Public Administration (Review of Actions) Regulations 2025

The Regulations introduce several key concepts, each defined or delineated in the text.

Initial review: A review conducted in accordance with an initial review process established under regulation 6 and conforming with regulations 7, 8 and 9 (reg 5). It is the first-tier mechanism. The process must be established by each public service body Head (reg 6). The Head may appoint a person or body to conduct the review, provided that person or body is unconnected with the action or any prior investigation of it (reg 7(2)-(3)). The process may include mediation or conciliation (reg 7(1)(b)). Reviews must be conducted as quickly and with as little formality as proper consideration allows (reg 7(1)(c)). A notable feature is that the process may allow the Head to refuse to conduct a review on four grounds: the matter is frivolous, vexatious or lacking in substance; the applicant lacks sufficient personal interest; the matter is already the subject of a proceeding initiated by the applicant (including under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010); or the matter could more appropriately be the subject of such a proceeding (reg 7(4)). These refusal grounds are discretionary, not mandatory. The process must prohibit legal representation unless the person conducting the review considers that the applicant or other party would be at a significant disadvantage without a lawyer (reg 7(5)). That is a high threshold and imposes a cost on employees who lack legal sophistication but cannot prove "significant disadvantage".

Commission review: A second-tier review by the Commission (Part 3). There are three pathways to a Commission review. First, an employee who has received a decision on an initial review may apply for review of the process of initial review if they consider there was a significant deficiency or a contravention of the Act, the Regulations, or standards (reg 10). The Commission does not re-hear the merits of the original action; it reviews the process of the initial review. This is a crucial limitation. Second, if the public service body Head fails to commence an initial review within 30 days of receiving the application, the employee may apply to the Commission for review of that failure (reg 11). Third, an employee may bypass the initial review entirely and apply directly to the Commission if they allege victimisation or harassment for having made a previous application to the Commission, or if the public service body Head personally took the action or was the primary decision-maker (reg 12). In all cases, the Commission must conduct the review with procedural fairness and minimal formality (reg 13(4)). The Commission may appoint an unconnected person to conduct the review (reg 13(1)-(2)), require information or documents from the body Head, and interview any employee (reg 13(3)). The same restrictions on legal representation apply as for initial reviews (reg 13(5)). The Commission may also refuse to conduct a review on the same four grounds as the Head (reg 13(6)).

Procedural fairness: Both initial and Commission reviews must be conducted subject to the requirements of procedural fairness (reg 7(1)(a) and reg 13(4)(a)). This is a common law concept requiring a fair hearing and absence of bias, but the regulations do not further define it. The absence of legal representation (absent significant disadvantage) could in practice undermine procedural fairness for some applicants, but the regulation arguably preserves the overarching requirement.

Significant disadvantage: The threshold for allowing a legal practitioner to accompany a party. Not defined in the Regulations. It places the burden on the applicant or other party to demonstrate that they would be at a significant disadvantage, and the decision rests with the person conducting the review. This creates uncertainty and potential inconsistency.

Standards issued under section 62 of the Act: The Regulations reference these standards as benchmarks for consistency (reg 6(b)(ii), reg 10(1)(b)(iii)). They are not reproduced in the Regulations, so a reader must consult the Act or the Commission for their content. This is an interlocking framework.

The Regulations directly affect three groups: public service body Heads, employees of public service bodies, and the Commission (likely the Victorian Public Sector Commission). Each has specific obligations or rights under the scheme.

Public service body Heads are required to establish an initial review process (reg 6). This is a positive duty; failure to do so could be a breach of the Act. The Head must ensure the process meets the prescribed standards: it must allow for applications specifying detailed information (reg 8), include time limits not less than 7 days for proposed appointments or promotions and 28 days otherwise (reg 8(3)), require written notice of decisions with reasons (reg 9), and include the discretionary ability to refuse reviews on the four specified grounds (reg 7(4)). The Head may also appoint an unconnected person or body to conduct the review (reg 7(2)-(3)). The Head is the primary decision-maker for the initial review, unless the action involves the Head personally, in which case the employee can bypass the initial review (reg 12(b)). The Head must also respond to Commission requests for information or documents (reg 13(3)(a)) and, presumably, cooperate with any appointed reviewer.

Employees are the primary beneficiaries of the review mechanism. Any employee who considers an action relating to their employment to be unfair or inconsistent with the Act or standards may apply for an initial review (reg 6). However, the employee must comply with strict procedural requirements: the application must be in writing and specify the action, the decision-maker's name and job title, the basis of the complaint, the remedy sought, the date the action was taken, and the date the employee was notified or became aware of the action (reg 8(1)). The employee must lodge the application within a specified period (minimum 7 days for appointment/promotion, 28 days otherwise) unless the Head is satisfied that circumstances justify a late application (reg 8(2)-(3)). The employee may also apply to the Commission, but only after exhausting the initial review (except for the reg 12 bypass). Employees are generally prohibited from being accompanied by a legal practitioner unless they can show significant disadvantage (reg 7(5), reg 13(5)). This limits their ability to obtain legal assistance during the review, which could disadvantage unrepresented employees against a public service body that may have in-house legal expertise.

The Commission has a reviewing and oversight role. It receives applications for review of the process of initial review, for failure to commence initial review, and for review without initial review in victimisation/harassment or head involvement cases (regs 10-12). The Commission must conduct reviews with procedural fairness and minimal formality (reg 13(4)). It may appoint a reviewer, require information, and interview employees (reg 13(1)-(3)). The Commission can also refuse to conduct a review on the same grounds as the Head (reg 13(6)). The Commission must give written notice of decisions and reasons (reg 13(7)).

Legal practitioners are affected by the restrictions on representation. They may be excluded from reviews unless the applicant or other party can demonstrate significant disadvantage. This reduces demand for legal services in this area and may reduce costs for the review process, but it also limits access to legal advice for employees who may need it to articulate their case properly.

Courts and tribunals are indirectly affected. If a matter is already the subject of a proceeding (including under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010), the Head or Commission may refuse to conduct a review (reg 7(4)(c)-(d), reg 13(6)(c)-(d)). This creates a choice for employees: pursue an internal review or go to a tribunal, but not both simultaneously. It also means that if an employee initiates proceedings after applying for an internal review, the Head or Commission may discontinue the review.

The Regulations do not affect private sector employers or employees. Their ambit is limited to public service bodies as defined in the Public Administration Act 2004. This is a discrete administrative scheme.

The Regulations create a mixture of duties on public service body Heads and the Commission, and rights for employees.

Duty to establish an initial review process: Each public service body Head must establish a process that conforms with the Regulations (reg 6). This is a positive duty under the Act and the Regulations. Failure to do so could be a breach of the Act, though the Regulations do not specify a penalty for non-compliance (see Penalties and enforcement section).

Duty to conduct reviews with procedural fairness and minimal formality: Both the initial review and Commission review must be conducted subject to procedural fairness, as quickly and with as little formality as proper consideration allows (reg 7(1)(a), (c); reg 13(4)(a), (b)). This duty constrains how the review is run; it cannot become a full-scale adversarial hearing. The use of mediation or conciliation is permitted but not required (reg 7(1)(b)).

Duty to make reasonable enquiries or investigations: In an initial review, the Head must make reasonable enquiries or investigations before making a determination (reg 7(2)). The Head may delegate this to an appointed person or body. For Commission reviews, the Commission may require the Head to provide information or documents and may interview employees (reg 13(3)), but it is not explicitly required to investigate; it has discretion.

Duty to give written notice and reasons: The Head must give the employee written notice of a refusal to conduct a review or a decision on a review, together with a statement of reasons, within a reasonable time (reg 9). The Commission has a similar duty for its decisions (reg 13(7)). This is an important accountability mechanism, though "reasonable time" is not defined, allowing some latitude.

Duty to comply with application requirements: Employees have a right to apply for an initial review, but they must comply with the procedural requirements of the process established by the Head. The process must require applications to be in writing with specified details (reg 8(1)). The employee also has a right to have a late application accepted if the Head is satisfied that circumstances justify it (reg 8(2)), but that is discretionary.

Right to apply to the Commission: Employees have three distinct rights to apply to the Commission: review of the process of initial review after receiving a decision (reg 10), review of failure to commence initial review after 30 days (reg 11), and direct review without initial review in specified circumstances (reg 12). These rights are subject to time limits: for reg 10, 7 days for proposed appointment/promotion after notification of initial review decision, 28 days otherwise (with discretion to extend); for reg 11, within 70 days after the initial review application was received; for reg 12, no time limit is specified in the regulation, but the Commission may have implied discretion to set one or to refuse on other grounds.

Right to reasons: An employee who receives a decision on review or a refusal to conduct a review is entitled to a statement of reasons (reg 9(b), reg 13(7)(b)). This is a significant procedural right, enabling the employee to understand the basis of the decision and potentially to challenge it in another forum.

Restriction on legal representation: This is both a duty (on the reviewer to exclude legal practitioners unless significant disadvantage is shown) and a limitation on the rights of employees. An employee does not have a right to be accompanied by a legal practitioner unless they satisfy the significant disadvantage threshold. This restriction applies to both initial and Commission reviews (reg 7(5), reg 13(5)). It potentially saves costs and reduces formality, but it may disadvantage employees who would benefit from legal advice and advocacy. The "significant disadvantage" criterion is not defined, creating uncertainty.

Right of the Head/Commission to refuse review: The Head and Commission each have a discretionary right to refuse to conduct a review on four grounds: frivolous/vexatious/lacking substance, insufficient personal interest, matter already subject to a proceeding, or more appropriate for a court or tribunal (reg 7(4), reg 13(6)). This is a defensive right that protects the review process from abuse and duplication, but it also gives decision-makers power to close off access without a merits hearing. The refusal must be accompanied by reasons.

The Regulations themselves do not create any monetary penalties or criminal offences. They are procedural regulations made under s112 of the Public Administration Act 2004, and any enforcement or penalty for non-compliance would derive from the Act itself, not from these subordinate instruments. However, the reader should be aware that the Act likely contains enforcement mechanisms for failure to comply with regulations (e.g., a failure by a public service body Head to establish an initial review process could be a breach of the Act, potentially leading to directions from the Commission or other consequences). The Regulations do not reference any specific penalty provisions, so the analysis here must be grounded in the text.

What the Regulations do provide is a mechanism for enforcement through the review process itself. An employee who believes the Head failed to comply with the Regulations (for example, by not establishing a compliant process, by refusing a review without justification, or by failing to give reasons) can pursue a Commission review under reg 10 (if after an initial review decision) or reg 11 (if the initial review was not commenced). The Commission can then scrutinise the Head's compliance with the Regulations. If the Commission finds a contravention, it can presumably direct the Head to remedy the deficiency, though the Regulations do not spell out the Commission's remedial powers. The remedy sought by the employee is specified in the initial application (reg 8(1)(d)), but the Commission's review is limited to the process of the initial review (reg 10(1)). The Commission does not have power to substitute its own decision on the merits of the original action; it reviews whether the process was deficient or contravened the Act, Regulations, or standards. This is a significant limitation on enforcement. An employee cannot use the Commission review to directly overturn an adverse employment action; they can only complain about how the initial review was conducted.

The Commission also has the power to refuse to conduct a review if it considers the matter frivolous, vexatous, lacking substance, or more appropriately dealt with by a court or tribunal (reg 13(6)). That refusal must be accompanied by reasons (reg 13(7)). This discretionary power effectively allows the Commission to dismiss applications without any enforcement action, which could be used to filter out weak claims but also could be used to avoid addressing systematic procedural failures.

Practical enforcement relies on the employee's willingness to pursue the review within the strict time limits. The time limits are short (7 days for appointment/promotion matters, 28 days for others, 70 days for failure to commence), and the Commission has discretion to extend only if "circumstances justify acceptance" (reg 10(2), reg 11(2)). A missed deadline is likely fatal to an application unless the employee can persuade the Commission to exercise its discretion.

The prohibition on legal representation (absent significant disadvantage) could be seen as an enforcement barrier. Employees may find it difficult to navigate the procedural requirements without legal assistance, potentially leading to default or dismissal due to non-compliance with form requirements. The Regulations do not provide any alternative assistance or ombudsman service; the employee is essentially on their own unless they can prove significant disadvantage.

In summary, the Regulations provide a self-contained enforcement mechanism through the Commission review, but it is limited in scope (process review only) and subject to discretionary barriers (refusal grounds, time limits, representation restriction). There are no monetary penalties prescribed. The real sanction for a non-compliant Head is likely reputational or a direction from the Commission, not a fine.

The Regulations explicitly reference and interact with several other pieces of legislation and standards.

Public Administration Act 2004: The Regulations are made under s112 of that Act and serve to prescribe processes for the purposes of s64. The Act is the parent legislation. The Regulations implement the review mechanism that the Act contemplates. The Act also provides for standards issued under s62, which are incorporated by reference in the Regulations as benchmarks for consistency (reg 6(b)(ii), reg 10(1)(b)(iii)). The Regulations do not reproduce those standards, so a reader must consult the Act or the Commission for their content. The Act may also contain provisions about the Commission's powers, composition, and functions that are not repeated in the Regulations.

Equal Opportunity Act 2010: The Regulations make specific reference to Division 2 of Part 8 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, which deals with proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for discrimination complaints. If an employee has initiated such a proceeding concerning the same matter, the Head or Commission may refuse to conduct a review under the Regulations (reg 7(4)(c)-(d), reg 13(6)(c)-(d)). Similarly, if the matter could more appropriately be the subject of such a proceeding, the review may be refused. This creates a choice of forum for the employee: they cannot simultaneously pursue an internal review under these Regulations and a discrimination complaint in VCAT. The Head or Commission will likely refuse the internal review if the employee has already initiated VCAT proceedings. This interaction encourages employees to choose which avenue to pursue first. It also means that a discrimination complaint may effectively shut down the internal review process, leaving the employee with only the VCAT remedy.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994: The Regulations are subject to the sunsetting provisions of that Act, as noted in the Endnotes. The Regulations will sunset 10 years after the day of making (9 December 2025) on 9 December 2035, unless extended or revoked. This is a standard provision for Victorian statutory rules. The previous 2015 regulations are revoked by reg 4.

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984: The Endnotes refer to style changes and interpretation rules under this Act, which apply to the Regulations as a statutory rule. These provisions govern how headings, examples, notes, punctuation, and provision numbers are treated. They do not affect substantive rights but can affect the interpretation of the text.

Procedural fairness as a common law requirement: The Regulations require that reviews be conducted subject to the requirements of procedural fairness (reg 7(1)(a), reg 13(4)(a)). This is a reference to the common law duty, not a statutory provision. It imports the body of case law on procedural fairness (natural justice) into the review process. This means that even though the Regulations are silent on certain procedural details (e.g., the right to respond to adverse information), the common law may fill the gap. The restriction on legal representation could be challenged as potentially incompatible with procedural fairness in some circumstances, but the Regulations condition the restriction on the significant disadvantage exception, which may preserve compatibility.

Other court and tribunal proceedings: The Regulations allow the Head or Commission to refuse a review if the matter is the subject of a proceeding in any court or tribunal initiated by the applicant, or if it could more appropriately be the subject of such a proceeding (reg 7(4)(c)-(d), reg 13(6)(c)-(d)). This is not limited to discrimination proceedings; it covers any court or tribunal proceeding. For example, if an employee has filed a general protections claim in the Federal Court under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Head or Commission could refuse the internal review. This interaction prioritises external judicial or tribunal processes over the internal scheme, potentially undermining the purpose of the Regulations as a self-contained remedy. However, the refusal is discretionary, not mandatory, so the Head or Commission could still proceed if they consider it appropriate.

Employment contracts and enterprise agreements: The Regulations are silent on interaction with contractual or industrial instruments. An employee may have additional rights under an enterprise agreement or common law contract. The internal review process under the Regulations does not replace those rights; it is an additional avenue. However, an employee who pursues a contractual claim in a court may find the internal review refused on the ground that the matter is subject to a proceeding or could more appropriately be dealt with by a court.

The Public Administration (Review of Actions) Regulations 2025 are a new instrument. They were made on 9 December 2025 by the Governor in Council and came into operation on 14 December 2025 (reg 3). They replace and revoke the Public Administration (Review of Actions) Regulations 2015 (S.R. No. 160/2015) (reg 4). No amendments have been made to the 2025 Regulations as of the stated compilation date (14 December 2025). The Table of Amendments in the Endnotes confirms there are no amendments. The Regulations are version 001. They will remain in force until sunset on 9 December 2035, unless extended or earlier revoked.

The revocation of the 2015 regulations means that the previous review framework is replaced in its entirety. A comparison with the 2015 version would be instructive but is beyond the scope of this deep dive because the source only provides the 2025 version. However, based on the structure and substance of the new regulations, practitioners should note that the two-tier structure (initial review then Commission review) appears to be similar in concept to the old scheme, but the specifics of time limits, representation restrictions, and grounds for refusal may have changed. The new regulations set the minimum period for lodging an initial review application at 7 days for proposed appointments or promotions and 28 days otherwise (reg 8(3)); the previous regulations may have had different periods. The introduction of the ability to bypass the initial review in cases of victimisation/harassment or head involvement (reg 12) is a new feature not present in the 2015 version? Without seeing the 2015 text, we cannot be certain, but it represents a change in the scope of direct access to the Commission. The restriction on legal representation (reg 7(5), reg 13(5)) may also be new or modified.

The Regulations are a self-contained code for review actions, so any prior case law interpreting the 2015 regulations should be treated with caution, especially if the wording has changed. The absence of amendments to the 2025 Regulations means there is no history of subsequent regulatory adjustments, but the instrument is new and may be amended in the future. The sunset clause provides a legislative review point in 2035.

As the Regulations came into operation only on 14 December 2025 and this deep dive is written as of that date, there is no litigation history under these specific Regulations. No cases have been decided interpreting their provisions. The previous 2015 regulations may have generated some case law, but the source does not provide any such cases, and the instructions prohibit inventing cases. Therefore, the litigation history for these Regulations is empty.

However, one can anticipate potential areas of future litigation based on the text. The restriction on legal representation (reg 7(5), reg 13(5)) is likely to be challenged as a breach of procedural fairness or possibly as ultra vires the Act. The test of "significant disadvantage" is vague and could lead to inconsistent application, giving rise to judicial review claims. The grounds for refusal (frivolous, vexatious, lacking substance, insufficient personal interest) are also fertile ground for challenge, especially if the Head or Commission applies them too broadly. The Commission's power to review only the process of the initial review, not the substantive merits (reg 10(1)), could be disputed if an employee argues that the process was so deficient that it effectively deprived them of a proper review of the merits. The time limits (7 days for appointment/promotion) are extremely short and may be challenged as unreasonable, especially if the employee is not promptly notified of the decision. The exercise of discretion to extend time (reg 8(2), reg 10(2), reg 11(2)) may also be judicially reviewed if exercised inconsistently.

Interactions with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 may also lead to litigation. If a Head or Commission refuses a review because a matter could more appropriately be dealt with by VCAT (reg 7(4)(d), reg 13(6)(d)), an employee may argue that the internal review is a more suitable forum due to its informality and lower cost. The courts will likely have to define what "more appropriately" means.

The Commission's decisions and refusals are likely subject to judicial review under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 or the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic). The Regulations do not expressly exclude judicial review, so the ordinary avenues of review remain open. The short time limits in the Regulations may also limit the ability to seek review, as an employee must act quickly to preserve their rights under the scheme.

Practitioners should monitor Victorian Supreme Court and VCAT decisions for interpretations of these Regulations. The first few years of operation will likely produce case law on the significant disadvantage test and the refusal grounds.

Several provisions in the Regulations can catch both employees and public service bodies off guard. The most significant are:

Short time limits: For initial review applications, the minimum period is 7 days for proposed appointments or promotions and 28 days otherwise (reg 8(3)). These are the minimum; the Head can set longer periods, but cannot go below. For Commission review of initial review process, the period is 7 days after notification of the initial review decision for appointment/promotion, and 28 days otherwise (reg 10(3)). For failure to commence initial review, the application must be made within 70 days after the Head received the initial review application (reg 11(2)). There is no discretion to extend if the employee misses these deadlines; the Head or Commission may accept a late application only if "satisfied that the circumstances justify acceptance" (reg 8(2), reg 10(2), reg 11(2)). This discretion is not defined and could be applied strictly. An employee who delays even a short time risks losing the right to review.

Legal representation restriction: An employee cannot be accompanied by a legal practitioner unless the person conducting the review considers that the applicant or other party would be at a significant disadvantage without one (reg 7(5), reg 13(5)). This restriction applies to both initial and Commission reviews. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate significant disadvantage. The public service body may have in-house legal expertise, creating an imbalance. The restriction does not explicitly apply to non-legal representatives (e.g., union officials), so employees may be able to bring a union representative or other support person. However, the phrasing "legal practitioner" is specific; it does not bar other representatives. Still, the lack of a lawyer could impair the employee's ability to articulate complex legal arguments.

Requirement to identify the decision-maker's name and job title: The application for initial review must specify "the name and job title of the decision-maker or person who authorised or took the action" (reg 8(1)(b)). An employee may not know this information, especially in a large bureaucracy. Failure to provide it could result in the application being rejected as non-compliant, unless the Head exercises discretion to treat it as a minor defect. The regulation does not provide a mechanism for the employee to request this information from the body.

Initial review is mandatory before Commission review (with narrow exceptions): An employee must generally complete the initial review before applying to the Commission for review of the process (reg 10). The only exceptions are when the employee alleges victimisation/harassment for having previously applied to the Commission, or when the public service body Head personally took the action or was the primary decision-maker (reg 12). This means an employee cannot go directly to the Commission for most grievances, even if they lack confidence in the Head to conduct a fair initial review. An employee who skips the initial review will be told to go back and do it first.

Refusal on broad discretionary grounds: The Head or Commission may refuse to conduct a review if they consider the matter frivolous, vexatious, lacking in substance, insufficient personal interest, already subject to a proceeding, or more appropriately dealt with by a court or tribunal (reg 7(4), reg 13(6)). These grounds are broad and subjective. "Lacking in substance" could be used to dismiss claims that are novel but not obviously meritless. "Insufficient personal interest" could exclude an employee whose interests are indirectly affected but not directly injured. A refusal must be accompanied by reasons (reg 9, reg 13(7)), but the employee has no further internal appeal; they can only seek judicial review.

No power for the Commission to substitute its own decision on the merits: When the Commission reviews the process of an initial review, it does not decide whether the original action was unfair or inconsistent with the Act; it only decides whether the process was deficient or contravened the Act, Regulations, or standards (reg 10(1)). Even if the Commission finds a deficiency, it cannot overturn the original action or order a remedy. The employee's only recourse is to have the initial review process redone properly. This limits the utility of the Commission review for employees seeking substantive relief.

Sunset clause: The Regulations sunset on 9 December 2035 (Endnotes). This is a long period, but it means that the entire framework will lapse unless extended or replaced. Bodies and employees should be aware that the scheme is not permanent.

Interaction with Equal Opportunity proceedings: If an employee initiates a VCAT discrimination complaint about the same matter, the Head or Commission may refuse the internal review (reg 7(4)(c)-(d), reg 13(6)(c)-(d)). An employee who files a VCAT complaint first may lose the opportunity for an internal review. The choice of forum is final; they cannot pursue both simultaneously. The Head or Commission may also refuse if the matter could more appropriately be the subject of a proceeding, even if none has been initiated. This gives the Head/Commission a discretionary gatekeeping role.

Compliance with the Regulations requires action from both public service body Heads and employees. The following guidance is based solely on the text of the Regulations.

For public service body Heads:

1. Establish an initial review process: By operation of reg 6, each Head must have a process in place. It must conform with regs 7, 8, and 9. If no process has been established, the Head is in breach. The process should be documented and accessible to all employees.

2. Design the process to include the mandatory features:

   • The review must be conducted with procedural fairness and minimal formality (reg 7(1)(a), (c)).
   • The Head must make reasonable enquiries or investigations before determining the review (reg 7(2)). This can be delegated to an unconnected person or body (reg 7(2)-(3)). Ensure the delegate has no prior involvement with the action or any investigation of it.
   • The process may include mediation or conciliation (reg 7(1)(b)).
   • The process must allow the Head to refuse a review on the four grounds (reg 7(4)). However, the Head should have clear criteria for exercising that discretion to avoid arbitrary refusals that could be judicially reviewed.
   • The process must prohibit legal representation unless the applicant or other party would be at a significant disadvantage without one (reg 7(5)). The Head should develop guidelines for determining significant disadvantage, perhaps based on the complexity of the matter, the employee's language skills, or their ability to navigate the process.
   • The process must require applications to be in writing with all the information listed in reg 8(1). The process should include a standard application form.
   • The process must set a time limit for lodgement that is at least 7 days for appointment/promotion and 28 days otherwise (reg 8(3)). The Head can set a longer period but cannot go below. The process should also allow for late applications if circumstances justify (reg 8(2)), with guidelines for that discretion.
   • The process must require written notice of decisions and reasons within a reasonable time (reg 9).

3. Train staff: Ensure that staff involved in conducting reviews (whether the Head or appointed persons) understand procedural fairness, the grounds for refusal, the restriction on legal representation, and the requirement for a statement of reasons.

4. Respond to Commission reviews: If the Commission requires information or documents (reg 13(3)(a)), the Head must provide them. If the Commission appoints a person to conduct a review, the Head must cooperate.

For employees:

1. Act quickly: The time limits are short. For most actions, you have at least 28 days to lodge an initial review application (or 7 days for appointment/promotion). For Commission review after an initial review decision, you have 7 or 28 days. For failure to commence initial review, you have 70 days from the date the Head received your application. Do not delay. If you are late, you must persuade the Head or Commission that circumstances justify acceptance; this is not guaranteed.

2. Prepare a detailed application: Your application for initial review must be in writing and include: the action in question, the name and job title of the decision-maker, the basis of your complaint, the remedy you seek, the date the action was taken, and the date you were notified or became aware of it (reg 8(1)). The more detail you provide, the less likelihood the Head will reject it as lacking substance.

3. Do not assume you can bring a lawyer: You generally cannot be accompanied by a legal practitioner unless you can show that you would be at a significant disadvantage without one. Consider bringing a union representative or a colleague instead. If you believe you need a lawyer, you must make that request to the reviewer and provide reasons. The reviewer has discretion.

4. Consider your forum: If your matter involves a discrimination complaint that you could also take to VCAT under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, you should choose one avenue. Starting VCAT proceedings may lead to the Head or Commission refusing the internal review. The internal review is likely faster and less formal, but it cannot award compensation or other remedies that a tribunal can. Evaluate which forum is better for your objectives.

5. Seek reasons: If the Head refuses to conduct a review or makes a decision, they must give you written reasons (reg 9). If the Commission refuses or decides, it must also give reasons (reg 13(7)). These reasons are important for any subsequent judicial review or for understanding your position. If reasons are not provided, you can raise that as a failure to comply.

6. Exhaust the initial review before going to the Commission: Except in the narrow cases of victimisation/harassment for a previous Commission application or Head involvement (reg 12), you cannot go directly to the Commission. You must complete the initial review and then, if you believe the process was deficient, apply to the Commission under reg 10. The Commission will not re-hear the merits; it will only review the process of the initial review. If the initial review was flawed, the Commission may direct that it be done again properly.

7. Comply with Commission requests: If the Commission interviews you or requires information, cooperate. Failure to do so may prejudice your application.