REVIEW DIVISION

Application to review directed TRANSFER –– s.146(1)(h) of the Victoria Police Act 2013 –– Decision to transfer Applicant from Melbourne West Uniform to Horsham Uniform made under section 35 (“reasonably necessary to do so for the provision of policing services”) following the General Duties Allocation Committee process (GDAC) –– Applicant applied for and was offered a metropolitan priority position in North West Metro Division 2, and declined; did not seek to apply for a ballot exemption (past deadline, no extension sought, finding that Applicant elected to “take chances” in ballot as he desired to stay at current work location) –– Applicant selected in ballot for Horsham –– Applicant now seeks to argue transfer “harsh, unjust or unreasonable” as his partner has caring responsibilities towards elderly grandmother and cannot relocate to or travel to Horsham, meaning the couple would need to live apart –– prior to GDAC process, Applicant and partner bought block of land and committed to build house during 2020 –– Board finds that the Applicant’s statutory declaration and supporting documents in the material lodged by Victoria Police not part of the “file relating to the decision” but in support of the review (leave must be sought, and can only be given in exceptional circumstances (s.149(2)) –– Board emphasises that review is not a “second bite at the cherry” and puts future applicants on notice that full case must be presented when applying for exemption –– on balance, Board agrees to accept statutory declarations to ensure veracity of claims put in the review hearing –– Board considered public interests in: ensuring policing services provided to the community; the integrity of the GDAC process; holding people to the commitments given on joining Victoria Police; relevance of a partner’s caring responsibilities; what constitutes “unreasonable refusal to accommodate” responsibilities as a carer –– concludes that the decision was taken by the Applicant himself (in consultation with his partner) to reject an offered placement which would enable commuting from current residence and to instead face the ballot process –– couple contemplated the consequences of doing so –– in this circumstance, the transfer cannot be said to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable even if the Applicant’s partner cannot re-locate with him –– decision to transfer affirmed (section 153(2)).