Two missed deadlines, two automatic refusals - and a restructure defence that didn't hold up
Queensland Police Service missed two review deadlines, then pointed to a restructure. The Commission substituted its own decision and made the worker permanent.
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission found on August 13, 2026 that the refusal to convert a long-serving temporary employee to permanent employment was not fair and reasonable. Instead of sending the matter back to the agency, the Commission set the refusal aside and substituted its own decision, converting him to a permanent Senior Vendor and Contract Management Officer (AO6).
He had been employed on fixed term contracts since April 17, 2023, in the vendor and contract management group within the agency's ICT operations.
His first request came after a year of continuous service. QPS declined on May 30, 2024, resting the refusal on "genuine operational requirements" tied to uncertainty about a possible restructure. At that point it accepted he was "suitable" and that there was "a continuing need for you to perform your role or a role that is substantially the same." The Commission gave that acceptance no weight, noting it came a considerable time before the decision under appeal and before the review the agency later relied on.
Two deadlines then passed. QPS began the review it must conduct once an employee reaches two years of continuous service, but did not complete it within the required period. Under the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), missing that window counts automatically as a decision not to convert. The employee sought an internal review. That was not completed in time either, producing a second automatic refusal. The decision reached him on August 27, 2025, and he lodged his appeal on September 1, 2025.
On appeal, QPS pointed to a 100-Day Review of the service, authorised by the Queensland Police Commissioner in March 2025 and conducted between March and June 2025. One recommendation was to "Redesign [of] the QPS IT operating model, including an enterprise systems strategy and the exploration of cloud-based opportunities." A new structure was to be implemented in "three waves" between August 2025 and early 2026. Until that detail was settled, the agency submitted, "At this point in time it cannot be assumed that the position occupied by the Appellant will continue to be needed by the organisation, until these detailed assessments are completed." Appointing him permanently beforehand would be "presumptuous", it argued.
The Commission read the agency as expressing doubt rather than saying the need for the role would end. Doubt was not enough to conclude that no continuing need existed, it found, given he had been in the job approximately two years and four months by the time of the automatic refusal, and given it was uncontested that his duties were "core business functions", "not temporary or project limited" work. On that basis it found a continuing need for someone in his role.
The Commission then made an alternative finding. The legislation also asks decision-makers to consider whether there is a continuing need for someone in a role that is substantially the same as the employee's. The agency's submissions did not define such a role, did not analyse the capability requirements of the position he held, and gave no indication that any search had been conducted. QPS had "stopped short of demonstrating its consideration of the entirety of the mandatory criteria", the Commission said, and that "was not fair and reasonable."
On operational requirements, the Commission applied a threshold from its earlier decisions: conversion commonly brings managerial inconvenience, so genuine operational requirements must go beyond that. It accepted the employee's submission that "Reliance on speculative, uncertain structural changes is not a valid operational reason to deny permanent conversion when the position remains ongoing."
The agency's efficiency argument did not carry it either. The Commission accepted that a chief executive must ensure "the effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources", but found that responsibility did not amount to a genuine operational requirement to refuse conversion. A permanent appointment secured the skills and experience he had developed, guarding against turnover costs such as recruitment and training. The Commission also noted the agency's submissions elevated the review's focus on "Improving organisational efficiency…" over another of its four main focuses, "Enhancing the wellbeing and capability of its workforce", without the necessary evidence to explain why.
Not every argument the employee ran succeeded. He submitted that an automatic refusal issued without reasons was itself a procedural failure. The Commission disagreed, since Directive 02/23 provides that such decisions may be made, though it noted he had been refused twice in succession that way.
The Commission concluded there were no genuine operational reasons preventing conversion. Orders followed under s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld): the appeal allowed, the refusal set aside, and permanent employment substituted.
