Cushing v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

In the case of Cushing v State of Queensland (Department of Education), the appellant, Ms Cushing, sought a permanent appointment to a higher classification level in which she had been acting. She was substantively employed as an Administration Officer (AO2) at Varsity College but had been acting as a Business Manager (AO5) at Clover Hill State School. The respondent, the Department of Education, refused her application for a permanent appointment to the higher classification level, citing its genuine operational requirements, as the substantive incumbent was due to return to the role. Ms Cushing appealed the decision, arguing it was unfair and unreasonable.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the respondent’s decision to refuse Ms Cushing's permanent appointment was fair and reasonable, particularly in light of the department's genuine operational requirements. The court also considered whether the respondent's decision appropriately took into account Ms Cushing's human rights and whether it adequately informed her of her appeal rights.

The court found that while the decision did not list the number of times Ms Cushing's acting arrangement had been extended, as required by s 120(5)(c) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), this omission did not cause prejudice to Ms Cushing or materially change the outcome. The court was satisfied that the decision met the statutory requirements and clearly explained why Ms Cushing's application was refused, her human rights were considered, and her appeal rights were communicated. The court recognised the appellant's long tenure in the acting role and her belief that the substantive incumbent would not return, but ultimately upheld the respondent's decision.

The orders of the court confirmed the respondent's decision, affirming that the refusal of Ms Cushing's permanent appointment was fair and reasonable.