Stevenson v State of Queensland

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 129, sch 2

• [1] Ms Catriona Stevenson is a Nuclear Medicine Technologist (HP3), Nuclear Medical Imaging, Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service ('SCHHS'). Ms Stevenson applied for an advertised role of Nuclear Medicine Technologist Senior (HP4) on a permanent part-time basis. Ms Stevenson was not the successful candidate for the role.

• [2] Ms Stevenson appeals the decision to appoint another candidate to the role. In her Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 13 October 2025, Ms Stevenson provides her reasons for appeal. In summary they are:

• The interview process places systemic barriers against neurodivergent people, resulting in indirect discrimination to neurodivergent applicants, and a lack of neuroinclusion.

• No policy mandates that the panel must be as intimidating as possible and refuse to participate in a two-way method of communication, yet this is how the panel acts.

This does not reflect communication in the real world and goes against the Qld Health mandatory training on communication, which makes the point that communication must go back and forth until both parties understand what is being communicated. This is an appalling and limiting double standard. It is unhelpful for all, but especially for neurodivergent candidates, who often require extra clarification.

• The panel was not required to consider experience or previous work of the applicant. My interview performance was considered more important than my previous years of work in the department, which is significant. My contribution to the department (through projects, protocol updates, etc) is also greater than the successful applicant. It also means I was assessed not on my ability to perform the role, but on unrelated skills (how to "sell" myself in an interview or say certain buzzwords).

• The person with the least experience (only 3.5yrs) was given a senior role over applicants with 5-20 years of experience. Because the applicant with 3.5yrs experience was more arrogant and talked themselves up more than the person with 20 years of experience, they got the role. This makes a farce of the entire hiring process.

• Character of the successful applicant does not reflect SCUH values (particularly integrity). Since the interview, the successful applicant has stopped pulling their weight in the clinical work of the department and goes for more/longer breaks than she is entitled to. She often takes her lunch breaks at inconvenient times, forcing her colleagues to cover her share of the work. This is all known by management.

• The successful applicant was told ahead of time how many interviews there would be, and that all would be internal applicants. The applicant quietly shared this information with the other applicants, but no other applicant was formally told this information. This casts a shade over the legitimacy of the entire process.

• Queensland Health has recently become a registered Hidden Disability organisation. This is an incredible initiative that will help many living with hidden disabilities, including those who are neurodivergent. I believe it is past time that Queensland Health recruitment processes caught up with research into this area and inclusive processes. The system needs to change to be more inclusive for all neurotypes.

• [3] The Respondent submits that it followed a procedurally compliant recruitment process and that the decision by the delegate to appoint the panel's recommended candidate was fair and reasonable based on the information available to them. The Respondent submits that the recruitment process was not procedurally deficient.[1]

• [4] The Respondent notes that the successful applicant retains their substantive HP3 position while concurrently appointed to the HP4 role. In these circumstances, the Commission may find that the appointment does not constitute a 'promotion' within the meaning of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act').

• [5] The Respondent says that while the appointment may appear to constitute a promotion; upon proper consideration of the concurrent employment arrangement, it does not alter the employee's substantive classification and therefore may fall outside the meaning of a 'promotion' under the PS Act.[2]

• [6] In reply, Ms Stevenson states that the appointment is for a higher classification than the applicant's original position (albeit two-days per week) and is a permanent appointment. Ms Stevenson says that the Respondent has 'failed to reference any particular section of the PS Act in their attempt to discredit my claim'.[3]

• [7] The PS Act provides the following definitions:[4]

promote, a public sector employee, means employ the employee at a higher classification level, whether or not on different duties, other than temporarily.

promotion decision, for chapter 3, part 10, see section 129.

promotion decision means a decision to promote a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis.

• [8] I have not had the benefit of detailed submissions on this point. However, my preliminary view is that the definition of promotion provided for in the PS Act is quite broad. The definition provided in the PS Act does not include words that would limit the 'promotion' as relating to an employee's substantive permanent role.

• [9] On a straightforward application of the definition found in Schedule 2 of the PS Act, the successful candidate is a public sector employee and was employed at a higher classification level on a permanent basis.

• [10] For that reason, I will hear the appeal. If I am wrong regarding the jurisdictional question, I find that any prejudice to the Respondent is limited in circumstances where it has also provided detailed submissions in reply to Ms Stevenson's appeal.

• [11] The task before the Commission is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable. [5] I must decide the appeal having regard to the evidence available to the decision-maker when the decision was made, but I may allow other evidence to be considered if I deem it appropriate.[6]

• [12] In deciding an appeal against a promotion decision, the Commission may only set the decision aside if it finds that the recruitment or selection process was procedurally deficient. In determining if the process was deficient, the Commission is required to have regard to whether the process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner under that Act.[7]
• [13] For the reasons provided below, Ms Stevenson's appeal is dismissed. I find that the promotion decision was fair and reasonable and I confirm the decision appealed against.

• [14] In its submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 29 October 2025, the Respondent provides a detailed background and timeline of the recruitment process which it says was conducted in accordance with the Directive 07/23 Recruitment and selection ('the Directive'). The Respondent draws particular attention to ss 8 and 9 of the Directive.[8]

• [15] As Ms Stevenson's appeal can only succeed if she is able to demonstrate a procedural deficiency, I will set out the submissions of the Respondent regarding the process in full before turning to consider Ms Stevenson's grounds of appeal. Relevantly, the Respondent submits:

Attraction and Advertising, section 8 of the Directive

a) Pursuant to section 8.10 of the Directive, the role was advertised open to public for twelve (12) working days on the Queensland Government careers website Smart Jobs, and open to public on Seek, from 3 July until 18 July 2025.[9]

b) The advertised Role Description complied with requirements specified in section 8.13 of the Directive, refer to attached Role Description.[10]

1. Relevantly, the Respondent draws the Commission's attention to the Role Description, specifically the sub-section titled "Our commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion". This section sets out the Health Service's proactive approach to ensuring an inclusive recruitment process. It explicitly invites applicants to advise the contact person listed in the Role Description if any support or adjustments are required during the recruitment process. The Role Description states: "If you need support during the recruitment process, we're here to assist. We understand that some people may require changes to the recruitment process, the way they work, or the workplace environment. If you need support or adjustments, please contact the person noted on the first page of this role description."

Selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position, section 9 of the Directive

d) Pursuant to section 9.6 of the Directive, the selection panel consisted of three (3) panel members, including one external panel member employed at another Health Service in Brisbane.[11]

e) The Respondent confirms that the Delegate was not on the panel and possessed the appropriate authority to decide on appointment of most suited candidate at the time of the decision, on 10 September 2025.[12]

Assessment of the person best suited to the position

f) The conflict-of-interest declarations were completed by all panel members on 5-6 August 2025, whereby two (2) Health Service panel members declared professional prior knowledge of the applicants.[13]

g) Pursuant to section 9.10 and section 9.11 of the Directive, the Respondent submits that four (4) candidates were shortlisted and that all shortlisted candidates were equitably assessed against the same criteria as set out in the Role Description.

h) The Respondent confirms the same panel members assessed all candidates at all three stages of the assessment process; including, assessment of written applications on 29 July 2025, assessment via panel interview held on 19 August 2025 and assessment of referee feedback for the panel's recommended candidate for appointment.[14]

1. The assessment process incorporated selection techniques that assessed the candidates against the role selection criteria, incorporating a comprehensive and holistic assessment of each applicant within the context of being best suited to the position.

j) Pursuant to section 9.12 of the Directive, the panel obtained a reference check for the candidate deemed best suited to the position. This information was made available to the delegate as part of the Selection Report document.

Documentation and decision-making requirements

k) Pursuant to section 9.17 of the Directive, the Respondent submits that the recruitment and selection process fully complied with the Directive's documentation and reporting requirements, as evidenced within this submission. The Selection Report provided to the delegate clearly records the panel's holistic assessment of each shortlisted candidate against the approved selection criteria. The report articulates the rationale for the recommendation and demonstrates that the proposed appointee was the most suitable candidate for appointment.

1. As evidenced in the Selection Report document, pursuant to section 9.18 and 9.19 of the Directive, the delegate approved the panels recommended candidate for appointment on 10 September 2025, which included the delegates' own conflict of interest declaration.

1. Pursuant to section 12 of the Directive, all applicants were advised of the option available to them to seek feedback. The Respondent's records confirm that the Appellant sought feedback from the panel chair and that this meeting was held on 23 September 2025.[15]

1. The Health Service confirms the appointment was published on the Queensland Health Service's Bulletin on 10 October 2025.

Ms Stevenson's first reason for appeal: The interview process places systemic barriers against neurodivergent people

• [16] When setting out her first ground of appeal in her Appeal Notice, Ms Stevenson provides particulars of the ways she says a 'lack of neuroinclusion' manifested for her:

• Being forced to listen to/retain/speak to questions that consisted of multiple lines/parts, with no visual aid to assist (i.e. not provided with the written questions in the interview). This makes it unreasonably hard for neurodivergent people to succeed.

• An expectation that the interviewee picks up on "cues" from the panel. A Qld Health Fact sheet gives this very advice. Neurodivergent people are often not able to do this.

• I was refused clarification in the interview. As part of my answer to a question, I mentioned something I felt was related to the question, but not directly what the panel had asked for. Neurodivergent people are often very literal thinkers and may understand a question differently to how the panel intends. Because of this, I asked the panel if this situation was something they wished me to speak about. In answer, I got a large shrug, and a very hesitant, 'If that's something you want to speak about'. This greatly increased my confusion, which meant I did not speak about the situation. My confusion was so great after this that I performed the rest of the interview very poorly. When I sought feedback for this lack of clarification, I was given no actual reason as to why it was denied. I have also not seen any reason in Qld Health policy that the panel would be unable to answer that request for clarification.

• The unconscious bias training undertaken by the panel did not include any information in neurodivergence and how to work with this.

• In feedback, I was told that I did not provide enough reflection in my answers. Neurodivergent people are very literal. Thus, if I was not specifically asked to reflect, I would not have done so. This is a failure of the panel, not the applicant.

• [17] The Respondent acknowledges and supports Queensland Health's commitment to inclusivity, including neurodiversity awareness. In this instance, the Respondent confirms that Ms Stevenson did not disclose any neurodivergent condition or request any adjustment at any stage prior to, or during, the assessment process.[16]

• [18] With reference to the relevant part of the Role Description (canvassed at subparagraph (c) within paragraph [15] of these reasons for decision), the Respondent says that applicants were explicitly invited to request any required support or[17]djustment.17

• [19] The Respondent says that in the absence of any disclosure from Ms Stevenson, the selection panel could not have reasonably been expected to implement specific accommodations or adjustments beyond the standard merit-based recruitment framework.[18]

• [20] The Respondent says that following the delegate's decision on 10 September 2025, the Panel Chair contacted the shortlisted candidates on or around 11 September 2025 to advise them of the outcome of the recruitment process.

• [21] The Respondent says that the Panel Chair has confirmed that Ms Stevenson first disclosed her neurodivergence during this conversation, which occurred after the delegate's decision had been made. I note here that Ms Stevenson denies that she disclosed her neurodivergence during this conversation but that it occurred later during the feedback discussion.[19] I understand Ms Stevenson is concerned by this 'lack of attention to detail'. However, any error in the recollection of the Panel Chair is not material to this decision in circumstances where the pertinent issue is that Ms Stevenson did not disclose her neurodivergence until after the process was complete and the decision had been made.

• [22] The Respondent says that Ms Stevenson's disclosure was not information available to the panel or the delegate at the time the selection decision was determined. The Respondent says that the matter was subsequently discussed at the feedback meeting held on 23 September 2025. I have reviewed the file note of that meeting and note that with specific reference to this, the delegate wrote:[20]

Catriona discussed her recent identification of neurodiversity (as best I can tell not formally diagnosed but self-identified recently) and described challenges during the interview process, including difficulty recalling verbally expressed questions and feeling rattled.

I listed to Catriona's experience and acknowledged the importance of understanding how this may have affected her performance.

I explained that, in accordance with Policy B1, the recruitment process met all requirements, as no neurodiversity or need for adjustment was disclosed prior to or during the interview.

Catriona requested information on how to declare neurodiversity and what reasonable adjustments might be available in future processes. I agreed to follow up with HR to obtain clarity on this process and to identify potential supports for future requirement.

• [23] For completeness, I note here that Ms Stevenson's reply submissions provide a lengthy set of errors and corrections to the file note regarding the feedback provided to her. I will not discuss these in this decision as the feedback provided to Ms Stevenson does not uncover a procedural deficiency or other unfairness in the recruitment process or the decision. As I understand it, the reason for the provision of the file note by the Respondent is for the purpose of demonstrating that Ms Stevenson did not request any adjustments or supports during the recruitment process.

• [24] The Respondent says that Ms Stevenson's assertion that the process was discriminatory because questions were verbal and multi-part, or because clarifications were limited, is not supported by evidence. The Respondent says that these are standard elements of structured merit-based interviews.[21]

• [25] The Respondent confirms that all shortlisted candidates received the same questions, the same length of time, and were assessed by the same panel members. The Respondent submits that the panel applied a standard methodology for all candidates to ensure impartiality and integrity of assessment. The Respondent notes that the Directive does not mandate the provision of questions in advance.[22]

• [26] The Respondent submits that the responsibility ultimately rested with Ms Stevenson to advise the recruiting panel of any support requirements or reasonable adjustments needed during the recruitment process. The Respondent says that in the absence of any request from Ms Stevenson, it maintains that the recruitment process proceeded appropriately, and in a manner consistent with fairness, equity and in line with legislative obligations.[23]

• [27] Ms Stevenson submits that the Respondent has ignored her claim that the interview process places systemic barriers against neurodivergent people and instead has chosen to focus on her 'absence of disclosure'.

• [28] Ms Stevenson says that she is not suggesting that the panel knowingly discriminated against her as an individual, but that the systemic barriers she describes would have made it difficult for any neurodivergent individual to succeed.

• [29] Ms Stevenson submits that as many as 20% of Australians are neurodivergent and that such a significant portion of the population should be accounted for in recruitment processes.[24]

• [30] In response to the Respondent's submission that she has not provided any evidence to support her assertion that the interview process was discriminatory against neurodivergent litigants, Ms Stevenson has attached to her submissions some 'useful information' and 'evidence'.[25]

• [31] Ms Stevenson has drawn out some particular statements and strategies from these documents and listed them in her submissions.[26]

• [32] Ms Stevenson refers to the 'Neuroinclusion in the Workplace' training resource,[27] which she sourced on the Queensland Health Intranet site. Ms Stevenson notes that this resource recommends providing information in multiple formats and says that this was not done in the interview process.

• [33] Ms Stevenson notes that the training resource recommends 'universal design'. Universal design is a concept which aims to remove systemic barriers and create an environment where employees can participate without needing to ask for adjustments. Ms Stevenson says that the recruitment process did not seek to utilise this concept.[28]

• [34] While the Respondent says that all candidates were equitably assessed, Ms Stevenson says that this is not the case as 'equity' involves accounting for and attempting to offset disparities in the way people with different characteristics are treated. Ms Stevenson says that the recruitment process did not account for those who may be neurodivergent and thus was not equitable.[29] Ms Stevenson says that a visual aid discussing the concept of equity which is included in the training package demonstrates her point and is an argument for recognising needs common to neurodivergent people and addressing those needs for all applicants. Ms Stevenson says that this would obviate the need for a neurodivergent applicant to be aware of their diagnosis and would benefit neurodivergent applicants without hindering neurotypical applicants.[30]

• [35] Ms Stevenson says that the 'standard methodology' applied by the Respondent: unfairly disadvantages neurodivergent candidates; fails to consider past employment performance; and does not always reflect the ability of the candidate to perform the actual role.[31]

• [36] Ms Stevenson has provided some salient research, literature and policy regarding neurodivergent litigants and selection processes. I note that some of this information is specific to autism which is one presentation of neurodivergence. It is the case that there are a range of strategies which may be embedded into a recruitment process, and which may enhance the participation of neurodivergent candidates. However, a public sector promotions appeal is not the avenue to pursue systemic change to public sector promotions processes.

• [37] It is also the case that even if some of the strategies and techniques identified by Ms Stevenson in the literature and the policy were to be embedded, it is simply not possible for any process, no matter how carefully and thoughtfully designed, to meet the needs of every neurodivergent person. In fact, Ms Stevenson's submissions speak to some generic qualities or characteristics of neurodivergent persons, and the reality is that neurodivergence manifests in myriad ways in individuals, and even for individuals in specific contexts. It is for that reason that even where a design process may be able to enhance the experience and participation of a neurodivergent candidate, it is prudent for the employer to invite individuals to self-identify and request any particular requirements or accommodations they believe they will need to participate in the process.

• [38] In this case, the Role Description clearly invites individuals to identify such needs. In circumstances where Ms Stevenson is aware of her own neurodivergence, whether diagnosed or self-diagnosed, if she did not request accommodations such as a written copy of the interview questions or for multi-part questions to be broken down, I am uncertain as to how the selection panel was to anticipate her needs.

• [39] Ms Stevenson is concerned that even though she has provided evidence that verbal, multi-part questions and limited provision of clarifications are a barrier for neurodivergent applicants, the Respondent cannot acknowledge that these are barriers. Ms Stevenson says that 'it cannot be expected that they would provide accommodations for a neurodivergent candidate who sought to address those barriers'. In circumstances where she did not seek any accommodations or adjustments, Ms Stevenson's speculation as to what the Respondent may have done had she sought accommodations is not relevant to this appeal.

• [40] Ms Stevenson submits that she did not have confidence in approaching her line manager about the potential for adjustments and support as she believes he does not adequately understand or consider the neurodivergent view. That Ms Stevenson feels this way, does not uncover a procedural deficiency or unfairness. If Ms Stevenson has concerns about the conduct of her line manager, she should pursue this through a different avenue.

• [41] Part of an interview process will involve the questioning of candidates to glean their understanding of situations, skills and knowledge specific to the role. While a candidate might seek feedback during the interview as to whether they are on the right track with their responses, I do not think it is procedurally or otherwise unfair for a panel to decline to give such feedback and to invite a person to provide the answer they think is most appropriate in the circumstances.
• [42] I note Ms Stevenson's criticism of the Respondent's interview preparation resources and her view that advice such as 'pick up on panel member cues' is an unreasonable suggestion for a neurodivergent candidate. An interview preparation resource is just that, a resource. Resources will provide a range of ideas or strategies, and it is a matter for the individual to engage with such resources and identify the suggestions that help them. I reject a suggestion that neurodivergent people as a group are unable to pick up on verbal or non-verbal cues. All individuals are different, and some neurodivergent people will be assisted by advice to look out for cues from the panel. If Ms Stevenson had engaged with these materials and identified that picking up on panel member cues will be difficult for her, this is a matter she could have raised with the panel.

• [43] In retrospect and following the outcome, Ms Stevenson has identified the parts of the process that she believes disadvantaged her as a self-identified neurodivergent candidate. However, having reviewed the recruitment process from advertising through to the communication of the outcome and the provision of feedback, I am unable to identify a procedural deficiency or other unfairness. The recruitment process has complied with the Directive.

• [44] Ms Stevenson has identified a range of reasons why self-identification or a request for adjustments may not be fair or practical.[32] The matters she raises are systemic considerations, though they are no doubt experienced at an individual level. Ms Stevenson says that a person should not be forced to disclose a diagnosis to progress in their career. While this may be the case, the information provided in the Role Description does not refer to disclosing a diagnosis. It refers to a request for support or adjustment. That Ms Stevenson did not think that she had an adequate reason to request adjustments and therefore did not make the request, does not uncover an unfairness or deficiency in the process.

• [45] While it may be ideal for selection panels to develop knowledge and skills surrounding the needs of neurodivergent candidates for selection, a panel cannot be expected to anticipate the needs of a person with a hidden or invisible disability or disorder accurately or effectively. This is because the needs of the individual will vary widely and selection panels are unlikely to be clinical specialists or have experience in responding to all the conditions and ways of being that are captured by 'neurodivergence'. In my view, it will always be necessary for there to be a mechanism for the individual to choose to identify their specific needs to participate equitably in a process.

• [46] It is not the case that Ms Stevenson identified to the panel that she had specific needs as a neurodivergent person and the panel had declined to accommodate these needs without reasonable cause. In fact, Ms Stevenson specifically submits that she is not claiming that the panel knowingly discriminated against her as an individual.

• [47] Ms Stevenson submits that Queensland Health Recruitment and Selection Policy B1 states that '[s]election panels are to consider barriers to diversity and inclusion when undertaking selection processes'. Ms Stevenson says that the panel did not consider barriers for neurodivergent applicants and therefore the recruitment process did not comply with policy.

• [48] There are a range of ways in which a selection panel may consider barriers to diversity and inclusion when undertaking selection processes. In this case, the Role Description inviting applications provided an opportunity for applicants to request accommodations. While Ms Stevenson may disagree with the way the panel considered barriers to diversity and inclusion, I do not accept that the process did not comply with the legislation, directive or policy.

• [49] Ms Stevenson suggests that unconscious bias training provided to panels should include neurodiversity awareness. The Respondent may wish to consider her suggestion as it enacts its commitment to inclusivity at a systemic level.

• [50] Ms Stevenson's view that the recruitment process creates systemic barriers for neurodivergent people does not uncover a procedural deficiency or other lack of fairness in the promotion decision she is appealing.

• [51] Ms Stevenson's first reason for appeal does not succeed.

Ms Stevenson's second reason for appeal: The behaviour of the panel

• [52] Ms Stevenson's Appeal Notice states that the panel were 'as intimidating as possible' and refused to participate in a 'two-way method of communication'. Ms Stevenson says that Queensland Health's own mandatory training on communication discusses two-way communication to ensure that both parties understand what is being communicated. Ms Stevenson says that the panel's behaviour showed 'an appalling and limiting double standard' and that it is unhelpful for all, but particularly for neurodivergent candidates who she says, 'often require extra clarification'.

• [53] Ms Stevenson's submissions regarding the interview where she says she requested further clarification are canvassed above. I will not repeat them here.

• [54] The Respondent refutes Ms Stevenson's submission and maintains that the panel followed the approved question framework and says that clarification requests were handled consistently for all candidates. The Respondent also submits that Ms Stevenson's description of panel behaviour is not corroborated by any demonstrated evidence.

• [55] Ms Stevenson says that while the panel followed 'the approved question framework', she has demonstrated that the framework created systemic barriers 'for neurodivergent applicants'. Ms Stevensons says that while requests for clarification were handled consistently, they were not handled appropriately.

• [56] Ms Stevenson says the Respondent failed to respond to her submission regarding two-way communication. She says that if Queensland Health mandatory training involves 'back-and-forth' until both parties understand what is being communicated, then this should apply in all contexts including interviews. Ms Stevenson says that if the communication is not going to be back-and-forth, there is no point holding an interview and it would be a better use of State resources to ask for written responses.

• [57] Ms Stevenson also complains that the panel did not consider the needs of others and that there was no seating in the corridor near the interview room and so there was no place to sit and calm oneself or collect one's thoughts. Ms Stevenson says that if the panel cannot even provide seating, it cannot be expected to approach accommodations with understanding or compassion.

• [58] Other than Ms Stevenson's submission that she requested clarification about whether an answer she was providing was something the panel wanted her to speak about and that she was told 'if it's something you want to speak about', there is no cogent evidence before me about the demeanour of the panel and whether they were deliberately behaving in an intimidating manner.

• [59] While I understand Ms Stevenson's submissions about 'two-way' communication, it is the case that in an interview context, the panel is seeking to draw out information from the interviewee. It would seem strange for the panel to do as much talking as the interviewee, and in fact may result in an unfairness where there is limited time available for each interview and the interviewee will be seeking to provide as much information as possible about what they know and can do.

• [60] It is not procedurally unfair for a panel to decline to guide an interviewee as to the appropriate way to answer a question or whether the interviewee's answer is what they are looking for. If an individual does not understand the question they have been asked, it is appropriate to ask for clarification about the meaning of the question and to receive that clarification. I do not think, however, that it is unfair or unreasonable for the panel to decline to tell an interviewee whether their answer to a question is correct or what the panel is looking for.

• [61] As to Ms Stevenson's suggestion about panels seeking written statements instead of conducting interviews, I understand that the provision of written responses is sometimes employed by panels as a part of the recruitment process. There will be occasions where individuals, whether neurodivergent or neurotypical may be disadvantaged by an approach that does not allow them to provide verbal responses.
• [62] The lack of seating available outside the interview room is unfortunate but does not represent a procedural deficiency or give rise to unfairness. The Respondent may wish to consider the provision of seating at future interviews.

• [63] Ms Stevenson's second ground of appeal has not been made out.

Ms Stevenson's third ground of appeal: Matters considered by the panel and concerns about the character of the successful candidate

• [64] Ms Stevenson's third ground of appeal is that she believes the panel was not required to consider experience or previous work of the applicant. Ms Stevenson says that her interview performance was considered more important than her significant prior service with Queensland Health.[33]

• [65] Ms Stevenson says that her contribution to the Department through projects and protocol updates (as examples) is greater than the successful candidate. Ms Stevenson says that she was assessed not on her ability to perform the role but on unrelated skills such as saying certain 'buzzwords' or 'selling' herself in the interview. [34]

• [66] Ms Stevenson says that the person who was successful and appointed to the role had the least experience (3-5 years) and was given the role over applicants with 5-20 years' experience. Ms Stevenson says that the successful applicant 'was more arrogant' and 'talked themselves up more than the person with 20 years of experience'. Ms Stevenson says that this makes a 'farce of the entire hiring process'.[35]

• [67] With regard to the successful candidate's post-appointment conduct, Ms Stevenson submits that:[36]

Character of the successful applicant does not reflect SCUH values (particularly integrity). Since the interview, the successful applicant has stopped pulling their weight in the clinical work of the department and goes for more/longer breaks than she is entitled to. She often takes her lunch breaks at inconvenient times, forcing her colleagues to cover her share of the work. This is all known by management.

• [68] In her written submissions, Ms Stevenson appears to make more personal commentary about the successful candidate, including that the successful candidate often comes to other staff requesting guidance and advice and suggesting that some applicants 'use their spare time to complete work projects' and some 'play games on their phone after the essential work is done'.

• [69] The Respondent submits that Ms Stevenson's personal commentary regarding the successful candidate's experience or conduct is speculative and falls outside the jurisdiction of a promotion appeal. The Respondent says that should Ms Stevenson wish to pursue workplace conduct concerns, such matters are more appropriately dealt with under HR Policy E12 Individual Employee Grievance.[37]

• [70] The Respondent says that recruitment assessment requires that all candidates be evaluated against the advertised role requirements, including demonstrated skills knowledge, and behavioural competencies, not length of service alone.[38]

• [71] Ms Stevenson says that a holistic assessment of each applicant would include considering their past employment experience. Ms Stevenson says that a staff member's ability to provide 'a good interview answer' that measures well against the panel's marking rubric is not necessarily related to the actual skills required in the role. Ms Stevenson says that as the line manager of all the interview candidates, the Panel Chair would have been able to provide valuable information about each applicant's work ethic and fitness for the role.

• [72] Ms Stevenson says that she never claimed that candidates should be evaluated based on length of service alone. Ms Stevenson says she is stating that for a leadership position, 'it is bizarre that someone with 3.5 years of experience would be thought preferable to a candidate with 20 years of experience in both clinical and managerial Nuclear Medicine'. Ms Stevenson clarifies that she is not the candidate with 20-years of experience.

• [73] Ms Stevenson says that her argument is not that she should have achieved the position, but that there were more suitable choices than the successful applicant.

• [74] The Respondent submits that the successful applicant demonstrated superior performance against the selection criteria, as recorded in the selection report. The Respondent says that Ms Stevenson has not provided any credible evidence to displace this finding.[39]

• [75] Ms Stevenson says that the Respondent has not provided evidence that the successful candidate demonstrated superior performance against the selection criteria or that her own application lacked demonstrated merit. Ms Stevenson says that the suitability assessment has been so heavily redacted that the Respondent is unable to use it to verify their claim of the successful applicant's suitability.[40]

• [76] Ms Stevenson says that the feedback she received from the Panel Chair was that her written application was excellent but that the interview let her down. Ms Stevenson says that an interview does not necessarily relate to a person's ability to perform the role required. Ms Stevenson says that she is currently backfilling in a HP4 role. Ms Stevenson says that she is performing well in the role and did not need to interview for it. Ms Stevenson argues that to be found sufficient to perform a role without an interview but insufficient to perform a role with an interview must mean that one of the processes is faulty. Ms Stevenson says that the fact she is currently successfully backfilling in a higher classification role means that the Respondent's claim that her application lacked merit is 'faulty'.[41]

• [77] At this point of Ms Stevenson's submissions there is a sharp transition from Ms Stevenson's arguments about the impact of the recruitment process on neurodivergent candidates at a systemic and individual to pointed and personal allegations about the capacity and personal conduct of the successful candidate. These matters are not relevant to the question of whether the promotion decision was fair and reasonable. As the Respondent suggests, if Ms Stevenson is personally aggrieved by the conduct of the successful candidate, the appropriate avenue to pursue such grievances is to engage the grievance process.

• [78] It would be of some concern to me if a Panel Chair were to, as Ms Stevenson suggests, share adverse information about candidates with a selection panel without making that candidate aware of the adverse information or providing them with an opportunity to respond. In any case, Ms Stevenson's allegations against the successful candidate are untested and it is unknown to me whether they carry any veracity.

• [79] The Acting Clinical Manager Nuclear Medicine & PET completed a conflict of interest form declaring that he had prior knowledge of a number of the candidates for the role. The following strategies were implemented by the panel to reduce the impact of any perceived bias: disclosure of the conflict to other panel members; the Manger refraining from providing any views about any candidate until all other panel members have expressed their view so as not to influence panel members; using a marking matrix to score candidates objectively; and only assessing what is provided to the process by way of Resume, Cover letter, Respondent to Selection Criteria and interview responses.[42]

• [80] Ms Stevenson says that she does not argue that length of service should be the only consideration for a panel. In any case, though, there is no evidence before me that the previous employment experience of candidates was not considered. Candidates were required to provide a resume, statement and cover letter. There was clearly an opportunity outside of the interview to display one's employment history and experience.

• [81] Ms Stevenson may find it bizarre that a person with less experience than either herself, or an employee with 20-years of experience was successful in applying for the role. However, public sector appointments are made on merit and suitability rather than time served.

• [82] That Ms Stevenson is currently backfilling a HP4 position and that she was appointed to the backfilling role without an interview does not uncover any procedural deficiency or unfairness in the promotion process or decision. The Respondent has not argued that Ms Stevenson is incapable of performing at the HP4 level. The argument is that she was not the most meritorious or suitable candidate following the recruitment process. The recruitment process related only to the filling of a specific position. It is entirely possible for Ms Stevenson to be deemed suitable to backfill a position for a short period without the requirement of an interview or application but to have not been recommended for appointment for a different permanent position at the same level.

• [83] There were ten applications, and four candidates were shortlisted. The panel selection report is redacted, and it is unclear to me whether Ms Stevenson was deemed suitable in the order of merit. Only one candidate was recommended for appointment. I am satisfied that the report identified the criteria against which candidates would be assessed and the numerical scoring system to be used. A panel of three people, including an external person who had no knowledge of the candidates, undertook the process and agreed on the outcome. The delegate approving the recommendation of the committee reviewed the process and the report and identified that he did not have a personal relationship with any of the candidates. The delegate determined that he was supportive of the process and the selection report.

• [84] There is nothing before me to suggest that the panel did not take the written applications of candidates into account. It was fair and reasonable for the panel to consider each candidate's interview responses alongside their written responses. I cannot identify any procedural deficiency or other unfairness in the way the panel undertook what appears to be a very standard recruitment process.

• [85] I do not accept that a panel of three people, including an external panel member, where there are no personal relationships between panel members and candidates has somehow conspired to appoint someone other than the most meritorious or suitable candidate to the role. Ms Stevenson has provided no evidence to support such a claim. Even if the recruitment report were not redacted, the notes and scores in it would reflect the panel's decisions regarding the recommended candidate and the order of merit. The content of the report would not support Ms Stevenson's claim that the successful candidate could not have been the most meritorious or suitable for the role.

• [86] Ms Stevenson's third ground of appeal is not successful.

Ms Stevenson's fourth ground of appeal: the legitimacy of the entire process

• [87] Ms Stevenson says that the successful applicant was told ahead of time how many interviews there would be, and that all would be internal applicants. Ms Stevenson says that the applicant quietly shared this information with the other applicants, but no other applicant was formally told this information. Ms Stevenson says that this 'casts a shade over the legitimacy of the entire process'.[43]

• [88] Ms Stevenson says that this calls into question whether the successful applicant may have been given any other information which may have given her an unfair advantage in the recruitment process.

• [89] The Respondent says that its review found no evidence of any improper disclosure of information or breach of confidentiality by the panel. The Respondent says that any incidental discussion between applicants does not demonstrate bias or procedural unfairness and does not invalidate the delegate's decision.[44]

• [90] In response, Ms Stevenson says that focusing on 'incidental discussion' between applicants shows a lack of integrity on the part of the Respondent 'by skirting around the actual claim'. Ms Stevenson says that the Respondent's decision to ignore her claim 'suggests that they have either not conducted a proper review, or that they have something to hide'. Ms Stevenson says that she can provide multiple witnesses regarding the veracity of her statement, as all internal applicants for the position were made aware of the fact by the successful applicant.

• [91] I have considered this ground of appeal. Even if the successful applicant had been told that there were four candidates being interviewed and that they were all internal applicants, I cannot see that this information is of such a nature that it must either remain confidential or that it had the capacity to provide someone with a significant advantage in the process. That information could have been shared between candidates upon finding out that they had been shortlisted for interview.

• [92] To suggest that other, more material information about the process may have been shared with the successful candidate is a very serious allegation and Ms Stevenson has made that allegation without any supporting evidence.

• [93] I am not satisfied that information about the number of candidates and that they were all internal candidates being shared with the applicants who had been shortlisted, in whatever way that occurred, gives rise to a procedural deficiency or unfairness in the process.

• [94] Ms Stevenson's fourth ground of appeal fails.

Conclusion - the promotion decision was fair and reasonable

• [95] Ms Stevenson submits that Queensland Health has a responsibility to lead change in the area of neuroinclusion. Ms Stevenson points to Queensland Health's own neuroinclusion training package which identifies that 'change starts at the top. Ensure leadership actively promotes and models inclusive behaviours and celebrates inclusion as a core value'. Ms Stevenson submits that recruitment systems need to be among the first to implement changes. Ms Stevenson says that Queensland Health has a responsibility to lead systemic change rather than relying on individuals. There is nothing controversial about that submission.

• [96] However, the fact that systemic changes have not at this point been introduced or embedded in all recruitment processes in Queensland Health does not uncover a procedural deficiency or other unfairness in the promotion decision under review. While change may occur at a systemic level, there is also a role for individual employees to exercise agency in requesting support and adjustment, whether in the context of recruitment processes or in the workplace more generally. Systemic change and understanding will, in turn, create an environment which encourages individuals to seek adjustment and support to meet their needs, whether those needs arise from neurodivergence or another context.

• [97] That Ms Stevenson disagrees with the approach taken by the panel and believes that there is a need for systemic change to recruitment processes do not uncover any procedural deficiency.

• [98] I understand that the neuroinclusion training package existed prior to the conduct of the recruitment process. However, as discussed above, I am satisfied that the recruitment process enabled an individual to identify if they had specific needs for support or adjustments to participate in the process. If an individual identified that their neurodivergence may give rise to a need for adjustment or support, the neuroinclusion training package may provide a good point of reference for panel members to understand how best to meet such a request. I do not think it is reasonable for Ms Stevenson to expect that panel members will be cognisant of or have expertise in all possible conditions, disabilities, diversity or other needs which may lead to a need for support or adjustment.

• [99] The Respondent acknowledges that the recruitment outcome may be disappointing for Ms Stevenson, however, submits that the process was undertaken in full compliance with the relevant provisions of the Directive.

• [100] Ms Stevenson is 'disgusted by the respondent's insinuation that [she is] merely submitting this appeal because [she is] disappointed that [she] did not receive the position'. Ms Stevenson says that she is not appealing the decision because she is 'disappointed' but because she believes the process was 'grossly deficient and gave the position to a candidate who was not the best fit, due to a lack of experience, and lack of SCUH values'.[45]

• [101] While it may be ideal for a recruitment process to universally embed approaches and strategies that promote the greatest inclusion and participation of the greatest number of people, it is not reasonable to expect that a systemic approach that meets the needs of every single candidate is achievable. This is why; to achieve inclusion, it is necessary for the process to enable candidates to self-identify that they require a particular support or adjustment to participate to the best of their ability. While Ms Stevenson doubts it would have made a difference and says that people may be reluctant to avail themselves of a self-identification process, it was, nonetheless, available.

• [102] In the absence of a system to universally meet the needs of individuals, self-identification is necessary. Of course, the system does rely on the fact that where an individual identifies that they require support or adjustments, efforts are made to understand and accommodate that need in a way that maintains the integrity of the public sector recruitment and promotion process.

• [103] I cannot identify any anomaly in the composition of the panel or the recruitment process which was undertaken.

• [104] It may be that one candidate was made aware of how many people were being interviewed and that they were internal candidates. By the time the interviews occurred, this knowledge had been shared with the other three interviewees. It is difficult to identify what advantage any one person had going into the interview as a result of knowing that there were three other interviewees and they were all from the same workplace. There is absolutely no evidence before me to suggest that any of the interviewees were provided with any other information about the process or the interviews.

• [105] For the reasons provided above, I do not find that the process was grossly deficient or deficient at all. I find that the process complied with the relevant directive, legislation and policy.

• [106] Ms Stevenson is scathing in her assessment of the successful candidate. I have rarely read submissions in a public sector promotion appeal that attack the work ethic and values of the successful candidate. Ms Stevenson does not sound disappointed about the outcome of the process; she seems highly aggrieved that a particular candidate was successful. As stated above, there are appropriate avenues available to Ms Stevenson should she remain personally aggrieved by the successful candidate's conduct.

• [107] The promotion decision was fair and reasonable. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed.

1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed.

[1] Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 29 October 2025 28, 29.

[3] Appellant's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 12 November 2025 [19].

[4] PS Act Schedule 2.

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

[6] Ibid s 562B(4).

[7] Ibid s 562C(2).

[8] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [12].

[14] Ibid Attachment 4 and Attachment 7.

[19] Appellant's submissions (n 3) [21].

[20] Respondent's submissions (n 1) Attachment 8.

[24] Appellant's submissions (n 3) Attachment 1.

[33] Ms Stevenson's Form 89 - Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 13 October 2025.

[37] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [23].

[40] Appellant's submissions (n 3) [16].

[42] Respondent's submissions (n 1) Attachment 6.

[44] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [24].

[45] Appellant's submissions (n 3) [26].