Dowden v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 118

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Dowden v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 118 PARTIES: Dowden, Kim-Maree (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2025/174 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Higher Classification Decision DELIVERED ON: 13 April 2026 MEMBER: McLennan IC HEARD AT: On the papers ORDERS: That pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld): 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision that Ms Dowden not be converted to the higher classification position is set aside and another decision substituted. 3. Ms Dowden be permanently appointed to the position at the higher classification level. CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – where the appellant was reviewed under s 120 of the -- 1 of 25 -- 2 LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS: CASES: Public Sector Act 2022 – where the respondent determined not to convert the appellant to the higher classification position – consideration of 'genuine operational requirements' – whether the decision was fair and reasonable – where the decision was not fair and reasonable Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A, s 27B Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 451, s 562B, s 562C, s 564, s 567 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 81, s 120, s 129, s 131, s 132, s 133, s 134 Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 7, s 14 Directive 03/23 Review of acting or secondment at a higher classification level cl 1, 4, cl 5, cl 6, cl 7, cl 8, cl 9, cl 10, cl 11, cl 12 Gatla v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 246 Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018) Holcombe v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2020] QIRC 195 Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252 Rice v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 029 -- 2 of 25 -- 3 Reasons for Decision [1] On 29 August 2025, Ms Kim-Maree Dowden (the Appellant) filed an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Police Service (QPS; the Respondent) not to appoint her to the higher classification level of AO6, as a Senior Investment and Performance Officer (position number 4-957705). [2] Ms Dowden was first engaged in higher duties as an AO6, Senior Investment and Performance Officer on 18 January 2021. At the time of filing her appeal, Ms Dowden had been extended eleven times in the higher duties position with an end date of 30 September 2025. Since then, Ms Dowden had been extended an additional time in the higher duties position with an end date of 31 March 2026. [3] Ms Dowden was first employed by the Queensland Government on 12 May 2003, since then she has worked in various roles across the Department of Community Safety, the Public Safety Business Agency and the QPS. Ms Dowden commenced her first role with the QPS on 18 January 2021 as an AO6, Senior Investment & Performance Officer (position number 4-957705). Since then, she has been employed by the QPS in that AO6 role as well as an AO7, Principal Investment & Performance Officer (position number 1- 955777) role on a back-and-forth cycle. Ms Dowden's substantive position is a permanent AO5 role.1 [4] On 12 May 2025, Ms Dowden made a request to be permanently converted in the AO6 higher duties position. A decision was not made within the required period (in this case, being 28 days), and in line with the PS Act, Ms Dowden took this as her request had been refused.2 On 15 July 2025, Ms Dowden requested a review of the decision refusing her request. On 11 August 2025, Ms Dowden received a decision from the Director, HR Services of QPS that did not approve her request to be converted to the higher-level AO6 classification. [5] The decision subject of this appeal is the Department's refusal to (emphasis added): … employ the employee in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis …"3 Jurisdiction Decision against which an appeal may be made [6] 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)(a) of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against "a conversion decision", in this case a 1 Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 18 September 2025, [23]. 2 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act'), s 120(6). 3 Ibid, s 120(1). -- 3 of 25 -- 4 decision "under section 120 … not to employ a public sector employee at a higher classification level, if the employee had been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level for a continuous period … of at least 2 years."4 [7] Section 134 of the PS Act allows for public sector appeals to be heard and decided by the Commission. An appeal is initiated by providing the Industrial Registrar with an Appeal Notice stating the details of the decision being appealed against and the reasons for the appeal. [8] Section 133(a) of the PS Act prescribes that the employee the subject of the conversion decision may appeal. The Appellant meets that requirement. [9] I am satisfied that the decision is able to be appealed. Timeframe for appeal [10] Section 564(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (IR Act) requires that an appeal be lodged within 21 days after the day the decision appealed against is given. [11] As the decision was given on 11 August 2025 and the Appeal Notice was filed on 29 August 2025, I am satisfied that the appeal was filed by the Appellant within the required timeframe. Appeal principles [12] 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". [13] The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing,5 but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at by the QPS and the associated decision-making process.6 Findings made by the QPS, which are reasonably open to it, should not be disturbed on appeal. [14] The issue for my determination is whether the decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.7 4 Ibid, s 129(e). 5 Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5; Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act'), s 567(1). 6 IR Act, s 562B(2). 7 Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252, [60]-[61]; IR Act, s 562B. -- 4 of 25 -- 5 What decisions can the Commission make? [15] Section 562C of the IR Act prescribes that the Commission may determine to either: (a) confirm the decision appealed against; or (b) 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 (c) set the decision aside and substitute another decision. Submissions [16] In accordance with the Directions Order issued on 4 September 2025, the parties filed written submissions. [17] Pursuant to s 451(1) of the IR Act, no hearing was conducted in deciding this Appeal. The matter was decided on the papers. Relevant provisions [18] The legislative scheme for the review of a decision to convert an employee to a higher classification level position, in the above circumstances, is contained in the IR Act, PS Act and in Directive 03/23: Review of acting or secondment at a higher classification level (Directive 03/23). [19] Section 120 of the PS Act provides (emphasis added): 120 Employee may request employment at higher classification level after 1 year of continuous acting or secondment (1) If the public sector employee has been acting at, or seconded to, a higher classification level for a continuous period of at least 1 year, the employee may ask the employee's chief executive to employ the employee in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis, after— (a) the end of 1 year of acting at, or being seconded to, the higher classification level; and (b) the end of each subsequent 1-year period. (2) The employee's chief executive must decide the request within the required period. (3) The employee's chief executive may decide to employ the employee in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis only if the chief executive considers the employee is suitable to perform the role. (4) In making the decision, the employee's chief executive must have regard to— (a) the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity; and -- 5 of 25 -- 6 (b) the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level. (5) If the employee's chief executive decides to refuse the request, the chief executive must give the employee a notice stating— (a) the reasons for the decision; and (b) the total continuous period for which the employee has been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level in the public sector entity; and (c) how many times the employee's acting arrangement or secondment has been extended; and (d) each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the employee during the employee's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level. (6) If the employee's chief executive does not make the decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have refused the request. (7) The commissioner must make a directive about employing an employee at a higher classification level under this section. (8) In this section— continuous period, in relation to an employee acting at, or seconded to, a higher classification level, has the meaning given under a directive. required period, for making a decision under subsection (2), 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 request is made. suitable, in relation to an employee performing a role, has the meaning given under a directive. [20] Further, s 131(1)(a) of the PS Act provides: 131 Decisions against which appeals may be made (1) An appeal may be made against the following decisions— (a) a conversion decision; [21] Section 132(1)(k) of the PS Act provides (emphasis added): 132 Decisions against which appeals can not be made (1) A person can not appeal against any the following decisions— … (k) a decision under section 120 not to appoint a public employee to a position at a higher classification level, if the employee has been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level for less than 2 years; -- 6 of 25 -- 7 [22] In this case, the Appellant has worked in the higher classification position for more than two years, so is eligible to appeal the decision to refuse appointment to the higher classification position. [23] Directive 03/23 relevantly provides: 4. Principles 4.1 Chief executives are responsible for making decisions under the provisions of chapter 3, part 9, division 2 of the Act. 4.2 Chief executives are required to act in a way that is compatible with the main purpose of the Act and how the main purpose is achieved, including fair treatment of public sector employees and maximising employment security and permanency of employment. 4.3 Under the Human Rights Act 2019, decision makers have an obligation to: a. act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights b. give proper consideration to human rights when making a decision under the Act and Public Sector Commissioner (Commissioner) directives. 4.4 Under chapter 1, part 3 of the Act public sector reframing entities have a unique role in supporting the State government in reframing its relationship with Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples by fulfilling certain responsibilities. Under section 21, the chief executive of a reframing entity is responsible for ensuring the entity fulfils this role. Chief executives must consider these responsibilities when applying and making decisions under the Act and Commissioner directives. 4.5 Under chapters 2 and 3 of the Act chief executives of public sector entities have a duty to promote equity and diversity in relation to employment matters, which includes in the application of and making decisions under the Act and Commissioner directives. 4.6 In addition to any specific requirements in this directive, chief executives of public sector entities are required to consider ways to support accessibility and inclusion for employees when undertaking processes, or applying provisions, under this directive. 5. Interpretation of directions 5.1 The Act sets out employee entitlements and entity responsibilities under chapter 3 part 9, division 2 of the Act. 5.2 The Appendix identifies and summarises the relevant sections of the Act to assist public sector employees and decision makers in understanding the legislative framework. 5.3 A decision maker, when considering a review of an employee's acting or secondment at the higher classification level, must make a decision by applying the relevant sections of the Act. 5.4 The directions: -- 7 of 25 -- 8 a. provide for the meaning of 'continuous period', as required under section 120(8) of the Act b. provide for the meaning of 'suitable', as required under section 120(8) of the Act c. establish procedural requirements for conducting a review and employing an employee at a higher classification level under sections 120 and 121 of the Act d. should be read in conjunction with the relevant authorising provision/s of the Act. 5.5 The requirements set out in these directions are binding and must be followed. 6. Requests to employ a public sector employee at a higher classification level on a permanent basis 6.1 A request made under sections 120 or 121 of the Act must be made to the chief executive in writing, unless circumstances exist where an employee requires reasonable adjustments to make the request in another way. 6.2 Where a reasonable adjustment is required, the employee must make it clear in the request that they are making the request under these provisions. 6.3 An entity must set out information on its intranet, or in another way that is accessible to employees, about how to request a review under sections 120 or 121 of the Act. 6.4 The request rights provided for in section 121 of the Act are in addition to, and separate from, the request rights provided for in section 120 of the Act. A request made under section 121 of the Act does not affect when an eligible public sector employee is able to make a request under section 120(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Decision-making 7.1 When making a decision in consideration of the factors provided for in section 120(4) of the Act, a chief executive is responsible for determining the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity. 8. Meaning of continuous period 8.1 Continuous period, for the purposes of this directive, means a period of unbroken engagement, including periods of authorised leave or absence, at the higher classification level in the same role, in the same public sector entity. 8.2 Additionally, a public sector employee has been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level, where they have been remunerated at the full rate of the higher classification level during the period of unbroken engagement mentioned in clause 8.1. 8.3 Authorised leave, as provided for in clause 8.1, includes any period of leave that has been approved by the chief executive, including leave without pay for any period, where it is intended that the employee will return to the position at the higher classification level following the period of leave. 8.4 It is at the discretion of a chief executive to determine what constitutes an authorised absence, as provided for in clause 8.1. For example, a chief executive may determine an authorised -- 8 of 25 -- 9 absence to include acting at, or being seconded to, an alternative position at a higher classification level, where it was always intended that the employee would return to the position at the higher classification level following the period of absence. 9. Meaning of suitable 9.1 A public sector employee is to be considered suitable to perform the role where: a. the employee has provided evidence of possessing any relevant mandatory qualification/s (as reflected in the role description), and b. the employee meets any relevant mandatory condition/s of the role (as reflected in the role description), and c. the employee is not subject to any unresolved and documented conduct or performance matters that have been put to the employee in writing, and where required, managed in accordance with the requirements of a relevant directive, such as the directives relating to positive performance management and discipline. 10. Obligations when a decision is made to refuse a request to employ a public sector employee at a higher classification level on a permanent basis 10.1 Any notice provided to the employee must comply with section 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to: a. set out the findings on material questions of fact b. refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. 10.2 Any notice provided to the employee must include information about any relevant appeal rights available to the employee. 10.3 Where the chief executive decides to refuse a request made under section 120 of the Act because the person was not suitable to perform the role, any notice provided to the employee must include information about an employee's right to request an additional review under section 121 of the Act, in the event the employee considers they become suitable to perform the role. 10.4 Where the chief executive decides to refuse a request made under sections 120 or 121of the Act, unless otherwise advised in the written notice, a person's engagement in the public sector entity is taken to continue according to the terms of the existing secondment or acting arrangement. 11. Deemed decisions 11.1 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 employ the person at the higher classification on a permanent basis. 11.2 A written notice is not required to be prepared to support a deemed decision. -- 9 of 25 -- 10 11.3 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 at the higher classification level on a permanent basis under section 121 of the Act, if the initial request was made under section 120 of the Act, and b. any relevant appeal right available to the employee. 11.4 Unless otherwise advised by the chief executive, where a deemed decision occurs, a person's engagement in the public sector entity is to continue according to the terms of the existing secondment or acting arrangement. 11.5 Chief executives of public sector entities 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. 12. Appeals 12.1 Appeal rights relating to the review of acting or secondment at higher classification level are provided for in section 131(1)(a) of the Act. … Definitions … Second/secondment has the meaning provided for under section 118 of the Act. [24] Directive 03/23 is a statutory instrument within the meaning of s 7 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) (SI Act).8 [25] Section 14 of the SI Act provides that certain provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) (AI Act) apply to statutory instruments. One of those is s 14A of the AI Act, 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 AI Act provides that 'purpose', for an act, includes policy objective. [26] The stated purpose of Directive 03/23 is (emphasis added): 1. Purpose 1.1 The Public Sector Act 2022 (Act) establishes employment on a permanent basis is the default basis of employment in the Queensland public sector. 1.2 This directive supports and supplements the provisions of the Act with respect to the review of public sector employees acting at, or seconded to, a higher classification level. 8 Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225, [26]. -- 10 of 25 -- 11 1.3 This directive sets out procedures for reviews and requirements for decisions in the context of reviewing an employee acting, or seconded to, a higher classification level. [27] In deciding this appeal, I note the significance of the legislative provisions identified above. [28] In summary, the status of Directive 03/23 as a statutory instrument provides that the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose and / or policy objective of Directive 03/23 is to be preferred to any other interpretation. What is 'the position' subject of this appeal? [29] Section 120(1) of the PS Act applies to a public sector employee's eligibility to request permanent appointment to the position at the higher classification level. [30] The power afforded to the QPS to permanently appoint the Appellant is confined to the position which she is performing at the time. That can be contrasted with the entitlement to request a review, which merely requires that, amongst other things, a person be engaged in a higher classification level for a period. The term 'the position' is inherently more specific than 'higher classification level'; many positions could be described as being of a higher classification level. [31] In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Appellant was continuously engaged as an AO6, Senior Investment & Performance Officer (position number 4- 957705) for the following continuous periods:9 a. 18 January 2021 to 23 April 2023 – 2 years, 3 months b. 10 July 2023 to 22 November 2023 – 4 months c. 23 January 2024 to 30 September 2025 – 1 year, 8 months d. Extension to 31 March 202610 – total 2 years, 2 months [32] In the intervening periods, the Appellant was acting at a higher AO7 classification, Principal Investment and Performance Officer (position number 1-955777).11 [33] The position - subject of the decision to refuse Ms Dowden's request to be permanently appointed to the higher classification - was 'Position number 4-957705'. 9 Respondent’s submissions (n1), [3]. 10 Ibid, [23]. 11 Ibid, [3]. -- 11 of 25 -- 12 [34] Although my explanation in Holcombe v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works)12 pertained to the now repealed s 149C of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), it remains apposite here: The consideration of whether the employee meets the merit principle, and whether there are any genuine operational requirements which prevent the conversion, are with respect to 'the position' occupied by the employee way of secondment at the time of seeking the review. It is not an unconstrainted review into similar positions, such as positions with the same title and classification. The more broadly ranging review that Mrs Holcombe is seeking is to some extent provided for in ss 149A and 149B, but the language of s 149C is pointedly distinguishable. The interpretation which I am compelled to adopt is that which gives effect to the wording of s 149C, and the practical limitations which are inherent to s 149C and the Directive.13 [35] In light of the above, the position subject of the review is that of AO6, Senior Investment & Performance Officer (position number 4-957705), within the QPS. Decision criteria [36] The PS Act and Directive 03/23 provide that, in making the decision regarding a higher classification permanent appointment request, the chief executive must have regard to: • whether the Appellant is 'suitable';14 • the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity;15 and • the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level.16 Consideration [37] I am required to decide this appeal by assessing whether or not the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable. [38] This involves a review of the decision-making process utilised and the decision arrived at. 12 [2020] QIRC 195. 13 Ibid, [80]. 14 PS Act (n 2), s 120(3); Directive 03/23 Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level (Directive 03/24), cl 9.1. 15 PS Act (n 2), s 120(4)(a); Directive 03/23 (n 14), cl 7.1. 16 Ibid. -- 12 of 25 -- 13 Reasons given for the refusal decision [39] The decision to refuse appointment to the higher classification position, dated 11 August 2025, provided that: The reason for this decision is that it is not viable or appropriate to convert you having regard to genuine operational requirements which prevents your conversion at this time. … At this time, the genuine operational requirements of this entity do not support your permanent employment to the role you are currently performing as there is no confirmed continuing need for the role you are performing past 30 September 2025. You will continue to be engaged according to the terms of your existing acting arrangement until 30 September 2025 when the temporary position is due to expire. [40] There was scant information provided to the Appellant as to why it was decided to refuse her request for permanent appointment to the position, other than sweeping non-specific reference to "genuine operational requirements". [41] Section 120(5) of the PS Act provides that where a decision is made to refuse the request for appointment at the higher classification, the employee must be provided with a written notice setting out "reasons for the decision." That is supported by Directive 03/23, that requires: 10.1 Any notice provided to the employee must comply with section 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to: a. set out the findings on material questions of fact b. refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. [42] I observe the written notice provided to Ms Dowden did not conform with the requirements of cl 10.1 of the Directive 03/23 above. Nothing was provided to explain what the genuine operational requirements relied upon to refuse the request were, or any other relevant information that may assist Ms Dowden to understand why permanent appointment to the higher classification position was denied. That is a clear procedural flaw in the decision. [43] Further to the above, although the refusal decision correspondence very closely mirrors the template letter,17 it departs from the suggested template where the author is prompted to insert "reasons" for refusal on genuine operational requirements. That is a significant omission. 17 Queensland Government, Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level (Directive 03/23) (Web Page) Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level (Directive 03/23) | For government | Queensland Government. -- 13 of 25 -- 14 [44] I also note the decision appears to conflate this "review of acting or secondment at higher classification level"18 with the separate decision criteria for "review of non-permanent employment",19 referencing "continuing need" for the "role" (rather than "position", as is correctly the case with respect to these higher classification reviews).20 [45] A further problem with the refusal decision notice provided is that is does not state "the total continuous period for which the employee has been acting at…the higher classification level in the public sector entity; and how many times the employee’s acting arrangement…has been extended…"21 Instead, a table from a report has been inserted in an attachment to the required notice from which the required information may be calculated. That is not the same. As IC Power held in Rice v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service)22, a table setting out the temporary employment history does not meet the requirements of the PS Act for the notice to state "how many times the employee’s employment on a non-permanent basis has been extended". Although IC Power’s determination related to s 115(4)(c) of the PS Act, the words are the same as that of s 120(5)(c) of the PS Act relevant to this current matter. Suitability [46] Ms Dowden submitted that she is suitable for permanent appointment to the position as evidenced by: (a) my successful selection through both an EOI (…May 2021) and a full merit selection process (…November 2023);"23 (b) continuously acting in the AO6 Senior Investment and Performance Officer position since 18 January 2021 with no performance concerns;24 (c) relieved at AO7 level when required;25 (d) contract once again extended for a twelfth time, until 31 March 2026 – such that she will have been acting in the higher classification position for over 5 years and 2 months.26 18 PS Act (n 2), Ch 3, Div 2. 19 Ibid, Ch 3, Div 1. 20 Ibid, s 115(3). 21 PS Act, s 120(5). 22 [2026] QIRC 029. 23 Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 29 August 2025, 4. 24 Appellant’s submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 11 September 2025, 1. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. -- 14 of 25 -- 15 [47] The Respondent does not deny Ms Dowden’s suitability in its submissions. The Respondent stated that "The Appellant has consistently worked at a high standard in these positions, including the periods of higher duties…"27 [48] Further, I note QPS’s refusal decision dated 11 August 2025 is made on the grounds that "it is not viable or appropriate…having regard to genuine operational requirements which prevents your conversion at this time."28 [49] On that basis, I find that the suitability criteria poses no impediment to permanent appointment to the position. Subsequent criteria that the chief executive must have regard to [50] Having satisfied the suitability criteria, the chief executive must then have regard to both of the following matters (emphasis added):29 a) the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity; and b) the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person’s continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level. Reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made [51] Section 120(4) of the PS Act requires the chief executive to have regard to the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made. [52] Ms Dowden submitted that "I have previously sought conversion to this higher classification, most notably in 2023, but was advised to wait due to the PSBA disestablishment and subsequent organisational changes."30 I note the review decision (subject of this appeal) dated 11 August 2025 does not refer to any decision previously made in 2023. [53] I have proceeded then on the basis that Ms Dowden considered making a request for permanent appointment to the higher classification position in 2023, but ultimately did not formally doing so at that time. Genuine operational requirements 27 Respondent’s submissions (n 1), [2]. 28 Appeal Notice (n 23), Attachment 1. 29 PS Act (n 2), s 120(4). 30 Appellant’s reply submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 25 September 2025, 1. -- 15 of 25 -- 16 [54] Deputy President Merrell considered 'genuine operational requirements' in Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women).31 His Honour's explanation is also useful here (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. [39] In respect of the Directive, cl 4.2 provides that secondment to or assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level should only be used when permanent appointment to the role is not viable or appropriate. That clause goes on to provide that circumstances that would support the temporary engagement of an employee at a higher classification level include: • when an existing employee takes a period of leave such as parental, long service, recreation or long-term sick leave and needs to be replaced until the date of their expected return; or • when an existing employee is absent to perform another role within their agency, or is on secondment, and the agency does not use permanent relief pools for those types of roles. [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.' 31 [2020] QIRC 203. -- 16 of 25 -- 17 [55] This case turns on whether or not there were genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity that prevented the Appellant's permanent appointment to the higher classification position at the time. [56] In this type of matter, the Commission must decide the appeal by reviewing the decision appealed against.32 The Appellant's position [57] The Appellant submits that her request to be permanently appointed to the higher classification position should not have been refused. [58] Ms Dowden’s submissions, relevant to the "genuine operational requirement" criteria in contention between the parties, are as follows: (a) "…the role has existed since 22 October 2019, whereby I have been extended 11 times and continuously filled the position for over 4 years and 8 months. This demonstrates an ongoing, genuine operational need."33 (b) After filing this appeal, Ms Dowden was advised on 9 September 2025 that she would again be extended in the acting higher classification position until 31 March 2026. That is now the twelfth extension. Ms Dowden noted that "at such time I will have been in higher duties for over 5 years and 2 months."34 (c) Ms Dowden submitted that she first "sought conversion to this higher classification…in 2023 but was advised to wait due to the PSBA disestablishment and subsequent organisational changes. Since then, further changes including elections, a change of government, and now the 100-Day Review have continued to delay any substantive decision regarding my conversion. "The justification for not converting my role has consistently been attributed to organisational change. Despite this, my higher duties have been repeatedly extended…I am concerned that the repeated deferral of this decision, always citing organisational change, is simply a way to avoid making a commitment."35 (d) Further, Ms Dowden explained that: The QPS has been through many periods of change and the work has always been significant and ongoing supported by the now twelve extensions to my contract during this tenure. Throughout the duration of the period in Higher Duties the entity has endured many reviews 32 IR Act (n 5), s 562B(4), provides that the Commission "may allow other evidence to be taken into account if the commission considers it appropriate", for appeals against "a promotion decision or a disciplinary decision". 33 Appeal Notice (n 23), 4. 34 Appellant’s submissions (n 24), [1]. 35 Appellant’s reply submissions (n 30), 1. -- 17 of 25 -- 18 and restructures in particular the major PSBA disestablishment of which this role was identified as a vital role to continue to support the QPS.36 (e) Ms Dowden set out the "key duties of the role" to be:37 (i) Strategic and operational investment and performance services (ii) Financial modelling and reporting, including month-end processes and general ledger maintenance (iii) Cost plan maintenance to align ICT expenditure with vendor contracts and funding contributions (iv) Supporting project teams with financial services and cost modelling (v) Ensuring transparency and accountability in funding decisions (f) Operational Requirements - Ms Dowden works in the Frontline and Digital Division "to ensure transparency and optimisation of funding aligning to the QPS strategic priorities improving performance management.38 (g) Alignment with Organisational Priorities My role supports financial sustainability, compliance, and performance management across QPS. These duties are critical to the QPS strategic goals outlined in the Commissioner’s 100-Day Review, which emphasises workforce retention and reducing administrative burden.39 … …My duties require strong financial modelling skills ensuring the financial responsibility and sustainability for the QPS. I work across both BAU and Project priorities. Some examples of my responsibilities include data analysis and preparation of the Frontline and Digital Division Cost Plan, mandated cost apportionment reporting, cloud billing recoveries, provide project financial services to the project management team along with various cost modelling reporting. Importantly, this aligns with the QPS strategic priorities improving performance management and prioritised deployment of resources. The Commissioner’s 100-Day Review emphasises the need for workforce retention, reduction of administrative burden on frontline staff, and the importance of roles that ensure financial sustainability and compliance.40 (h) Risk to Service Delivery Failure to permanently appoint to this role risks inaccurate financial reporting and undermines the QPS’s ability to meet its statutory and operational obligations, contrary to the recommendations for organisational efficiency and workforce wellbeing and to meeting the demands of the uplift in 36 Appellant’s submissions (n 24), [3]. 37 Ibid, 3. 38 Ibid, [3]. 39 Ibid, [6]. 40 Appeal Notice (n 23), 4. -- 18 of 25 -- 19 capability of corporate functions strengthening areas to support effective delivery of the Frontline Corporate Service Support Model as mentioned in the Commissioner’s 100-Day Review.41 (i) No Consultation or evidence of role ending …I was not…provided with any documentation or evidence that the position would cease. On the contrary, the ongoing funding and extensions suggest the role is essential.42 (j) Ms Dowden submitted that the Commission’s decision in Gatla v State of Queensland43 is analogous to her case, where "repeated annual funding and the ongoing need for a role undermined the argument against permanent appointment. My situation mirrors this precedent, with consistent funding and operational necessity over multiple years."44 The Respondent's position [59] I have earlier noted the unsatisfactorily non-compliant explanation of the reason for the refusal decision, provided to Ms Dowden on 11 August 2025. [60] Since that time, the Respondent has had opportunity to make submissions as to why the refusal decision was fair and reasonable. I have summarised those reasons below: (a) Regard must be had to "genuine operational requirements", and "a chief executive is responsible for determining" what those are.45 (b) The Respondent submitted that "It is clear from this statement that it is the organisation who determine their operational requirements."46 (c) The PS Act47 provides that public sector management should be guided by principles including "ensuring accountability, integrity and support of the public interest." Further, the chief executive has a responsibility to make decisions to ensure "the effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources."48 (d) In March 2025, the Queensland Police Commissioner authorised a 100-Day Review of the QPS. That was conducted between March and June 2025. One focus of the review was "Improving organisational efficiency and leadership effectiveness."49 Recommendation 60 is to "Redesign the QPS IT operating model, 41 Ibid. 42 Appellant’s submissions (n 24), [4]. 43 [2022] QIRC 436. 44 Appellant’s submissions (n 24), [7]. 45 Directive 03/23, cl 7. 46 Respondent’s submissions (n 1), [10]. 47 PS Act (n 1), s 39. 48 Ibid, s 40(1)(b). 49 Respondent’s submissions filed (n 1), [15] – [17]. -- 19 of 25 -- 20 including an enterprise systems strategy and exploration of cloud-based opportunities."50 (i) "QPS is in the process of redesigning the IT operating model, which to ensure is done well, will take a period of time…QPS is in the process of considering a realignment of the Appellant’s position, along with the other positions in the team…from FDD51 into the QPS Finance Division."52 That is because "Firstly, the functions of the roles in this team better align with the functions performed by the QPS Finance Division. Secondly, moving this position to the QPS Finance Division will likely realise efficiencies…there is no way to genuinely know at this point in time what the exact requirements for these positions will be, if and when they move out of FDD and into the QPS Finance Division."53 (ii) "Right now, FDD is reviewing their operational model, with the intention for further discussion to occur around where these positions are best placed. The extension of higher duties through to the 31 March 2026 is to allow the organisation time for proper consideration, movement of positions, and realisation of any efficiencies…it would be disingenuous of the organisation to permanently appoint an employee to a temporary position when uncertainty exists as to whether the position will continue to be required…it could genuinely be the case that the move into the QPS Finance Division will realise efficiencies to the point where 3 x temporary AO6 positions are no longer required."54 (iii) "At this point in time, the organisation cannot appoint a permanent employee to a higher-level temporary position when doubt exists as to the continued need for the role."55 Whether refusal to permanently appoint Ms Dowden to the higher classification position on the grounds of "genuine operational requirements" was fair and reasonable? Twelfth extension – Acting in the higher classification position for over 5 years [61] Ms Dowden’s twelfth contract extension in the acting higher classification position ended recently on 31 March 2026. At that point, Ms Dowden will have worked in the position of Senior Investment and Performance Officer, AO6 classification, for over 5 years. 50 Ibid, [19]. 51 Frontline and Digital Division (FDD), QPS. 52 Respondent’s submissions (n 1), [20] – [21]. 53 Ibid, [22]. 54 Ibid, [23]. 55 Ibid, [24]. -- 20 of 25 -- 21 [62] Neither party has contacted the Industrial Registry to advise whether or not Ms Dowden’s contract was once again extended for a further period, post-31 March 2026. Though, relevantly, the question before me is whether the refusal decision issued on 11 August 2025 was fair and reasonable. [63] The fact of a twelfth contract extension, to work in the acting higher classification position for more than five years now, undermines the Respondent’s argument that the 'genuine operational requirements of the department' prevent permanent appointment to the position. This case is analogous to the Commission’s earlier decision in Gatla v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service),56 whereby IC Dwyer considered whether it was fair and reasonable to refuse Mr Gatla’s request to be permanently appointed to the higher classification position, in circumstances where his appointment "was approved (yet again) after filing of this appeal for a fifth year". I observe that decision was also made against the backdrop of organisational change impacting on the Frontline and Digital Division of the QPS – though that time resultant from the disestablishment of the PSBA (rather than the 100-Day Review, in this current case). In similar circumstances then, I will adopt the reasoning of IC Dwyer in Gatla that "In my view this pattern of consistent renewal over five years undermines the QPS assertions of ‘genuine operational requirements’ precluding permanent appointment at the higher classification." [64] Further, the reason provided in the refusal decision dated 11 August 2025 was that "there is no confirmed continuing need for the role you are performing past 30 September 2025." However, less than a month after the issue of the refusal decision,57 the Respondent determined to again extend Ms Dowden in the acting higher classification position until 31 March 2026. Therefore, the reason given - that there were genuine operational requirements that prevented permanent appointment to the higher classification position, on the stated grounds that there was no continuing need for it past 30 September 2025 – appeared rather unsustainable at the point of the further six month extension. Review and organisational change [65] I note the Respondent’s submission provide the reason for the twelfth extension was to enable more time to consider any organisational change, that may result from the 100- Day Review. That does not convey any high level of certainty that change will occur, or within any particular timeframe. The various submissions noted different priorities – including the consideration of IT processes likely to take effect and some reflections about possibilities for designations of positions and unit locations. Little certainty was expressed about any definite decision at the time of those submissions. [66] The Respondent’s arguments in this case regarding uncertainty of the particular position into the future against the setting of organisational change are similar to the 56 [2022] QIRC 436. 57 Correspondence dated 9 September 2025. -- 21 of 25 -- 22 circumstances in Godbee v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service),58 where the Commission determined to convert Ms Godbee to the higher classification position. The possible, but unknown, impact of the 100-Day Review was also a feature in Godbee. Possible, but uncertain, impacts on a position were also considered by IC Pidgeon in Catterall59 but were found not to constitute genuine operational requirements that would prevent conversion to permanent appointment at the higher classification position in those cases. I will follow the Commission decisions in Godbee, Catterall and Gatla as I have determined the circumstances to be analogous to this case. [67] As Ms Dowden points out in her submissions, the higher classification position she occupies has weathered various reviews and organisational change (including the period of disestablishment of the PSBA – the setting of Mr Gatla’s successful conversion appeal). If no employee conversion could occur whilst a review was in progress, the legislative intent of Chapter 3, Division 2 and the purpose of Directive 03/23 to establish "employment on a permanent basis [as] the default basis of employment in the Queensland public sector", would surely be defeated. It follows then that any ‘genuine operational requirements’ relied upon must meet a higher threshold than inconvenience, in order to satisfy the broader commitment to permanent employment. [68] I would also observe that the 100-Day Review recommendations were officially released in July 2025. That was about two months prior to the Respondent’s decision to again extend Ms Dowden in the higher classification position for a twelfth time. That circumstance further tests the logic of the Respondent’s submission contending that the genuine operational requirement that prevented Ms Dowden’s permanent appointment was the 100-Day Review. [69] The Respondent noted Directive 03/23 provides that the chief executive is responsible for determining what the genuine operational requirements of the entity are,60 proceeding then to conclude that "it is the organisation who determine their operational requirements."61 I am unsure of what to make of that submission. It cannot mean that it is sufficient for a refusal decision to merely express the Respondent’s view that there are genuine operational requirements that prevent permanent appointment and the matter rests there. Clearly the PS Act and Directives provide that employees may challenge decisions that are not fair and reasonable, including reviews of decisions of the type subject of the current appeal. The particular ‘genuine operational requirement’ relied upon must be contained in the written notice and supported by adequate reasons. That was lacking here. 58 [2026] QIRC 012. 59 Catterall v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 360. 60 Directive 03/23, cl 7; Respondent’s submissions (n 1), [10]. 61 Respondent’s submissions (n 1), [10]. -- 22 of 25 -- 23 The effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources [70] The Respondent submitted that the chief executive has a responsibility to make decisions to ensure "the effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources." That is true. Ms Dowden’s submissions are persuasive as to how her permanent appointment to the higher classification position satisfies that objective, explaining that: My role supports financial sustainability, compliance, and performance management across QPS. These duties are critical to the QPS strategic goals outlined in the Commissioner’s 100-Day Review, which emphasises workforce retention and reducing administrative burden.62 … …My duties require strong financial modelling skills ensuring the financial responsibility and sustainability for the QPS…this aligns with the QPS strategic priorities improving performance management and prioritised deployment of resources. The Commissioner’s 100-Day Review emphasises the need for workforce retention, reduction of administrative burden on frontline staff, and the importance of roles that ensure financial sustainability and compliance.63 … Failure to permanently appoint to this role risks inaccurate financial reporting and undermines the QPS’s ability to meet its statutory and operational obligations, contrary to the recommendations for organisational efficiency and workforce wellbeing and to meeting the demands of the uplift in capability of corporate functions strengthening areas to support effective delivery of the Frontline Corporate Service Support Model as mentioned in the Commissioner’s 100-Day Review.64 [71] I accept Ms Dowden’s arguments that the chief executive’s responsibility for the "effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources" does not equate to a genuine operational requirement not to make a permanent appointment to the higher classification position. Where there is an authentic need for such position, a public sector employee is paid to perform that work. After five years in the position, a permanent appointment to the higher classification serves to the skills and experience developed for the benefit of the Queensland public sector – guarding against turnover costs such as recruitment, training, and time required for any new starter to build requisite institutional knowledge required for optimal performance. In short, permanently appointing Ms Dowden to the higher classification position does not undermine "the effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources", but rather supports that objective. There is not a tension between the obligation for the efficient use of public resources and the purpose of maximising permanent employment in the Queensland public sector in this case. 62 Appellant’s submissions (n 24), [6]. 63 Appeal Notice (n 23), 4. 64 Ibid. -- 23 of 25 -- 24 Written notice not compliant with mandatory legislative requirements [72] I have earlier explained that the written notice dated 11 August 2025 was not compliant with the mandatory requirements of the PS Act and Directive 03/23. I have catalogued the procedural flaws earlier in this Decision, and need not repeat those here. [73] Any employee issued with such refusal decision is entitled to understand the reasons for the decision so they may consider whether to advance an appeal against that decision at the very least, amongst other things. That procedural fairness was not extended to Ms Dowden. Only in the course of the Respondent’s submissions in this appeal, were reasons for the refusal decision revealed. The gradual unveiling of ‘reasons’ for the refusal decision is unsatisfactory. As IC Power held in Rice v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service),65 "Whilst the written submissions address the reasons in more detail, a Respondent cannot rely upon submissions on appeal to cure a significant deficiency with respect to the requirement to provide adequate reasons." I agree with IC Power’s assessment. I believe that is particularly relevant in light of s 562B(4) of the IR Act, whereby the Commission "may allow other evidence to be taken into account if the commission considers it appropriate", for appeals against "a promotion decision or a disciplinary decision". Interpretation that best achieves the purpose of the legislation is preferred [74] The status of Directive 03/23 as a statutory instrument provides that the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose and/or policy objective of Directive 03/23 is to be preferred to any other interpretation. [75] The stated purpose of Directive 03/23 is (emphasis added): 1. Purpose 1.1 The Public Sector Act 2022 (Act) establishes employment on a permanent basis is the default basis of employment in the Queensland public sector. … [76] Section 4 sets out numerous factors as to how the main purpose of the PS Act is primarily achieved. That includes: (c) creating a public sector that ensures fairness in the employment relationship and fair treatment of its employees by - … (ii) maximising employment security and permanency of employment; … 65 [2026] QIRC 029, [41]. -- 24 of 25 -- 25 [77] For the reasons above, I believe that the facts of this case support a finding that 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’…", as DP Merrell concluded in Morison.66 [78] As I have found that there were no genuine operational reasons that would prevent Ms Dowden’s permanent appointment to the higher classification position, the refusal decision was not fair and reasonable. [79] I will set aside the decision appealed against and substitute another decision. [80] I order accordingly. That pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld): 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision that Ms Dowden not be converted to the higher classification position is set aside and another decision substituted. 3. Ms Dowden be permanently appointed to the position at the higher classification level. 66 [2020] QIRC 203. -- 25 of 25 --