Welcome to the inaugural Queensland edition of our Government Roundup publication.


As the government landscape continues to evolve, we recognise the growing need for timely, practical insights to help you stay informed, compliant, and ahead of regulatory change.

In this issue, we’re pleased to share insights from our Queensland teams on key developments affecting government stakeholders, including legislative updates and case law, emerging risks and regulatory shifts.

Included in this edition is a preview of our government webinar series, commencing in the coming months. Further details will be shared in the coming weeks.

We trust you will find this edition informative, and please contact our authors should you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the topics further.

Applying the Reasonable Administrative Action exclusion under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

If a Commonwealth worker gets injured at work, they are entitled to statutory compensation, including income replacement and reimbursement for hospital and medical expenses until their injuries resolve or stabilise.

Read more

Trauma exposure: 7 steps for managing psychosocial risks arising from traumatic events in the workplace

Commonwealth workers in emergency services, law enforcement and social support frequently encounter trauma, now recognized as a psychosocial hazard under the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice, highlighting employers' responsibility to manage these risks.

Read more

PIPA and idiosyncrasies of Queensland medical negligence claims

If a Commonwealth worker gets injured at work, they are entitled to statutory compensation, including income replacement and reimbursement for hospital and medical expenses until their injuries resolve or stabilise.

Read more

Prove it or lose it: The reverse onus of proof on employers in adverse action claims

A Federal Circuit Court Judge has recently ruled that a Melbourne migrant and refugee centre took unlawful action when it dismissed an employee under the guise of a cost-cutting restructure. 

Read more

Employed for a ‘specific period or task’? What Queensland public sector employers need to know about reinstatement risks

The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in Alistair v Brisbane City Council (No 2) [2025] QIRC 139 has redrawn the boundaries for Queensland State public sector employers when objecting to an Application for Reinstatement if an employee is engaged for a "specific period or task".

Read more

Separating misconduct from psychiatric injury in dismissal: How Queensland councils can respond to applications for reinstatement

The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) in Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97 examines establishing workplace misconduct as a valid dismissal reason, especially when psychiatric injury is involved. It highlights how misconduct and unfair dismissal interact with the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

Read more

On the road again: A condition imposing a levy for maintenance works is unlawful, but a maintenance regime is reasonable

The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) in Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97 examines establishing workplace misconduct as a valid dismissal reason, especially when psychiatric injury is involved. It highlights how misconduct and unfair dismissal interact with the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

Read more

Amendments matter: Queensland Planning and Environment Court upholds refusal of development application, giving decisive weight to amended planning scheme.

The Planning and Environment Court of Queensland has dismissed an appeal against the decision of a local government to refuse a development application for a development permit for a material change of use of a lot at Bridgeman Downs.

Read more

Game-changer: No guarantee later stages will proceed results in a finding that a change is not a minor change

The Planning and Environment Court of Queensland has refused a minor change application which sought to introduce staging to a development for non-resident workforce accommodation because there was no assurance that the proposed later stage would proceed and as a consequence the development could not operate as intended.

Read more

To access the full PDF please click HERE.

This is commentary published by Colin Biggers & Paisley for general information purposes only. This should not be relied on as specific advice. You should seek your own legal and other advice for any question, or for any specific situation or proposal, before making any final decision. The content also is subject to change. A person listed may not be admitted as a lawyer in all States and Territories. Colin Biggers & Paisley, Australia 2025

Stay connected

Connect with us to receive our latest insights.