//
[2026] QIRC 94
General information, not legal advice.
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
2026-03-27
Original judgment source is linked above.
PUBLIC SECTOR - EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY - public sector appeal - application for conversion to permanent - where the Respondent asserts that there is not a continuing need for the Appellant's employment - where the Appellant submits that there is an operational requirement for her employment - where the Respondent conducted a proper review of roles - where the Respondent has determined that the role will not exist - where the decision appealed against is confirmed - where the appeal is dismissed
Directive 02/23: Review of non-permanent employment cl 1
Godbee v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 012
Rice v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 029
[1] This decision assumes familiarity with the previous decision of Industrial Commissioner Power.[1] Power IC ordered that the State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) ('the Respondent'):
[2] The Respondent conducted this review ('the second review') and provided written notice to Ms Rice ('the Appellant') which is the subject of the Public Sector Appeal before me for consideration.
[3] In refusing Ms Rice's request for conversion to permanent, the decision-maker says
In regard to your current position, I have reviewed the position status of both the position you are currently occupying and the position of the same in your team. I can advise you that as a result of the Commissioner's 100 day Review of the Queensland Police Service, and the ongoing structural rebalancing of the organisation (including the redesigning of the IT operating model and the proposed transfer of key functions from the Frontline and Digital Division to the Finance Division) the Senior Executive Leadership Team ('SELT') have determined that there is not a continuing need for these non-permanent temporary positions to be performed, and the determination was subsequently also made not to extend the funding for these positions past their scheduled cessation dated. (sic)
After considering whether there was a continuing need for you to perform the same position, I then conducted a review of positions across the QPS which could be considered substantially the same.
The outcome of this review was a determination that there are not any such available positions.
As such, the outcome of my review of your non-permanent employment is a determination that that (sic) I am unable to offer to convert your employment on a permanent basis. This is due to:
[4] Ms Rice filed her Appeal Notice in the Industrial Registry on 9 March 2026.[2] Ms Rice submits that she does not 'believe the decision is compliant to the order issued by commission' in Power IC's decision. Within her Appeal Notice, Ms Rice says that:
I would like to point out the 2nd QPS Decision (again) does not set out the findings on material questions of fact or refer to any evidence on which those findings were based with regard to my role or one substantially the same. I would like to request that my appeal be allowed, and the 2nd QPS Decision which I'm appealing against be set aside and substituted with a decision that I be permanently appointed to the position AO6 Senior Investment & Performance Officer.
[5] The Respondent filed submissions in the Industrial Registry on 17 March 2026.[3] The Respondent submits that Ms Rice's contentions that the second review did not adequately 'set out the findings of material questions of fact or refer to any evidence on which those findings were based with regard to the Appellant's role or one that is substantially the same' is completely misconceived.[4] The Respondent states that Power IC required the Respondent to consider:[5]
[6] The Respondent cites s 115(1)(a) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act') which sets out the requirements for material question of fact:[6]
... the employee's chief executive must decide whether to
(a) continue the employee's employment according to the terms of the employee's existing employment; or
(b) offer to convert the employee's employment to a permanent basis.
[7] The Respondent notes that Ms Rice originally applied for review of her employment on 12 May 2025 and that 'the effluxion of time since' is demonstrative that the material question of fact - whether or not Ms Rice's employment should be made permanent - is so plainly obvious that it speaks for itself.[7]
[9] The Respondent goes on to outline its findings:[10]
[10] The Respondent goes onto outline the investigative actions it took prior to making the above findings:[11]
[11] The Respondent's submissions then set out the internal timeline for decision-making that led to the second review, stating that:[12]
To provide full transparency as to QPS process, our organisation has a total of approximately 17,500 employees. There are many requests that relate to staffing on which decisions have to be made at the Senior Executive level. To facilitate a timely decision-making process, the requests in each individual Deputy Commissioner's area are brought to them on a weekly basis, and a decision is made. These decisions are then ratified monthly by the SELT. This matter was brought to the Deputy Commissioner for a decision in the week prior to the notice being disseminated to the Appellant on the 24 February 2026. The SELT then ratified the Deputy Commissioner's decision at the monthly meeting on the 12 March 2026.
[12] In addition, the Respondent submits that the current policy of 'the Queensland Government at large means that where costs can be saved, they must be'.[13] The Respondent submits that it has met all obligations in accordance with the PS Act and the Directive 02/23: Review of non-permanent employment ('the Directive') in making the second review.[14] It is submitted that the decision not to convert Ms Rice to permanent is fair and reasonable,[15] and that I ought to confirm the decision of the Respondent and dismiss the Appeal before me for determination.[16]
[13] Ms Rice says that the decision she received does not comply with the requirements of the PS Act and the Directive. Ms Rice also says the decision does not address the concerns raised in the original process in that it does not refer to evidence or other material on which the findings were based. Ms Rice says that the letter did not contain 'supporting contemporaneous evidence' and that the level of detail it contained could not stand up to an external review.
[14] Ms Rice says that in her earlier appeal, Power IC advised that the QPS needed to demonstrate that consideration had been given to identifying a role substantially the same and that where there was an absence of such a consideration, the decision could not be considered fair and reasonable. Ms Rice also refers to a previous decision of the Commission which stated that a decision needs to refer to the evidence relied upon to support the conclusion, for example, some details of other roles considered and why some might have been rejected.[17]
[15] Ms Rice includes emails from her manager and her direct supervisor in support of her appeal. In these emails, Ms Rice's colleagues express concerns about the latest review of Ms Rice's employment and state that they do not think adequate consultation had occurred regarding the role no longer being required and the operational requirement for the role.[18] Ms Rice submits that these two colleagues are best suited to ascertain the operational requirements or alternative workforce options available as they have first-hand knowledge of her skills and ability, particularly in circumstances where another role is being addressed.
[16] Regarding the 100-Day Review the Respondent relies upon, Ms Rice says that no detail is provided as to the impact of the review on her role and if the implementation of recommendations has started. Ms Rice says that the letter should have contained 'things like the schedule for implementation and what consultation has occurred to date, to be of value to the process'. Ms Rice also notes that the decision letter did not reference the 100-Day Review Report (though I note that the decision letter does reference the 100-Day Review).
[17] Ms Rice refers to a previous decision where the Commission accepted the appellant's submission that an external review was not a process which would imminently impact the future of a higher classification role in which the appellant was acting.[19]
[18] Ms Rice also refers to another decision where the Commission found that the possibility of something changing in the future does not constitute a genuine operational requirement precluding permanent appointment.[20]
[19] Ms Rice refers to a recent decision of the Commission where it was accepted that while the Respondent had argued the 100-Day Review may impact a role, it had not been explained when or how that review will impact the position, when the review would be completed or any consultation following the review.[21]
[20] Ms Rice notes that the decision provides no evidence of a decision not to extend funding beyond its scheduled cessation date. Ms Rice also notes that funding is not a prerequisite to a conversion.[22]
[21] Ms Rice says that while the decision letter asserts that there is no role substantially the same into which Ms Rice could be converted, that assertion is not explained. Ms Rice says that the Respondent hasn't explained 'why there isn't a need for someone with strong financial skills and QPS experience' such as herself. Ms Rice attaches a copy of her resume and brings to my attention that no request for her resume was made by the Respondent when conducting a review of similar roles.
[23] Ms Rice submits that the Respondent has attempted to remedy shortcomings in the decision by 'introducing findings, actions, evidence and an enhanced level of detail that were not provided at the time the decision was made'.
[24] Ms Rice submits that it is not fair or reasonable to rely on post-decision material to justify the decision under review. Ms Rice says that advice before the Commission about the deliberations of the Senior Executive Leadership Team in the time after her decision was received was not available to her at the time of the decision.
[25] Ms Rice notes the decision of the Commission which led to the fresh review of her request for conversion where Power IC said, '[w]hilst the written submissions address the reasons in more detail, a Respondent cannot rely upon submissions on appeal to cure a significant deficiency with respect to the requirement to provide adequate reasons'.[25]
[26] Ms Rice notes that the PS Act establishes employment on a permanent basis as the default basis of employment in the Queensland public service.
[27] Ms Rice confirms that she meets the eligibility criteria for conversion and that there have been no suitability concerns raised. To that end, she again refers to the statements of support provided by her manager and supervisor.
[28] Ms Rice summarises her grounds for appealing the decision:
[29] It is not in dispute that Ms Rice has met the requirements to request a review of her temporary employment or that she is suitable for appointment.
[30] Ms Rice's request to be converted from temporary to permanent has been refused on the basis that there is no continuing need for her to be employed in her role or a role that is substantially the same.[28]
[31] The decision provided to Ms Rice makes it clear that the decision that there is no continuing need for her to be employed in her role has been made because of the Commissioner's 100-Day Review. The decision informs Ms Rice that the Senior Executive Leadership Team has determined that there is no continuing need for the positions and that a decision has been made not to fund them beyond their scheduled cessation date. For Ms Rice, this means that the advice she received in the decision that her role will end on 31 March 2026 has not changed and her employment will end on that date.
[32] While Ms Rice argues that advice that funding will not continue for the role was not confirmed until after the date of the decision and it should not be taken into account, I am of the view that the information is relevant. It confirms that an operational decision has been made that there is no need for Ms Rice to continue in the role because the role is ceasing to exist next week.
[33] I am satisfied that Ms Rice has been provided with written reasons as to the basis upon which it has been determined that there is no continuing need for her to be employed in the role.[29]
[34] I have had regard to the previous Commission decisions Ms Rice has referred to in her submissions. Each case turns on its own facts. I understand that the Commission has previously found that the existence of a review on its own is not sufficient to establish that there is no continuing need for someone to perform their role. The most relevant of the decisions Ms Rice refers to is the decision of Godbee where the Respondent relied on the 100-Day Review to refuse conversion and this was rejected by the Commission. Ms Rice's case can be distinguished from Godbee on the basis that the Respondent's decision in Godbee was made in the first half of 2025 while the 100-Day Review was still underway and there had been no explanation provided as to the direct impact of the review on the position in question.
[35] Ms Rice's situation is markedly different. The 100-Day Review was completed and published in mid-2025. The Senior Executive Leadership Team has clearly commenced implementing changes resulting from the review and has 'determined that there is not a continuing need for these non-permanent temporary positions'. Ms Rice's situation is not hypothetical. A decision has been made, and the enactment of that decision is imminent.
[36] If there was any question about whether the organisation was committed to the decision to end the non-permanent positions, that question is answered by the email dated 12 March 2026 confirming that no further funding will be available and the positions will indeed end.[30]
[37] One of the reasons the Commission returned the matter to the Respondent on appeal was that the decision did not inform Ms Rice that consideration had been given to whether there is a continuing need for her to perform a role that is substantially the same.[31]
[38] In the decision under appeal before me, Ms Rice has been informed that the Respondent conducted 'a review of positions across the QPS which could be considered substantially the same' as the one she is currently employed in. The decision informs Ms Rice that it was determined there were no such positions.
[39] While it is possible the decision-maker could have informed Ms Rice that the review was undertaken by way of a search of the Aurion system used by QPS, I do not find that a failure to communicate specifically how the review was undertaken is a significant enough deficiency to render the decision not fair and reasonable.
[40] Ms Rice refers to a decision of the Commission which states that a decision should provide the employee of some examples of the positions which were considered and why they were not deemed substantially the same. In this case, it was determined that there were no available positions substantially the same as the one Ms Rice is performing. In those circumstances, I do not think it was necessary for the QPS to describe positions which are not available.
[41] Ms Rice has provided her resume and has questioned why the Respondent did not ask for her resume when undertaking a search for positions substantially the same as the one she is performing. Ms Rice's submissions to this end misunderstand what is required of the Respondent when conducting such a review. The Respondent is not required to identify other roles Ms Rice may be able to perform with her experience, qualifications and skills. What is required, is a review of positions 'substantially the same' as the one Ms Rice is employed in.
[42] There is no reason for me to believe the Respondent did not conduct a search of roles that are substantially the same. Ms Rice has not provided me with any information to suggest that there are roles substantially the same as hers that are available and have not been identified by the Respondent.
[43] I understand that the decision letter did not contain the specific explanation provided in the Respondent's submissions that the review of roles was undertaken using the 'Aurion' HR Database. As I stated above, I do not find that omission serves to make the decision not fair or reasonable. And even if I did, there would be limited utility in returning the matter to the decision-maker to remedy this omission. It is already the case that this appeal has had to be undertaken within a truncated time frame to determine the outcome prior to the end of Ms Rice's temporary engagement on 31 March 2026.
[44] I understand Ms Rice's supervisor and manager have provided information to advocate that there is a continuing need for her to be employed in the role and that they were not consulted about the decision to not convert her employment. Both of Ms Rice's colleagues have argued that there is an operational need for Ms Rice to continue in her role.
[45] As the decision has been made that Ms Rice's role is not continuing and will end on 31 March 2026 and that there is no role substantially the same to which she may be appointed, s 114(3) is not satisfied and so the Respondent was not required to go on and consider the matter of whether there are genuine operational requirements making it not viable or appropriate to convert her employment to a permanent basis.[32]
[46] While there will be times where local level evidence is compelling in demonstrating there is a continuing need for a role, a review of the Respondent's decision does not necessarily require the Commission to review the consultation which may or may not have occurred at a local level via a supervisor or manager. I am required to consider whether the decision of the Respondent, that there is no continuing need for the role, was fair and reasonable.
[47] The decision informs Ms Rice why it has been determined her role is not continuing. The decision informs Ms Rice that a review was undertaken to see if there were any positions substantially the same and that none were identified.
[48] While the PS Act establishes employment on a permanent basis is the default basis of employment in the Queensland public sector, and that employment on a temporary basis happens only if there is a reason for that basis of employment under the Act,[33] this is not a decision which determines that Ms Rice will continue to be employed on a temporary basis despite there being a continuing need for her to be employed in the role. In this case, the decision is that her role will end.
[49] While Ms Rice says too much weight has been placed on the fact that the role was created as a temporary position and has not been permanently funded, the Respondent is not relying on that as a reason for its decision. The Respondent does not argue that the role is to remain temporary and that it does not have permanent funding. The Respondent has determined that the role will no longer exist.
[50] While other decisions of the Commission have determined that too much weight has been placed on 'the mere existence of a review and/or a restructure which may never impact on [the employee's] role', this matter is not analogous. The review is real, has been completed, has begun to be operationalised, and the senior management of the Respondent have made a decision based on the review.
[51] For completeness, I have reviewed the decision of Power IC which has led to the fresh review decision which I am now considering on appeal.
[52] Power IC found that the previous decision did not provide details about consideration given to whether there was a continuing need for Ms Rice to perform the role 'beyond an assertion that the role is 'temporary for a specified period and purpose''. Power IC found that the decision did not set out findings on material questions of fact or refer to the evidence on which those findings were based. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the decision I am reviewing gives Ms Rice information about the consideration given to whether the role was continuing and provides findings on material questions of fact as to how that determination was made.
[53] Power IC identified the that while the original decision contained a table setting out Ms Rice's temporary employment history, it did not meet the requirement of s 115(4)(c) to state how many times Ms Rice's non-permanent employment had been extended. I am satisfied that the decision I am reviewing has met the requirement of s 115(4)(c).
[54] Power IC identified that the original decision did not consider whether there was a continuing need for Ms Rice to perform a role substantially the same. I am satisfied that the decision I am reviewing informs Ms Rice that a review of roles substantially the same was undertaken and none were identified.
[55] The decision under appeal contains the mandatory content required by the legislation and the Directive. It is often the case that more information or detailed reasons could have been provided in a decision. However, where all the mandatory content is included, and the employee is provided with enough information to understand why the decision was made, the absence of further detailed information will not render a decision not fair and reasonable.
[56] It is clear to me that the decision not to convert Ms Rice's employment to permanent has been made due to the 'ongoing structural rebalancing' of the organisation following the Commissioner's 100-Day Review of the Queensland Police Service. This has been explained in the decision. The decision otherwise contains the information required by the legislation and Directive.
[1] Rice v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 029.
[2] Appellant's Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 9 March 2026.
[3] Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 17 March 2026.
[17] Power v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation) [2021] QIRC 053 [37].
[18] Ms Rice's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 24 March 2026 Attachment B and Attachment C.
[19] Brew v State of Queensland (Office of the Public Guardian) [2021] QIRC 188.
[20] Singh v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2024] QIRC 275 [36].
[21] Godbee v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 012 ('Godbee') [54].
[22] Citing Toby v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 222 [38] and Gatla v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 436 [38].
[23] Ms Rice's submissions (n 18) [12].
[25] Rice v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2026] QIRC 029 [41].
[26] s 177(1)(e) and 120 of the PS Act.
[29] s 115(4)(a) of the PS Act.
[30] Respondent's submissions (n 3)Appendix E.
[31] As required by s 114(3)(a) of PS Act.
Rice
State of Queensland