but instead reflects the applicants' responses and their strengths and weaknesses for the position based on their application.
  • The Respondent submits that the selection report provides a clear assessment of the panel's consideration of Mr Green's application in its entirety, concluding that Mr Green was suitable for appointment, but was not the most suitable candidate. 
  • In response to the Appellant contentions that the panel members had insufficient training, the Appellant submits that there is no requirement within the Recruitment and Selection Directive for panel members to undergo training. The Respondent contends that the Appellant's argument that a lack of training is a factor for the Commission to consider is not correct.
  • The Department disagrees with Mr Green's contention that the interview questions did not align with the competencies listed in the position description. The Respondent contends that the interview process is not required nor intended to be linear in nature and that the intention is for the panel members to understand the applicant and ask questions which provide that information.
  • The position description clearly outlined that the position would conduct investigations, including executing search warrants, conducting formal records of interviews and providing support to the manager.
  • The Respondent outlines that the first question which was emailed to the applicants prior to the interview and the first supplementary question were both in relation to a complex investigation. The Respondent contends that the successful applicant was able to highlight a complex investigation that they led, whilst Mr Green's example was 'general and didn't highlight his personal actions'.
  • The Respondent disagrees that the panel wrongfully "awarded merit" to the successful applicant for a skill that was not listed in the position description.
  • The Respondent submits that the Department is satisfied that the questions asked during the interview process cover the 'highly desirable' and 'what we are looking for' sections contained within the advertised position description.
  • Regarding the panel making an assessment of the person best suited to the position, the Respondent submits:
  • The panel conducted an overall assessment based on all of the information gathered throughout the process.
  • The panel initially reviewed and assessed the applicants' written statements as demonstrated by the completed shortlisting matrix.
  • The Appellant's written statement was of a high standard, and the other shortlisted applicants also had comprehensive written statements. Resumes and written statements assisted the panel in shortlisting the applicants.
  • The interview process then provided the shortlisted applicants with the opportunity to further demonstrate their experience and skills in the context of the role.
  • The selection report details the consideration of the Appellant's written application and interview responses, as well as an overall comparative assessment. The fact that particular skills or experiences the Appellant included in his written application or spoke to in interview were not included in the selection report does not render the decision unreasonable.
  • The selection report outlined the assessment of the successful applicant and the basis upon which the selection was made and how they were better able to demonstrate their ability to meet the core requirements of the role.
  • The Respondent concludes that the recruitment panel complied with the PS Act and the Recruitment and Selection Directive. The Respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed and that the recruitment process and subsequent decision was fair and reasonable.

Appellant's Submissions in Reply

  1. [32]
    The Appellant's reply submissions were filed in the Registry on 14 May 2025 and can be summarised as below:
  • The Appellant contends that the respondent had still failed to demonstrate that his resume, statement and previous experience were assessed as a whole in the recruitment process. Mr Green submits that the recruitment decision was exclusively based on interview performance. He contends that the panel did not make a 'fair and reasonable' merit assessment and failed to consider all of the merit information contrary to the criteria set out in s 45 of the PS Act.
  • The Appellant states that the Selection Report has one short statement addressing his resume and statement and then goes into an in-depth analysis of his response to interview questions. He contends that this further demonstrates that the recruitment decision was wholly based on interview performance.
  • The Appellant contends that there is no record in the AO7 Springboard-PDF-Report or Selection Report of the panel conducting any assessment against the parameters outlined in the position description/job advertisement. He submits that verbal communication is not particularised anywhere in the role requirements however this appears to be the key factor in deciding the most suitable applicant for the role.
  • In response to the Respondent's submission that they disagree that the panel wrongfully awarded merit to the successful applicant for a skill that was not listed in the position description, the Appellant contends that no information as to why Ms M was assessed to be the most suitable applicant has been provided by the Respondent.
  • In relation to the question of training, the Appellant states that in view of the significance of recruitment to the Department, requirement to adhere to the PS Act, as well as the consequences that the recruitment process can have on the applicant in the form of defining their career, it would seem inherent that the panel members be adequately trained in the recruitment process.
  • The Appellant contends that he has been discriminated against due to the information outlined in the 'Selection strategy' portion of the Selection Report which states:

The leadership team of State Investigations is currently composed entirely of males. In alignment with the department's commitment to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion, appointing a female leader would enhance equity, boost confidence and offer greater support to our five female investigators. Additionally, it would contribute to a more balanced leadership team.

  • The Appellant contends that this demonstrates that the panel had a predetermined bias towards the recruitment or promotion of a female person. He submits that the Australian Public Service merit principles states that merit is the primary consideration when deciding the suitability of a candidate, however, contends that gender was the primary consideration in the promotion decision being appealed.

Response to Discrimination Allegations

  1. [33]
    Whilst the Respondent did not make any further, formal submissions, the Industrial Registry received correspondence on 9 May 2025, responding to the allegations made by Mr Green that he was discriminated against.
  1. [34]
    The Respondent notes section 27(b) of the PS Act which requires the chief executive to take reasonable action to ensure people who are members of one or more diversity groups are able to pursue careers and compete for recruitment, selection and promotion opportunities.
  1. [35]
    Section 25 of the PS Act defines a diversity target group as follows:

diversity target group means any of the following groups—

  1. Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  1. people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds;
  1. people with disability;
  1. women;
  1. a group prescribed by regulation for this definition. (emphasis added)
  1. [36]
    The Respondent also makes note of section 44 of the PS Act which relevantly states:

44 Principles underpinning recruitment and selection

  1. The purpose of this section is to ensure the recruitment and selection of a high-performing, apolitical and representative public sector workforce.
  1. A person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity, including, for example, making a decision about employment of a public sector employee, must undertake the process in accordance with the principles mentioned in subsection (3).
  1. The principles are—
  1. recruitment and selection processes must be directed to the selection of the eligible person best suited to the position; and
  1. recruitment and selection processes must be fair and transparent; and
  1. recruitment and selection processes must reflect the obligations under chapter 2 relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.

(emphasis added)

Consideration

  1. [37]
    To determine this appeal, I am required to assess whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.
  2. [38]
    Deputy President Merrell in Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2)[9] ('Colebourne') considered the meaning of 'fair and reasonable' and concluded that it should be construed within the ordinary meaning of the phrase as used in the context of s 562B of the IR Act.[10]
  3. [39]
    In Colebourne his Honour further noted that assessing whether a decision was 'fair and reasonable' is not an assessment of whether the decision was unreasonable only by reference to the legal standard.[11] His Honour concluded that assessing whether a decision was 'fair and reasonable' permitted a review of both the factual merits and legal reasonableness of both the decision itself and the process of making that decision.[12]
  4. [40]
    Pursuant to s 562C(2) of the IR Act, the Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if the Commission finds that the recruitment or selection process was deficient having regard to whether the process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a Directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner.

Advertisement, Role Description

  1. [41]
    Clause 8.9 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive requires that vacancies must be advertised in a way that maximises quality and diverse applicant pools. Clause 8.10(a) then relevantly provides that at a minimum the chief executive of a public service entity must advertise a vacancy for a period of 10 working days (exclusive of the Christmas to new year closure period) on the Queensland Government careers website.
  2. [42]
    The Respondent in its written submissions filed on 2 May 2025 confirms that the relevant position was advertised on the SmartJobs and Careers website and closed on 5 February 2025.[13] The Appellant in Annexure A to his Notice of Appeal confirms that the position was advertised on the Queensland SmartJobs webpage on 22 January 2025.
  3. [43]
    I am satisfied that the position was appropriately advertised for a period of 10 business days.
  4. [44]
    Clause 8.13 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive provides a list of information that must be provided when a vacancy is advertised. The Appellant in Annexure A to his Notice of Appeal confirms that a detailed Position Description was included in the advertisement of the position. The Appellant attaches a copy of the Position Description for the Principal Investigator, AO7 position.
  5. [45]
    The Position Description includes the relevant information required by Clause 8.13 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive. I am satisfied that the Respondent has complied with Clause 8.13 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive.

Panel Selection

  1. [46]
    The Recruitment and Selection Directive contains the following relevant provisions regarding selection panels:
  1. 9.6In determining the composition of a selection panel (which must include a minimum of two people), a chief executive must consider diversity of the panel as a key factor for successful recruitment, particularly in the context of their obligations under chapter 2 of the Act.
  2. 9.7The decision maker should generally not be a member of the selection panel.
  3. 9.8To promote integrity and diversity in recruitment, selection panels must:
  1. consider and declare any actual, potential or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest between each panel member and the applicants, or, the absence of such conflicts of interest
  1. consider elements of conscious or unconscious bias that may impact the process, including mitigation strategies
  1. consider how the selection process can be accessible, inclusive and culturally safe (as relevant to each circumstance and organisational context)
  1. provide candidate care, including through timely and regular communication with applicants
  1. for senior executive vacancies, include one member from outside the ministerial portfolio.

…

  1. [47]
    The Respondent in its submissions notes that the panel chair, Mr Martyn Hughes commenced in the Principal Investigator role on 28 January 2019.[14] The panel also consisted of two other panel members, Mr Matthew Barr, Manager, State Investigations, Environmental Services and Regulation, and Ms Emilija Rupsys, a Principal Lawyers from Litigation, Office of the Deputy Director-General, Environmental Services and Regulation.[15]
     
  2. [48]
    The Respondent goes on to note that each of the panel members completed conflict of interest paperwork, and further, that this was sighted and approved by the delegate with the delegate stating that she was satisfied that any perceived conflicts of interest were appropriately managed.[16]
  3. [49]
    I note that Ms Rupsys did not declare any conflicts of interest other than a passing interaction with the Appellant.
  4. [50]
    Mr Hughes in his conflict of interest declaration notes that candidates D, the Appellant and S, were all current members of the State Investigations unit and that he had supervisory duties over all of them at one point or another. He confirmed that he did not socialise with them outside of the working environment, further that he has a purely working relationship with each of them. In detailing how the conflict of interest would be minimised and managed, Mr Hughes stated:

Panel of three, including a person external from State Investigations, to be formed and all applicants will be judged on their written applications and if selected, performance in interview, in order to select the best suited individual.[17] (emphasis added)

  1. [51]
    Mr Barr in his conflict of interest declaration noted that he was the current Manager of three of the applicants, D, the Appellant and S. He further noted that he has a working relationship with them all but apart from any work lunch/function, he does not socialise or have a close personal relationship with them. Mr Barr provided the following explanation how any perceived conflict of interest would be managed:

Utilising the recruitment process to assess each of the applicants in the same manner will help mitigate any actual/perceived or potential conflicts of interest that could arise from having knowledge of the work performance of the three applicants that currently work within the team.

A panel member has been selected due to having separation from our Branch to help mitigate any bias (perceived/potential positive or negative).[18]

  1. [52]
    I am satisfied that the panel has been appropriately composed and included a panel member external to the State Investigations unit. I am also satisfied that Mr Hughes and Mr Barr have appropriated identified potential grounds for a conflict of interest due to their knowledge of the Appellant, D and S, and have put in place appropriate strategies to manage that potential conflict.

Appeal Grounds 1 and 2

  1. [53]
    The first ground of appeal relied upon by the Appellant is that the panel failed to consider all of the merit information contrary to the criteria set out in s 45 of the PS Act.
  2. [54]
    The second ground of appeal relied upon by the Appellant is that the panel placed too much weight on the Appellant's interview and did not adequately afford weight to the Appellant's resume, statement addressing role requirements and how the Appellant carried out current and previous roles. The Appellant contends that this is contrary to the Recruitment and Selection Directive.
  3. [55]
    There is a significant overlap between these two grounds of appeal, and I intend to address them together.
  4. [56]
    In Annexure A to his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant notes s 45 of the PS Act and clause 9.2 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive which both highlight that a person selected for employment must be the eligible applicant best suited to the position (emphasis added).
  5. [57]
    The Appellant provides a list of dot points covering off on his previous work experience as a police officer, and his work experience with DETSI as a Senior Investigator, including acting up as a Principal Investigator. The Appellant contends that he was the best suited applicant for the role.
  6. [58]
    The Appellant then cites feedback that he received in his feedback interview and by email from Mr Martyn Hughes, the chair of the selection panel on 3 March 2025 which relevantly provided:

I explained that the cover letter was the place where the panel would look for these and only when there was something we couldn't find, we would then go into the resume to look; I also mentioned that I thought it would be beneficial to sit on a panel, to get an idea of how the process works.

I told you the panel were unanimous in shortlisting you and there wasn't anything in your application that was missing as such, but you could have improved your "leadership" example to a higher standard. You asked what else was deficient with the letter/resume, and the panel had nothing further to add. I did mention that you should be writing the letter as though you were a 7, not a 6 aiming to become a 7.

  1. [59]
    The Appellant contends that the panel did not adequately afford weight to his resume, statement addressing role requirements, current performance in the Principal Investigator (AO7) role, and how he has carried out current and previous roles and potential to make contributions to the department when considering his overall suitability for the role.
  1. [60]
    He submits that the feedback from the panel indicated that the resume and statement addressing role requirements were only used as a tool to progress applicants to the interview stage, and the determination of the successful applicant was made solely on interview performance on the day. The Appellant contends that this is contrary to the Recruitment and Selection Directive.
  1. [61]
    In the appeal submissions filed on 15 April 2025, the Appellant submits that further confirmation that the recruitment decision was exclusively based on interview performance was evidenced in verbal feedback provided by Mr Hughes and Mr Barr as follows:

You were not deemed unsuitable for the position, that's the point, and that's the frustrating thing for us, we know how you work, you performed to a good standard in the interview process, you were just unsuccessful on the day because a couple of people interviewed better than you on the day and the person who was selected was found to be more suitable for the role because they have got some additional skills as well. Martyn Hughes

When we think about what occurred, um it for us, frustrating [sic], and it, not having a go in the sense, but we know your skills, we know that you have done the job, you can do the job, as a couple of the other candidates, they got merit listed for the same reason, they did a decent job in both application, interview, and we know that they have got the skills and capabilities, because we know them, and hence, when someone goes above, it, to me it's like, or you didn't quiet nail it, like, seriously, if you had of nailed it, it would have been hard to not pick you Greeny, to be honest, and going into the process, you can't help but have thoughts about well how this is going to end, and, and it didn't end the way that we thought that it would end and I think Martyn would agree it's not how we expected the thing to go. Matt Barr

  1. [62]
    In Annexure A, the Appellant further states that he has not seen any documentation explaining the basis on which the panel has concluded that the successful applicant is the most meritorious.
  1. [63]
    He contends that compared to himself, the successful applicant does not have the 'the depth and breadth' of knowledge of the State Investigations Unit working and procedures, the legislation administered by the Department and subject to investigations conducted by the State Investigations Unit and overseen by the Principal Investigator position. The Appellant therefore concludes that the appointment of the successful applicant has not been made on 'merit' in compliance with s 45 of the PS Act.
  1. [64]
    The Respondent in its written submissions notes that applicants were requested to submit their resume and a two-page written statement explaining why they were interested in the role, outlining their skills, attributes, strengths and background/diversity they would bring to the team as well as any experience relative to the highly desirables and look-fors outlined in the position description.[19]
  1. [65]
    The Respondent further submits that the panel conducted an overall comparative assessment based on all of the information gathered throughout the process, including the applicant's resume, written statement, interview and the potential of the applicant to make contributions and to support the department's commitment to diversity, respect and inclusion.[20] The Respondent goes on to submit as follows:
  1. The panel initially reviewed and assessed the applicant's written statement as demonstrated by the completed shortlisting matrix.
  1. Mr Green's written statement was of a high standard. However, the other shortlisted applicants also had comprehensive written statements, which led to them being interviewed.
  1. Resumes and written statements assisted the panel in shortlisting the applicants. The interview process then provided the shortlisted applicants with the opportunity to further demonstrate their experience and skills in the context of the role.
  1. The selection report details the consideration of Mr Green's written application and interview responses, as well as an overall comparative assessment.
  1. The selection report does not include a transcript of the interview, but rather a reflection of the panel's assessment based on the information obtained throughout the selection process. The fact that particular skills or experiences Mr Green included in his written application or spoke to in interview are not included in the selection report does not render the decision unreasonable.
  1. The selection report outlined the assessment of the successful applicant and the basis upon which the selection was made and how they were better able to demonstrate their ability to meet the core requirements of the role.
  1. [66]
    In his reply submissions, the Appellant contends that the Respondent's submission fails to demonstrate that his resume, statement addressing role requirements, current performance whilst relieving in the Principal Investigator (AO7) role, how he has carried out current and previous roles, referee reports and potential to make contributions to the department, were assessed as a whole in the recruitment process.              
  2. [67]
    Clauses 9.10 and 9.11 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive are directly relevant to the issue of assessing the person best suited to the role. These clauses have been excerpted in paragraph [27] above. Of particular relevance to the Appellant's first two grounds of appeal is clause 9.11(c) which provides:
  1. 9.11Assessment processes for advertised positions must:

…consider all the information before the selection panel, rather than rely or focus on one aspect of the process, such as interview performance …

  1. [68]
    The Respondent asserts in paragraph [40] of its written submissions that the selection report details the consideration of Mr Green's written application and interview responses, as well as an overall comparative assessment.
  2. [69]
    The evidence available to me does not appear to support this contention by the Respondent.
  3. [70]
    Firstly, addressing the AO7 Springboard-PDF-Report[21], it confirms that the selection panel considered the Appellant's resume and application in determining that he should be shortlisted for interview. The following comments by Ms Rupsys were particularly noted:

… The resume shows there has been experience acting in the principal investigator role itself and I'd be interested to know how the applicant performed during those periods. …[22]

  1. [71]
    Secondly, the selection report, sets out the following selection strategy:

Selection Strategy

The leadership team of State Investigations is currently composed entirely of males. In alignment with the department's commitment to equity, diversity, respect, and inclusion, appointing a female leader would enhance equity, boost confidence, and offer greater support to our five female investigators. Additionally, it would contribute to a more balanced leadership team.

The selection strategy used for this recruitment to determine merit was based on the candidate's written application, resume, and work experience against predetermined look fors/selection criteria within the job description. Via MS TEAMS, the panel discussed the candidates' responses to the selection criteria, the candidate's work history from their resumes.
 

The shortlisted applicants were interviewed via Teams, with a pre-read emailed to each candidate individually seventeen minutes prior to the commencement of their interview, to allow at least fifteen minutes pre-read. The question asked:

  1. Please provide the panel with an example of a complex investigation (which included the application for and execution of a search warrant), that you have managed and led, ensuring that you address the following four stages:             
  1. Initial allocation and actions.
  2. Requirements for the warrant application and process.
  3. Warrant execution (including actions prior to).
  4. Conclusion.

Candidates had 25 self-managed minutes to explain to the panel their actions.

This was followed up with two supplementary questions (not included in the pre-read) to gain the candidates immediate reaction to an evolving situation:

  1. Person of interest collapses at a warrant whilst being interview, what do you do?
  1. Your manager is in the process of making a decision and the decision is in conflict with the relevant legislation. What do you do?

Further questions were asked by the panel, in order to illicit further information from the applicants when required

  1. [72]
    In addressing the Appellant's application, the selection report,  as noted by the Appellant in his reply submissions filed on 14 May 2025, only makes mention of the Appellant's resume and application in the first two sentences as follows:

Resume and application show the applicant to have recency, good experience and has addressed criteria in a specific manner. Unanimously worthy of an interview.

  1. [73]
    This is the only mention of the Appellant's resume and application in the selection report.
  2. [74]
    What then immediately follows is three lines discussing the Appellant's educational qualifications.
  3. [75]
    The selection report then provides a very detailed analysis of the Appellant's response to interview question one. This analysis extends to four paragraphs or nineteen lines and represents the largest component of the selection panel's consideration of the Appellant's application.
  4. [76]
    By contrast, the Appellant's responses to interview questions two and three are dealt with in single lines, as follows:

Q2 - Good response but did not mention being discrete when talking to interviewing officer.

Q3 - Good response focusing on established relationship and positive communication.

  1. [77]
    The selection panel then return to the topic of the Appellant's response to question one, noting that he read the majority of his response. The selection report makes comments regarding a lack of engagement, and also some criticism of other aspects of his response to question one.
  2. [78]
    In the detailed position description that was made available as part of the advertising for the role, the following passage is included:

What we are looking for

We're looking for the best suited person for the role. If you are eligible, we will assess your suitability by considering:

• your ability to perform the duties of the role, including 'What you need for this role'

• the way you carried out previous roles (if relevant) .

• your potential to make contributions to the department

• your awareness of health and safety obligations for yourself and to others

• how your engagement would support our commitment to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.

  1. [79]
    There is no indication of there being any further consideration of the Appellant's resume and written application, and nor is there any indication of there being any comparative analysis of the Appellant against the other short listed applicants utilising that material.
  2. [80]
    The version of the selection report that has been provided by the Respondent is heavily redacted. All of the information in relation to the other applicants has been redacted rather than simply redacting or anonymising the names of the other applicants. The Respondent adopting this approach makes it more difficult for the Appellant to establish deficiencies in the appointment process and for the Commission to determine the appeal.
  1. [81]
    On the version of the selection report available to me, there is no indication of the selection panel addressing the various matters set out in the "What we are looking for" section of the position description, particularly by reference to the Appellant's resume and written application. Further, there is no indication of any comparison of the Appellant against the other applicants in relation to those matters.
  1. [82]
    Given the above, I am satisfied that the selection panel have fallen into the very error that clause 9.11(c) of the Recruitment and Selection Directive cautions against. That is, the selection panel in making its assessment of the person best suited to the position has relied or focused on one aspect of the process, that being the interview performance. Further, in the case of the Appellant, not only has the selection panel (on the evidence available to me) failed to give proper consideration to the Appellant's resume, written application and work history with DETSI, it appears to have given undue weight to the Appellant's response to question one in determining that he was not the person best suited to the position.
  1. [83]
    I am therefore satisfied that the selection panel have failed to comply with the requirements of the Recruitment and Selection Directive and as a consequence, the selection process was deficient.
  1. [84]
    I uphold the first two grounds of appeal.
  2. [85]
    Given this conclusion, it is not strictly necessary to consider the Appellant's other grounds of appeal, however, I will provide brief reasons in relation to each of the additional appeal grounds.

Appeal Ground 3 - The panel interview questions did not associate to the capabilities and competencies required of the position

  1. [86]
    The Appellant in Schedule 'A' to his Notice of Appeal quotes from DETSI's intranet site on Talent Acquisition (Recruitment). He notes that the questions asked at an interview should link back to the capabilities and competencies required of the position, as outlined in the position description.
  2. [87]
    The Appellant contends that the questions asked by the selection panel during the interview process did not associate to the key role requirements of a Principal Investigator AO7, such as:
  • Ability to lead and manage complex investigations
  • Demonstrate high level communication skills
  • Work as a productive team member
  • Knowledge and ability to support investigator performance, development and training
  • Demonstrate commitment to client service
  • Demonstrate capacity to contribute to practical leadership in enhancing and maintaining officer safety in the delivery of investigation services
  • Role model Team Leader leadership behaviours
  • Contribute to workplace safety, equity, diversity, respect and inclusion
  1. [88]
    The Appellant submits that the interview questions posed by the panel did not afford him the opportunity to provide examples of his ability to undertake the key role requirements of the position as outlined in the position description. In particular, the Appellant is critical of the prominence of questions relating to 'search warrants', which he contends is something rarely done by a Principal Investigator of the State Investigation Unit. (emphasis added)
  2. [89]
    In its submissions, the Respondent disagrees with the Appellant and submits that the interview process is not required nor intended to be linear in nature – the intention is for the panel to understand the applicant and ask questions which provide that information.[23]
  3. [90]
    The Respondent further notes that the position description clearly outlined that the position would conduct investigations, including executing search warrants, taking witness statements, conducting formal records of interviews and providing support to the manager.[24]
  4. [91]
    The Respondent further noted the successful applicant Ms AM was able to highlight a complex investigation they had led, whilst the Appellant's example was "general and didn't highlight his personal actions".[25]
  5. [92]
    On the limited evidence available to me from the selection report, it appears that the Appellant failed to sufficiently address some of the standardised questions to the satisfactions of the panel and this counted against him when determining the order of merit.
  6. [93]
    The role description under the heading of "The role" lists various duties of a Principal Investigator. The first dot point lists conduct investigations of possible offences. The role description then lists various sub categories including using specialist technical, scientific and other expert evidence, taking witness statements, conducting formal records of interview and executing search warrants. The third dot point in the Position Description notes 'Lead and manage the performance of a small team of investigators delivering investigative services for the department'.
  7. [94]
    I am satisfied that interview questions one and two appropriately addressed those aspects of the role of the Principal Investigator and further afforded the Appellant the opportunity of demonstrating an ability to lead and manage complex investigations.
  1. [95]
    I note the observations of Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon in Clare v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[26] regarding the failure of Ms Clare to sufficiently address some of the selection criterion:

[75]  A panel is entitled to expect that an applicant has taken care in their preparation of a written application and their readiness to put their best foot forward in an interview. While panels can create as relaxed an atmosphere as possible and formulate questions which give the best opportunity to find out whether the applicant is meritorious for the position, it is not their responsibility to ensure the applicant effectively answers each question.[27]

  1. [96]
    I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established that this was a deficiency in the selection process. This ground of appeal is dismissed.

Appeal Ground 4 - Successful applicant was awarded merit for skills not outlined as a requirement for the role in the Position Description

  1. [97]
    The basis of this ground of appeal is a comment alleged to have been made by the Manager of the State Investigations Unit in providing information about the successful applicant in which it was stated that the successful applicant was not only skilled in investigations but is also highly skilled in the discipline of investigative interviewing, training and surveillance work, which would be of great benefit to the team.
  2. [98]
    The Appellant has seized upon one aspect of this commentary, that being the comment about surveillance work to maintain a contention that it appears that merit has been given to the successful applicant for having skills in this area.
  3. [99]
    The Appellant then contends that if merit has been awarded in this area, all applicants should have had the opportunity to outline their comparable skills so that the assessment process is fair and equitable.
  4. [100]
    As noted above, the selection report as it pertains to the details regarding all of the other applicants has been redacted. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain whether the successful applicant was in fact given merit for her surveillance skills, or whether this was merely an observation by Mr Barr as part of his introduction of the successful applicant.
  5. [101]
    On the evidence available to me, this ground of appeal is premised on a hypothetical assumption by the Appellant and there is no evidence available to me which supports the hypothesis. Given this, I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established that the selection process was deficient based on this ground of appeal. I dismiss this ground of appeal.

Appeal Ground 5 - Panel members have insufficient training and experience in the recruitment process

  1. [102]
    The Appellant in Schedule 'A' to his Notice of Appeal records his belief that the panel members have not undertaken current training in the recruitment process.
  2. [103]
    The Appellant further submits that it is unknown if the panel members have undertaken training in the recent legislative changes brought about by the introduction of the PS Act. He also points to the previous involvement of Mr Hughes and Mr Barr in selection panels where the decision of the panel have been set aside.
  3. [104]
    The Respondent in its submissions submit that clauses 9.5 to 9.9 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive contain no requirement for panel members to undergo training.[28] The Respondent therefore submits that the Appellant's argument about a lack of training is incorrect.
  4. [105]
    There is no indication in the Recruitment and Selection Directive of any requirement (or even recommendation) that selection panels should undergo recent or regular training.
  5. [106]
    I agree with the submission of the Respondent and I find that the Appellant has failed to establish a deficiency in the selection process based on this ground of appeal. I dismiss this ground of appeal.

Appeal Ground 6 - Discrimination

  1. [107]
    The Appellant raises in his reply submissions filed on 14 May 2025 a further ground of appeal that he has been discriminated against due to the indication in the selection strategy in the selection report (excerpted at paragraph [70] above) that the appointment of a female leader would align with the department's commitment to equity, diversity and respect.
  2. [108]
    The Appellant contends that this passage of the selection strategy clearly demonstrates that the panel has a predetermined bias towards the recruitment or promotion of a female person for the subject position.
  3. [109]
    As noted earlier in these reasons, by email dated 9 May 2025 the Respondent addressed this further ground of appeal. In summary, the Respondent states:
  • Section 27(b) of the PS Act requires the chief executive to take reasonable action to ensure people who are members of 1 or more diversity target groups are able to pursue careers, and compete for recruitment, selection and promotion opportunities.
  • Diversity targets are defined in s 25 of the PS Act and relevantly include 'women'.
  • Section 44 of the PS Act states that a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity, must reflect the obligations under Chapter 2 of the PS Act – Equity, Diversity, Respect and Inclusion.
  • The Recruitment and Selection Directive at clause 7.5 states that when considering how to fill a vacancy, a chief executive must consider their obligations relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion under Chapter 2 of the PS Act. Further, that they are required to take steps to promote equity, diversity, respect and inclusion in employment.
  1. [110]
    The Respondent submits that the selection strategy statement referenced by the Appellant simply acknowledges the current make-up of the management team and supports applying the legislation as required.
  2. [111]
    I accept and prefer the submissions of the Respondent. I am not satisfied that the statement in the selection strategy indicates that the selection panel had a predetermined bias towards appointing a female applicant to the role. To the contrary, I consider that it merely reflects the obligations cast upon the panel by the various legislative provisions and clause 7.5 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive.
  3. [112]
    This appeal ground is also dismissed.

Conclusion

  1. [113]
    For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the Appellant has established his first two grounds of appeal and that he has established that there was a deficiency in the selection process.
  1. [114]
    The selection panel has failed to comply with clause 9.11(c) of the Recruitment and Selection Directive by solely focussing on the Appellant's interview performance in determining his place in the order of merit and by failing to consider his previous experience, resume and written application.
  1. [115]
    As a consequence, there has been a deficiency established in the manner that the selection panel undertook its role.
  1. [116]
    For the reasons set out above, I find that the promotion decision appealed against was not fair and reasonable, as the selection process was deficient.
  2. [117]
    In making this decision I fully acknowledge the impact this will have on the successful applicant for the Principal Investigator role, Ms AM. It is indeed unfortunate that her appointment to the role has to be set aside due to no fault of her own. It will also inevitably lead to a further period of uncertainty for each of the five short-listed applicants and for DETSI's State Investigations Unit.
  1. [118]
    The appeal is upheld and I make the following orders.

Orders:

  1. The promotion decision is set aside.
  2. The matter is returned to the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science & Innovation with a copy of this decision.
  3. Within one month, the chief executive of the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science & Innovation is to revoke the appointment of the successful applicant to the position of AO7 Principal Investigator, State Investigations, Waste and Enforcement Services, Environmental Services and Regulation, job ad reference (JAR) number QLD/615694/25, and publish a gazette notice that the appointment is revoked.
  4. A new selection panel is to be formed, for the purpose of selecting an applicant for the vacant position of AO7 Principal Investigator, State Investigations, Waste and Enforcement Services, Environmental Services and Regulation, job ad reference (JAR) number QLD/615694/25 ('the vacant position'). The new selection panel must not include any member of the previous selection panel, that is:

a. Mr Martyn Hughes;

b. Mr Matthew Barr;

c. Ms Emilija Rupsys.

  1. The new selection panel should be provided with a copy of sections 44 and 45 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) and the Directive 07/23: Recruitment and Selection.
  2. The chief executive is to continue the recruitment and selection process for the position from the point immediately after the selection of the five shortlisted applicants for interview.

Footnotes

[1] Respondent's submissions filed 2 May 2025, Attachment 2 – Recruitment and selection report, p. 4.

[2] Respondent's submissions filed 2 May 2025, [17]

[3] Ibid, [4]-[5].

[4] Pursuant to r 97(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Tribunal Rules'), the name of the successful applicant has been anonymised because they are not respondents to this Appeal.

[5] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(2).

[6] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5; Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 567(1) & s 562B(2).

[7] Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252, [60]-[61] (Byrne SJA).

[8] Bayntun v State of Queensland (Department of Tourism, Innovation and Sport) [2022] QIRC 361, 24.

[9] [2022] QIRC 16.

[10] Ibid, at [25], citing Pope v Lawler [1996] FCA 1446. 

[11] Colebourne at [21]-[22] and [25].

[12] Ibid, at [23] citing Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the 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.

[13] Respondent's written submissions filed 2 May 2025, [2].

[14] Respondent's written submissions, [14].

[15] Ibid, [15].

[16] Ibid, [16] and Attachment 3  - Conflict of interests in recruitment and selection.

[17]  Ibid, Attachment 3.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Respondent's submissions, [3].

[20] Ibid, [36]

[21] Respondent's submissions, Attachment 4.

[22] Ibid, page 6.

[23] Respondent's submissions, [26].

[24] Ibid, [27].

[25] Ibid, [28].

[26]  [2022] QIRC 492.

[27] Clare v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 492, [75] per Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon.

[28] Respondent's submissions, [23].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Green v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Green v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 151

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    O'Neill IC

  • Date:

    04 Jun 2025

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
Bayntun v State of Queensland (Department of Tourism, Innovation and Sport) [2022] QIRC 361
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 361
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 361
Clare v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 492
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 492
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 492
Cite 3 - [2022] QIRC 492
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 16
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 16
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 16
Page v Thompson [2014] QSC 252
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QSC 252
Cite 2 - [2014] QSC 252
Pope v Lawler [1996] FCA 1446
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1996] FCA 1446
Cite 2 - [1996] FCA 1446

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Dodds v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation) [2025] QIRC 1522 citations
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.