Reid v Department of Transport and Main Roads - [2025] QCAT 374

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Reid v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2025] QCAT 374

PARTIES:

STEPHEN JEFFREY REID

(applicant)

v

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR108-25

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2025

HEARING DATE:

22 September 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member P Roney KC

ORDERS:

The decisions of 22 April 2025 and 12 June 2025 under s 43(2)(b) of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2018 (Qld) to suspend and cancel the Applicant’s driver authorisation are affirmed and the application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LICENSING OR REGULATION OF OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS where application to review decision suspending and cancelling bus driver authorisation – where driving a bus with school children on board through flood waters on a road that was marked as closed – where when again confronted with floodwaters a bus driver allowed students to disembark from the bus and walk through flood affected areas

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 22

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (Qld)

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 43(2)(b)

Cooper v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2024] QCAT 62

Eldridge v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2018] QCAT 434

Elliott v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 64

Elliott v Queensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 180

GT v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 187

Hall v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 10

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Qld [2010] QCATA 58

Racing Queensland Ltd v Cullen [2011] QCAT 393

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant is a bus driver by occupation. He was employed in Townsville by a company called Transit Australia Pty Ltd, referred to as Kinetic in the material. The material filed in relation to his background and history is sparse, to say the least. He has references that say he is a person of integrity and compassion, who has always been there for others, offering support and guidance without hesitation, whether it be in the workplace or personally. Another says he has consistently demonstrated a high level of professionalism, reliability, and integrity. There is nothing to suggest he is not a person of good character.
Until 22 April 2025 the Applicant was the holder of a Transport and Main Roads, Driver Authorisation to provide passenger transport in Queensland. That allowed him to drive public buses including relevantly here buses carrying school children from school. He was employed by a company called Kinetic to do so.
There are two relevant events to consider, the first was driving a bus with school children on board through flood waters on a road that was marked as closed. The second event was in the days thereafter when again confronted with floodwaters, rather than drive the bus through them, he allowed students to disembark from the bus and “walk through flood affected areas”. How badly affected they were is not described in the material.
The dates of the incidents that are relevant to be considered here do not appear consistently in the material. The Applicant says the events occurred on consecutive days, 25 and 26 March 2025. The findings under review say they occurred on 21 and 28 March 2025. There is no objective evidence to enable these differences to be reconciled, but since the employer investigated which found the event occurred on 21 and 28 March 2025 I will proceed on the basis that those are the correct dates.
Section 43(2)(b) of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2018 (Qld) (‘TOPTR’) provides:
43 Immediate amendment or suspension
(1) The chief executive may immediately amend a person’s driver authorisation by imposing a condition on the authorisation if—
(a) the person has been convicted of a category B or category C driver disqualifying offence; or
(b) the person has been charged with a driver disqualifying offence and the charge has not been dealt with; or
(c) the chief executive considers it necessary in the public interest having regard to the purpose of driver authorisation as stated in section 23 of the Act.
(2) The chief executive may immediately suspend a person's driver authorisation if—
(a) the person has been convicted of a category B or category C driver disqualifying offence; or
(b) the person has been charged with a driver disqualifying offence and the charge has not been dealt with; or
(c) the person does not comply with a written notice given to the person under section 59; or
(d) the chief executive considers the suspension is necessary in the public interest having regard to the purpose of driver authorisation as stated in section 23 of the Act; or
(e) the chief executive is no longer satisfied with the person's proof of identity; or
(f) the chief executive is no longer satisfied the person holds a licence that was required for the grant or renewal of the driver authorisation.
On 22 April 2025 a decision was made to immediately suspend and propose to cancel his Driver Authorisation number 73136361. It appears that this decision was made under section 43 of the TOPTR. A notice of the decision and the reasons for the decision was provided to him on 22 April 2025.
He subsequently applied on 28 April 2025 to the Manager (Passenger Transport Operations), Department of Transport and Main Roads for a review of that decision. A decision on the application for review was provided on 1 May 2025. Both decisions found that on 21 March 2025 he drove through flood waters with students on board, and that this was a “serious offence” given the high potential for an incident to occur. The road had signage in place to advise that it was closed due to flooding.
On 1 May 2025 the Respondent made a decision on the review application and sent a letter to the Applicant advising that the original decision to Immediately Suspend the Driver Authorisation was upheld.
On 22 May 2025 the Applicant applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a Stay and Review of the decision to Immediately Suspend the Driver Authorisation. His stated ground for doing so was that he was following the Kinetic controller’s decision or direction and was not charged with any offence. He attached character references that said the things I have recited above. He did not file any material or statements or submissions in support of his application.
The decision to Immediately Suspend the Driver Authorisation was made on the basis that the actions of the Applicant failed to sufficiently prioritise the safety of the students, and did not align with the objectives of driver authorisation as outlined in section 23 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (Qld) (‘TOPTA’).
Section 23 of the TOPTA states:
23 Purpose of driver authorisation
(1)   The purpose of driver authorisation is to maximise public confidence in public passenger services in relation to the drivers of public passenger vehicles.
(2)   Without limiting subsection (1), the purpose includes ensuring that drivers of public passenger vehicles—
(a)are suitable persons to drive public passenger vehicles having regard to the need to provide for the personal safety of passengers and their property, and the public; and
(b)     conduct themselves responsibly with passengers and the public; and
(c)are responsible in the act of driving and are capable of safely operating the relevant type of vehicle; and
(d)     are aware of their customer service responsibilities; and
(e)     are held accountable for complying with appropriate standards
(3)   Without limiting subsection (1) or (2), the purpose also includes ensuring that drivers do not damage the reputation of public passenger transport.
(4)   In deciding whether to grant driver authorisation to a person, or to renew or amend, impose a condition on, or suspend or cancel a person's driver authorisation, the chief executive must take into consideration—
(a)the purpose of driver authorisation mentioned in subsections (1) to (3); and
(b)the paramount principle mentioned in section 33A that children and other vulnerable members of the community must be protected.
Section 23 of the TOPTA provides that in deciding to suspend or cancel a person's driver authorisation consideration must be given to the paramount principle mentioned in section 33A that the safety of children and other vulnerable members of the community must be protected.
By further notice dated 12 June 2025 the Senior Operations Officer, Townsville Translink Regional Office, issued to the Applicant a regulation notice to Cancel the Driver Authorisation in the public interest in response to the Incident Report submitted by the General-Manager at Kinetic. It may be assumed that this decision was also made under section 43 of the TOPTR.
The Applicant was provided 28 days of being given the notice to apply for an internal review of the decision to cancel his Driver Authorisation but no submissions were received by the Applicant within the 28 days therefore under section 23 of TOPTA the Applicant’s Driver Authorisation was cancelled.
The Applicant has not apparently sought a review of that decision in this Tribunal although I will proceed on the basis that his original application which preceded that decision would also be the basis for which he would challenge the cancellation decision.
Section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”) provides that the hearing of the review application is to be a fresh hearing on the merits, and that the purpose of the review to produce the correct and preferable decision. There is no presumption to be made that any part of that decision is correct or that some error needs to be proven about the way in which the decision was arrived at.[1]
[1] Elliott vQueensland Building Services Authority [2010] QCAT 180; Racing Queensland Ltd v Cullen [2011] QCAT 393; Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Qld [2010] QCATA 58.
On 17 April 2025, the General-Manager at the Applicant’s employer Kinetic emailed an Incident Report (‘the Kinetic Incident Report’) to the Regional Manager for Translink, following an investigation into an incident involving the Applicant by the head of HSE at Kinetic, namely Tenille Zahra. The report followed an internal investigation by Kinetic into the incidents.
The Kinetic Incident Report seems to have provided all of the information upon which the decisions under review were made, since no independent investigation was conducted by the agency Translink.
The Kinetic Incident Report found that on Friday 28 March 2025, at approximately 4:00pm while operating the school service 284, the Driver stopped at Chisholm Trail and informed students that he was unable to continue the route due to floodwaters impacting the roadway. At this point, nineteen students who reside along Chisholm Trail disembarked and began walking home, which required them to enter the flooded area on foot.
The Kinetic Incident Report found that in permitting this the Applicant deviated from standard operational procedures by instructing students to disembark at Chisholm Trail and walk home through flood-affected areas. It found that this action represented a significant breach of Kinetic's procedural and child protection policies.
The investigation assessed the sequence of events leading up to the incident, including communication between the Applicant and the Driver Supervisor (acting as Schools’ Liaison Officer), as well as the Applicant’s state of mind and knowledge at the time.
Kinetic's Driver Handbook and associated training required immediate contact with Operations Control in the event of a route obstruction and to await further instruction for the safe management of customers onboard. The Driver Handbook (Section E - On the Road) clearly stated that:
If you come across a hazard that you are unable to safely navigate around, contact Operations who will provide advice, which may include dispatching someone to assist you. Remember your safety and the safety of your customers is your number one priority.
Kinetic's Child Protection Policy provided:
Protect - children (those aged 18 and under) who ride on our services and never put them in a situation where they are at risk of harm.
I pause to note that it is the objective circumstances of the incident that are relevant to this review application, which is not concerned with whether a driver breaches policies in place by bus route operators.
The Kinetic Incident Report found that the Applicant failed to contact Operations Control when encountering a hazardous situation, as he was required to do by the Driver Handbook. Instead, the Applicant Driver decided independently to terminate the service, allowing 19 students to walk through a flooded zone. This it found was a clear violation of both safety procedures and the Kinetic Child Protection Policy.
The Kinetic Incident Report however also found that the Schools’ Liaison Officer had in fact instructed the Applicant to drop students at the nearest safe point to the floodwaters but did not advise him to contact Operations Control. This conduct by the Schools’ Liaison Officer was also contrary to standard operating procedure. It is reasonable to infer that the Applicant believed he was acting in accordance with the directions of his employer when he let the students disembark and walk through a flooded zone.
The Kinetic Incident Report found that the Applicant's decision-making was influenced by a prior reprimand for driving through floodwaters, which appeared to affect his judgment in the second situation.
On 28 April 2025 the Applicant provided a statement within an email which gave his version of events and stated:
(I was) taking students home at the end of the day on 25/03/25 on normal route when I came to turn into Chisholm Trail, there were road closed signs each side of the road, but not across the road, there was traffic (cars & utes) going through but not enough room for my bus.
I was about to get out of my bus to move them back enough to get through, but 2 Students got off the bus and moved them, I completed my run delivering the students home safe and sound.
On the 26/3/251 was called into the office on completion of my shift where I had been reported for what I had done the previous day and (told) not to drive through flood waters, I was told by Sarah Steff not to go the alternate route as there is a weight restriction on the bridge.
On the 28/3/251 arrived at the Chisholm trail to find water over the road. I told the students I couldn't take them any further, other drivers have commented they also heard me radioing base to get instructions but got no reply from base, so I told the students to phone their parents as most of the students had mobile phones, and five of the students lived 50 mts away.
Also there was only 50ml of water on the road on both occasions, the Bulletin reported that there were "20" kids "dumped "on the side of the road” in fact there was approximately 12 students.
That suggests the students walked on a roadway for 50 metres with only 50 mm of water over it. That would be a very small amount of water to drive a bus through or even walk through. The material suggests that this incident attracted media attention and that parents complained about what had happened to the children. The findings in the Kinetic Incident Report, which included a recommendation that he be dismissed, suggest a much more serious set of circumstances. He clearly decided to drive the bus on a road he knew was closed. He also knowingly let children off a bus in a flood zone so they could walk home when he knew his employer’s policies prohibited that for safety reasons.
The stated primary consideration in making the decision to immediately suspend was the purpose of driver authorisation as set out in section 23 of TOPTA. The reasons stated that while no order of importance had been given to the factors about which regard has been taken, it is submitted that the public interest is the most important factor to be considered followed by the interests of the Applicant. The reasons state that his actions failed to sufficiently prioritise the safety of the students, and do not align with the objectives of driver authorisation as outlined in section 23 of TOPTA.
The reasons stated that the information provided by the Applicant did not provide satisfactory reasoning for his actions nor address the grounds for the proposed action. Those findings were properly made and I reach the same conclusions.

The Applicant’s character, work history, whether he was a person of otherwise good driving history, the effect of suspension or cancellation had or would have on his income earning capacity, and his family situation would or might have been clearly matters that would have been relevant to consider in this Tribunal, as well as by the decision makers below. Unfortunately, apart from character references I describe earlier in these reasons, he has not addressed these issues or provided any material which would allow for them to be taken into account.
Ultimately his conduct must be judged by reference to the policy or purpose clearly recognised in section 23 of the TOPTA that driver authorisation is designed to maximise public confidence in public passenger services in relation to the drivers of public passenger vehicles. That purpose is to be given great weight. He showed extremely poor judgement in acting as he did, in the two incidents, even accepting that others within Kinetic may have facilitated if not encouraged the conduct. For the Applicant to have done so on a bus driving school students home was reckless and showed a failure to act responsibly.
In my view, in circumstances where the community has seen increases in the regularity and severity of flooding in recent years, it is widely understood that risks should not be taken in driving through flooded roadways.
The purpose of driver authorisation is to maximise public confidence in public passenger services in relation to the drivers of public passenger vehicles and the Applicant’s conduct was inconsistent with maximising public confidence in public passenger services, and his having an appreciation of that purpose.
The Applicant’s conduct was also inconsistent with the duty of drivers to conduct themselves responsibly with passengers and the public and being responsible in the act of driving and are capable of safely operating the relevant type of vehicle. He apparently was unaware of or defied the practices his employer put in place to meet customer service responsibilities.
There have been a few other decisions of this Tribunal which have dealt with similar situations. Some other examples involving licencing situations however I have not found them helpful in deciding the present case. Examples include Eldridge v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2018] QCAT 434, Hall v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 10, Elliott v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 64, GT v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 187, and Cooper v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2024] QCAT 62. I have not found any of those decisions to be of assistance here on these facts.
Having regard to his conduct and the paramount principle mentioned in section 33A that children and other vulnerable members of the community must be protected, in my view the decision(s) under review should be affirmed. The application for review is dismissed.