Wavell-Smith, B. v Mussared, P. & Ors [1987] FCA 367

fF at ree ~ten4Ao e - weer a IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QOLDGOS of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: BRIAN WAVELL~SMITH Applicant

AND: P, MUSSARED

First Respondent

AND: J. ROACHE

Second Respondent

AND: K. CONWAY Third Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 7 JULY 1987 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application for interlocutory relief made 6 July 1987 be dismissed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: BRIAN WAVELL-SMITH Applicant AND: P. MUSSARED

First Respondent AND: J. ROACHE

Second Respondent

AND: K. CONWAY

Third Respondent

PINCUS J. 7 JULY 1987

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This 1s an ex parte application but, in view of the

careful argument addressed to me, I have thought it right to give

my reasons for decision in some detail. The applicant 1s employed

by ASIO under determination 4/85. Clause 55 of that document

contemplates that in certain circumstances likely to result in some officers of a functional unit being identified as excess officers, a Personnel Assessments Committee is to be appointed - c1.55(3). Its purposes are to identify the excess officers and recommend to the Chief Officer as to which of them should be declared in excess of requirements. Under cl.55(5) the criteria

to be applied by the Personnel Assessments Committee in

identification of excess officers are to be, in the present circumstances, the order of relative efficiency. It will be noted that the power of the Personnel Assessments Committee as to a declaration in excess of requirements is merely recommendatory under cl.56. It is the Chief Officer who may declare an officer eligible for redeployment and that seems to follow on a recommendation that they be declared in excess of requirements. It is unnecessary to consider in detail the fate of the declared officers, dealt with in cl.57 and cl.58. The applicant says he may well be transferred interstate and I decide this application on the assumption that that 15 so. Under cl.60 there 18 a right of appeal against a declaration of eligibility for redeployment, where it results from a recommendation under power 55(3)(b), i.e. a recommendation that the officer be declared in excess of requirements. The grounds of appeal are greater efficiency than officers not so declared and other grounds not necessary to be mentioned in detail. Under cl.60(4)(c) the appeal 1s to be referred to a Redeployment and Retirement Review Committee. Under e1.61(3) that Committee as to enquire into the merits and under