Angullia v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2026] QIRC 210

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Angullia v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2026] QIRC 210 PARTIES: Angullia, Hidir (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2026/139 PROCEEDING: Public Service Appeal – Conversion DELIVERED ON: 24 June 2026 MEMBER: O'Neill IC HEARD AT: On the papers ORDERS: 1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – appeal against a conversion decision – where the Appellant employed by the Respondent on a fixed term temporary contract as an AO7.4 Principal Advisor (Service Delivery) – where there was a deemed decision to refuse the conversion of the Appellant's temporary role to permanent – whether the deemed decision was fair and reasonable – deemed decision was fair and reasonable. -- 1 of 26 -- 2 LEGISLATION: Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 562B, s 562C. s 564 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), s 81, s 114, s 115, s 131 Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld), s 14 Directive 02/23 – Review of non-permanent employment, cl 4, cl 7, cl 9, cl 14 CASES: Benson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 15 Clements v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 204 Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 16 Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319 Keenan v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 297 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 Murray v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 194 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 Pree v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2026] QIRC 141 -- 2 of 26 -- 3 Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 193 Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] Mr Hidir Angullia ('the Appellant') is currently employed in the temporary AO7 position of Principal Advisor (Service Delivery) ('the position') within the Department of Transport and Main Roads ('the Respondent'). The Appellant has been in the position since 2 May 2023 and has remained continuously employed. [2] A review of the Appellant's non-permanent employment commenced on 17 April 2026. As per the Public Sector Act 2022 (PS Act), a decision must be made by the Respondent within 28 days of the date the employee becomes eligible for review.1 The Respondent failed to make a decision by 15 May 2026. [3] If the employee's chief executive does not make the decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have decided not to offer to convert the employee's employment to permanent..2 [4] By letter dated 15 May 2026 the Appellant was advised that there was a deemed decision to not convert his employment. [5] The Appellant filed an Appeal Notice in the Industrial Registry on 27 May 2026, appealing the decision to not convert his employment to permanent. [6] The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the deemed decision to refuse to convert the Appellant's employment to permanent was fair and reasonable. [7] I am satisfied that the deemed decision to refuse to convert the Appellant's temporary role to permanent was fair and reasonable and I confirm the decision appealed against. [8] My reasons follow. Is the Appellant entitled to appeal? [9] Clause 15.2 of Directive 02/23: Review of non-permanent employment ('Directive 02/23') provides that a public sector employee "may be able to lodge an appeal with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in relation to a decision on review of their 1 Section 115(11)(b) of the PS Act. 2 Section 115(6) of the PS Act. -- 3 of 26 -- 4 non-permanent employment, as provided for under chapter 3, part 10 of the Act". [10] Section 131(1)(a) of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against a conversion decision. Section 133 provides that for conversion decisions; it is the public sector employee the subject of the decision who may appeal. [11] Section 129 of the PS Act relevantly provides: 129 Definitions for part In this part— Conversion decision means a decision— (a) under section 115 not to convert the employment of a public sector employee mentioned in section 112 to a permanent basis; [12] I am satisfied that the decision is one that is able to be appealed pursuant to s 131 of the PS Act, and further, that the Appellant is entitled to appeal. [13] Section 564(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('IR Act') requires an appeal to be lodged within 21 days after the day the decision appealed against is given [14] The Appellant received the deemed decision on 15 May 2026 and the Appeal Notice was filed in the Industrial Registry on 27 May 2026. I am satisfied that the appeal has been brought within the required time. What decisions can the Commission make? [15] Section 562C(1) of the IR Act prescribes that the Commission may determine to either: • confirm the decision appealed against; • set the decision aside and return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate; or • set the decision aside and substitute another decision. Appeal Principles [16] Section 562B(2) and (3) of the IR Act provides that the appeal is decided by reviewing the decision appealed against "to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable". The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing,3 but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at by the decision-maker and the associated decision- 3 Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5; Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 567(1). -- 4 of 26 -- 5 making process.4 [17] The issue for my determination is whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.5 Relevant legislation and provisions of Directive 02/23 [18] Section 81 of the PS Act provides: 81 Basis of employment – generally on permanent basis (1) Employment of a public sector employee is on a permanent basis unless the employee is employed on a non-permanent basis under this Act or another Act that enables the person to be employed on a non-permanent basis, including, for example— (a) on a temporary basis for a fixed term; or (b) on a casual basis. (2) However, a public sector employee may be employed under this Act or another Act on a non-permanent basis only if employment of the employee on a permanent basis is not viable or appropriate. (3) Without limiting subsection (2), employment of a public sector employee on a permanent basis may not be viable or appropriate if the employment is for any of the following purposes— (a) in relation to employment on a temporary basis for a fixed term— (i) to fill a temporary vacancy arising because a person is absent for a known period; or Examples of absence for a known period— approved leave (including parental leave), a secondment (ii) to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date; or Example— employment for a set period as part of a training program or placement program (iii) to fill a position for which funding is unlikely or unknown; or Example— employment relating to performing work for which funding is subject to change or is not expected to be renewed. (iv) to fill a short-term vacancy before a person is employed on a permanent basis; or (v) to perform work necessary to meet an unexpected short-term increase in workload; Example— an unexpected increase in workload for disaster management and recovery … 4 Ibid; Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 562B(2). 5 Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252, [60]-[61] (Byrne SJA). -- 5 of 26 -- 6 (4) Without limiting subsection (3)(a), employment of a person on a permanent basis may be viable or appropriate if a person is required to be employed for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a) on a frequent or regular basis. Example— An ongoing requirement to backfill multiple absences because of approved leave (including parental leave) or secondments … (7) To remove any doubt, it is declared that this section applies in relation to a public sector employee's employment on a temporary basis for a fixed term if the employment is extended under this Act or another Act. (emphasis added) [19] Section 114 of the PS Act relevantly provides: 114 Chief executive must make decision on employee's request … (3) The employee's chief executive may decide to offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis only if— (a) the employee's chief executive considers— (i) there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the employee's role, or a role that is substantially the same as the employee's role; and (ii) the employee is suitable to perform the role; and (b) any requirements of an industrial instrument are complied with in relation to the decision. (4) If the matters in subsection (3) are satisfied, the employee's chief executive must decide to offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis, unless it is not viable or appropriate to do so having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity. [20] Section 115 of the PS Act provides: 115 Chief executive must review status after 2 years of continuous employment (1) If a public sector employee mentioned in section 112(1) has been continuously employed in the same public sector entity for at least 2 years, the employee's chief executive must decide whether to— (a) continue the employee's employment according to the terms of the employee's existing employment; or (b) offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis. (2) The employee's chief executive must make the decision within the required period after— (a) the end of 2 years after the employee has been continuously employed on a non-permanent basis in the public sector entity; and (b) each 1-year period after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) during which the employee is continuously employed on a non-permanent basis in the public sector entity. -- 6 of 26 -- 7 (3) In making the decision— (a) section 114(3) and (4) applies to the employee's chief executive; and (b) the employee's chief executive must have regard to the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section or section 114 in relation to the employee during the employee's period of continuous employment. (4) If the employee's chief executive decides not to offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis, the chief executive must give the employee a notice stating— (a) the reasons for the decision; and (b) the total period for which the employee has been continuously employed on a temporary basis for a fixed term or on a casual basis in the public sector entity; and (c) how many times the employee's employment on a non-permanent basis has been extended; and (d) each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section or section 114 in relation to the employee during the employee's period of continuous employment. (5) Subsection (4)(c) does not apply in relation to employment on a casual basis. (6) If the employee's chief executive does not make the decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have decided not to offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis and to continue the employee's employment according to the terms of the employee's existing employment. … (11) In this section— required period, for making a decision under subsection (1), means— (a) the period stated in an industrial instrument within which the decision must be made; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—28 days after the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b). [21] Clause 4 of Directive 02/23 relevantly provides: 4.3 Under section 81 of the Act, employment of a public sector employee is generally on a permanent basis unless it is not viable or appropriate. 4.4 Employment on a permanent basis may not be viable or appropriate if the employment is for any of the reasons provided for at section 81(3) of the Act. [22] Clauses 7, 9 and 14 of Directive 02/23 relevantly provide: 7 Employer obligation to undertake a review of non-permanent employment 7.1 A public sector employee who is eligible (or approaching eligibility) for a review of their employment status under section 115 of the Act may notify the employee's chief executive of their requirement to commence a review under section 115 of the Act, and that the employee would like to be converted to permanent employment. -- 7 of 26 -- 8 7.2 The notification provided for in clause 7.1 may be made by the employee or the employee's representative, provided it is not more than three months before the review must be undertaken, in accordance with section of 115 of the Act. 7.3 An entity must set out information on its intranet, or in another way that is accessible to employees, about how to notify under clause 7.1. 7.4 Where an employee does not notify their entity in accordance with clause 7.1, the chief executive is still required to undertake the review in accordance with section 115 of the Act. 7.5 When a chief executive starts a review of an employee's employment status under section 115 of the Act, the chief executive must notify the employee. 7.6 The notification must be in writing and include: (a) the name and contact details of the entity contact for the review (b) the date by which the decision must be made (c) that the employee or their representative may choose to provide a written submission for consideration during the review process (d) that if the chief executive does not make a decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have decided not to offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis (e) information about any relevant appeal right and timeframe for appeal. 9. Decision-making 9.1 When making a decision in consideration of the relevant decision-making criteria provided for under sections 114, 115, 116 or 117 of the Act, a chief executive is responsible for determining the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity. 14. Deemed decisions 14.1 A deemed decision refers to circumstances where a chief executive does not make a decision in the relevant timeframe provided for under the Act, and consequently, the chief executive is taken to have decided not to offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis, and to continue to the employee's employment according to the terms of the employee's existing employment. 14.2 A written notice is not required to be prepared to support a deemed decision. 14.3 However, within 14 days of a deemed decision occurring, a chief executive must inform the employee in writing of: (a) the employee's right to make an additional request for employment on a permanent basis under section 116 of the Act, if the deemed decision occurred under section 114(7) or 115(6) of the Act, and (b) any relevant appeal right available to the employee. 14.4 Chief executives are expected to undertake each review as required by the Act and must not make an intentional decision to rely on a deemed decision to determine a review outcome. -- 8 of 26 -- 9 [23] Directive 02/23 is a statutory instrument within the meaning of s 7 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld).6 [24] Section 14 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) provides that certain provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) apply to statutory instruments. One of those is s 14A which provides that in the interpretation of a provision of an Act, the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the Act is to be preferred to any other interpretation. Schedule 1 to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that 'purpose', for an act, includes policy objective.7 Appeal Grounds [25] The Appellant, in his Appeal Notice,8 provided detailed grounds to support his appeal. These are summarised as follows: • Ground 1: The Respondent failed to discharge their statutory duty under s 115 of the PS Act as they relied on a deemed decision rather than considering the Appellant's conversion. The Appellant contends that a deemed decision is a legal mechanism, but the Appellant submits that it should not be treated as an adequate substitute for lawful decision-making • Ground 2: The Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with the expectations regarding deemed decisions. The Respondent notes that Directive 02/23 states that chief executives are expected to undertake each review as required and must not intentionally rely on a deemed decision to determine a review outcome. • Ground 3: The Respondent failed to consider all relevant information such as the availability of other roles that were substantially similar and was not provided with the full scope of the Appellant's duties. The Appellant attributes this failing to the conversion documentation being constrained to a shortened summary. • Ground 4: The Appellant alleges that there was a failure to properly consider conversion criteria, including continuing need and suitability. The Appellant further contends: o The Appellant's role documentation records a continuing operational need and material business risk if the position is not made permanent, including service disruption risk and loss of institutional knowledge. 6 Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225, [26]. 7 Keenan v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 297, [34] (McLennan IC). 8 Appeal Notice filed 27 May 2026. -- 9 of 26 -- 10 o The role description and operational evidence show the position is BAU- aligned and includes major incident/on-call obligations and service management governance responsibilities. o Because a deemed decision was made, the Appellant submits that the Respondent did not meaningfully apply the statutory and directive criteria to the Appellant's circumstances and evidence. • Ground 5: The process lacked integrity and fairness at the outcome letter did not include any reasons or evidentiary findings. The Appellant submits that the absence of a reasoned decision (and the inability to test the Respondent's evaluative reasoning against the legislative criteria) supports the Commission intervening to require a proper decision to be made. • Ground 6: The Appellant commenced in the role on 2 May 2023, as a consequence, the Appellant was due to have a review of his employment take place on 2 May 2025. At that time a review was not completed by the Respondent. Had a review been undertaken in 2025, the Appellant contends he would have been able to make informed career and financial decisions earlier such as applying for permanent roles. • Ground 7: On 20 May 2026, the Appellant contends that he was told by the Executive Director that "the General Manager has not been allowed to say yes to conversions because we do not have FTE numbers allocated to our branch". The Appellant contends that following this, another employee was successfully converted into a permanent position. The Appellant contends that the conversion of that employee is not consistent with the "no FTE allocated" explanation and is relevant to whether conversion decisions were being approached lawfully and fairly. • Ground 8: Operational uncertainty and impact. The Appellant submits that the role's operational nature (24/7 support and major incidents) weighs strongly in favour of permanency where there is a continuing need, and that leaving the role in rolling temporary status undermines stable service delivery. [26] Following a mention of the appeal conducted on 1 June 2026, the Appellant provided additional documents relating to his appeal by email on 2 June 2025. I have considered that additional evidence. [27] That information included an additional short submission in which the Appellant: • Acknowledges that the Smart Ticketing Program was established as a project with an anticipated completion timeframe, after which direct project-specific resources would no longer be required in their original form. -- 10 of 26 -- 11 • Contends that the role of Principal Advisor (Service Delivery) sits within the broader Ticketing Operations function, and was not created as a temporary project role. The Appellant submits that the role was established to support the transition of Smart Ticketing deliverables into ongoing business-as-usual (BAU) operations, including: o Formal handover of processes and operational frameworks; o Ownership of system artefacts and documentation; o Ongoing stakeholder engagement; and o Service delivery governance and operational support. • Contends that he was engaged to perform ongoing operational functions, not finite project tasks. He notes that as components of the Smart Ticketing Program have been completed, responsibility for these functions have progressively transferred into the Ticketing Operations team for ongoing management and support. [28] The Appellant cites and relies upon my decision in Pree v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads),9 and in particular paragraph [77] where I noted: [77] It appears clear that when the Smart Ticketing Project comes to an end, there will be an ongoing requirement for someone to undertake the Director role in managing those day-to- day operational aspects of the role. In the reasons for appeal contained in Schedule A to the Appeal Notice, the Appellant notes that the operational functions set out above are permanent features of Translink's operations and will not cease upon the closure of the Smart Ticketing program. To the contrary, the Appellant contends that this work will be expanded and augmented by the outcomes of the Smart Ticketing project. I accept the accuracy of this contention. [29] The Appellant submits that this reasoning is directly applicable to the present appeal because the work performed by the Ticketing Operations Team is similarly operational in nature and ongoing, rather than project limited. [30] The Appellant concludes that the requirement for his role of Principal Advisor (Service Delivery) is not dependent upon the continuation of the project itself but instead arises from the ongoing operational needs of the department. He contends that the role forms part of the Department's business-as-usual service delivery capability, and there remains a clear and continuing need for the functions performed. Respondent's Submissions [31] In the submissions the Respondent outlines the background to the matter as: 10 • The Respondent confirms that the review of the Appellant's non-permanent employment commenced on 17 April 2026, with a decision due by 15 May 2026. 9 [2026] QIRC 141, [77]. 10 Respondent's submissions filed 8 June 2026. -- 11 of 26 -- 12 The Respondent acknowledges that a deemed decision occurred due to the failure to make a decision on or before 15 May 2026. • On 20 May 2026, the General Manager responsible for the Smart Ticketing project was advised by the A/Deputy Director General in a meeting that the resourcing of Smart Ticketing project would be ceasing effective 30 June 2026. • On 22 May 2026 advice was provided to management to prepare notices to advise the eight impacted temporary employees that their contracts would be ceasing on 30 June 2026. • On 27 May 2026, the Appellant filed their appeal with the Industrial Registry. • On 28 May 2026, the Appellant was advised that their contract would be ceasing on 30 June 2026. [32] The Respondent submits that the deemed decision was fair and reasonable and explains that a decision could not be reached within the statutory timeframe due to ongoing discussions at the senior leadership level regarding the ongoing nature of the Smart Ticketing project and the consideration to identify other roles that may be substantially the same. [33] It is contended by the Respondent that the Smart Ticketing project has experienced a progressive reduction over time from its initial temporary resourcing allocation of approximately 55 FTE. It has now been decided that the remaining eight temporary roles within the project would cease as of 30 June 2026 as there was no longer a continuing need for the project. [34] The submission notes that in assessing whether there was a continuing need for someone to be employed in the Appellant's role, the Respondent considered the nature and purpose of the Smart Ticketing function and the extent to which the work of that role would continue. [35] The Respondent submits that the Appellant's role was established to support the delivery of the Smart Ticketing function, which was a time-limited, project-based initiate with a defined end date of 30 June 2026. Therefore, the Respondent contends there is no continuing need for someone to be employed in the Appellant's position beyond 30 June 2026. [36] Further, the Respondent contends that given the uncertainty of the genuine operational requirements regarding the continuation of the function, the Respondent was unable to make a decision to convert the Appellant's employment to a permanent basis within the statutory timeframe. -- 12 of 26 -- 13 [37] The Respondent submits that they have undertaken a targeted process to identify whether any roles existed which were substantially the same however, contend that the outcome of that revealed that no roles were available. [38] The Appellant's role is intrinsically linked to the highly specialised nature of the Smart Ticketing project and the Respondent contends that there are no equivalent or substantially similar functions within the Department. [39] The Respondent refutes the Appellant's submission that it has failed to discharge its statutory function under s 115 of the PS Act by relying on a deemed decision. [40] Regarding the other employee which the Appellant contends was successful in gaining permanent conversion, the Respondent submits that each conversion decision must be assessed on the specific role and its operational context, based on its own set of criteria and merits. [41] The Respondent acknowledges the missed review in 2025 however, contends that no appeal was lodged in relation to the deemed decision at that time and submits it is out of the scope of the current appeal. Appellant's Reply Submissions [42] The Appellant contends that the Respondent's contentions that the Smart Ticketing project ceases on 30 June 2026 is a material factual error. He relies on the Queensland Government Digital Projects Dashboard which records the approved end date of the project as being 31 December 2027. [43] The Appellant submits that the 30 June 2026 end date is a contract or resourcing decision and is not evidence that the project itself, or the business-as-usual operational functions arising from it, cease on that date. [44] The Appellant asserts that the Respondent's own evidence confirms that his duties included continuing operational and BAU functions which are not naturally extinguished by the expiry of a fixed term employment contract. Those duties include supplier performance governance, service delivery management, governance forums, change and service request management, user access reviews and on-call major incident management.11 [45] The Appellant further submits that Attachment G12 confirms that the Appellant's role was concerned with the operational performance of systems and services, ticketing systems, real time service issues, incidents, support and on-call incident escalation are all continuing operational and BAU functions. 11 Respondent's submissions (n 10), Attachment 'H'. 12 Ibid, Attachment 'G'. -- 13 of 26 -- 14 [46] Regarding the 2025 review, the Appellant rejects the Respondent's submission that it is not relevant to this appeal, stating that it forms part of the procedural history leading to the deemed decision and demonstrates non-compliance with the statutory review framework. The Appellant seeks that the Commission make orders or recommendations requiring the Respondent to identify and offer a suitable alternative ongoing role by 30 June 2026 or otherwise provide a fair remedy for the prejudice caused by the failure to conduct the employer-initiated review when due. [47] The Appellant maintains that the deemed decision is not a fair substitute for an actual decision as it deprived him of a reasoned decision on the merits. [48] In relation to the other employee who was offered permanency, the Appellant contends that if the Smart Ticketing project was genuinely ceasing on 30 June 2026 and there was no continuing need for project-related roles, the Commission should scrutinise why one role within the same broader cohort was supported for conversion while the Appellant's was not. [49] The Appellant has listed six matters as the relief he seeks. In the second of those, the Appellant requests that the Commission gives no weight, or reduced weight, to the Respondent's assertion that the Smart Ticketing Project had a defined end date of 30 June 2026 unless the Respondent produces evidence reconciling that position with the public Queensland Government Digital Projects Dashboard and other public Smart Ticketing material. Consideration [50] I am required to decide this appeal by assessing whether or not the decision appealed against is fair and reasonable. This involves a review of the decision-making process that has been utilised and the decision arrived at. [51] I have considered of the parties' submissions, including the attachments that the parties have provided, even if I do not specifically refer to those submissions or evidence in this decision. [52] Deputy President Merrell in Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2)13 ('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.14 13 [2022] QIRC 16. 14 Ibid, at [25], citing Pope v Lawler [1996] FCA 1446. -- 14 of 26 -- 15 [53] 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.15 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.16 The decision criteria [54] The PS Act states that an employee must be converted to permanent if the following tests are met,17 "unless it is not viable or appropriate to do so having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity":18 (a) there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the role, or a role that is substantially the same; and (b) the employee is suitable to perform the role; and (c) any requirements of an industrial instrument are complied with in relation to the decision. [55] In the present case the grounds relied upon by the Respondent for upholding the deemed decision to refuse conversion is that there is no continuing need for the Appellant to be employed in the role, or a role that is substantially the same, and the genuine operational requirements exception. Merit [56] Section 114(3)(a)(ii) of the PS Act requires the Chief Executive to consider whether the employee is suitable to perform the role. [57] The Respondent's submissions are silent on the issue of the Appellant's suitability to perform the role. [58] The Appellant has included a number of annexures to his Appeal Notice. One of those is a Network Services & Operations Workforce Resource Request (WRR) form.19 It is not clear who the author of that document is, but I am satisfied that it is either a manager in the Appellant's line of management or a HR officer employed by the Respondent. In any event, that document relevantly provides: 15 Colebourne (n 15) at [21]-[22] and [25]. 16 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. 17 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 114(3). 18 Ibid, s 114(4). 19 Appeal notice filed 27 May 2026: Annexure 4. -- 15 of 26 -- 16 • Mr Angullia has over three years of continuous service as a temporary AO7 Principal Advisor (Service Delivery), demonstrating exceptional performance in service delivery governance, vendor management, and ITIL-based service management. His leadership has supported critical initiatives, including the Smart Ticketing program, Queensland School Ticketing and Tracking Solution (TATS), and ODT deployments, ensuring compliance with service level agreements (SLAs) and driving operational improvements. … • Mr Anguilla's extensive operational knowledge, proven expertise, and demonstrated leadership make him the ideal candidate for permanent appointment. His retention will safeguard the stability and reliability of Queensland's public transport systems and support the department's commitment to delivering innovative and world-class transport solutions. (Emphasis added). [59] Within that document under the heading of Role responsibilities/deliverables there are a number of dot points that further attest to the Appellant's competencies and achievements in the role. [60] I am satisfied that the Appellant is suitable to perform the role and he has satisfied the merit requirement. [61] As a consequence, this issue does not require further consideration in this appeal. Requirements under an industrial instrument [62] Neither party have provided submissions regarding the relevance of an industrial instrument. Given this, I will not consider this issue any further. Whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role – or a role which is substantially the same [63] Authorities from the Commission have confirmed that effectively there are two potential pathways for an employee to convert temporary employment to permanent. The first pathway is Mr Anguilla's present role. The second pathway is an alternative role which is substantially the same as the role that the Appellant is undertaking.20 Pathway 1: Is there a continuing need for someone to be employed in the employee's role? [64] Section 81(1) of the PS Act confirms the basis of employment of a public sector employee is on a permanent basis unless the employee is employed on a non-permanent 20 See Benson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 15, [105] (McLennan IC); Keenan v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 297, [45] (McLennan IC). -- 16 of 26 -- 17 basis under this Act or another Act that enables the person to be employed on a non- permanent basis. [65] Section 81(3) of the PS Act provides that employment of a public sector employee on a permanent basis may not be viable or appropriate if the employment is for any of the following purposes: (a) in relation to employment on a temporary basis for a fixed term— … (ii) to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date; or Example— employment for a set period as part of a training program or placement program (iii) to fill a position for which funding is unlikely or unknown; or Example— employment relating to performing work for which funding is subject to change or is not expected to be renewed [66] In the present matter, the Respondent asserts that the Appellant was engaged on a fixed- term temporary full-time contract in a temporary role within Customer and Technology, Network Services and Operations to support the delivery of the Smart Ticketing project. [67] That is, the Respondent contends that the Appellant was temporarily employed for a project that had a known end-date. [68] In Murray v State of Queensland (Queensland Health),21 Industrial Commissioner McLennan noted in relation to s 81(3) of the PS Act as follows: [137] Section 81(3) of the PS Act 2022 does not prescribe that because an employee is performing work for a purpose stated at paragraph [136] that the employee should therefore be employed on a non-permanent basis. Rather, s 81(3) contemplates a range of purposes which may indicate that employment of a person on a permanent basis may not be viable or appropriate. A reasonable decision-maker ought to first identify whether or not the employee's circumstances fall under one of the listed purposes - and then consider the appropriateness and viability of that employee being made permanent in light of that purpose. [69] The Respondent points to the fact that the Smart Ticketing Project has been progressively winding down as project outcomes are achieved. The Respondent notes that the project has experienced a progressive reduction over time from its initial temporary resourcing allocation of approximately 55 full-time equivalent positions. In developing this submission, the Respondent notes that there was a reduction of 34 temporary resources 21 [2023] QIRC 194. -- 17 of 26 -- 18 following the expiry of positions on 30 June 2025. [70] The Respondent further notes that in relation to the remaining 21 temporary resources (that were extended until 30 June 2026), some of those have been converted to permanent, and others have had their employment ended prior. [71] The point has now been reached that a decision has been made, not only in relation to the Appellant's role, but indeed that of seven other members of the Customer and Technology team, that their roles are no longer required and that their employment would come to an end at the end date of their contracts on 30 June 2026. Once again, this appears to be consistent with the Respondent's position that the project is winding down to a finishing point. [72] I am satisfied that all of the above is consistent with the Smart Ticketing Project being a genuine project role with a known end date, and end date which is now approaching. [73] In the Respondent's submissions it is contended that on 20 May 2026, the Acting Deputy Director-General Network Services Operations confirmed that the remaining temporary roles within the Smart Ticketing Project would cease effective 30 June 2026, as there was no longer a continuing need for the project. The submission notes that this outcome was communicated to the remaining eight temporary employees, including the Appellant, on 28 May 2026. [74] In relation to that submission, I note that the correspondence that was sent to the Appellant on 28 May 2026 does not actually state that there was no continuing need for the Smart Ticketing Project. 22 The correspondence does state: I would like to sincerely thank you for your contribution to the Customer and Technology branch within the Network Services and Operations Division. Your efforts and commitment during your temporary engagement have been valued and appreciated. As you are aware, your temporary appointment in the role of Temp Principal Advisor (Service Delivery) is due to conclude on 30 June 2026. In accordance with the Transport and Main Roads Certified Agreement 2022 – Section 4.1.3 Temporary Employment, temporary employees may be engaged to meet temporary business needs, and such arrangements conclude in line with the agreed terms of employment. As such, I wish to provide you with written notification that your temporary contract will formally cease in four (4) weeks on 30 June 2026. This outcome reflects the temporary nature of the role and is consistent with the conditions outlined in your confirmation of appointment. 22 Respondent's submissions (n 10), Attachment 'B'. -- 18 of 26 -- 19 [75] The Respondent submits that the Appellant's role was established to support the delivery of the Smart Ticketing function, which the Respondent states was a time-limited, project- based initiative with a defined end date of 30 June 2026. [76] The Appellant points to operational or business-as-usual duties that form part of his role which he alleges will be ongoing. What is not made clear on the evidence that has been provided is how significant these duties are in comparison to project-based functions. Ultimately, simply because there may be some part of the role that will be required to be undertaken in the future, does not in my view justify the permanent appointment of the Appellant to a role which is slated to end on 30 June 2026. [77] I note that there is some dispute between the parties as to the end date of the Smart Ticketing Project. The Appellant in his reply submissions, disputes 30 June 2026 as being the end date for the project or the relevant project function. The Appellant points to the Queensland Government Digital Projects Dashboard which records DTMR published digital and ICT-enable initiative data, which records the approved end date for the project as 31 December 2027. [78] Ultimately, in my view, this is a factual controversy that it is not necessary for the Commission to resolve for the following reasons. [79] Firstly, regardless of the actual date, I am satisfied that the Smart Ticketing Project was a genuine project that has a projected end date. [80] Secondly, on the evidence available, I am satisfied that the project is in fact winding down towards it ending. [81] Thirdly, although the Digital Projects Dashboard has the end date for the project listed as 31 December 2027, I am satisfied on the evidence that has been provided that the Appellant's role in the project is ending, as is that of the other seven temporary employees of the Customer and Technology Branch. This includes the Appellant's AO8 line manager in Service Delivery. Once again, this appears to be consistent with the gradual closure of the Smart Ticketing Project. [82] Given this, I cannot be satisfied that there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the Appellant's role and pathway 1 is not open to convert the Appellant's temporary employment. Pathway 2: Is there a continuing need for someone to be employed in a role that is substantially the same as the employee's role? [83] In relation to the second consideration of whether there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in a role that is substantially the same as the Appellant's role, because of the nature of the deemed decision, this issue has not been considered. -- 19 of 26 -- 20 [84] The availability (or otherwise) of a role substantially the same as the employee's role has now been considered in some detail in the Respondent's submissions. [85] The Respondent confirms that it undertook a targeted process to identify whether any roles existed that were substantially the same as the Appellant's role. The Respondent has provided emails that evidence that on 21 April 202623 and again from 6 and 8 May 2026,24 the Respondent made enquiries with branches and divisional HR teams across the Department to identify any ongoing roles that were substantially the same as the Appellant's role. The submission notes that the Appellant's role description was provided to the HR teams. [86] The Respondent further submits that it undertook an examination of its establishment for AO7 roles using the same ANZSCO code applied to the Appellant's role. From this exercise the Appellant confirms that 16 potential roles were identified.25 [87] In relation to those 16 roles, the Respondent records that seven were confirmed for further consideration as true AO7 level vacancies with an ongoing requirement. The Respondent prepared an analysis of the role accountabilities of the Appellant's role and the seven other roles, and this has also been provided as an attachment to the Respondent's submissions.26 I have considered the contents of Attachments 'G' and 'H' in determining this aspect of the appeal. [88] The Respondent goes on to contend that the roles were determined to be not substantially the same as the Appellant's role for the following reasons: 19. Rail Division i. Six roles were identified, with two vacant and with an ongoing requirement. … ii. The roles have highly specialised functions within contract performance and operations for management of rail systems, portfolio control and major infrastructure programs, with some requiring specialist rail, systems, engineering, or infrastructure delivery capability. The other roles identified on the establishment did not constitute a genuine ongoing vacancy for comparable employment opportunities having been repurposed, filled or removed from establishment as no ongoing position. 20. Network Services and Operations (NSO) 23 Respondent's submissions (n 10), Attachment 'C' – Email from Customer and Technology HR to various HR teams dated 21 April 2026. 24 Ibid, Attachment 'D' – Email from Ms Jenny Luong, Director (People and Capability Improvement) to Mr Nathan Bright dated 6 and 8 May 2026; Attachment 'E' - Email from Ms Luong to Ms Leah Rogash dated 8 May 2026; Attachment 'F' – Email from Ms Luong to Ms Laura Delaney dated 6 May 2026. 25 Ibid, Attachment 'G'- Establishment List. 26 Ibid, Attachment 'H'. -- 20 of 26 -- 21 i. Two roles on the establishment were identified and did not constitute a genuine ongoing requirement, … 21. Infrastructure Management and Delivery (IMD) i. Three roles were identified, please … ii. The roles identified fundamental differences in purpose, capability requirements and operational context, having road infrastructure program/planning management capability, budget responsibility, or a strategic business improvement, transformation and complex change focus for long-term organisational outcomes. 22. Policy, Planning and Investment (PPI) i. Four roles were identified, with two vacant and with an ongoing requirement, … ii. The roles operate with distinct differences in technical skill sets and experience, with functional focus on data analytics, modelling and insights capability or within a statutory planning role, requiring subject matter expertise in planning frameworks, legislation and regulatory processes. The other roles identified on the establishment did not constitute a genuine ongoing vacancy for comparable employment opportunities having been repurposed or redesignated. 23. Enabling Solutions Group (ESG) i. One role was identified, please refer to role P in (Attachment G). ii. The role identified on the establishment did not constitute a genuine ongoing vacancy for comparable employment opportunities having been repurposed and redesignated under machinery of government changes. [89] The Respondent submits that the Appellant's role is intrinsically linked to the highly specialised nature of the Smart Ticketing project. The submission further notes that this project was a state-wide initiative response for Queensland's centralised ticketing operations and transformation to integrated digital payment system and that there are no equivalent or substantially similar functions within the Department. [90] The Respondent contends that the Appellant's duties and responsibilities were specifically aligned to the delivery of the Smart Ticketing project by encompassing a distinct combination of Information and Communications Technology service delivery capabilities in Information Technology infrastructure management, system integration, incident and problem management, and Information Infrastructure Library (ITIL). [91] As a consequence, the Respondent submits that the Appellant's roles are not readily capable of being absorbed into existing positions across the Department, being substantively different in purpose, responsibility and operational focus, and not interchangeable with generalist AO7 project and program administrator roles. -- 21 of 26 -- 22 [92] The Respondent was not able to identify an ongoing role that was substantially the same, for the purpose of the statutory criteria. [93] In the Appellant's reply submissions,27 he notes the attempts made by the Respondent to find a position substantially the same as his current role which he says shows the Respondent was actively trying to find placements for the employees affected by the conversion process. I am satisfied that the Respondent was making genuine (and in fact detailed) attempts to identify a role that was substantially the same as the Appellant's role that there was a continuing need for. [94] The Appellant then contends that this supports, rather than undermines, the Appellant's request for a remedy requiring the Respondent to identify a suitable ongoing role, particularly given the prejudice caused by the missed 2025 review. [95] The submission by the Appellant in the preceding paragraph in my view misapprehends the statutory obligation that is cast upon the Respondent by the PS Act. In relation to some other role, the employer has an obligation to convert the temporary employment to permanent, only in circumstances where there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in a role that is substantially the same as the employee's role.28 [96] The employer is not required to find a new role that is not substantially the same that the employee can be placed into (which appears to be the thrust of the Appellant's submission). [97] I am satisfied that the Respondent has made appropriate enquiries to try and identify a role that is substantially the same as the Appellant's role, and for which there is a continuing need, but has not been able to do so. [98] As a consequence, I am satisfied that this pathway to the conversion of the Appellant's employment is not available. Are there genuine operational requirements preventing conversion? [99] The PS Act provides that when the other criteria are met, the chief executive must decide to offer to convert an employee to permanent "unless it is not viable or appropriate to do so having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity."29 [100] In Clements v State of Queensland (Queensland Health),30 Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon held that that it is not necessary to consider genuine operational requirements in circumstances where the criteria being set out in s114(3) of the PS Act have not been 27 Appellant's reply submissions filed on 15 June 2026. 28 Section 114(3)(a)(i) of the PS Act. 29 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 114(4), 115(3)(a). 30 [2023] QIRC 204. -- 22 of 26 -- 23 satisfied.31 [101] Given that I have found that the criteria set out in s 114(3) of the PS Act have not been satisfied, it is not necessary to consider whether genuine operational requirements prevent the conversion of the Appellant's temporary employment to permanent. Out of an abundance of caution, however, I will also address this requirement. [102] The phrase 'genuine operational requirements' is not defined in either the PS Act or in the Directive. [103] Guidance as to the meaning of this phrase has been provided by Deputy President Merrell in Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women).32 In that decision His Honour observed as follows: (Emphasis added) [37] The phrase 'genuine operational requirements of the department' is not defined in the PS Act or in the Directive. As a consequence, that phrase must take its meaning from the words used in it and the context in which it appears in the PS Act; and consideration of the context includes surrounding provisions, what may be drawn from other aspects of the instrument, the instrument as a whole and it extends to what the instrument seeks to remedy. The same considerations apply to the construction of the same phrase in cl 6.2(a) of the Directive. [38] The adjective 'genuine' relevantly means '…being truly such; real; authentic.' The phrase 'operational requirements of the department' is obviously a broad term that permits a consideration of many matters depending upon the particular circumstances of the department at a particular time. In considering the context of s 149C(4A)(a) of the PS Act, the chief executive of a department, under the PS Act, is responsible for, amongst other things: • managing the department in a way that promotes the effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources; and • planning human resources, including ensuring the employment in the department of persons on a fixed term temporary or casual basis occurs only if there is a reason for the basis of employment under the PS Act. … [40] The phrase 'genuine operational requirements of the department' in s 149(4A)(a) and in cl 6.2(a) of the Directive, construed in context, would at least include whether or not there was an authentic need, having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of the department, to appoint an employee, who has been assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level in the department for the requisite period of time, to '…the position at the higher classification level.'33 [104] The Respondent submits that during the course of undertaking the s 115 review, there was a degree of uncertainty regarding the continual operational requirements of the Smart 31 Ibid [57] and [65]. 32 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203. 33 Ibid. -- 23 of 26 -- 24 Ticketing project, and therefore also the Appellant's role. [105] The Respondent further submits that it was not possible to convert the Appellant's temporary employment to a permanent basis within the statutory timeframe, given the uncertainty of the genuine operational requirements regarding the continuation of the function. [106] In Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education)34 ('Woods'), the Commission found that uncertainty as a result of workplace change was a genuine operational requirement for refusing a request for permanent employment. [107] In Woods, Industrial Commissioner Hartigan (as Her Honour then was), dealt with a public sector appeal where Mr Woods sought to have overturned a decision to refuse to permanently appoint him to a higher classification position he had been acting in as an AO7 Principal Project Officer within Teaching Queensland's Future Project ("TQF project"). As regards the issue of "genuine operational requirements", the Commission relevantly held: [33] The Department submits that the TQF project has always been scheduled for completion in the fourth year of the five year TQF strategy. It submits that the remaining year of the TQF strategy will be achieved by the current regional HR teams utilising the workforce planning tools in their business as usual activities. In this regard, in the final stages of the TQF project scheduled for 2021, the role of the team members is to assist the regional HR business partners to integrate and implement the workforce planning tools into the business as usual activities. It further submits that the project scope does not include the transition of the temporary project positions, and/or the employees engaged in those positions to the regional HR teams. [34] Accordingly, it is clear from the above that even if the TQF project is extended for a further six months, although there is no material before me to support that conclusion, that it would not render the decision as not fair or reasonable because: a) there is no evidence that Mr Woods would be required to perform the work for that additional six month extension; and b) in any event, the nature of the TQF project is such that at the conclusion of the project (whether it be on 30 June 2021 or 31 December 2021), there will be no ongoing role for the project officers as the purpose of the project is to integrate and implement the workforce planning tools into the business as usual activities and not sit as a separate project. … [57] Currently, on the information before me, the TQF project has an end date of 30 June 2021. Even if the project is extended for a further six or 12 months, depending upon time frames in the final phase, there will be no ongoing requirement beyond the term of the project for Mr Woods to perform the role of Principal Project Officer for the TQF project. [58] Accordingly, when considering the operational requirements of the Department, including managing the Department in a way that promotes the effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources, I consider that the reasons provided by the decision maker 34 [2021] QIRC 193 (‘Woods'). -- 24 of 26 -- 25 support a conclusion that the refusal to appoint Mr Woods to the higher classification level was for a genuine operational requirement of the Department.35 (Emphasis added). [108] Those observations appear to be equally apposite to the present appeal. The Appellant was appointed to a temporary role in a project with a defined end date. Over the last 18 months the Smart Ticketing Project appears to have been winding down, with a concomitant reduction in the project personnel. [109] As part of the Respondent's management of that project and its staffing, a decision has been made that a number of roles are no longer required as the project winds down. [110] I am therefore satisfied that the decision to refuse to convert the Appellant's temporary employment to permanent was for a genuine operational requirement of the Respondent. Other matters [111] The Appellant places reliance upon the fact that one of his co-workers had his temporary employment converted to permanent. [112] The Appellant also places reliance upon my decision in Pree v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads),36 where I ordered that Mr Pree be permanently appointed to a Director level position that he had been acting in. [113] In relation to that submission, the Respondent contends that each conversion decision must be assessed on the specific role and its operational context and based on its own set of criteria and merit. I accept this submission. Decisions made in reliance on different statutory provisions, or involving different positions, with different duties and responsibilities can only be of limited, to no relevance, to the determination of the present appeal. [114] The Appellant also places significant reliance upon the Respondent's failure to conduct the 2025 employer-initiated review. In my view the Commission does not have jurisdiction to go back and consider what occurred in 2025. The Commission's jurisdiction is limited to considering whether the current deemed decision is fair and reasonable. Conclusion [115] For the reasons set out above, I find the deemed decision to maintain the Appellant on a fixed-term temporary basis was fair and reasonable. [116] I have found that I am satisfied that there is not a continuing need for someone to be employed in the Appellant's role. In the alternative, I have also found there is no 35 Ibid [33]-[34]; [57]-[58]. 36 [2026] QIRC 141. -- 25 of 26 -- 26 continuing need for the Appellant to be employed in a role that is substantially the same. [117] I am also satisfied that there are genuine operational requirement that reasonably prevent the conversion of the Appellant to permanent employment. [118] I order accordingly. Order: 1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed. -- 26 of 26 --