Chagas v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 250

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Chagas v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 250 PARTIES: Chagas, Pabllo (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2025/173 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Conversion Decision DECISION DELIVERED ON: 13 August 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 Mr Pabllo Chagas not have his employment converted to permanent is set aside, and another decision is substituted; and 3. Mr Pabllo Chagas' temporary employment status is converted to permanent employment as a Senior Vendor & Contract Management Officer (AO6), Queensland Police Service (QPS). CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – -- 1 of 20 -- 2 PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – temporary employment – deemed decision where respondent determined not to convert the appellant's employment to permanent – whether there is a continuing need for the appellant to be employed in the same role, or a role which is substantially the same – no genuine operational requirements to prevent conversion – where decision was not fair and reasonable LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS: Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A, s 27B Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 564, s 562B, s 562C, s 567 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 81, s 114, s 115, s 120, s 131, s 133 Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 7, s 14 Directive 02/23: Review of non-permanent employment cl 1, cl 4, cl 5, cl 7, cl 13 Directive 04/23: Appeals cl 6 CASES: Battaglia v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2023] QIRC 55 Benson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 152 Catterall v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 360 Gatla v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 436 Godbee v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 012 Goodall v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 319 -- 2 of 20 -- 3 IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 Jones v State of Queensland [2022] QIRC 317 Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown (2003) 201 ALR 260 Reasons for Decision [1] Mr Pabllo Chagas ('the Appellant') is employed by the State of Queensland ('the Respondent'), within the Vendor and Contract Management Group, Strategy Investment and BSS, ICT Operations, Frontline and Digital Division (FDD), Queensland Police Service ('the Department'). [2] Since 17 April 2023, the Appellant has been employed under fixed term contracts as a 'Senior Vendor and Contract Management Officer' (AO6). [3] Upon completing one year continuous service in the role, the Appellant made an employee-initiated request for conversion. On 30 May 2024, the Respondent declined that first request for conversion to permanent employment, on the grounds of "genuine operational requirements" because of uncertainty surrounding an organisational restructure. At that time, the Respondent accepted the legislative elements of both "a continuing need for you to perform your role or a role that is substantially the same" and "suitability" were met. [4] The Respondent commenced the mandatory review of the Appellant's non-permanent employment, upon reaching two years' service with QPS. However, the review was not completed in the required period so a 'deemed' decision to not convert the Appellant's employment to permanent was made. [5] The Appellant then requested an internal review of the deemed decision to refuse conversion to permanency. As the internal review was not completed in the required period either, a further deemed decision to refuse conversion to permanency took effect. [6] On 1 September 2025, the Appellant then filed this public sector appeal against the deemed decision to not convert his employment to permanent. -- 3 of 20 -- 4 Timeframe for appeal [7] 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. [8] The decision was given to the Appellant on 27 August 2025. [9] As the Appeal Notice was filed with the Industrial Registry on 1 September 2025, I am satisfied the Appeal was filed within the required timeframe. [10] No jurisdictional objections have been raised with respect to the appeal. What decisions can the Commission make? [11] Section 562C(1) 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; (c) Set the decision aside and substitute another decision. Appeal principles [12] Section 562B(2)(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,1 but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at by the Department and the associated decision-making process.2 [14] Findings made by the Department, which are reasonably open to it, should not be disturbed on appeal. Relevant provisions of the PS Act, Directive 02/23 and Directive 04/23 [15] Sections 114 and 115 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— 1 Goodall v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 319, 5; Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (IR Act), s 567(1). 2 IR Act (n 3), s 562B(2). -- 4 of 20 -- 5 (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. … (9) In this section— suitable, in relation to an employee performing a role, has the meaning given under a directive. 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. (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 of 20 -- 6 (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. (7) For working out how long the employee has been continuously employed in the public sector entity— (a) all periods of authorised leave are to be included; and (b) the employee is to be regarded as continuously employed even if there are periods during which the employee is not employed in the entity, if the periods of non-employment in the entity total 12 weeks or less in the 2 years occurring immediately before the time when the duration of the person's continuous employment is being worked out. (8) The commissioner must make a directive about the making of a decision under this section. (9) The directive must provide for— (a) the matters a chief executive must consider in deciding the hours of work to be offered in converting a person's employment under subsection (1)(b); and (b) the circumstances in which a person may appeal against the decision about the hours of work offered in converting the person's employment under subsection (1)(b). (10) This section does not limit or otherwise affect section 113. (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). [16] Section 81 of the PS Act relevantly 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— -- 6 of 20 -- 7 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) 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 [17] Directive: 02/23 Review of non-permanent employment (Directive 02/23) relevantly provides: 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 non-permanent employment. 1.3 This directive sets out procedures for reviews and requirements for decisions in the context of reviewing a non-permanent employee's employment status. … 4. Principles 4.1 Chief executives are responsible for making decisions on review of non-permanent employment, under chapter 3, part 9, division 1 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 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. … 5. Interpretation of directions 5.1 The Act sets out employee entitlements and chief executive responsibilities under chapter 3, part 9, division 1. -- 7 of 20 -- 8 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 non-permanent employment status, must make a decision by applying the relevant sections of the Act. 5.4 These directions: (a) provide for the meaning of suitable (b) provide for the matters a chief executive must consider in deciding the hours of work to be offered in converting an employee's employment under section 115(1)(b) (c) provide for the circumstances in which a person may appeal against the decision about the hours of work offered in converting the employee's employment under section 115(1)(b) (d) establish procedural requirements for conducting a review and making a decision under sections 114, 115, and 116 of the Act (e) should be read in conjunction with the relevant section/s of the Act. 5.5 The requirements set out in these directions are binding and must be followed. … 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. 7.2 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. … 13. Obligations when a decision is made not to offer to convert an employee's employment to a permanent basis and to continue the employee's employment according to the terms of the employee's existing employment 13.1 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, and (b) refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. 13.2 Any notice provided to the employee must include information about any relevant appeal rights available to the employee. 13.3 Where the chief executive decides under section 114 or 115 of the Act not to offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis because the person was not suitable to perform the role, any notice provided to the employee must also include information about -- 8 of 20 -- 9 an employee's right to request an additional review under section 116 of the Act in the event the employee considers they have become suitable to perform the role. [18] Directive 04/23: Appeals (Directive 04/23) relevantly provides: 6. Conversion decision appeal 6.1 Section 131(1)(a) of the Act provides that a conversion decision may be appealed. 6.2 Section 129 of the Act provides for the definition of conversion decision (noting that the meaning is limited to specific types of decisions made under the relevant sections of the Act). 6.3 Who may appeal a conversion decision under section 133 of the Act: (a) the public sector employee the subject of the decision. 6.4 Decisions that cannot be appealed as a conversion decision, as provided for under section 132 of the Act: (a) a decision under section 114 not to convert the employment of a public sector employee to a permanent basis (b) a decision under section 120 not to appoint a public sector 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 two years. [19] The Directives are statutory instruments within the meaning of s 7 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) ('SI Act').3 [20] 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 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. Submissions [21] In accordance with the Directions Order issued, the parties filed written submissions. [22] I have carefully considered all submissions and materials. Appellant's submissions [23] The Appellant set out his reasons for appeal to be that: (a) Following an employee-initiated request for conversion to permanency, the refusal decision on 30 May 2024 acknowledged there was "a continuing need for my role or one substantially the same" and that the Appellant was "suitable" to perform the role. However, the Appellant's conversion to permanency was refused on the grounds of "genuine operational requirements linked to uncertainty about a potential organisational restructure." 3 Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225, [26]. -- 9 of 20 -- 10 (b) There is a continuing need for the role occupied by the Appellant – or a role that is substantially the same. The duties are "core business functions, not temporary or project limited." (c) The Appellant is suitable to perform the role, and has backfilled his direct line manager's role (AO8) during periods of leave. (d) There are no 'genuine operational requirements" that prevent conversion to permanency. That is because: (i) "The only stated reason for refusal in May 2024 was the possibility of future organisational restructure." (ii) "More than a year later, this restructure remains unresolved, yet the work continues." (iii) "Reliance on speculative, uncertain structural changes is not a valid operational reason to deny permanent conversion when the position remains ongoing." (e) The Respondent was obliged to make a conversion decision, rather than relying on "deemed decisions without reasons". (f) The Appellant submitted he meets all the legislative criteria for conversion to permanency. Respondent's submissions [24] The Respondent submitted that: (a) The Directive provides that a chief executive is responsible for determining the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity. (b) The PS Act provides that management of the public sector is guided by principles including "accountability, integrity and support of the public interest" and "ensuring the effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources." The chief executive must decisions accordingly. (c) "The Respondent relies on the genuine operational requirements of the QPS, as the formal implementation of the 100-day review (the Review) is considered and implemented."4 The Respondent submitted that the relevant matters included: (i) In March 2025, the Queensland Police Commissioner authorised a 100-Day Review of the QPS. This was conducted between March and June 2025. One focus of the Review was "Improving organisational efficiency…" 4 Respondent's submissions filed 16 October 2025, [15]. -- 10 of 20 -- 11 (ii) The Review recommended the "Redesign [of] the QPS IT operating model, including an enterprise systems strategy and the exploration of cloud-based opportunities." The Respondent acknowledged that QPS "is in the process of redesigning the IT operating model, which to ensure is done well, will take a period of time." (iii) The redesign of the IT operating model means that "At this point in time it cannot be assumed that the position occupied by the Appellant will continue to be needed by the organisation, until these detailed assessments are completed." (iv) The organisational structure was to be implemented in "three waves", within the period between August 2025 and early 2026. It was submitted that "QPS is taking the time to ensure this organisational change is measured and methodical, with due consideration given to change before it occurs." (v) FAQs on the QPS intranet confirm that "many changes are not yet known and are in the process of being determined." The Respondent submitted that this uncertainty means it would be "presumptuous to appoint the Appellant to permanent employment status before these determinations are made." That is because the Frontline and Digital Division (FDD) is "reviewing their operating model, with the intention of further discussion to occur around where positions are best placed and what duties roles will continue to perform as the shift is made back to being 'frontline focused'…" (d) There is doubt as to whether there is a "continued need for this role, and others, across the organisation." Consideration [25] I am required to decide this appeal by assessing whether or not the conversion decision appealed against was fair and reasonable. This involves a review of the decision-making process utilised and the decision arrived at. Decision criteria [26] Section 114(3) of the PS Act contains the mandatory decision criteria for temporary employment conversions to permanent, where the chief executive considers: (a) 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 (b) the employee is suitable to perform the role; and -- 11 of 20 -- 12 (c) any requirements of an industrial instrument are complied with in relation to the decision. [27] Section 114(4) of the PS Act states (emphasis added): 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. [28] Section 115(3)(b) of the PS Act provides that (emphasis added): In making the decision – … 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. Suitability [29] There is no dispute that the Appellant satisfies the 'suitability' requirements of the above decision criteria. That element poses no impediment to the Appellant's conversion to permanent employment. Any requirements of an industrial instrument [30] Neither party presented submissions with respect to any requirements of an industrial instrument to be complied with in relation to decision. Reasons for each decision previously made [31] Section 115(3) of the PS Act requires the decision-maker to have regard to the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, in relation to the employee during the employee's period of continuous employment. [32] In this case, the first decision made with respect to the Appellant's employment was that he was considered "suitable" and that there was a "continuing need" for the role he performed or one "substantially the same" – though conversion was refused on grounds of "genuine operational requirements." A deemed decision without reasons is not inherently unfair [33] The Appellant submitted that a deemed decision without reasons constitutes a procedural failure. I do not agree. [34] As Directive 02/23 provides that a deemed decision may be made, it is not inherently unfair. -- 12 of 20 -- 13 [35] However, I do note that the Appellant was refused conversion on two successive occasions by way of deemed decisions, such that he appears to have raised the matter in submissions with reference to cl 14.4. Is there 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? [36] There are two potential pathways to conversion. The first pathway is the Appellant's current role. The second pathway is an alternative role which is substantially the same. Pathway 1: Is there a continuing need for someone to be employed in the employee's role? [37] With respect to the uncertainty surrounding the potential changes arising from the consideration and implementation of the Review, the Respondent's position – as contained in its submission in this appeal – is that there was doubt as to whether there is a "continued need for this role, and others, across the organisation." [38] The Appellant submitted that there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the role, as demonstrated by contract extensions and that his duties are "core business functions, not temporary or project limited." [39] The Appellant submitted that the Respondent had earlier accepted there was "a continuing need for [him] to perform your role or a role that is substantially the same" in the first decision refusing conversion to permanency given on 30 May 2024. However, I have noted that the Respondent's admission of "continuing need" was made a considerable time prior to the deemed decision that is subject of this appeal, and indeed a considerable time before the authorisation of the Review in March 2025. [40] For that reason, I place no weight on the Respondent's confirmation of "continuing need", as expressed in its first refusal decision. [41] As the decision subject of this appeal is a deemed decision, a written notice of reasons for refusal is not required.5 However, the Respondent did have opportunity to provide reasons for conversation refusal in its submissions in this appeal. The Respondent's arguments against conversion centred on the Review as constituting the "genuine operational requirements" that made conversion to permanency not viable or appropriate, expressing only doubt as to the continuing need for the role performed by the Appellant. [42] The Respondent is not suggesting that there will not be a continuing need for the role, simply that it is as yet unknown. 5 Directive 02/23, cl 14.1. -- 13 of 20 -- 14 [43] In my view, the Respondent's "doubt" is not enough to conclude that no "continuing need" exists, when weighed against the circumstances of this case because: (a) At the time of that deemed decision, the Appellant had been employed in the role for approximately two years and four months (and continues to be so engaged). (b) It is not contested that the Appellant's duties are "core business functions" – "not temporary or project limited" work, that would then cause consideration to be made of whether "employment of a public sector employee on a permanent basis may not be viable or appropriate". [44] On that basis, I accept that the decision criteria at section 114(3)(a)(i) of the PS Act is satisfied. There is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the employee's role. 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? [45] In the alternative, the further consideration is whether there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in 'a role that is substantially the same' – that second pathway was not considered by the Respondent in its submissions at all. [46] It appears that is because the Respondent's submission focus was on matters pertaining to the "genuine operational requirements" of the Review, said to have made conversion to permanency not viable or appropriate - rather than contesting conversion on the basis of this second pathway. [47] The Respondent's submissions do not state that any search was conducted for a "a role that is substantially the same", nor an assessment of the capability requirements of the Appellant's current role conducted for the purposes of any such inquiry. [48] The duty to define a role that is substantially the same is an essential starting point in identifying a role that is 'substantially the same'. [49] The fact of this case is that the decision-maker did not define a role which is substantially the same, as it was a deemed decision. Nor has the Respondent's subsequent submissions adequately addressed this requirement. The duty to do so must properly be discharged. [50] In addition to neglecting the key issue of first defining a role which is substantially the same, the Respondent did not demonstrate they had analysed the capability requirements of the role performed by the Appellant. Even if the Respondent had done so, its submissions do not indicate any search was conducted for a "a role that is substantially the same", The Respondent instead has gone directly to refusal of conversion to permanency on the grounds of claimed "genuine operational requirements." -- 14 of 20 -- 15 [51] For the foregoing reasons, I have concluded that the Respondent has stopped short of demonstrating its consideration of the entirety of the mandatory criteria at ss 114-115 of the PS Act. [52] The Respondent has paid insufficient regard to the 'second pathway' requirements.6 That was not fair and reasonable. [53] I have found that there is a continuing need for Appellant to be employed in his current role. However, in the alternative and for the reasons above, I also find that fairness and reasonableness requires that appropriate weight be given to the consideration of this limb when deciding whether or not to convert the Appellant's employment to permanent. Genuine Operational Requirements [54] Having found that there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the Appellant's role or a role substantially the same, s 114(4) of the PS Act then requires that an employee must be offered permanency "unless it is not viable or appropriate to do so having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity." [55] 'Operational requirements' are not defined in the PS Act, so the term must be given its ordinary meaning. Where some uncertainty exists in interpreting the words of a legislative instrument, a variety of statutory interpretation rules apply.7 [56] One relevant rule of statutory interpretation is the principle of 'beneficial legislation'. Legislative instruments which are remedial in character, namely intended to correct wrongs, are described as 'beneficial legislation'. That principle has been applied to equal opportunity legislation. In IW v City of Perth, it was held that such remedial materials are: 8 to be given "a fair, large and liberal" interpretation rather than one which is "literal or technical". [57] Even so, that construction must still be reasonable and natural given the particular words of the statute itself. It is not an opportunity to depart from the legislative material. Quite the opposite; it is designed to uncover the most accurate interpretation of that material. What is a 'reasonable' genuine operational requirement should be considered in concert with that principle of statutory interpretation. [58] Deputy President Merrell considered 'genuine operational requirements' in Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women). 9 His Honour's explanation is also useful here (emphasis added):10 6 Benson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 152, 27 [136]. 7 Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown (2003) 201 ALR 260, 269. 8 IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1, 12. 9 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203. 10 Ibid. -- 15 of 20 -- 16 [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.' [59] Giving due consideration to the object, scope and purpose of the relevant legislative materials, any genuine operational requirements preventing conversion to permanency must not be trivial. Whenever a temporary employee is converted to permanency, there will commonly be managerial inconveniences and difficulties. 'Genuine' operational requirements must go beyond those. [60] If the inconveniences inherent to most if not all permanency conversions were sufficient to constitute genuine operational requirements, there would be few or no conversions. That interpretation would defeat the purpose of Directive 02/23 and the review. [61] In my view, a 'reasonable' genuine operational reason is one which is sufficiently substantial as to warrant overcoming the government's commitment to limiting temporary employment where possible. [62] I will now consider the question of whether or not there were such "genuine operational requirements" that would prevent conversion to permanency. [63] 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. [64] I accept the Appellant's arguments that the chief executive's responsibility for the "effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources" does not equate to a genuine -- 16 of 20 -- 17 operational requirement to refuse permanent conversion. Where there is an authentic need for such role, a public sector employee is paid to perform that work. After more than two years and four months in the role, at the time of the deemed decision, a permanent appointment secures 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 the Appellant 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. [65] There is no indication that the difficulties faced by the Department in this instance would be any different than those posed to most agencies converting employees. [66] Without specific evidence indicating the Appellant's conversion would affect the efficient, effective and sustainable management of the Department, I am not convinced that issue poses a genuine operational requirement that justifies a fair and reasonable refusal to convert the Appellant. [67] Considering the Appellant's continuous temporary engagements, and the nature of the duties he performs, there is clearly an ongoing need for the continuing employee. In a situation where that need is constant and substantial, I do not accept that permanent conversion of the Appellant would have a negative impact on organisational viability. Rather, it appears from the evidence before me that the opposite is the case. [68] As I held in Jones v State of Queensland:11 [87] I would observe that the objectives of establishing "employment on tenure as the default basis of employment in the public service" and "having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources" need not be at odds. Where work is required to be performed, public sector workers will need to be paid to do it, regardless of whether they are employed on a permanent or temporary basis. The funding source of the position does not determine whether or not Mr Jones ought to have been permanently converted to the higher position. [69] In Battaglia v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)12 it was held that genuine operational requirements must go beyond managerial inconvenience and a budgeted vacancy is not a requirement for conversion to permanent employment: [61] Whenever a temporary employee is converted to permanency, there will commonly be managerial inconveniences and difficulties. 'Genuine' operational requirements must go beyond those. … 11 [2022] QIRC 317. 12 [2023] QIRC 55. -- 17 of 20 -- 18 [69] A budgeted vacancy is not required for conversion to permanent employment. Creation of a new permanent position is to be expected in such circumstances. There is no indication that the difficulties faced by the Department in this instance would be any different than those posed to most agencies converting employees. [70] I accept the Appellant's submission that "Reliance on speculative, uncertain structural changes is not a valid operational reason to deny permanent conversion when the position remains ongoing." That is correct. [71] I recently considered the Review and organisational change, as it related to a separate QPS decision to refuse conversion in the matter of Dowden v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service).13 Those observations are apposite to the current appeal: [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 circumstances in Godbee v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service),14 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 Catterall 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, Catterall15 and Gatla16 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 13 [2026] QIRC 118, [65]-[69]. 14 [2026] QIRC 012. 15 Catterall v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 360. 16 Gatla v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 436. -- 18 of 20 -- 19 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, proceeding then to conclude that "it is the organisation who determine their operational requirements." 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. [72] The Respondent's submissions regarding uncertainty arising from the Review, and the organisation determining the genuine operational requirements, are similar to the current appeal. I have therefore determined to adopt my earlier reasoning in Dowden in the present matter. That remains apposite here. [73] The Respondent submitted that one focus of the Review was "Improving organisational efficiency…", and relied on that as an argument to refuse conversion to permanency. However, I note that another of the four main focuses of the Review was "Enhancing the wellbeing and capability of its workforce." That may present another set of challenges in circumstances where experienced employees are not retained. It appears the Respondent's submission elevate one focus over the other, without the necessary evidence to demonstrate why that ought be accepted. The curiosity of the Respondent's assertion was unexplained. [74] On the material before me, I have found that there is a continuing role, being the role the Appellant is currently undertaking, and that there is a continuing need for him to be employed in that role. In the alternative, I have outlined the unreasonableness of the Respondent's failure to consider a role that is substantially the same at all. [75] In arriving at this conclusion, I am conscious that the PS Act and Directive 02/23 are purposed with encouraging and maximising security of public sector employment. That purpose is furthered by the undertaking of careful reviews of factual circumstances in the context of the relevant criteria prescribed in Directive 02/23 and legislation. Those efforts allow for the achievement of the purpose of Directive 02/23. [76] It follows that there are no genuine operational reasons that would otherwise prevent the Appellant from being converted to permanent employment. [77] For the reasons outlined above, I disagree that the genuine operational requirements presented by the Department justify a conversion refusal and therefore conclude that the decision was not fair and reasonable in the circumstances. -- 19 of 20 -- 20 [78] 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 Mr Pabllo Chagas not have his employment converted to permanent is set aside, and another decision is substituted; and 3. Mr Pabllo Chagas' temporary employment status is converted to permanent employment as a Senior Vendor & Contract Management Officer (AO6), Queensland Police Service (QPS). -- 20 of 20 --