McLennan v Industrial Relations Secretary o/b NSW State Emergency Service [2025] NSWIRComm 1105

In late 2024, an article referring to the Appellant and the 2019 Convictions appeared in a national newspaper. By that time the Appellant had secured promotion and held a relatively senior position with the Respondent's Zone management structure. Amongst other things, the article noted the Appellant, in an interview with the nation's health regulator some years earlier, had admitted "he had studied nursing but did not complete a qualification".

The article prompted an internal investigation by the SES. The internal investigation resulted in findings that the Appellant had been deliberately dishonest in:

(a) recording "Bachelor of Nursing University of Sydney, 1998" and "MBA (management) Monash University, 2005" under the heading "Education" in a curriculum vitae he had relied upon in securing employed positions with the Respondent; and

(b) had entered "Bachelor Degree", "Bachelor of Nursing" from the "University of Sydney", with a completed date of "DEC-1998" in an online application used to obtain each of those positions;

in circumstances where the Appellant did not hold a Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney (albeit he had studied 1 year of that degree), and had not even enrolled in a Masters of Business Administration from Monash University (albeit he had undertaken a couple of undergraduate subjects from that University).

After following the process required by Part 8 of the Government Sector Employment (General) Rules 2014, the Appellant was directed to resign. When he did not resign he was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the disciplinary action on the grounds that he had not been deliberately dishonest (but rather had been careless) in the preparation of his CV and the online application form, and that removal was a disproportionate disciplinary action.

The Commission found the Appellant had engaged in the misconduct found by the Respondent, that removal from the public service was the appropriate disciplinary action, and in those circumstances the appeal was dismissed.

1. These proceedings concern an appeal under Part 7, Public Sector Disciplinary Appeals, of Chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (the IR Act), by Mr Scott McLennan (the Appellant), the former Deputy Zone Commander of the North-Eastern Zone of the NSW State Emergency Service (the SES), of the decision of Mr Damien Johnston, Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Services to dismiss him (an "appealable decision"[1]). He seeks orders that he be reinstated to his former position.
2. The Appellant commenced as a volunteer with the Respondent on 19 August 2019. On 30 June 2022, the Appellant applied for and in August 2022 secured the role of Zone Community Capability Officer, Northern Zone as a casual. On 7 March 2023 the Appellant applied for and in May 2023 secured, that role on a full-time temporary basis. On 19 August 2023, the Appellant applied for and in October 2023 secured, the position of Deputy Zone Commander, Southern Zone. Shortly thereafter he laterally transferred into the Deputy Zone Commander, North-Eastern Zone. He held that position until his dismissal.
3. As part of securing each of the employed positions with the SES, the Appellant was called upon to complete an online application and submit a curriculum vitae (CV).
4. The Appellant was dismissed by way of letter from Mr Johnston dated 18 August 2025 (after the Appellant had refused to resign, having been given the opportunity to do so by letter dated 15 August 2025), for having engaged in misconduct. The misconduct found by the Respondent was recorded in a letter of 21 July 2025:

"Allegation 1

1. In your applications to NSW SES for the following roles

a. Community Capability Officer (which you were appointed to on 1 August 2022);

b. Community Capability Officer (which you were appointed to on 28 April 2023);

c. Deputy Zone Commander (which you were appointed to on 16 October 2023)

you included a Curriculum Vitae, which contained the following detail:

"Bachelor of Nursing University of Sydney, 1998" and "MBA (management) Monash University, 2005" under the "Education"

heading on page 3 and 5 of the relevant CVs (attached), in circumstances where you do not hold and have never completed a Bachelor of Nursing or an MBA (management).

Allegation 2

2. On or about 28 September 2023, you signed the confirmation of acceptance of employment for the position of Deputy Zone Commander at NSW SES which included the terms and conditions of your employment, including the following statement:

"I assert that any qualifications and other documents produced in support of my application are genuine, and I understand that if they are found to be false or misleading, my employment may be terminated."

1. Mr Johnston considered the allegations were substantiated on the balance of probabilities, and in those circumstances the Appellant:

(1) had "been dishonest in relation to three job applications for roles at the SES" he had attained, and thereby was in breach of the Respondent's Code of Conduct and Ethics (specifically, he had not acted ethically, responsibly or honestly and did not uphold the reputation of the NSW SES, referring to cl 4.1 and 4.2 of the Code), noting clause 9.5 of the Code permitted pre-employment misconduct to be taken into account; and

(2) was also in breach of cl 3.1 of the Respondent's Fraud and Corruption Policy because he obtained a benefit, namely employment at the SES, by deception.

1. In these proceedings, the Appellant argued he had not engaged in misconduct. He claimed he was not dishonest but rather was careless in how he completed the Taleo e-recruitment form and the way he drafted his CV, and that to dismiss him was, in all the circumstances, disproportionate, harsh, unjust and unreasonable. I do not accept either submission. For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

1. The background to this application is largely uncontroversial. The immediately relevant facts were helpfully outlined in a Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts filed 4 November 2025. What follows reflects the Agreed Facts supplemented with uncontroversial aspects of the evidence (unless otherwise stated).
2. The Appellant was born in 1973. After having served in the Australian Army and Royal Australian Army Medical Corp (where he trained as a medic), the Appellant spent the next 20 years engaged in various positions, "mostly management roles". One such role was as General Manager of "The Rose", a medical practice based in Western Australia (WA) that incorporated a number of other services, including a wellness and beauty service known as "Face Forward". The Appellant's employment as the General Manager of The Rose came about after he was offered it by an "old friend", Dr Kate Morlet-Brown, who was a doctor with a speciality in oral surgery. Dr Morlet-Brown apparently had a number of business interests, including a training business that was jointly owned with Appellant, known as "The Aesthetic Academy". The Aesthetic Academy provided doctors, dentists, and nurses instruction in how to give Botox and other cosmetic injections.
3. In the course of their business relationship, the Appellant (he says at Dr Morlet-Brown's instruction), administered devices (dermal fillers, Light Based energy devices, microdermabrasion) and medicines (Botox, fillers, chemical peels, and topical/oral medications) on Dr Morlet-Brown's behalf (and he says under her direct supervision). The Appellant says he understood that administering certain cosmetic products was not prohibited under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) (the National Law) until amendments came into effect in August 2018. Once the National Law was amended, the Appellant understood that only health practitioners such as nurses under supervision could administer injectables. The Appellant maintains that "at no time had I held myself out to be a registered nurse, and that he always worked under the direction and supervision of the prescribing doctor[2].
4. Whatever be the Appellant's position, a complaint was made against him resulting in an investigation by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), and ultimately the laying of charges alleging the Appellant had held himself out as being a practitioner registered under the National Law, in the period between August and November 2018, in the context of his employment at Face Forward.
5. The Appellant's relationship with Dr Morlet-Brown broke down and the Aesthetic Academy collapsed, costing the Appellant a significant amount of money (he says in the hundreds of thousands of dollars). He relocated from Western Australia to New South Wales in December 2018 to assist in the operation of his family's farm as his father was very unwell (he passed away in January 2019).
6. It is not entirely clear when the Appellant was charged, but it is clear the prosecutions initiated by AHPRA were ongoing after the Appellant had relocated to New South Wales. The Appellant says he could not afford to instruct lawyers to defend the WA proceedings brought by AHPRA, nor the airfares to attend. He maintains he advised the prosecutor and Court he could not attend the hearing but could appear via AVL. It would appear the proceedings were adjourned at least once, but on 21 November 2019, in his absence the Appellant was convicted of two offences of knowingly or recklessly claiming or holding himself out to be registered as a registered nurse under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) and fined a total of $15,000 (2019 Convictions). I note Magistrate Millington of the Western Australia Magistrates Court observed in his extempore decision on 21 November 2019 that he was satisfied the prosecution had made the Appellant aware of the hearing on that day[3].
7. The Appellant says he never saw the Statement of Facts handed to the Western Australia Magistrates Court on 21 November 2019 and, now having seen them, does not agree with those facts. That, however, is of no present significance as the Respondent did not rely upon the 2019 Convictions as part of its reasons for dismissing the Appellant.
8. The Appellant says he was unaware of the 2019 Convictions until he was shown a Western Australian News article, dating to 19 November 2019 and published online in March 2020.
9. By that time the Appellant had relocated from Western Australia to New South Wales and commenced as a volunteer member of the SES. He says (Ex A1 at [29]), he applied to volunteer with the Respondent "as the first step in rebuilding my life and reputation following the events in Western Australia".
10. The SES is a volunteer-based emergency service agency which serves the community of NSW as the lead agency in response to floods, storms and tsunamis. It is established by the State Emergency Service Act 1989 (SES Act), and is made up of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and other staff employed under Part 4 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (NSW) (the GSE Act), and volunteer officers and volunteer members of SES units.
11. Operationally, the SES is divided into geographical zones. There are some 7 zones across the State, including the North Eastern Zone, operated from Lismore. Each zone is led by a Zone Commander, and supported by a Deputy Zone Commander and a Zone Team. Each zone includes various volunteer units that cover one or more Local Government Areas. There are approximately 260 units across the State. Each volunteer unit is led by a Unit Commander, and the majority are supported by an appointed Deputy Unit Commander.
12. The SES has approximately 11,000 volunteers across NSW which make up roughly 95% of the organisation by headcount across various units. It employs approximately 600 staff working across the Corporate Services, Operations and Capability, and Training portfolios.
13. As noted above, in July 2019 the Appellant applied to become a volunteer member of the SES and commenced on 19 August 2019. The Appellant says when he became aware of the 2019 Convictions in March 2020, he verbally disclosed them to the SES volunteer chain of command. In its written evidence, the Respondent says the first it became aware of the 2019 Convictions was when the Appellant made a disclosure in the context of applying for a casual position as Zone Community Capability Officer in mid-2022. However, in his oral evidence, Mr Johnston said he had no reason to disbelieve the Appellant in this connection. I accept the Appellant's evidence that he verbally disclosed the 2019 Convictions when he became aware of them in March 2020.
14. On 30 June 2022, the Appellant applied for the role of Zone Community Capability Officer as a casual. As part of that application, the Appellant prepared and submitted a CV which, under the heading "Education" recorded the following (bolding is in original, underlining added):

"EDUCATION

TAFE NSW, MANAGING PUBLIC INFORMATION IN AN INCIDENT 2022

FORSYTHES TRAINING, CERTIFICATE IV IN TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT 2020

MONASH UNIVERSITY, MBA (MANAGEMENT) 2005

SYDNEY COLLEGE, CERTIFICATE IN INTERIOR DESIGN, 2004

UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, BACHELOR OF NURSING 1998

• Senior First Aid - St Johns Ambulance

• Mental Health First Aid - Mental Health First Aid Australia

• Working With Children - NSW Government

• Responsible Service of Alcohol - Tafe NSW

• Food Safety Supervisor - TaFE NSW

• Volunteer Leadership Programme - AIDR

• Emergency Management - Resilience NSW

• NDIS Vulnerable Persons - NDIS

• Aged Care Management - My Aged Care

• Heavy Vehicle Driver Management

• HR License"

1. In addition, he completed an online application form in the Taleo E-Recruitment system. A print of the information recorded in that system was in evidence[4]. Under the heading "Education", the print of the information recorded in that application states the following:

"Education

Education 1

Program Institution Date of completion

Nursing University of Sydney Dec-1998

Education Level Name of Qualification

Bachelor's Degree Bachelor of Nursing"

1. There were two other "Education" entries made by the Appellant in the Taleo system. The first, identified as "Education 2", referred to a "Certificate in Managing Public Information in an Incident" from "TAFE NSW", identified as "Other" under "Education Level", and recorded to have a "Date of completion" of "Feb-22". The second, under the heading "Education 3", was recorded as a "Certificate in Enterprise Training", identified as "Education Level" "Technical Qualification" from the "Institution" "Forsythes Training" recorded to have a "Date of completion" of "Aug-2020".
2. The Respondent called evidence of three senior managers, one of whom had participated in one of the Appellant's recruitment processes as an "independent panel member". Questions were asked of the Respondent's three witnesses, Mr Johnston, Ms Duncan and Ms Crawford, about the operation of the Taleo system, and how the information is entered into that system by an applicant. Mr Johnston and Ms Duncan indicated they did not have sufficient familiarity with the system to give firm evidence about its use from the perspective of an applicant. Ms Crawford said in her role she did not 'own' Taleo (which I understand to mean its management is not within her direct line of responsibility), but in her experience dating to when she applied for her current role (some 4 or so years ago), she recalled there being free-text entry in the Education fields, meaning an applicant was in control of what information the inserted into the fields in the Taleo system.
3. There is a factual dispute between the evidence of the Appellant and that of Ms Crawford as to whether the user interface associated with entry of the relevant fields in the Taleo E-recruitment system relating to Education, involve the use of a drop down menu from which an applicant makes a selection amongst fixed options (as the Appellant recalls it), or whether there is the capacity to enter free text into the relevant fields (as Ms Crawford recalls it).
4. Whilst I have some doubt about it (for example, I have some doubt that "Name of Institution" and "Name of Qualification" were fixed drop down entries), and I accept Ms Crawford was doing her best to recall and assist me in describing her use of the Taleo system, I am prepared to accept the Appellant's evidence in this connection. That is to say, I accept the Appellant did not have the capacity to free-hand type the information recorded in the Taleo E-recruitment system under the heading "Education" at the relevant times.
5. That said, there is no dispute that it was open to the Appellant to not complete the Education component of the Taleo application at all, or even if an entry were to be made for Education, that it was open to leave un-entered a record in the field "Date of Completion". In those circumstances, the fact the Appellant entered information he self-evidently knew to be factually incorrect (not the least of which was the "Date of completion" for the Bachelor of Nursing was Dec-1998), is not excused by the fact the system limited the information that could be entered into it. That is particularly so where that information was also reflected in the CV he prepared in his own terms, that contained similarly false information.
6. It is not in dispute that during the recruitment process for that position the Appellant discussed the fact of the 2019 Convictions with staff involved with the recruitment process, and consented to a National Police Record check. On 1 August 2022, due to an "urgent need to strengthen community preparedness in the wake of the Lismore Floods"[5], the Appellant commenced casual employment with the SES as a Zone Community Capability Officer, Northern Zone, prior to the Respondent having received the completed criminal record check. The criminal record check outcome confirmed, amongst other things, the Appellant had been charged and convicted in the Perth Magistrates Court of two counts of knowingly or recklessly claiming or holding himself out to be registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) contrary to section 116(1)(c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act (WA) and fined a total of $15,000.
7. The 2019 convictions were not convictions for a "serious offence" within the meaning of s 69 of the GSE Act, as they were not punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more. That, and the nature of the offences as described by the Appellant in his discussions with management after his disclosure, led the Respondent to the view the Appellant could continue as a volunteer and as a casual employee of the SES[6]. Ms Sarah Crawford, Director People and Development for the Respondent, subsequently wrote to the Appellant on 1 December 2022 confirming that position, saying[7]:

"I have considered your convictions and all relevant information available. It is my view that you can continue as a member and a casual employee of the NSW SES, on the basis that you fulfil your duties in a manner that is consistent with the attached NSW SES Code of Conduct and Ethics, the core values of the NSW SES and any procedures and instructions of the NSW SES. In particular, I ask that you note Section 4.1 Ethical behaviour and decision making and Section 5.1 Conduct while off duty of the SES Code of Conduct and Ethics."

1. On or around 14 December 2022, as required by Ms Crawford in her letter of 1 December 2022, the Appellant signed an undertaking which confirmed he had reviewed and understood the NSW SES Code of Conduct.
2. I pause to recognise that was an entirely fair and appropriate way of dealing with the Appellant's disclosure of the 2019 Convictions. The 2019 Convictions were not themselves identified as a reason for the Appellant's dismissal and so can largely be put to one side.
3. On 7 March 2023, the Appellant applied for the full-time temporary role of Zone Community Capability Officer, North Eastern Zone with the SES. As part of that application, the Appellant submitted his CV in relevantly the same terms (albeit in a different form) as provided to the SES on 30 June 2022 extracted above and again completed an application in the Taleo E-recruitment system that recorded the same data extracted above under the heading Education.
4. I note in his oral evidence the Appellant described some aspects of the information in the application created in the Taleo system for this new position was pre-populated by the Taleo system, presumably drawn from the data in earlier applications lodged through that system, including the information as to Education[8]. He did not, however, say it was not open to him to amend it. It is also clear that the CV he submitted for this role[9] was an updated version of the CV he submitted back in June 2022. Specifically as to "Education"[10], the information in the bullet points that appear in the extract at paragraph [20] above were removed, and the relevant information (in bold in the extract above) was in a different form, indicating the Appellant did turn his mind to the content of the "Education" part of his CV to some extent in preparing this updated CV.
5. The Appellant was successful with his application and commenced in his new role on 28 May 2023.
6. On 19 August 2023, the Appellant applied for the role of Deputy Zone Commander, Southern Zone with the SES. The Appellant submitted an updated version of his CV[11], including as to what was recorded under the 'EDUCATION' heading[12]:

• Manage Operations for a Level 2 Incident
• ACIMS Solutions, 2023
• Managing Public Information in an incident
• TAFE NSW, 2022
• Enterprise Training
• Forsythe's Training, 2020
• MBA (Management)
• Monash University, 2005
• Certificate in interior design
• Sydney College, 2004
• Bachelor of Nursing
• University of Sydney, 1998"

1. Again, the Appellant completed an application in the online Taleo E-Recruitment system. Again, his application in that system listed a Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney with a completion date of Dec-1998 in the "Education" section of the Taleo E-recruitment system. On this occasion the Appellant included an additional Education 4 listing, for a further "Technical Qualification' being Manage Operations for a Level 2 Incident" from ACIMS Solutions completed July 2023.
2. Again, that the Appellant included a further listing in Education in both the CV and the Taleo application, and additionally amended the reference to the qualification from Forsythe's Training from "Certificate IV in Training and Assessment" to "Enterprise Training" in his CV, indicates the Appellant turned his mind to what the application should contain in that connection.
3. The Appellant was successful with this application and signed an employment contract on 25 September 2023[13]. That contract included a condition in these terms:

"I assert that any qualifications and other documents produced in support of my application are genuine, and I understand that if they are found to be false or misleading, my employment may be terminated."

1. He commenced in his new role of Deputy Zone Commander, Southern Zone on 16 October 2023.
2. On 7 May 2024, the Appellant expressed interest in being laterally transferred to the vacant role of Deputy Zone Commander, North-Eastern Zone, and was subsequently assigned to that role on 12 August 2024. He remained in that role until he was dismissed.
3. On 6 May 2025, a journalist from The Australian newspaper contacted the SES by email. The email referred to the 2019 Convictions, made reference to "additional historical convictions in NSW for similar offending", and asked a number of questions regarding the Appellant and whether the Respondent had a 'background check' policy as part of its recruitment processes.
4. On 6 May 2025, the Appellant met with Zone Commander, Greg Swindells, Director of People and Development, Sarah Crawford, and Assistant Commissioner Sean Kearns to discuss the (then) potential article and the Appellant's prior criminal convictions.
5. Later on 6 May 2025, the Australian published an article entitled "Fake nurse turned emergency chief: Scott McLennan now holds senior role in NSW disaster service", in which reference was made to the 2019 Convictions and that the Appellant had "moved across state lines in a bid to hide his notoriety as a cosmetic cowboy in Perth". The article set out extracts from the ex-tempore decision of Magistrate Milligan of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia relating to the 2019 Convictions, and painted a very unflattering picture of the Appellant, describing him as a "convicted fraudster", amongst other things. Importantly for present purposes, the article included the following (underlining added):

"In a March 2019 phone interview with investigators working for Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, the nation's health regulator, the SES employee admitted to authorities he had studied nursing but did not complete a qualification."

1. The article led to an internal examination of the Appellant's recruitment records and on 13 May 2025, Ms Crawford wrote to the Appellant observing:

"In light of The Australian newspaper article published last week (online 6 May and in print on 7 May) I have reviewed the recruitment process and associated documents pertaining to your applications for employment with the NSW State Emergency Service.

The article raises some concerns for me about the attainment of your Bachelor of Nursing qualification as listed in your applications for the position of Community Capability Officer which you were appointed to on 1 August 2022 and following a second recruitment process for the same position which you were appointed to on 28 April 2023. The Bachelor of Nursing qualification was also listed in your application for the position of Deputy Zone Commander.

May you please at your earliest convenience and not later than Friday 16 May 2025 provide me with a certified copy evidencing your attainment of the Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney, or if preferable, provide me with your written and signed authorisation to verify your qualification with the University of Sydney directly (attached for your consideration and completion) by the same date."

1. On 16 May 2025, the Appellant responded to this request by saying (emphasis added):

"I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my academic background. On my resume, I listed under the heading Education, my studies in the Bachelor of Nursing degree at The University of Sydney, which I pursued between 1996 and 1998. While I did not complete the degree, I gained valuable knowledge and skills that have directly contributed to my professional growth.

I apologise if my wording caused any confusion, and I'm happy to update my records to reflect my educational experience more accurately. Please let me know how you'd like me to proceed."

1. I note in this correspondence Ms Crawford did not raise any concern about the MBA (Management) referred to in the CVs used to secure the various appointments. The Appellant's email to Ms Crawford on 16 May did not mention the MBA. In his evidence the Appellant suggested he had "apologised in writing" to Ms Crawford and "offered to correct the record" (Ex A1 at [49]). That, with respect, is somewhat disingenuous. It is true the Appellant did that in relation to the nursing degree, but he made no attempt to "correct the record" about the MBA (Management), or the historical reference to Certificate IV from Forsythes Training (which, as noted above, he had altered in his more recent CV).
2. I should also note the Appellant's claim to have studied nursing "between 1996 and 1998" was false. At that time, May 2025, in his initial response to the allegation relating to the Bachelor of Nursing[14], the Appellant acknowledged he commenced studying in 1996 and provided an explanation for inserting "1998" in connection with that study (ie "which I pursued between 1996 and 1998"). It would appear the Appellant recalled the accurate commencement date for that study, namely 1996. Reference to 1998 was not some clerical error or an error of recollection to the one year of study he did in pursuing a Bachelor of Nursing. The Appellant did not pursue study towards the Bachelor of Nursing between 1996 and 1998. The relevant academic transcript reveals the Appellant only studied for a year. The date 1998 was entirely false and bore no relationship to the actual study he undertook towards securing a Bachelor of Nursing.
3. Mr Johnston says that on or around 16 May 2025, Ms Crawford advised him that the Appellant had "listed a nursing degree and a Master in Business Administration on various job applications with the SES and within versions of his CV", and that the Appellant "had confirmed in writing to her that he did not hold either degree" (Ex R1 at [26]). On the evidence, the Appellant had said nothing of the MBA at this time. That appears to have been a procedural defect in connection with his suspension. That, however, in context appears to be of little significance as it is an agreed fact the Appellant does not have (and never enrolled in) a Master in Business Administration from Monash University.
4. Nonetheless, Mr Johnston became concerned the Appellant may have breached the Respondent's Code of Conduct and Ethics (the Code) and/or the Fraud and Corruption Control Policy (the Fraud Policy), in those applications. He decided to deal with these matters under the GSE Act and GSE (General) Rules, and that "it was appropriate to suspend [the Appellant's] employment on full pay, while an investigation was undertaken so as to protect the SES's interests including its reputation" (Ex R1 at [28]).
5. On 20 May 2025, the Appellant was suspended from his employment with the SES on full pay pending an investigation into an allegation of misconduct. The allegation against the Appellant was set out in a letter of that date in these terms:

"1. In your applications to NSW SES for the following roles

a. Community Capability Officer (which you were appointed to on 1 August 2022);

b. Community Capability Officer (which you were appointed to on 28 April 2023);

c. Deputy Zone Commander (which you were appointed to on 16 October 2023)

you included a Curriculum Vitae, which contained the following detail: "Bachelor of Nursing University of Sydney, 1998" and "MBA (management) Monash University, 2005" under the "Education" heading on page 3 and 5 of the relevant CVs (attached), in circumstances where you do not hold and have never completed a Bachelor of Nursing or an MBA (management)."

1. The letter continued that if substantiated, such conduct would be a breach the Appellant's contract of employment, a breach of various parts of the Respondent's Code of Conduct and Ethics, and a breach of the Respondent's Fraud and Corruption Control Policy.
2. On 2 June 2025, the Respondent received the Appellant's response to the allegations. It included, amongst other things (emphasis added):

"1. Education and CV Interpretation:

a. The curriculum vitea / resume I submitted detailed the courses and subjects I studied but did not assert that I had completed those qualifications. I apologise if this information has been misinterpreted as implying that I obtained a Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney (1998) or an MBA in Management from Monash University (2005). My studies were listed under the heading of Education - never under Qualifications. I understand that recent media coverage may have influenced the agency's interpretation of these details.

...

4. Relevance to Role Requirements:

a. It is important to note that neither the Community Capability Officer role nor the Deputy Zone Commander role requires tertiary qualifications as an essential criterion. My applications were transparent and focused on my experience and capabilities in leadership, emergency management, community and stakeholder engagement, with my educational background included solely to illustrate my areas of study, which do not directly affect my job performance.

4. Conditions of Employment

a. As specified in my letter of offer dated 25 September 2023, I was not required to provide any formal qualifications necessary for this role. At no point did I submit qualifications or indicate an intention to provide them, as I do not possess any formal qualifications relevant to my employment (apart from those gained whilst either employed or within my voluntary capacity with the agency). My Resume / CV referenced my education and did not claim possession of formal qualifications, and I did not produce or attempt to produce any qualifications."

1. On 6 June 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Appellant confirming that the matter would be dealt with under the Part 8 of the Government Sector Employment Rules 2014 and seeking clarification of some perceived inconsistencies between his response and the information submitted on the online Taleo E-recruitment system applications (noting the allegations in the 20 May 2025 letter referred solely to the CV). Specifically, the letter said "Please provide me with an explanation as to why the information provided in your response is inconsistent with information provided in your online applications in the Taleo E-recruitment system in relation to your stated completion of a Bachelor of Nursing. Please provide a response in writing to the above within 7 days of the date of this letter".
2. On 13 June 2025, the Respondent received the Appellant's email "clarification". In it the Appellant said, amongst other things (my emphasis):

"Clarification of Educational Background

Regarding my academic history:

- In my resume, I listed my educational experiences under "Education" rather than "Qualifications." In this context, I referenced the courses and subjects I studied, including my studies at the University of Sydney.

- In my applications submitted via the Taleo E-recruitment system, a checked box indicated the date when I finished studying for the Bachelor of Nursing at the University of Sydney (completion date: Dec-1998).

O This selection reflected the timeline of my studies, but did not state that a degree was awarded, because it was not.

O At no point during my application process with the NSW SES have I claimed possession of this qualification.

- My resume also noted my studies at Monash University; however, this was not included in the Taleo system. The difference in presentation formats may have contributed to confusion, and I regret any misunderstanding.

- My tenure at NSW SES has undergone at least three reviews, each conducted by a separate recruitment panel, assessing my suitability for the respective roles to which I was successful on three (3) occasions.

- I have been fully transparent regarding my background, including the disclosure of my criminal record and having discussions with the Professional Standards team, and I continue to operate with integrity and openness."

1. Again, as with the Appellant's submission dated 16 May 2025 referred to above, the claim that the selection of Dec-1998 in the Taleo application "reflected the timeline of [the Appellant's] studies", and "indicated the date when I finished studying for the Bachelor of Nursing at the University of Sydney" was false.
2. Mr Johnston did not accept the Appellant's explanation, forming the view the claim he "did not assert that I had completed those qualifications" in his CV was "disingenuous" and inconsistent with the content and context of the information set out in the CVs and the information entered into Taleo[15]. He considered the Appellant had been dishonest in respect of the three job applications and had thereby breached the Code and the Fraud Policy. In his evidence he said (at [38]):

"I was also particularly concerned that Mr McLennan's provision of false or misleading information and his disingenuous response to my letter, together with his 2019 convictions, suggested a total lack of honesty and integrity, and a lack of insight into his conduct. Accordingly, I formed the preliminary view that Mr McLennan's conduct justified the termination of his employment after providing him the opportunity to resign."

1. On 21 July 2025, the respondent provided the Appellant with a letter setting out its formal findings of misconduct and provided him with an opportunity to make a submission in relation to the proposed disciplinary action of termination with opportunity to resign. The misconduct found is extracted at paragraph [4] above.
2. On 4 August 2025, the Appellant provided submissions in relation to the proposed disciplinary action. The submission raised four essential elements (my emphasis):

1. Allegation 1 - No Intent to Mislead or Deceive

I acknowledge that my curriculum vitae listed two educational entries: a Bachelor of Nursing, University of Sydney (1998) and an MBA (Management), Monash University (2005) under the "Education" heading. I wish to reiterate:

• These entries were never presented as completed degrees, and at no point did I use post-nominals or list them under a "Qualifications" heading.

• These courses were genuinely commenced, and while not completed, the subjects studied contribute meaningfully to my educational background and capabilities.

• Had I been asked to clarify my academic status during any of the three recruitment processes I was comparatively assessed and subsequently successful, I would have provided a full and accurate account of the units completed.

I maintain that the intent behind listing these courses was not deceptive. However, I acknowledge and now better understand how the format and date inclusion has retrospectively /subsequently been interpreted as implying conferral.

2. Allegation 1 - Not Misconduct in Isolation

Allegation 1 should not automatically amount to misconduct in the absence of dishonest intent or material effect. A finding of misconduct under the GSE Act and Code of Conduct requires more than a mere technical or clerical oversight. Without intent, and without material reliance on those entries, I respectfully submit that this falls short of the threshold required under clause 40(1)(a) of the GSE Rules.

3. Allegation 2 - Interpretation of "False or Misleading"

While I signed the confirmation of acceptance on 28 September 2023, which included a declaration that all information submitted was genuine and not misleading, I respectfully submit:

• It is a matter of interpretation whether the information in question was misleading. My position is that the CV was a genuine and honest representation of my educational history.

• At no point did I attempt to present forged documents or claim degrees I did not hold.

• The CV was intended to communicate educational experience, not qualifications.

• The ambiguity in presentation, while now apparent, does not equate to dishonesty or deliberate misconduct.

I understand and accept that I should have taken greater care in how this information was structured. Nonetheless, the inclusion was made in good faith and without intent to deceive or derive benefit through misrepresentation.

4. Rebuttal of "Benefit by Deception" and Procedural Concerns

Respectfully, I reject the assertion that I obtained a benefit by deception. There is no evidence to support an intention to deceive or that these entries were material to my appointments. Further:

• None of the roles I applied for required tertiary qualifications as an eligibility criterion, especially in Nursing.

• My applications were based on experience, demonstrated capability, and contributions to NSW SES over many years, not formal academic credentials.

I remain deeply committed to the values and mission of NSW SES. I regret any confusion caused by my CV formatting and will uphold the highest standards going forward."

1. On 13 August 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Appellant notifying him that his employment would be terminated if he did not resign by 15 August 2025.
2. The Appellant did not resign. The Respondent terminated his employment on 18 August 2025 but effective from 15 August 2025, for the reasons set out in the letter of 21 July 2025.

1. The Appellant relied upon written submissions dated 27 October 2025 (the ASUB[16]), elaborated upon orally, and his statement filed 27 October 2025[17] (with various annexures). He also gave some additional oral evidence on his use of the Taleo system and was cross-examined. The Appellant's submissions can be reduced to the following central propositions:

(1) The Appellant's dismissal was an overreaction by the Respondent to an acknowledged poorly worded curriculum vitae that erroneously described his educational history[18]. The Appellant acknowledges his error and apologises for it[19], but submits that he was not deliberately dishonest and to dismiss him in all the circumstances is harsh, unjust and unreasonable[20].

(2) The Appellant had "undertaken subjects in the nursing degree and in the MBA course but had not completed those degrees"[21]. For that reason he recorded his educational history under the heading Education rather than Qualifications in his CV. He accepts that what he recorded was in error. The error the Appellant made was "in the manner in which he described his educational history"[22]. That educational history was irrelevant to the selection of the Appellant for the roles for which he had applied[23]. The qualifications he referred to were not essential requirements for the roles he was seeking[24]. The Respondent calls no evidence to indicate the interview panels for the positions placed any reliance on the CV references to Education[25], and he was not asked any questions in relation to his educational background in the interviews[26]. The Appellant's CV otherwise described his experience over the previous 20 years in different management roles - that experience was of greater relevance to the roles he was applying for. He was chosen for the position on the basis of merit[27] in light of that experience.

(3) The nursing degree had been commenced but not completed. The error in relation to the MBA "was due to the [Appellant's] bad recollection of a course he had undertaken 20 years ago"[28]. The error was "due to a lapse in memory and not dishonesty"[29]. The Appellant denies that he deliberately included qualifications in his three applications he knew he never held and never completed[30]. There is no evidence to suggest the Appellant intended to mislead anyone in the way he completed his CV[31]. The Appellant was not dishonest - this case is distinguishable from Tham v Hertz Australia Pty Limited T/A Hertz [2018] FWC 3967 and DPP v Flanagan.[32] In all three applications, the Appellant "never stated that he held certain qualifications nor had he provided any documentation to support any such assertion".[33] He was careless in the preparation of his CV, not dishonest.

(4) Insofar as the Taleo e-recruitment forms were concerned, that online application process "required answers by way of a checked box that did not allow any explanations to be included", which meant the Appellant "had to indicate when he had finished studying for the Bachelor of Nursing degree at the University of Sydney, which was 1998", reflecting "the timeline of his studies in that course but was not intended to state that a degree had been awarded to him because it had not"[34].

(5) The issues with his CV came about following media enquiries and an article in the Australian newspaper relating to the Appellant's conviction in Western Australia in 2019, before he relocated to New South Wales and began a connection with the Respondent[35]. The Respondent had known about that conviction from prior to his employment at all, having disclosed it to his local management when a volunteer in 2020[36]. There had been no performance issues at all, and no conduct issues with the Appellant prior to that which gave rise to his dismissal[37].

1. The Appellant additionally raised a contention the Respondent had not complied with the mandatory disciplinary process outlined in Part 8 of the Government Sector Employment (General) Rules 2014 (the GSE Rules). Specifically, Allegation 2 first appeared in the 21 July 2025 Show Cause letter, and in that same letter was found substantiated, without the Appellant having been heard at all. The Respondent did not comply with the obligation to put the Appellant on notice of the allegation of misconduct reflected in Allegation 2 and give him an opportunity to respond before making any finding of misconduct, as required by rules 38(3) and (4) of the GSE Rules[38].
2. It was submitted to dismiss the Appellant in all the circumstances was harsh, unjust and unreasonable for a number of reasons, including (but not limited to):

(1) The decision-maker erred in finding that Mr McLennan had attempted to deceive the NSW SES by including in his CV tertiary qualifications that he did not hold, and erred in not accepting the explanation of the Appellant that he was not claiming to have a Bachelor of Nursing degree and an MBA (management).

(2) The decision-maker did not give any, or any proper consideration to a number of factors, including the possibility that Mr McLennan had simply erred in the manner he had described his educational history in his CV, to the Appellant's unblemished employment record and contributions he had made to the NSW SES, to the fact that there were no essential tertiary qualifications for the roles the Appellant had secured, and to the fact that there was no evidence the interview panels had relied on the Appellant's educational history ( as set out in his CV) to select him for the relevant positions.

(3) The decision-maker was unfairly influenced by media publicity about the Appellant that was impliedly critical of the NSW SES, in deciding to terminate the Appellant. That is particularly so in circumstances where the Respondent knew of the WA convictions and elected to continue to employ the Appellant in any event.

(4) The decision-maker erred in not giving any proper regard to the fact that the Appellant's applications were focused on his experience, capabilities in leadership, emergency management, community and stakeholder engagement, with his educational background included to illustrate his areas of study.

1. The Respondent relied upon an outline of written submissions filed 30 September 2025 (the RSUB)[39], an outline of reply submissions dated 4 November 2025 (the RSUBR)[40], supplemented with brief oral submissions, and statements (with various attachments) of:

(1) Ms Sarah Crawford[41], the Director People and Development for the SES;

(2) Ms Toni Duncan[42], Acting Strategic Recruitment Partner, Northern Zone; and

(3) The decision maker, Mr Damien Johnston[43], Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Services, for the SES.

1. Each of the Respondent's witnesses were required for cross-examination. The Respondent also tendered a bundle of records produced by the AHPRA under summons (Ex R5), relating to the 2019 Convictions.
2. The Respondent's submissions can be reduced to the following core propositions:

(1) This is not a case of an employee who on one occasion overstated their position in a resume, was caught, confessed and apologised. The Appellant was repeatedly dishonest in his preparation of 3 separate job applications. His dishonesty did not come to light until inquiries were made by the Australian newspaper (related to his conviction for dishonest conduct in WA). When called to account, the Appellant provided responses that were themselves dishonest.

(2) The Appellant's misrepresentations were not ambiguous. In his application for each of his positions he had falsely represented that he was educated to a "Bachelor's Degree" level with a date of completion of "Dec-1998" and held the qualification of "Bachelor of Nursing". The CV he updated and submitted in support of each application falsely represented, under the heading "Education", "MBA (management), Monash University, 2005" and "Bachelor of Nursing, University of Sydney, 1998", neither of which he held. The Commission should be satisfied that the Appellant was dishonest with respect to the contents of his resume and employment applications, as Mr Johnston found.

(3) The disciplinary powers exercised in relation to public sector employees are protective in nature. In the context of this proceeding, those disciplinary powers have been properly utilised by the SES to protect the NSW public from a man with a history of dishonesty from occupying a senior position within an important public organisation. The importance of honesty and integrity cannot be overstated having regard to the nature of the SES' statutory functions.

(4) The disciplinary sanction was appropriate in the circumstances.

1. There was no dispute as to the proper approach to determining an application under Part 7 of Chapter 2 of the IR Act. The leading authority is the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Marroun v State Transit Authority [2017] NSWCA 273. Their Honour's judgment was helpfully summarised by Commissioner O'Sullivan in Lusty v Industrial Relations Secretary o/b the Department of Communities and Justice (Corrective Services NSW) [2023] NSWIRComm 1016 at [24]:

"The Court of Appeal in Marroun v State Transit Authority [2017] NSWCA 273 set out the proper approach to the determination of appeals made under Part 7 of the IR Act, which is:

(1) It is an appeal by way of fresh hearing, in that the Commission stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker;

(2) the Commission is required to consider whether the written allegation of misconduct is made out and constitutes misconduct for the purposes of ss 69(1) of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 ((NSW) (the "GSE Act"),

(3) if the Commission does not find that the alleged misconduct is made out, then the appeal is allowed; and

(4) if misconduct is made out, the Commission is required to determine whether the disciplinary action, in this case dismissal with the opportunity to resign, is appropriate or should it be some lesser form of disciplinary action."

1. The two "written" allegations are set out in paragraph [4] above. The facts are largely uncontested, which is to say the agreed facts include that:

(1) The Appellant:

(a) submitted a CV for each of the positions identified by the Respondent, that recorded under the heading Education, Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney, MBA (Marketing) from Monash University; and in relation to the two full-time positions

(b) completed a form in a relevant software system used by the Respondent to manage recruitment known as the Taleo E-recruitment system, in which he listed Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney with a completion date of Dec-1998 in the "Education" section of the system.

(2) The Appellant does not hold a Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney or any other institution.

(3) The Appellant does not hold an MBA (Marketing) from Monash University or any other institution and had never even enrolled in any such course.

(4) The Appellant does not hold a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment from Forsythes Training or any other institution.

1. The Appellant, quite properly, raised a procedural fairness (and compliance) issue regarding Allegation 2. Specifically, that Allegation 2 appeared for the first time in the letter of 21 July 2025, at which time the Appellant was advised it had been found proven. That was not consistent with rule 38 of the Government Sector Employment (General) Rules 2014 (specifically, subrules 38(3)-(5), as the Appellant was not advised of the detail of that allegation and a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to it, before the Respondent decided to deal with the allegation under Part 8 of those Rules: cf rule 38(5)). However, in circumstances where Allegation 2 is a finding necessarily consequential on the finding made regarding Allegation 1 (specifically, that the CV, being a "document produced in support of" the Appellant's application for the Deputy Zone Commander position was false), upon which the Appellant was properly heard, I do not consider that procedural defect is of any practical significance. He was not denied procedural fairness in that connection.
2. The Appellant denies that he was deliberately dishonest in the way he completed his CV on each occasion, and in the way he completed the Taleo E-Recruitment system online application forms. He says the errors in those application processes were the product of faulty recollection, and miscommunication, rather than deliberate dishonesty. In that connection, the evidence demonstrates:

(1) The CV he submitted for the Zone Community Capability Officer in June 2022 was one he had prepared some time ago, but that he had "updated" it in May 2022 (including "every new employment position [he] had obtained")[44]. It was further updated with his employment in the SES in the process of applying for the later positions.

(2) The Appellant had "commenced studying for various qualifications and did some subjects in other courses" dating back to 1992. In that connection he:

(a) Studied and passed various subjects in an Associate Diploma of Business (Management) in 1992, although he did not complete the course.

(b) Began studying a Bachelor of Nursing in 1996, but did not go beyond that year. He said he believed if he had continued with the course "I believe that I would have completed it in 1998"[45].

(c) The Appellant never enrolled in a Master of Business Administration with Monash University. His evidence about this was as follows:

"I had updated my CV in May 2022 before I applied for the role of casual Community Capability officer. At the time, I had held the honest belief that I had completed some subjects in the MBA (Management) course at Monash University in 2003. However, after obtaining my academic record from Monash University, I realised that this was incorrect, as I had enrolled in an undergraduate course in psychology and marketing rather than the MBA, which I had intended doing. My mistake was one due to memory lapse rather than dishonesty. I did not pull out my various academic and other transcripts when drafting my CV, as I had misplaced many of these over the years when changing residences, but had foolishly relied on my memory. I annex and mark "F", a copy of the record of my studied subjects that I received from Monash University.

Annexure "F" is a "Monash University Unofficial Student Academic Record", showing in 2003 the Appellant had obtained fail grades (and consequently no credit points) in two subjects "Marketing: Theory and Practice" and "Psychology 1A". Two other units are referred to for that year, but it would appear he did not obtain a grade at all for those units.

(d) The Appellant had obtained statements of attainment for from St John Ambulance Australia in relation to CPR, emergency first aid and basic first aid (dating to November 2020), initial training as a Health and Safety Representative from Konekt (dating to September 2023), and from Forsythes Training in relation to Enterprise Trainer-Presenting Skill Set (dating to June 2020).

1. The Appellant's evidence as to his conduct generally in this connection was as follows[46]:

"35. When I drafted my CV, I included all the courses I could recall that I had done that I believed were relevant to the role I was applying for and placed these under the heading 'Education' because I did not want to mislead anyone. If I had been asked any questions about these courses in any interview, I would have explained that I had done subjects within them but had not attained that qualification.

36. I had never asserted that I had completed or held those qualifications. The mistake I made was in the way I had checked boxes on the Taleo E-recruitment system, which did not allow you to add in any information. The year that I added after each course was the year I completed the course, or the year I would have completed it if I had completed the course. I appreciate now how this could have been misinterpreted.

37. I never produced any falsified or false degrees or certificates to support my CV. My "crime" was a poorly drafted CV, which I have acknowledged."

1. There is no factual dispute that in the applications he made for the three employed positions held with the SES, the Appellant:

(1) Submitted a Curriculum Vitae as part of the application process which stated "Bachelor of Nursing University of Sydney, 1998" and "MBA (management) Monash University, 2005" under the heading "Education"; and

(2) That was done in circumstances where the Appellant did not hold and had never completed a Bachelor of Nursing or an MBA (Management).

1. The issue is whether, as Mr Johnston found, the Appellant had "been dishonest in relation to [the] three job applications for roles at the SES", and had thereby breached the Respondent's Code of Conduct and Ethics (specifically, he had not acted ethically, responsibly or honestly to uphold the reputation of the NSW SES, referring to cl 4.1 and 4.2 of the Code), and cl 3.1 of the Respondent's Fraud and Corruption Policy because he obtained a benefit, namely employment at the SES, by deception.
2. Mr Jaloussis for the Appellant submitted I ought not find that the Appellant had been dishonest but rather careless in the completion of the CVs and in the completion of the Taleo E-Recruitment records in connection with each of the three job applications. He invited me to accept the Appellant had prepared the CV some time ago and updated it as to his work history, but had shown insufficient care in the entries made under the heading Education (emphasising the use of heading "Education" in the CV, as distinct from "Qualifications"). He invited me to accept the Appellant's explanation for what he had intended by the specific entries.
3. Regrettably, I do not accept the Appellant's explanations. The Appellant's evidence as to the manner in which he completed the CVs and Taleo e-recruitment applications relied upon in the relevant recruitment exercises is not only inherently implausible, but is internally inconsistent and in at least one respect demonstrably false.
4. In his response to the Show Cause Notice, the Appellant said (amongst other things), "My position is that the CV was a genuine and honest representation of my educational history". It was not. That claim is demonstrably false. On the evidence, the actual position as to the Appellant's educational background was as follows.
5. Insofar as the Bachelor of Nursing is concerned, the evidence makes clear the Appellant commenced but did not finish that degree. It is also clear to the extent the Appellant completed some study in that connection, he did not cease studying in December 1998. The evidence he gave in Ex A1 (at [34(d)]) was (my emphasis):

"I began studying for a Bachelor of Nursing degree in 1996. I did not go beyond that year. If I had, I believed that I would have completed it in 1998. I annex and mark "E", a copy of my Transcript of Academic Record.

1. The Transcript of Academic Record confirms the Appellant's study did not go beyond 1996 (CB pg 380). In his oral evidence when confronted with this issue, the Appellant prevaricated and so I sought to clarify his position. He gave this evidence[47]:

"Q. Have you completed a Bachelor of Nursing?

A. I have studied a Bachelor of Nursing, but I have not completed.

Q. Did you complete a Bachelor of Nursing in 1998?

A. No.

Q. So that date 1998 is completely made up, isn't it?

A. It was the year, I believe, that I was finishing studying.

COMMISSIONER

Q. Sorry. So I understand your evidence, are you saying that is the year you believe you finished studying what you did study of a Bachelor of Nursing, or are you saying that's the date you think you might have finished if you'd stuck with it?

A. In hindsight, I believe--

Q. No, which is it?

A. I believe it was the year that I finished studying, but when I looked at the transcript, I looked - it looks like the year that I should have finished - I should have completed the year.

1. In my view, it is clear the Appellant entirely made up the date recorded in his CV (1998) and the "completed" date in the Taleo E-Recruitment record "Dec-1998". The submission made to the employer in the course of the disciplinary process and to this Commission that the Taleo entry recorded "when he had finished studying for the Bachelor of Nursing degree at the University of Sydney" and "reflected the timeline of his studies in that course but was not intended to state that a degree had been awarded to him because it had not" (ASUB at [6]), is just not true. The year 1998 bore no relationship to the actual study the Appellant had undertaken in connection with the Bachelor of Nursing. Whatever be the inflexibility of the "Date of Completion" field in the Taleo system, the evidence is he need not have recorded anything in it[48] (noting he need not have included the Bachelor of Nursing in that online application at all as it was not an essential qualification). As for the reference to a Bachelor's Degree and 1998 in the CV, they were typed by him and entirely in the Appellant's own terms.
2. As for the MBA (Management) 2005, it is an agreed fact the Appellant had not even enrolled in such a course, let alone completed it. The position he maintained in his submissions to the Respondent in the course of the disciplinary process, did not say that.
3. The claim that he was 'transparent' in his CV is demonstrably false. At no stage prior to these proceedings, did the Appellant state he did not hold a Certificate IV from Forsythes Training. He never volunteered that information to the Respondent prior to his dismissal. Similarly, as to the MBA, his evidence was (Ex A1 [34(e)], CB pg 365, underlining added):

"In preparing this statement I requested a copy of my academic record from Monash University. I had updated my CV in May 2022 before I applied for the role of casual Community Capability officer. At the time, I had held the honest belief that I had completed some subjects in the MBA (Management) course at Monash University in 2003. However, after obtaining my academic record from Monash University, I realised that this was incorrect, as I had enrolled in an undergraduate course in psychology and marketing rather than the MBA, which I had intended doing. My mistake was one due to memory lapse rather than dishonesty. I did not pull out my various academic and other transcripts when drafting my CV, as I had misplaced many of these over the years when changing residences, but had foolishly relied on my memory. I annex and mark "F", a copy of the record of my studied subjects that I received from Monash University."

Annexure F suggests the Appellant had enrolled in four subjects at Monash University in 2003, not 2005 as referred to in the CVs, but did not complete two of them, and secured fail grades for the two he did undertake. I can well appreciate the frailty of human memory, but I simply cannot accept that the Appellant somehow confused a single incomplete and unsuccessful semester doing undergraduate psychology and marketing units with having enrolled in (let alone having completed) an MBA. When confronted with this in cross-examination, the Appellant's evidence was[49]:

Q. Have you ever completed an MBA?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever enrolled in an MBA?

A. I thought I was enrolled in an MBA.

Q. Sorry. Have you ever enrolled in an MBA?

A. I thought I had, but apparently I haven't.

Q. How can you confuse an MBA with an undergrad psychology degree, I'm interested?

A. I can't answer.

1. The Appellants evidence was he "held the honest belief that I had completed some subjects in the MBA (Management) course at Monash University in 2003". I do not accept that evidence. It is simply unbelievable (and in any event, does not explain the use of 2005 in the CV).
2. Part of the Appellant's case is that neither the Bachelor of Nursing or MBA (Management) were relevant to the positions for which he applied. His evidence in that connection is inconsistent. They were not essential pre-requisites for the positions, but in the Appellant's own statement he said (at [35], my emphasis):

"When I drafted my CV, I included all the courses I could recall that I had done that I believed were relevant to the role I was applying for and placed these under the heading 'Education' because I did not want to mislead anyone. If I had been asked any questions about these courses in any interview, I would have explained that I had done subjects within them but had not attained that qualification."

1. In his oral evidence, in answer to a question from me (having prevaricated in answering similar questions from the Respondent's counsel), the Appellant reluctantly accepted that they were "relevant to the role" because in his mind they would enable him to stand apart from those other applicants with whom he was competing for the relevant role[50]. So much is perhaps obvious given none of the entries under the heading "Education" in his CV (or in the Taleo system) were essential pre-requisites for the role.
2. When asked why he didn't simply record in his CV that he had only partially completed any of the courses he referred to under the heading Education, the Applicant said "I don't know"[51] (I note he denied that he had done that to hold himself out as having qualifications he did not in fact hold, but I do not accept that evidence). The Appellant's claim in his internal submission to the Respondent was that he referred to his "educational background ... solely to illustrate my areas of study..." is inherently unbelievable. If that is what the Appellant had intended, he would have recorded a description of the courses and subjects he studied. Despite his claim to have done that, the terms of the CVs show he did not.
3. The Appellant's use of the word "Education" rather than "Qualifications" as the relevant heading in his CV is, in my view, of no significance. His emphasis on the use of that heading appears a disingenuous attempt to explain away what is otherwise obvious. What the Appellant describes in bold text under that heading in the CV, using the first CV as the illustration for this purpose, are in fact qualifications: a "Certificate IV" (which the Appellant did not hold at the time), an "MBA (Management)" (which the Appellant did not even commence), a "Certificate in Interior Design", and a "Bachelor of Nursing" (which the Appellant never completed), are a list of qualifications. They are certainly not a list of "courses and subjects [he] studied" (as he said in his internal submissions to the Respondent), or "courses I could recall that I had done", as he said in his statement in these proceedings.
4. The claim he never held himself out as having held certain qualifications made in his statement (at [36]), in his submissions (ASUB [40]), and repeatedly made in cross-examination, is disingenuous and plainly not true. That is precisely what the Appellant represented in his CV on each occasion. That is precisely what the Appellant did in referring to the Bachelor of Nursing in the Taleo e-recruitment system.
5. The evidence that the Appellant would, if he had been asked any questions about the courses in interviews, explain "he had done subjects ...but had not attained that qualification", is self-serving and disingenuous. When I asked the Appellant how anyone from the Respondent would have any indication that he had not completed the "UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, BACHELOR OF NURSING 1998" or the "MONASH UNIVERSITY, MBA (MANAGEMENT) 2005" as described in his CV, he simply said "I'm sorry, Okay"[52].
6. I well appreciate the distinction between the rejection of a person's evidence and a finding they have been untruthful or dishonest[53], and that the Commission should not be "reasonably satisfied" of an act involving "grave moral delinquency" by "inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences"[54], particularly in a disciplinary context. I also readily accept that recalling dates or events from decades ago when, for example, preparing a CV, is challenging. One could readily understand if the Appellant had been wrong in recalling dates, or in recalling the name or title of studies he had undertaken. But I simply cannot accept that by using the words he used in his CV and presenting them in the form he did, the Appellant was trying to do other than communicate he had a Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney, secured in 1998, and an MBA from Monash University, secured in 2005 (and for that matter, a Certificate IV from Forsythes Training secured in 2020, in the CV used in the first two applications), none of which was true. The Appellant did not indicate in any way that those studies were incomplete (not by listing the subjects he had in fact completed, or even by a simple notation such as "incomplete" after the description of the qualification). In my view, that was deliberate. This was not "a mere technical or clerical oversight".
7. I am conscious that limited weight ought be afforded a witnesses demeanour in making critical findings on credit, but it would be remiss of me to not record the Appellant was not an impressive witness (or, as the recitation of the evidence above itself makes clear, an accurate historian). He would often prevaricate or avoid direct answers to questions asked of him by counsel for the Respondent. His oral evidence, like the accounts given in his internal submissions pre-dismissal and in his written evidence, was often implausible, and was internally inconsistent.
8. In my view, having regard to the various accounts given for what was recorded under the heading Education in his CV and in the Taleo e-recruitment system, in his internal submissions prior to dismissal, his written evidence in this Commission, and having observed the Appellant give his evidence, I am firmly of the view the relevant entries under the heading Education in each of the Appellant's CVs was a deliberate attempt by the Appellant to communicate he held specific qualifications, namely a Bachelor of Nursing and an MBA (Management), secured in 1998 and 2005 respectively, so that he would stand out from his competition, knowing full well he did not hold those qualifications.
9. Insofar as the nursing qualification is concerned, that is reinforced by not only the fact he chose to include reference to the Bachelor of Nursing in the Taleo application at all (which he need not have done, given it was already referred to in his CV), but also by recording 1998 as the date he completed that degree (which mirrored the disingenuous use of 1998 in the CV). Insofar as the Certificate IV from Forsythes Training in the first two applications is concerned, it is also reinforced by the Appellant's identification of it as a "Technical Qualification" under the "Education Level" in the Taleo system.
10. I agree with the misconduct found by the Respondent, which is to say:

(1) I find, as set out in Allegation 1, that by his actions the Appellant was dishonest in his applications for the each of the three positions he secured with the Respondent, and thereby acted contrary to cl 4.1 of the Respondent's Code of Conduct and 3.1 of the Fraud Prevention Policy (I do not necessarily accept it is also a contravention of cl 4.2 of the Code, but that is of no significance to the resolution of this appeal).

(2) I find Allegation 2 is made out. That is to say, I agree the Appellant's CV is a document produced in support of his application for the Deputy Zone Commander position, and that it was both false and misleading in a material particular (indeed, more than one material particular).

1. Affirming the finding of misconduct is not the end of the inquiry in an appeal under Part 7 of Chapter 2 of the IR Act. The final question is whether the disciplinary action, in this case dismissal (after having been given the opportunity to resign), is the correct and preferrable disciplinary action.
2. In that connection I recognise the Appellant's untruthful description of having held a Certificate IV from Forsythes Training in the first two CVs (but changed in the third) was not one of the elements of the misconduct relied upon at the time of dismissal. It is relevant to an assessment of the Appellant's credit worthiness, and as a matter going to relief.
3. The evidence (particularly the oral evidence of Ms Crawford and Ms Duncan), demonstrates that in making a decision to recommend a candidate for recruitment in a circumstance where a tertiary or other qualification is not a pre-requisite for the position:

(1) An Appellant's educational experience may be a relevant consideration as part of the initial culling process to narrow the field of candidates who may be interviewed for a position, but is not likely of particular significance in the comparative assessment undertaken in selecting a candidate; and

(2) The comparative assessment used in selecting from amongst the short-listed candidates involves an assessment of the individual against the focus capabilities (which is built on the public sector capability framework) for the particular position (in particular, the Essential Requirements for that position).

1. The evidence does not permit a finding that the Appellant's description of his "Education" in his CV (and/or the Taleo applications) was irrelevant to his recruitment into any of the three positions he secured - which is to merely acknowledge it may well have influenced whether his application was discarded in the initial culling process. However, the evidence does suggest the Appellant's description of his "Education" in his CVs was likely of limited practical significance in that process (and certainly of limited significance beyond that initial culling exercise).
2. Ms Duncan, who was an "independent panel member" of the selection panel that recommended the Appellant for one of the Community Capability Officer roles the Appellant ultimately secured, gave frank evidence that she was not able to recall what, if any, significance the Appellant's educational history had in the culling process prior to interview, or in the selection of the Appellant for that role following interview.
3. There was no evidence at all of what, if any, significance the Appellant's account of his Education in his CV (or in the Taleo system) had in the recruitment processes for the other two positions that inform Allegation 1 (noting he had been laterally transferred into a different Deputy Zone Commander position some time prior to his dismissal). Ms Crawford confirmed that the 'hiring manager' for at least two of the positions that inform Allegation 1, continued to be employed by the Respondent[55]. They were not called in the Respondent's case. I infer their evidence would not have assisted the Respondent's case in that connection (although that is of limited significance in the resolution of this application).
4. As I understand the evidence of both Ms Duncan and Ms Crawford, it is likely the Appellant's performance at interview (together with the employment experience described in his CV about which no issue is taken), was what led to him securing each of the positions relevant to these proceedings, rather than the relevant entries recorded in his CV under the heading Education. That would appear entirely consistent with:

(1) The "Primary Purpose" of the role of Zone Community Capability Officer (CB pg 369), and the "Primary Purpose" and "Key accountabilities" of the Deputy Zone Commander (CB pg 287-288) as recorded in their respective position descriptions; and

(2) The "Essential Requirements" of each of the positions of Zone Community Capability Officer (CB pg 371), and the Deputy Zone Commander (CB pg 289).

1. For example, the Essential Requirements of the Deputy Zone Commander position were:

"• Demonstrated experience in the control and management of emergency operations, including the ability to develop and conduct operational training exercises

• Willingness to become a qualified Incident Controller Level 2 within 12 months, with capacity to undertake the Level 3 qualification if required

• Ability to travel, work on-call and out-of-hours as required

• Thorough knowledge of AIIMS principles and processes, and/or willingness to obtain competence within 12 months"

1. "AIIMS principles" refers to the principles of the Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System, which is the decades old nationally recognised framework used by organisations working in emergency management for the command, control and coordination of emergency and non-emergency incidents.
2. It would appear highly likely the Appellant's years of experience as a volunteer member of the SES (from 2019) and as an employee in the role of Zone Community Capability Officer (from 2022 onwards), together with the internal training he had through the Respondent, were of much greater significance in his selection for the Deputy Zone Commander role than any reference to a Bachelor of Nursing dating to 1998 or an MBA (Management) from 2005, recorded in his CV.
3. In assessing the appropriate disciplinary action, I am otherwise mindful the Appellant is 52 years of age and that no complaint is made in connection with his work performance as either a Zone Community Capability Officer or Deputy Zone Commander, or his conduct more generally.
4. To paraphrase a well-known passage from the judgment of Haylen J in Sewell v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2008] NSWIRComm 93 at [131][56], a Code of Conduct should not be treated as a monolith but should be viewed as a blueprint with layers indicating what should be the behaviour of a public servant. Those layers should also acknowledge a role for flexibility, compassion and fairness in dealing with the variety of human behaviour that will be called for review. Similarly, to again borrow from the jurisprudence under s 181E of the Police Act 1990, it is not every failure to achieve the highest standards of integrity, regardless of its level of gravity, that ought result in the dismissal of a public servant.[57]
5. The power to discipline a public servant is protective of the public interest. It is not exercised merely to punish an individual[58], albeit I recognise the distinction between punitive and protective measures can be elusive[59]. That an order will have punitive effects may be relevant in formulating a protective order. The fact disciplinary action has punitive effects on an individual may remind the Commission that a protective order should be limited to that which is reasonably necessary to provide the required level of public protection. [60]
6. If this were a case of an employee who overstated their position in a resume, was caught, confessed, owned their mistake and apologised, and otherwise shown themselves to be a good employee, I would have had little difficulty in accepting disciplinary action resulting in the termination of their employment would not have been the preferable outcome. As Basten JA observed in Lambert (at [83]), "the harrowing experience of disciplinary proceedings, together with the real threat of loss of a livelihood may have opened the eyes of the individual concerned to the seriousness of his or her conduct, so as to diminish significantly the likelihood of its repetition", and permit a finding "that the person concerned has achieved a level of insight into his or her own character or misconduct, which did not previously exist". That, however, is not this case.
7. Whilst the Appellant claims being called to account by this disciplinary process has been a salutary lesson, his continued attempts to describe his CVs in the internal disciplinary process as a "genuine and honest representation of [his] educational history", or as a "mere technical or clerical oversight", or that "The mistake I made was in the way I had checked boxes on the Taleo E-recruitment system", or that he intended to communicate his educational experience (that he detailed the courses and subjects he completed) and not qualifications, render that evidence unbelievable. On my findings, not only was the Appellant repeatedly dishonest in the preparation of documents (his CV and the online Taleo e-recruitment applications), but when called to account by the Respondent the Appellant provided disingenuous and false responses to the Respondent's initial inquiry (following the published article in the Australian), and then again when he was faced with specific allegations.
8. Dishonesty in the preparation of a CV or in the preparation of other documents for use in a recruitment process is serious. In DPP v Flanagan [2015] VCC 1084, Mr Flanagan, upon a plea of guilty to four offences of obtaining (or attempting to obtain) a benefit by deception, was sentenced to a lengthy community corrections order (coupled with 400 hours of community service and other supervisory conditions). He had obtained (or attempted to obtain) high level paid employment by presenting to employers "grossly fraudulent resumes and having friends lie when they were contacted by the employers to enquire about [his] work history".
9. The facts were very different to those in this case, but in the course of describing the nature and seriousness of the offences in the context of sentencing, Judge Mullaly of the County Court of Victoria noted (at [6]) the significant cost to business in connection with recruiting staff, that such dishonest conduct undermines the trust employers need to have in candidates for jobs (emphasising "The whole process of recruitment relies on honesty"), and importantly that Mr Flanagan had "secured these jobs in a competitive field over genuine candidates who lost an opportunity to get a job they wanted and were probably well suited for".
10. As his Honour said, the whole process of recruitment relies on honesty. Dishonesty in that context fundamentally undermines the trust and confidence and employer ought have in its employees, particularly someone at the level of Superintendent, Deputy Zone Commander, in an organisation such as the SES.
11. The Respondent emphasised the importance of honesty and integrity of its employees having regard to the nature of the SES' statutory functions, and in particular in the position of Deputy Zone Commander. It was submitted the Respondent's loss of trust and confidence was justified, and I should be satisfied the "disciplinary powers have been properly utilised by the SES to protect the NSW public from a man with a history of dishonesty from occupying a senior position within an important public organisation". I agree.

1. The Appellant's appeal under Part 7 of Chapter 2 of the IR Act is dismissed.

[1] See sections 91(1) and 97(1) of the IR Act.

[2] Applicant's Statement CB Tab 8 pg 363 at [19].

[38] ASUB [39] [41] - [42], [56(l)].

[44] Applicant Statement CB Tab 8 pg 365 at [32].

[45] Applicant Statement CB Tab 8 pg 365 at [34(d)].

[46] CB Tab 8 pg 366 at [35] - [37].

[47] TS 13/11/2025 pg 79 lines 24 to 44.

[49] TS 13/11/2025 pg 80 line 6 to 17; see also pg 88 line 38.

[50] TS 13/11/2025 pg 80 line 26 to pg 81 line 34.

[52] TS 13/11/2025 pg 84 line 12 to 19.

[53] See for example Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Sewell [2008] NSWIRComm 147; (2008) 180 IR 91 at [19], referring to Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 36; (1992) 176 CLR 256 at 268 (Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ), at 271 (Deane J); and O'Reilly v Law Society of New South Wales (1988) 24 NSWLR 204 at 230, referred to with approval by the Full Bench in Toshack v Commissioner of Police [2009] NSWIRComm 31, 181 IR 420 at [39] .

[54] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 362.

[56] Affirmed by the Full Bench on appeal Commissioner of Police v Sewell [2008] NSWIRComm 147 at [20], and referred to with approval by the Commission, including the Full Bench, on a number of occasions since (see for example Toshack v Commissioner of Police [2009] NSWIRComm 31; (2009) 181 IR 420).

[57] To paraphrase the comments of Boland J, President in Alexander v Commissioner of Police [2009] NSWIRComm 3 at [48]; Toshack v Commissioner of Police (2009) 181 IR 420; [2009] NSWIRComm 31 at [46] .

[58] See generally Director-General, Dept of Ageing, Disability and Home Care v Lambert [2009] NSWCA 102 and Secretary, Department of Justice v Schoeman [2014] NSWIRComm 40 at [174].

[59] Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2004) 220 CLR 129; [2004] HCA 42 at [32].

[60] See Director-General, Dept of Ageing, Disability and Home Care v Lambert [2009] NSWCA 102 at [83] per Basten JA referring to Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153 at [101], referred to with approval by the Court of Appeal in Police Association of New South Wales v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 3 at [110].