Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Adams v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) - [2025] QIRC 8

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

Adams v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science)[2025] QIRC 8

Adams v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science)[2025] QIRC 8

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Adams v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2025] QIRC 008

PARTIES:

Adams, Dayna

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2023/244

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Promotion decision

DELIVERED ON:

16 January 2025

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

  1. 1.
    Pursuant to s 562C(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is set aside. The appeal is upheld.
  1. 2.
    The matter is returned to the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation, with a copy of this decision.
  1. 3.
    I direct that, within one month, the chief executive of the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation is to revoke the appointment of Mr Simon Booth to the position of AO7 Program Coordinator, Northern Wildlife Operations, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Partnerships, job ad reference (JAR) number QLD/491494/23, and publish a gazette notice that the appointment is revoked.
  1. 4.
    I direct that a new selection panel is to be formed, for the purposes of selecting an applicant for the vacant position of AO7 Program Coordinator, Northern Wildlife Operations, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Partnerships, job ad reference (JAR) number QLD/491494/23, ('the vacant position').  The new selection panel must not include any member of the previous selection panel, that is:
  1. a.
    Mr David Woods;
  1. b.
    Ms Jane Burns;
  1. c.
    Mr Malcolm Kennedy;
  1. d.
    Ms Nerida Mitchell.
  1. 5.
    The new selection panel must be provided with a copy of ss 44 and 45 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) and Directive 07/23: Recruitment and Selection.
  1. 6.
    The chief executive is to continue the recruitment and selection process for the vacant position from the point immediately after the selection of shortlisted applicants for interview.  The shortlisted applicants in the resumed selection process shall comprise the three shortlisted applicants in the process subject of this appeal (Mr Booth, Ms Adams and the third shortlisted applicant).

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – CLASSIFICATION, PROMOTION OR TRANSFER – whether the recruitment and selection process was deficient – consideration of mandatory process under Directive 07/23 Recruitment and Selection – decision not fair and reasonable – appeal upheld

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

LEGISLATION & OTHER INSTRUMENTS:

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 44, s 129, s 131, s 133

Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection cl 1, cl 4, cl 9, cl 12

CASES:

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

Reasons for Decision

Background

  1. [1]
    Ms Dayna Adams (the Appellant) appeals against a promotion decision of the Department of Environment and Science, State of Queensland (the Department; the Respondent). 
  1. [2]
    The Department had advertised the vacant position of Program Coordinator, Northern Wildlife Operations, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Partnerships (AO7) (the promotional position) with a closing date of 22 June 2023.[1]
  1. [3]
    The final selection panel[2] comprised Mr David Woods[3] (Panel Chair), Mrs Jane Burns,[4] Mr Malcolm Kennedy[5] and Ms Nerida Mitchell.[6]  "Due to the change in the panel chair, the panel was not formed until 11 July 2023."[7]
  1. [4]
    Mr Simon Booth submitted a late application on 17 July 2023.  That was accepted by the selection panel chair, Mr David Woods.[8]
  1. [5]
    57 applications were received and were provided to the selection panel for shortlisting the following day, 18 July 2023.[9]
  1. [6]
    The panel convened to shortlist applicants on 26 July 2023.[10]
  1. [7]
    Five applicants were shortlisted for interviews scheduled in the period 7 to 8 August 2023.  Though the selection panel ultimately interviewed only three candidates – Mr Booth, Ms Adams and one other.[11]
  1. [8]
    On 21 August 2023, the selection report was submitted to the Delegate, Mr Steve Briant.[12]  The Delegate approved the recommendation for appointment on 23 August 2023.[13]
  1. [9]
    "Ms Adams was provided verbal feedback by the panel chair and two other panel members on 18 September 2023."[14]
  1. [10]
    On 24 November 2023, the appointment outcome was advertised in the Queensland Government Gazette No 74 (the promotion decision).  Mr Simon Booth was the successful candidate for the position. 
  1. [11]
    On 15 December 2023, the Appellant appealed the promotion decision. 
  1. [12]
    In my view, the promotion decision appealed against was not fair and reasonable, as the selection process was deficient.
  1. [13]
    My reasons follow.

Decision against which an appeal may be made

  1. [14]
    Section 131 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) (PS Act) identifies the categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made.  Section 131(1)(e) of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against "a promotion decision" – that is, "a decision to promote a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis".[15]
  1. [15]
    Section 133(e) of the PS Act prescribes that "a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis who is aggrieved by the decision and is entitled to appeal under a directive" may appeal.
  1. [16]
    The parties do not dispute that the Appellant is eligible to appeal the promotion decision.
  1. [17]
    I am satisfied that the promotion decision, as contained in the gazetted notice of 24 November 2023, constitutes a decision made by the Department and is capable of appeal pursuant to s 131(1)(e) of the PS Act.

Appeal principles

  1. [18]
    The appeal is decided by reviewing the decision "to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable".[16]
  1. [19]
    The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at by the Department and the associated decision-making process.[17]
  1. [20]
    Section 562B(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (the IR Act) provides that:
  1. For an appeal against a promotion decision or a decision about disciplinary action under the Public Sector Act 2022, the commission –
  1. (a)
    must decide the appeal having regard to the evidence available to the decision maker when the decision was made; but
  1. (b)
    may allow other evidence to be taken into account if the commission considers it appropriate.
  1. [21]
    A decision made by the Department, which was reasonably open to it, should not be disturbed on appeal.

What decisions can the Commission make?

  1. [22]
    Section 562C(1) of the IR Act prescribes that the Commission may determine to either:
  • confirm the decision appealed against; or
  • for an appeal against a promotion decision—set the decision aside, and return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions permitted under a directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner that the commission considers appropriate.
  1. [23]
    The Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if they find that the recruitment or selection process was deficient.[18]
  1. [24]
    In determining whether there was such a deficiency, the Commission must consider whether the recruitment and selection process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a directive of the commission chief executive.[19]
  1. [25]
    It is necessary, in determining whether the promotion decision was fair and reasonable and whether the recruitment and selection process was deficient, to consider the Appellant's submitted grounds of appeal.

Appellant's grounds of appeal

  1. [26]
    The Appellant stated the grounds of appeal were:

The panel did not undertake a fair, transparent and reasonable consideration of my suitability for the role, contrary to s 44(3)(a)(b) and 45 of the Act, and clauses 4.2, 4.6, 9.1, 9.2, 9.10, 9.11(e) of the Queensland Government's Recruitment and Selection Directive (07/23) ('the Directive').

…

Fairness

  • The panel were biased against my application, and did not consider my application in a fair, transparent and merit-based way, contrary to the Act and Clause 4.2(a)(d).
  • The panel chair, who replaced the original chair, made statement to the original Hiring Manager (outside of the panel) prior to the process being finalised that my application 'could never' be successful, due to allegations of favouritism.
  • The original hiring manager had several concerns about the process and has provided a witness statement, detailing her knowledge and the of procedural fairness.

Transparency

  • The panel were not transparent in the 'Selection Strategy' section of the final Selection Report presented to the Delegate, where it would be appropriate to identify to the delegate that as a part of the selection strategy they had accepted and/or sought a late application from the successful applicant, around four weeks after the applications had closed.
  • In both the interview and feedback, the process demonstrated a lack of transparency in that the panel focused on criteria not included in the 'what we are looking for' or the 'highly desirable' section of the role description and application instructions.  This included focussing on technical aspects of research such as doing experimental design, instead of relevant criteria identified in the 'how to apply' section such as high-level program management, project management and team leadership.
  • The role I applied for was not a technical or scientific role, but rather a Program Coordinator that coordinated programs, projects and led a team.  It appeared the panel had changed what they were looking for, and were applying different criteria outside of what was described in the position description or how to apply.
  • During feedback the panel stated the 10-minute presentation went over time, which they stated impacted the amount of time available for the rest of the questions and that it likely impacted the entire interview.  Undue penalisation for time was not transparent, as there was no indication provided anywhere in the written instructions or in the verbal communication that time was of such a critical nature, not that their own supplementary questions would form part of either the 10 minute presentation or the rest of the interview.
  • The panel's feedback provided in a panel-style session on 18 September was contradictory in nature (eg panel members directly contradicting feedback from one another), and indicated they did not adequately consider and document interview responses to formal questions.
  • When asked during feedback for further clarification on what was not clear from the research questions from the panel, the 3 members of the panel present were not able to answer, and recommended I ask the 4th panel member because he 'had the science cap on'.

Assessment of the person best suited to the position

  • Clause 9.10(b) of the Directive states that those undertaking a selection and recruitment process must conduct a holistic assessment of the eligible applications in the context of the role requirements and the factors provided for in section 45(2) of the Act.  In this instance, it appears it was not the case, as per below.
  • Clause 9.11(c) of the Directive requires that the panel considers all information rather than rely on or focus on  one aspect of the performance.
  • The panel placed too much emphasis on the interview performance and did not holistically consider my previous experience leading other programs and a similar research team.  The panel did not adequately consider my written application which detailed my suitability as per the 'Highly Desirable' section as well as the 'what we are looking for'.
  • The panel chair explicitly stated to me on 15th of September that the interview performance was the reason I was not successful in being considered suitable for the position.
  • The panel reiterated that the interview was the reason I was not successful during the formal feedback and said it was a competitive process, and "who was the best on the day."
  • During feedback session on 18th of September, 3 members of the panel present also stated that the interview was what had resulted in being unsuitable.  The written application was described as being "awesome" and "not to change anything."
  • The panel failed to consider my considerable relevant experience in delivering programs, leading research and other teams, my skills, attributes, strengths and background I would bring to the team, relative to the high desirables and look-fors.

Process irregularities

  • The process involved several irregularities and procedural deficiencies that did not appear to meet the Directive.  Under Clause 9.5 states that where a vacancy is advertised, selection processes and notification of outcomes must take place in a timely  manner, which does not appear to have been done here.  Applications closed on 22 June 2023, and a panel chair change occurred on 11 July.  Since the new panel chair started, it took:
  1. 43 days for the decision to be made,
  2. 66 days until I was verbally advised of the outcome on 15 September 2023.
  3. 119 days to process the paperwork in the departmental system on 7 November 2023.
  4. 136 days from new panel formation to gazettal date.  (70 days from when I was advised of the outcome and when gazettal occurred).
  • Clause 12.4 of the Directive states that Notice of the employment or secondment decisions within 30 days.  Contrary to the Directive, the notice was published in the Government Gazette on 24 November 2023, 93 days after the selection report was signed and decision made on 23 August 2023.[20]
  1. [27]
    I will now consider the various appeal grounds below:

Panel chair's alleged statement to the (then) Hiring Manager

  1. [28]
    The Appellant submitted that "The process was not fair, or free from bias, based on statements made by the panel chair David Woods on or around 25th August to the Hiring Manager, Corinna Browne".[21]  That is, it is alleged that Mr Woods admitted to Ms Browne that "it could never be Dayna to win the process, due to that being the perceived outcome that would have occurred if [previous panel chair] was still running the process."[22]  "The witness statement by Ms Browne was provided to the department in October 2023."[23]
  1. [29]
    The Appellant submitted that the department:[24]
  • "did not refute Mr Woods made the statement" or "provided any explanation";
  • did not provide any further information about "what 'enquiries' entailed";
  • did not contact either the Appellant or Ms Browne "to provide any insights into the matter";
  • "Mr Woods statements to Ms Browne clearly indicate that … he allowed his prejudice towards me to preclude my genuine consideration for the role of Program Coordinator."
  1. [30]
    The Department submitted that inquiries had been undertaken "with respect to the alleged comment", though "there was insufficient evidence provided to determine the allegation, which Ms Adams was advised on 23 November 2023 …"[25]
  1. [31]
    The Department stated that "the grievance was handled in accordance with the … [IEG] Policy and Procedure and that the appellant did not request an internal review", further that "the department advised that a grievance relating to the recruitment and selection of a public service employee cannot be the subject of an individual employee grievance" though "if the appellant suspected corrupt conduct … this would be a matter that could be the subject of an internal review."[26]  The Department submitted that Ms Browne was not an unbiased witness because she was "personally interested in the outcome" of the recruitment process and did not want the successful candidate to return to the team.[27]
  1. [32]
    In response to that point, the Appellant submitted that Ms Anthony (Senior HR Officer, Department of Environment and Science) advised her, in an email dated 18 September 2023,[28] that under the IEG Policy and Procedure:

… a decision relating to the recruitment or selection of a public service employee cannot be the subject of an internal employee grievance.  This mean that the recruitment aspect of your grievance cannot be progressed internally.  In order for a review into the recruitment decision – you would need to submit the Appeal Notice form to the QIRC.

If you would like to progress with the QIRC appeal, you will need to wait until the appointment has been published in the Queensland Government Gazette Listings …

  1. [33]
    The department also submitted that:
  • the panel comprised four members including the panel chair;
  • all panel members had "completed the conflict of interest paperwork"  and no conflicts existed;[29]
  • panel members individually reviewed applications prior to the shortlisting discussion;[30]
  • "The panel chair's interview notes do not show bias but instead reflect the applicant's responses and their strengths and weaknesses for the position based on their application."[31]
  • "The selection report provides a clear assessment of the panel's consideration of Ms Adams' application in its entirety, concluding that Ms Adams was not suitable for appointment to the advertised role."[32]
  1. [34]
    As earlier noted in this Decision, the Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if the recruitment or selection process was deficient.[33]  Any such finding involves consideration of whether the process undertaken complied with the PS Act and Directive.[34]
  1. [35]
    Importantly, the PS Act and Directive mandates that "recruitment and selection processes must be fair and transparent."[35]  The terms "fair" and "transparent" are not defined therein, though the Macquarie Dictionary provides that:
  • fair means to be "free from bias, dishonesty or injustice";[36]
  • bias means "a particular tendency or inclination, especially one which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question"; "to influence, usually unfairly";[37]
  • transparent means "open, frank or candid": "open to public scrutiny, as government or business dealings".[38]
  1. [36]
    Mr Woods' alleged comments to Ms Browne are a serious matter.  It is in scope of this decision because it is a relevant consideration as to whether or not the Appellant's candidacy was fairly and transparently assessed, as required by the PS Act and Directive.
  1. [37]
    Ms Browne provided a Statutory Declaration that the statement was made directly to her by Mr Woods "sometime in August, most likely the 25th August".  The Statutory Declaration form clearly states that "Making a false statement in a statutory declaration is a criminal offence."  I find it curious that the Department's inquiries seemingly did not include contacting Ms Browne about the statement provided by her in October 2023 – which was well before the publication of the appointment decision in the Queensland Government Gazette on 24 November 2023.[39]  In such circumstances, the department's failure to do so apparently contributed to there being "insufficient evidence" to determine the matter, beyond Ms Browne's written statement. 
  1. [38]
    The timing of Mr Woods' alleged comment made "sometime in August, most likely the 25th August" is consistent with the actions undertaken that month – interviews scheduled for 7-8 August, selection report submitted on 21 August and Delegate approval obtained on 23 August 2023.[40]
  1. [39]
    I note also that the Department advised Ms Adams that there was "insufficient evidence provided to determine the allegation" the day before the appointment decision was published in the Queensland Government Gazette on 24 November 2023.[41]
  1. [40]
    Given Ms Browne made the allegation about Mr Woods' comment to her to the Department in October 2023, the cautious approach would have been not to proceed with the appointment announcement on 24 November 2023 and instead thoroughly investigate the matter.  Unfortunately, the Department determined to press on.
  1. [41]
    In my view, the process was infected by the apprehension of bias at least at the point of Ms Browne's allegation, such that the Department ought to have itself determined to restart the process from the point of interviewing the 3 shortlisted candidates with a new selection panel.  The PS Act and Directive requires the conduct of processes to be "fair and transparent".[42]  The serious allegation made by Ms Browne, and lack of visibility into the inquiries then made by the Department resulting in "insufficient evidence" to determine the allegation, have not resulted in any reasonable degree of comfort that mandatory requirement has been effected as prescribed.
  1. [42]
    On the information before me, I cannot be satisfied that the processes utilised was "fair and transparent" as required by the PS Act and Directive.[43]
  1. [43]
    On that basis, the Department's decision ought to be set aside and the appeal upheld.

Process timeframes mandated

  1. [44]
    The Appellant's appeal grounds also include that:

… Clause 9.5 states that where a vacancy is advertised, selection processes and notification of outcomes must take place in a timely manner, which does not appear to have been done here.  Applications closed on 22 June 2023, and a panel chair change occurred on 11 July.  Since the new panel chair started, it took:

  1. 43 days for the decision to be made,
  2. 66 days until I was verbally advised of the outcome on 15 September 2023.
  3. 119 days to process the paperwork in the departmental system on 7 November 2023.
  4. 136 days from new panel formation to gazettal date.  (70 days from when I was advised of the outcome and when gazettal occurred).

Clause 12.4 of the Directive states that Notice of the employment or secondment decisions within 30 days.  Contrary to the Directive, the notice was published in the Government Gazette on 24 November 2023, 93 days after the selection report was signed and decision made on 23 August 2023.[44]

  1. [45]
    The purpose of Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection (the Directive) is to "provide for the way in which recruitment and selection in public sector entities must be carried out …"[45]  It contains mandatory requirements. 
  1. [46]
    The Appellant correctly identified that cl 9.5 of the Directive specifically requires that "selection processes and notification of outcomes must take place in a timely manner", though that did not occur in this case.  Clause 9.5 of the Directive expressly states that selection panels should be formed and strategies determined prior to the closing date of the vacancy advertisement in order to achieve that.
  1. [47]
    The Appellant correctly identified cl 12.4 of the Directive required that the decision be published in the Queensland Government Gazette within one month of the decision.  Plainly that did not occur either.
  1. [48]
    As set out by the Appellant in some detail, the Department missed the mandatory timeframe by a significant and lengthy period.
  1. [49]
    The Department has "acknowledged that there was a significant delay between advertising the position and the gazette publication",[46] though asserted that is "not cause for the promotion decision itself to be overturned, noting that the delay did not affect the conduct of the process itself".[47]  The Department submitted that the Commission has held that "a process does not have to be perfect in order to be considered reasonable."[48]
  1. [50]
    The Department's reasons for the significant delay in meeting the prescribed timeframes under the Directive were:[49]
  • a change in panel chair, resulting in a delay in forming the panel; and
  • a period of "negotiations with the successful applicant", following approval by the Delegate on 23 August 2023, "during this time the panel chair commenced leave (from 9 to 27 October 2023).
  1. [51]
    Notwithstanding the significant delay, the Department "refutes this indicates the recruitment and selection process was in any way deficient.  The timing of the gazettal is not cause for the promotion decision to be overturned as it did not impact on the panel's assessment of the candidates."[50]
  1. [52]
    The Appellant submitted that "There is no barrier in the Directive or the Act that would have prevented the three other panel members in progressing the process to gazettal in the Chair's 18-day absence."[51]
  1. [53]
    Clause 12.4 of the Directive states that the decision must be published within one month of the decision being made.  The Delegate approved the panel's selection report recommendation on 23 August 2023.  On that basis, the decision ought to have been published by 23 September 2023.  The panel chair's absence on leave from 9 to 27 October 2023 has no bearing on that deadline not being met – his leave commenced more than 2 weeks after the decision was required to be published. 
  1. [54]
    It is not disputed that the decision was published two months after the mandatory deadline contained in the Directive passed – or "93 days after the selection report was signed and decision made on 23 August 2023", as the Appellant pointed out.  I do not agree that the mandatory requirements contained in the Directive claim less importance in this appeal because it pertains to a point in the process after the Delegate's approval to the successful candidate's appointment was given. 
  1. [55]
    As noted earlier in this decision, this appeal is decided by reviewing the decision "to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable".[52]  In my view, it was not reasonable for the Department to fail to comply with the mandatory timeframes set out in the Directive.  The reasons submitted by the Department for the delay simply do not reasonably account for it. 
  1. [56]
    As also noted earlier, the Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if the recruitment or selection process was deficient[53] and it clear here that the prescribed timeframes for publication of the decision did not comply with the Directive.[54]
  1. [57]
    I find it was not reasonable for the Department to dispense with the Directive's requirements with respect to publication of the decision.  The Directive requirements are not unimportant because it pertains to a point in the process after the Delegate's approval of the panel's recommendation.
  1. [58]
    Further to my consideration of the first appeal ground above, on this basis too, I will set aside the Department's decision and uphold the appeal.

Feedback meeting

  1. [59]
    In a similar vein, the appeal ground regarding the muddled commentary provided to the Appellant at the feedback meeting held on 18 September 2023 is not less important because it occurred at a point in the process after the Delegate's approval to the selection recommendation was given. 
  1. [60]
    Clause 12.2 of the Directive is clear that the Appellant was entitled to "timely, specific and constructive feedback" that "must be reasonable in the circumstances". 
  1. [61]
    In my view, the conduct of the 18 September 2023 feedback was not consistent with those terms.

Late application of the successful candidate

  1. [62]
    The Appellant submitted that the successful candidate had made a late application for the position, and that ought to have been brought to the attention of the Delegate in the 'Selection Report.' 
  1. [63]
    In a statement by Ms Corinna Browne (then Hiring Manager), concern was also expressed about the acceptance of the successful candidate's late application so long after the close date of 22 June 2023.  Ms Browne suggested that it appeared someone had contacted the successful candidate and encouraged him to contact the panel chair about putting in a late application "rather than it being initiated by Simon himself in the knowledge of the job being advertised."[55]
  1. [64]
    The Department submitted that:
  • the successful candidate's late application was received on 17 July 2023;
  • the Directive provides late applications can be accepted at the discretion of the selection panel;
  • "The panel chair accepted the late application on the basis that the panel had not yet commenced shortlisting."
  • The Directive does not mandate a requirement for the selection report to note that a late application was accepted.  The inclusions contained in the PSC's selection report template were adopted.
  • "All applications (including [the successful candidate's] accepted late application) were provided to panel members in one package on 18 July 2023 to commence shortlisting."
  1. [65]
    Having considered the parties' submissions on this appeal ground, I do not consider it was unfair or unreasonable for the Department to accept the successful candidate's late application.  The Directive does not prevent that from occurring. 
  1. [66]
    In my view, it is significant that acceptance of the late application occurred before the panel commenced shortlisting for interview and that all applications were provided to panel members at the same time.  Whether or not the successful candidate saw the position advertisement himself or another person drew it to his notice is not material. 
  1. [67]
    The Appellant submitted the fact of the late application ought to have been drawn to the Delegate's notice in the selection report.  The Department submitted that may be best practice, but is not a requirement. 
  1. [68]
    In this matter, I accept the Department's argument that it followed the PSC's selection report template and that was adequate for this purpose.

10 minute limit for presentation at interview

  1. [69]
    The Appellant submitted she was unduly penalised for exceeding the 10 minute limit for the presentation at interview. 
  1. [70]
    The Department "refutes Ms Adams claim that she was penalised for exceeding the 10 minute allocation for the presentation.  Ms Adams presented for more than 20 minutes knowing that there were three (3) remaining questions to be answered within the outstanding 20-25 minutes" that was allocated for the interview.
  1. [71]
    In this matter, I accept it is reasonable for a designated time period for each interview to be set in advance in fairness to all shortlisted applicants.  Candidates should note the time allocated for interview components (such as a presentation) and prepare accordingly.

Interview matters

  1. [72]
    The Appellant's remaining appeal grounds pertain to the interview, including whether or not the selection panel's questions fairly addressed the advertised role or they had "changed what they were looking for" – and whether or not the selection panel had "conducted a holistic assessment of the eligible applications" or relied solely on candidates' interview performance "on the day".  The parties have each strenuously defended their respective positions on those remaining matters.
  1. [73]
    The determination of this appeal turns on whether the Appellant is able to establish that the selection process was deficient.  In consideration of the first two of the Appellant's appeal grounds above, I have accepted the Department's decision was not fair and reasonable.  I have explained why I have found that the process was deficient because it did not comply with the PS Act and / or Directive.
  1. [74]
    For those reasons, I will set aside the Department's decision and uphold the appeal.
  1. [75]
    It is not therefore necessary then to proceed with any fuller consideration of the parties' respective positions on the remaining interview matters.

Conclusion

  1. [76]
    The Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if they find that the recruitment or selection process was deficient.  In determining whether there was such a deficiency, the Commission must consider whether the recruitment and selection process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a directive of the commission chief executive.
  1. [77]
    For the reasons explained above, I have found that the promotion decision was not fair and reasonable.  The selection process conducted by the Department was deficient, as it did not comply with the PS Act and Directive.
  1. [78]
    I note that the Department submitted that the Appellant has since been permanently appointed to another AO7 Program Coordinator, QPWS role within the Department (less than a month after the successful candidate's appointment for the promotional position subject of this appeal took effect).[56]  Clearly then, the Appellant was considered suitable for the AO7 Program Coordinator role by another panel very shortly thereafter.  It may be that the Appellant no longer wishes to pursue her interest in the particular position of Program Coordinator, Northern Wildlife Operations, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Partnerships (AO7), though as she has not withdrawn this public sector appeal, I cannot know.  However, as two of the Appellant's appeal grounds have been upheld, I will set aside the promotion decision made and order that a new panel be convened.  The new panel will not include any members of the selection panel subject of this decision, and will interview afresh the three shortlisted candidates (the successful candidate, the Appellant and one other) who may yet be interested in the position of Program Coordinator, Northern Wildlife Operations, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Partnerships (AO7).  The selection process is to resume from the point of interviewing afresh the three shortlisted candidates (who may yet be interested in the position).
  1. [79]
    I acknowledge that the impact of this Decision will also be felt by Mr Simon Booth, the advertised successful candidate for the promotional position,[57] through no fault of his own.  I appreciate that Mr Booth has now been working in the promotional position for a considerable period of time.
  1. [80]
    However, it remains that the selection panel's inattention to the express requirements of the process to be undertaken will unfortunately result in a period of professional uncertainty. 
  1. [81]
    Having acknowledged the 'human impact' of this Decision, the PS Act and Directive prescribes mandatory terms to be complied with.  I am required to determine findings on the various appeal grounds on that basis alone.
  1. [82]
    The new panel should receive careful instruction in the requirements of the PS Act and Directive.
  1. [83]
    The appeal is upheld.
  1. [84]
    I order accordingly.

Orders:

  1. 1.
    Pursuant to s 562C(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is set aside. The appeal is upheld.
  1. 2.
    The matter is returned to the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation, with a copy of this decision.
  1. 3.
    I direct that, within one month, the chief executive of the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation is to revoke the appointment of Mr Simon Booth to the position of AO7 Program Coordinator, Northern Wildlife Operations, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Partnerships, job ad reference (JAR) number QLD/491494/23, and publish a gazette notice that the appointment is revoked.
  1. 4.
    I direct that a new selection panel is to be formed, for the purposes of selecting an applicant for the vacant position of AO7 Program Coordinator, Northern Wildlife Operations, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Partnerships, job ad reference (JAR) number QLD/491494/23, ('the vacant position').  The new selection panel must not include any member of the previous selection panel, that is:
  1. a.
    Mr David Woods;
  1. b.
    Ms Jane Burns;
  1. c.
    Mr Malcolm Kennedy;
  1. d.
    Ms Nerida Mitchell.
  1. 5.
    The new selection panel must be provided with a copy of ss 44 and 45 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) and Directive 07/23: Recruitment and Selection.
  1. 6.
    The chief executive is to continue the recruitment and selection process for the vacant position from the point immediately after the selection of shortlisted applicants for interview. The shortlisted applicants in the resumed selection process shall comprise the three shortlisted applicants in the process subject of this appeal (Mr Booth, Ms Adams and the third shortlisted applicant), should they each have a continued interest in the vacant position.

Footnotes

[1] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [1]-[2], Attachment 1.

[2] Respondent's submissions filed 2 February 2024, [6], Attachments 1a and 1b.

[3] A/Manager, Northern Wildlife Operations.

[4] Senior Wildlife Officer, Northern Wildlife Operations.

[5] Manager, Research and Monitoring, Threatened Species.

[6] External HR Consultant.

[7] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [54]; the panel chair was originally Mr Michael Joyce (see Appellant's submissions dated 2 February 2024, Attachment 1, page 1).

[8] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [23].

[9] Ibid [24].

[10] Ibid [55].

[11] Ibid [27].

[12] A/Executive Director, Wildlife and Threatened Species Operations.

[13] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, Attachment 2.

[14] Ibid [8].

[15] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 129.

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

[17] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5.

[18] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562C(2).

[19] Ibid.

[20] Appeal Notice filed 15 December 2023.

[21] Appellant's submissions filed 2 February 2024, [3].

[22] Ibid [3]-[4]; Attachment 1, 2.

[23] Ibid [13].

[24] Ibid [14]-[18].

[25] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [16].

[26] Respondent's submissions filed 2 February 2024, [1]-[5].

[27] Ibid [4]-[5].

[28] Appellant's submission filed 15 February 2024, [3].

[29] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [19].

[30] Ibid [20].

[31] Ibid [21].

[32] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [22].

[33] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562C(2).

[34] Ibid.

[35] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 44(3)(b); Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection cl 4.6(b).

[36] Appellant's submissions filed 2 February 2024, [2]; Macquarie Dictionary (online at 15 January 2025) 'fair' (def 1).

[37] Appellant's submissions filed 2 February 2024, [2]; Macquarie Dictionary (online at 15 January 2025) 'bias' (def 2 and 7).

[38] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 15 January 2025) 'transparent' (def 4-5).

[39] Though I note Ms Anthony did make contact with Ms Browne on 11 December 2023 to "provide additional information on her [IEG]" about a matter separate to her allegation of Mr Woods' comment to her; Appellant's submissions filed 15 February 2024, [16].

[40] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [56]-[57].

[41] Ibid [16].

[42] Appellant's submissions filed 2 February 2024 [1]; Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 44(3).

[43] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 44(3)(b); Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection cl 4.6(b).

[44] Appeal Notice filed 15 December 2023.

[45] Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection, cl 1.1.

[46] Respondent's submissions filed 2 February 2024, [26].

[47] Ibid [26].

[48] Ibid [25].

[49] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [57]-[58].

[50] Ibid [59].

[51] Appellant's submissions filed 2 February 2024, [51].

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

[53] Ibid s 562C(2).

[54] Ibid.

[55] Appellant's submissions filed 2 February 2024, Attachment 1, 1.

[56] Respondent's submissions filed 17 January 2024, [1], [10].

[57] As gazetted on 24 November 2023.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Adams v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Adams v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 8

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    McLennan IC

  • Date:

    16 Jan 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

No judgments cited by this judgment.

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Walsh v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2025] QIRC 1772 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.