Appo v State of Queensland

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 44, 45, 129, 131, 133

Queensland Health Recruitment and Selection Human Resources Policy B1 (QH-POL-212)

Attorney- General v Wood [2023] QSC 78

Cleary v State of Queensland (Department of Resources) [2022] QIRC 416

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

Henning v State of Queensland (Queensland Treasury) [2022] QIRC 487

Lambinon v TAFE Queensland [2025] QIRC 247

• [1] Mr Terrence Appo ('the Appellant') is permanently employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Respondent') as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advanced Health Worker, classification level HWF 3.5, at the Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service.
• [2] The Appellant appeals a promotion decision in a selection process for the Senior Health Worker (Team Leader) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Service, classified as a HWF 4.
• [3] The promotion of the successful appointee to the position was published by way of the Queensland Government Gazette and the Queensland Health Services Bulletin on 18 April 2025, with the successful candidate appointed to the position on 12 February 2025.

• [4] Section 131(1)(e) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act') sets out that a promotion decision is a type of decision capable of being appealed. Section 133(e) of the PS Act specifies that a promotional appeal may be lodged where a public sector employee is employed on a permanent basis, where they are aggrieved by the decision, and where the employee is entitled to appeal under a Directive.
• [5] The relevant Directive is Directive 04/23 - Appeals ('the Appeals Directive'), which establishes the requirements for promotion appeals at cl 10:

10.1 Section 131(1)(e) of the Act provides that a promotion decision may be appealed.

10.2 Section 129 of the Act provides for the definition of promotion decision.

10.3 Who may appeal a promotion decision under section 133 of the Act:

(a) a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis who is aggrieved by the decision and is entitled to appeal under a directive.

10.4 Further to clause 10.3, a public sector employee is only entitled to appeal a promotion decision:

(a) where the decision relates to a promotion of a permanent public sector employee that has been published in accordance with section 84(2) of the Act, and

(b) where the aggrieved employee submitted an application for the role that is the subject of the promotion decision; and

(c) if the aggrieved employee's application for the role that is the subject of the promotion decision, was received by the deadline for the receipt of applications, or in the case of continuous applicant pools, the application was received prior to the initial date that applications were distributed to the selection panel, and

(d) the aggrieved employee has sought post-selection feedback in accordance with the relevant provisions of the directive relating to recruitment and selection, and

(e) in the case of a promotion decision resulting from a limited advertising process conducted in accordance with the directive relating to recruitment and selection, the aggrieved employee must have been eligible to apply.

• [6] The Appellant is employed on a permanent basis; he applied for the role before the closing date and sought post-selection feedback in accordance with the Appeals Directive.
• [7] The Appellant filed his appeal on 6 May 2025, within the statutory time frame of 21 days following the public notification of the decision on 18 April 2025.[1]
• [8] The Appellant is entitled to appeal the decision, and the appeal was lodged within time.

• [9] Section 562B of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') provides that the appeal is to be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against, with the purpose of the appeal being to determine whether the decision subject of the appeal was fair and reasonable.[2]
• [10] The appeal is conducted, not by way of re-hearing the substantive matter, but by reviewing the decision and the decision making process.[3]
• [11] When deciding appeals against promotion decisions, the IR Act specifies that the Commission must decide the appeal with reference to the material that was before the decision-maker at the relevant time but has the capacity to consider other evidence if the Commission considers it appropriate to do so.[4]
• [12] Upon determination of an appeal against a promotion decision, the Commission is empowered to confirm the decision appealed against,[5] or set the decision aside and return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions permitted under a directive that the Commission considers appropriate.[6]
• [13] When deciding appeals against promotion decisions, the Commission's power to set the decision aside is only enlivened if it is determined that the recruitment or selection process was deficient.[7] In determining whether a process was deficient, the Commission must consider whether the process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner pursuant to that Act.[8]
• [14] The Appeals Directive provides the Commission may make the following directions:

18 Directions the QIRC may give in deciding an appeal about a promotion decision

18.1 Section 143(2)(a) of the Act requires that this directive provide for the directions the QIRC may give under section 562C(1)(b) of the IR Act.

18.2 In deciding an appeal under section 562C of the IR Act, the QIRC may make any direction they consider necessary, including any of the following:

(a) a direction that, within one month, the chief executive is to set aside the promotion and publish (in accordance the requirements of section 84(2) of the Act) that the appointment is set aside

(b) a direction that the chief executive either recommences the recruitment and selection process from the point of advertising the vacancy, or continues with the process from a particular time or event as identified by the QIRC

(c) a direction that a new selection panel is to be formed and/or a direction regarding the composition of the new panel, where a decision is made that a chief executive is to recommence the recruitment and selection process.

• [15] The PS Act outlines the principles underpinning recruitment and selection:

44 Principles underpinning recruitment and selection

(1) The purpose of this section is to ensure the recruitment and selection of a high-performing, apolitical and representative public sector workforce.

(2) A person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity, including, for example, making a decision about employment of a public sector employee, must undertake the process in accordance with the principles mentioned in subsection (3).

(a) recruitment and selection processes must be directed to the selection of the eligible person best suited to the position; and

(b) recruitment and selection processes must be fair and transparent; and

(c) recruitment and selection processes must reflect the obligations under chapter 2 relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.

45 Employment on merit and for equity and diversity

(1) A person selected for employment in or to a public sector entity must be the eligible applicant best suited to the position.

(2) In deciding the eligible applicant best suited to a position, a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity -

(a) must consider each eligible applicant's ability to perform the requirements of the position; and

(i) the way in which each eligible applicant carried out any previous employment; and

(ii) the potential of each eligible applicant to make a future contribution to the entity; and

(iii) the extent to which the proposed decision would contribute to fulfilment of the entity's obligations under chapter 2, including, for example, the objectives, strategies and targets stated in the entity's equity and diversity plan.

• [16] The Recruitment and Selection Directive 07/23 ('Recruitment and Selection Directive') relevantly sets out (emphasis added):

9. Selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position

9.1 Recruiting a diverse and high performing public sector workforce is enabled through fair, transparent and contemporary selection processes.

9.2 Selection decisions must ensure that the eligible applicant best suited to the position is selected for employment, as provided for in section 45 of the Act.

9.3 Where relevant, a chief executive must establish that a person is eligible to become a public sector employee as provided for in section 47 of the Act (that is, the person is an Australian citizen or has permission under a law of the Commonwealth to work in Australia).

9.4 Where there are mandatory qualifications associated with a position, a chief executive must satisfy themselves of the validity of the qualification. For example, the qualification can be verified with the issuer that conferred the qualification (noting that some tertiary institutions have a qualification checking mechanism or website).

9.5 Where a vacancy is advertised, selection processes and notification of outcomes must take place in a timely manner. To facilitate this, selection panels should be formed and selection strategies determined prior to the closing date of the vacancy advertisement.

9.6 In determining the composition of a selection panel (which must include a minimum of two people), a chief executive must consider diversity of the panel as a key factor for successful recruitment, particularly in the context of their obligations under chapter 2 of the Act. [9]

9.7 The decision maker should generally not be a member of the selection panel.

9.8 To promote integrity and diversity in recruitment, selection panels must:

(a) consider and declare any actual, potential or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest between each panel member and the applicants, or, the absence of such conflicts of interest

(b) consider elements of conscious or unconscious bias that may impact the process, including mitigation strategies

(c) consider how the selection process can be accessible, inclusive and culturally safe (as relevant to each circumstance and organisational context)

(d) provide candidate care, including through timely and regular communication with applicants

(e) for senior executive vacancies, include one member from outside the ministerial portfolio.

9.9 Where a conflict of interest is declared under clause 9.8(a), the selection panel must consider and document any resolution or mitigation strategies, which must be approved by the decision maker prior to continuing with the selection process.

Assessment of the person best suited to the position

9.10 When selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position, a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process must:

(a) comply with any relevant direction given by the chief executive under clause 7.6

(b) conduct a holistic assessment of eligible applicants in the context of the role requirements and the factors provided for in section 45(2) of the Act

(c) clearly document why a person is assessed as being the eligible applicant best suited to the position, including a comparative assessment where there is more than one applicant in a process.

9.11 Assessment processes for advertised positions must:

(a) consider contemporary and best practice selection techniques relevant to the requirements of the position and the entity's operating context

(b) incorporate selection techniques that enable a sufficiently comprehensive and holistic assessment of each applicant within the context of being best suited to the position

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

(d) incorporate referee checks and pre-employment checks as appropriate and required

(e) be consistent with the obligations set out in chapter 2 of the Act relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.

• [17] The Appellant is primarily aggrieved by the failure of the Respondent to adequately consider his relevant qualifications which meant he was not shortlisted for interview:[10]

In receiving post selection feedback I was advised that my application was not considered because I did not have QUALIFICATION.

In my application I provided evidence of my QUALIFICATION, being a Bachelor of Health Science (Aboriginal Health & Community Development) and Diploma of Health Science (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care).

The failure to consider my relevant qualifications during the recruitment and selection process in making the promotion decision demonstrates that the decision was fatally flawed.

• [18] The Appellant sought that the Commission set aside the promotion decision and direct the Respondent to conduct a new recruitment and selection process that does not include panel members who were involved in making the decision subject of the appeal.[11]
• [19] The Respondent maintained that the decision was fair and reasonable and should not be disturbed on appeal.
• [20] In submissions the Appellant also added an allegation of bias on the part of the Panel Chair and one other member of the panel. This is based on two previous selection processes for the role the Appellant currently holds. This will be addressed later in this Decision.

Alleged failure to properly consider relevant qualifications

• [21] The key issue of the appeal is whether the Respondent failed to adequately consider the relevant qualifications held by the Appellant. Secondary to that is whether any failure was due to alleged bias.
• [22] The position qualifications included in the role description required an approved Diploma (or higher) qualification in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care. The team leadership responsibilities of the role included supervision, training and development and operational management of health workers and staff. The role was advertised as an identified position.[12]
• [23] The qualifications held by the Appellant were detailed in the resume provided as part of the application process,[13] as follows:
  • Certificate in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Science CNK02, Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE, 1997
  • A CNK01 Diploma in Health Science, Cunningham Centre, 1998
  • A Bachelor of Health Science (Aboriginal Health and Community Development), University of Sydney, 2004.
• [24] The Appellant applied for the role following its advertisement on 17 January 2025, and prior to its closing on 4 February 2025.[14] The Appellant submitted that interviews of short-listed candidates occurred on 6 February 2025, and the successful candidate was confirmed on 12 February 2025. He indicated the Wide Bay Indigenous Health Team were notified on 17 February 2025. The Respondent in their submissions noted the Appellant received an email on 19 February 2025 advising he had not been shortlisted.[15]
• [25] The Appellant contended the timeline "clearly highlights the panel was not fair and equitable and the process was clearly flawed."[16] No further explanation was provided.
• [26] The Appellant indicated he sought feedback regarding his rejected application and received it by email from the Panel Chair on 28 February 2025 as follows:

After reviewing your submission, the panel noted that while your resume provides a strong overview of your skills and experience, the position requires applicants to hold an approved Diploma qualification (or higher) in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care. We appreciate your dedication to this field, and if obtaining the qualification is something you're interested in pursuing, we encourage you to explore pathways that may support you in meeting this requirement for future opportunities. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you'd like guidance on potential study options or other roles that align with your experience. We value your commitment to health and community and hope to see your application for future positions...[17]

• [27] In submissions, the Respondent reaffirms that the Appellant was not shortlisted for interview because the panel had formed a view the Appellant did not possess the mandatory qualification of an approved Diploma qualification (or higher) in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care.[18] Further, they asserted, the panel also based this decision on their assessment that the Appellant had not demonstrated any Team Leader experience.[19] There is no reference to this consideration in the feedback email provided by the Panel Chair.
• [28] The Appellant clarified in the appeal notice and in submissions that the CNKO1 Diploma of Health Science, Cunningham Centre, 1998, was in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care.[20] However, this was not specified in the resume provided as part of the Application,[21] nor were copies of his qualifications attached to the application.
• [29] Following the feedback from the Panel Chair, the Appellant provided proof of his qualifications by email to Mr Paul Weir (Executive Director, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health) (the Delegate) on 3 March 2025,[22] which the Respondent notes in reply submissions was after the finalisation of the recruitment and selection process on 12 February 2025.[23]
• [30] The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant bore the responsibility to ensure his application accurately reflected 'his knowledge and capabilities against the key requirements of the role at the time of his application submission', noting that the panel assessed his application and resume based on what was provided by the Appellant at the time.

What weight should the Commission give to evidence not before the panel at the time the decision was made?

• [31] As previously outlined, when considering an appeal against a promotion decision, the Commission may consider evidence that was not before the 'decision maker' at the time the appealed decision was made.[24]
• [32] The Appellant stated in submissions replying to the Respondent's assertion that he did not possess the relevant qualifications and team leadership experience required to be shortlisted:

In my application I provided in my resume my qualifications being Bachelor of Health Science (Aboriginal Health and Community Development) at The University of Sydney, well above the required qualifications need (sic) for this position.

In the Role Description it asked for an approved Diploma qualification (or higher) in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care in which I have. It doesn't ask for proof, but I have sent them to you in my last submission.

Also, I have proof that I sent my qualifications to Paul Weir the Executive Director Aboriginal and Torres Strait Isalnder Health (see attached) on 20 August 2024 at 3.08pm for an upgrade of a pay point and he forward it on to HR who keep stating I don't have the approved mandatory qualifications (or higher) for the position.

In fact, on or about the 12/12/2023 I sent all my qualifications signed by a Justice of the Peace to HR because in the Certified Agreement (No 1) 2019 the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Force (Queensland Health) EB1 Agreement the Aboriginal Health Workforce had to prove they had the qualifications to be upgraded...

The Respondent keeps saying I don't have leadership skills or supervision of others which go to show they haven't read my resume or my job application.

The failure to consider my relevant qualifications during the recruitment and selection process in making the promotion decision demonstrates the decision fatally flawed. [25]

What information was available to the panel at the time the decision was made?

• [33] The panel had all the information provided by the Appellant that comprised his completed application for the position. The uncontested documentary evidence demonstrates that the Appellant had not specified his Diploma was within the required area of primary health care. While I accept the Appellant did hold the relevant qualification at the time of shortlisting, that detail was not included in the application itself and was not before the panel.
• [34] I concur with the Respondent that the responsibility to provide all information relevant to the panel's assessment against requirements for the role rests with the applicant for the role. Not specifying that the Diploma was within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care was clearly an unintended oversight by the Appellant.
• [35] The Appellant further argued that even if it was determined he did not hold the correct Diploma, consideration of his degree qualification should have meant he met the requirement. While it is correct the qualification requirement was for Diploma or higher, the qualification would still need to be in primary health care.
• [36] The only documented feedback before the Commission in relation to the panel's consideration at shortlisting is the email dated 28 February 2025 from the Panel Chair to Mr Appo that states "candidates were required to hold an approved Diploma (or higher) qualification in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care."[26] I take this to mean Mr Appo's higher qualification was also not within the mandated subject area and therefore was not considered to satisfy the requirement.
• [37] Finally, the Appellant argued that even if the information was not before the panel it was known to Human Resources and to the Delegate due to previous occasions where details of his qualifications had to be provided. Information that is held organisationally, or that may have been provided for a different purpose on previous occasions does not alter the responsibility of the job applicant to ensure all relevant information is before the panel. While the Appellant has provided an email from 20 August 2024 where the Delegate acknowledged he had received the qualifications, it is not the responsibility of the Delegate to recall the earlier email or recall it was a Diploma in the required area of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care. What the Delegate could or should have recalled when reviewing the selection recommendation from the panel is not a substitute for the applicant ensuring they had addressed all of the key requirements and particularly the mandatory ones.
• [38] The responsibility ultimately rested with the Appellant, and while frustrating and upsetting, the Appellant's failure to clearly spell out that he possessed the mandatory qualification is not a failure of the process.
• [39] For this reason, this ground to set aside the selection decision has not been made out.

• [40] In submissions the Respondent contended the panel also considered that the qualifications the Appellant did possess were dated and no details had been provided of efforts to maintain currency of qualifications. I note this is not an issue raised in the written feedback provided to the Appellant. The criteria for the role did not mandate a recency requirement for the qualifications.
• [41] The Appellant has also addressed this issue in submissions and within material he provided as part of his application. The Appellant explained that the 'model of care and scopes of practice are evolving all the time; therefore I keep up to date with the challenges through work experience and ongoing professional development learning.'[27] The Appellant underscores he has attended professional development relevant to the role over the years, and all 'mandatory training' has been completed.[28]
• [42] To the extent this was considered by the panel in their shortlisting decision it would seem an irrelevant consideration given the qualifications themselves were deemed unsuitable against the mandatory requirement.
• [43] Secondly, in submissions the Respondent contended the panel also considered the material submitted in support of the job application failed to demonstrate previous team leadership experience. As noted above, this was not identified in the feedback provided by the Panel Chair. The Appellant argued that this provided evidence his application had not been read, as in two of his previous roles within the Public Health Unit in Toowoomba he was the team leader.
• [44] There is no documentary material before the Commission in relation to the panel's discussion of, and weighting of, this factor in the decision not to shortlist the Appellant. To the extent this factor weighed against the Appellant being shortlisted I have reviewed the material supplied by him as part of his job application and it is not clearly stated that he performed as an operational team leader in the two roles he has nominated.
• [45] The Appellant does address this requirement within his written statement attached to the cover letter and resume. Statements are made about previous roles being in management but it does not identify which roles. While it is clear the Appellant was leading his programmatic work and interacting with, advising and educating members of the team regarding those matters it is not clear whether or not those other staff reported to him as a team leader. I am not suggesting they did not - just that it is not clear.
• [46] Given the focus of the actual feedback letter being in relation to mandatory qualifications it is hard to discern how relevant this factor was. It is not possible or appropriate to speculate whether his capacity to clarify his direct leadership experience at an interview might have impacted on the ranking of candidates who did make it to the next step. His failure to stipulate he met the mandatory qualification requirements meant the panel did not consider he qualified to progress to the next stage.

• [47] The allegation of bias is first made by the Appellant in submissions dated 5 June 2025 and was said to involve the Panel Chair and the other internal member of the panel. The Appellant sets out the particulars as follows:

In 2017, I applied for the position I'm now still in and Consuela Morris and Steven Ober were on the panel to, no one was appointed to the position, months later it was readvertised, I applied and with a different panel consisting of the Director of Social work, Senior Social worker and Consuela who dialled in, the panel chair stated in her feedback that I blitzed the rest of the other applicants and I was the successful candidate and the right person for the job.[29]

• [48] No further details or explanation are provided by the Appellant in support of the serious allegation of bias.
• [49] In addition to the previous selection processes the Appellant also notes that the feedback received from the Panel Chair and the Delegate was identical, which while not directly stated, may also be a suggestion of bias. Finally, that he provided proof to the Delegate that he held the required qualification and had received no further contact.
• [50] The Respondent submitted that the panel formation accorded with the requirements of the policy and was therefore appropriate to assess the applicant's ability against the requirements of the position and make a recommendation to the Delegate on the most suitable applicant.[30] The Respondent further submitted that the decision was made based on the information provided by the Appellant himself at the time shortlisting occurred. Finally, the Respondent argued that the recruitment process was conducted in a fair and equitable manner based on all the applications received at the time. The decision was fair and reasonable and should not be disturbed on appeal.[31]

• [51] It is not contested that the panel was properly constituted in terms of the requirements of the Directive. I will address the question of bias.
• [52] I have already considered the qualification issue above and have found it was not sufficient for the Appellant to have provided full information about his qualifications after the selection process had concluded. This is not evidence of a failure of the process or bias against the Appellant.
• [53] The selection feedback from the Delegate was provided to the Appellant copied to the Panel Chair following the feedback provided by the Chair to the Appellant. The email from the Delegate indicates he has provided the feedback following discussion with HR.[32] I consider it would be concerning if the feedback provided by the Delegate was not the same as that already provided by the Panel Chair, as the Delegate was not involved in the selection process itself and would have made the ultimate decision based on consideration of the report provided by the panel through the Chair.
• [54] The most direct allegation of bias relates to the connection being drawn by the Appellant between previous selection processes involving two members of the panel and the current process. The 'proof' being asserted is that the presence of two of the panel members on the selection panel in 2017 where no appointment was made followed by only one of the panel members being present on the panel when the role was readvertised and the Appellant was successful demonstrates bias.
• [55] The Panel Chair in the present process was part of both of the 2017 selection processes - the one where no applicant was appointed and the one where the Appellant was appointed. While it could objectively be established that the panel composition and outcomes in each of the referenced selection processes are as described by the Appellant that is not evidence of causation. Allegations of bias cannot be established without cogent evidence. It is completely unclear what the motivation for the bias is said to be and what would have sustained it over the last seven to eight years.
• [56] Procedural fairness is commonly understood as follows:[33]

Procedural fairness is a right recognised and defined by law that involves two key elements - the hearing rule (the parties shall be given adequate notice od the case against them, and a right to respond), and the bias rule (everyone is entitled to a decision by a disinterested and unbiased adjudicator).

• [57] Davis, J, when examining the nature of apprehended bias in Attorney- General v Wood,[34] considered that the question involved consideration of:

"[whether] a 'fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the question the judge is required to decide."

[13] The application of the test is a two-part process. Firstly, "it requires the identification of what it is said might lead a judge... to decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits." Secondly, there must be a logical connection between that matter and the feared departure from the judge deciding the case on its merits.

• [58] The Appellant has not articulated any factors capable of leading the decision makers to administer the recruitment and selection process on a basis other than the factual merits and in accordance with the applicable directives.
• [59] Moreover, several decisions by this Commission have considered that allegations of bias are serious and ought to be substantiated by the provision of cogent evidence.[35]
• [60] I find the allegation of bias has not been established by the Appellant.

• [61] Pursuant to s 562C of the IR Act, the Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if the Commission finds that the recruitment and selection process was deficient having regard to the PS Act and Directives. While the decision reached by the panel that the Appellant did not hold the mandatory qualifications necessary to be further considered for the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Senior Health Worker (Team Leader) was incorrect, it was reasonably open to them based on the information before them provided by the Appellant at that time. The allegation of bias has not been substantiated.
• [62] I order accordingly.

Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Act, the decision appealed against is confirmed.

[1] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 564(3)(c).

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

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

[4] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(4).

[5] Ibid s 562C(1)(a).

[6] Ibid s 562C(1)(b).

[7] Ibid s 562C(2).

[9] As an identified position, at least one member of the panel is required to possess the attribute for the identified role. Attachment 1 Identified roles, Clause 1.3; Queensland Health Recruitment and Selection Human Resources Policy B1 (QH-POL-212).

[12] Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 25.

[13] Resume of Terrence Appo; Submissions of the Respondent, filed 21 May 2025, 34.

[14] The covering letter is dated 31 January 2025, but paragraph [1] of submissions says 17 January 2025 - which is the day the position was advertised.

[15] Queensland Health Recruitment and Selection Human Resources Policy B1 (QH POL 212) provides at clause 16.2: After shortlisting, the panel may advise non-shortlisted candidates via email that they were unsuccessful and that their application is no longer being considered.

[16] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 June 2025, [1].

[17] Email to Terrence Appo from Consuela Morrice dated 28 February 2025; Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 June 2025, 5.

[18] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 21 May 2025, [16].

[20] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 June 2025, 3.

[21] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 9 June 2025, [4] .

[22] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 June 2025, [6].

[23] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 9 June 2025, [5].

[24] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(4).

[25] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 18 June 2025, [1] - [7].

[26] Email to Terrence Appo from Consuela Morrice dated 28 February 2025; Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 June 2025, 5.

[27] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 June 2025, [2].

[28] Cover Letter of Terrence Appo; Submissions of the Respondent, filed 21 May 2025, 26.

[29] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 June 2025, [4].

[31] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 9 June 2025.

[32] Email from Paul Weir to Terrence Appo and Consuela Morrice, dated 28 February 2025; Submissions of the Appellant filed 5 June 2025, 5.

[33] Queensland Health Recruitment and Selection Human Resources Policy B1 (QH-POL-212) 36.

[34] [2023] QSC 78.

[35] See, for example: Lambinon v TAFE Queensland [2025] QIRC 247, [4] (Gazenbeek IC); Cleary v State of Queensland (Department of Resources) [2022] QIRC 416, [59] (McLennan IC); Henning v State of Queensland (Queensland Treasury) [2022] QIRC 487, [25] (Hartigan DP).