{"id":"F2025L00447","name":"Parliamentary Service Commissioner's Directions 2025","slug":"parliamentary-service-commissioner-s-directions-2025","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":442800,"registerId":"F2025L00447-fast-fetch-1775957735943","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-12","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Parliamentary Service Commissioner's Directions 2025","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\n![Commonwealth Coat of Arms of Australia](image.001.jpeg)\n\n \n\nParliamentary Service Commissioner’s Directions 2025\n\nI, Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM, Parliamentary Service Commissioner, make the following directions.\n\nDated  27 March 2025\n\nDr Gordon de Brouwer PSM\n\nParliamentary Service Commissioner\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nContents\n\nPart 1—Preliminary\n\n1 Name\n\n2 Commencement\n\n3 Authority\n\n4 Schedules\n\n5 Definitions\n\nPart 2—Basic procedural requirements for handling suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct\n\nDivision 1—Introduction\n\n6 Purpose of this instrument\n\nDivision 2—Procedural requirements\n\n7 Employee must be informed that a determination is being considered\n\n8 Employee must be informed before a sanction is imposed\n\n9 Person making determination to be independent and unbiased\n\n10 Determination process to be informal\n\n11 Record of determination and sanctions\n\nDivision 3—Additional procedural requirements for SES employees\n\n12 Role of Secretary and Commissioner\n\nPart 3—Application provisions\n\n13 Application provisions\n\nSchedule 1—Repeals\n\nParliamentary Service Commissioner’s Direction 2014\n\n \n\nPart 1—Preliminary\n\n \n\n1  Name\n\n  This instrument is the Parliamentary Service Commissioner’s Directions 2025.\n\n2  Commencement\n\n (1) Each provision of this instrument specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.\n\n \n\n- Commencement information\n- Column 1 Column 2 Column 3\n- Provisions Commencement Date/Details\n- 1. The whole of this instrument 1 April 2025. 1 April 2025\n\n\nNote: This table relates only to the provisions of this instrument as originally made. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this instrument.\n\n (2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this instrument. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this instrument.\n\n3  Authority\n\n  This instrument is made under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999.\n\n4  Schedules\n\n  Each instrument that is specified in a Schedule to this instrument is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this instrument has effect according to its terms.\n\n5  Definitions\n\nNote: A number of expressions used in this instrument are defined in the Act, including the following:\n\n(a) Code of Conduct;\n\n(b) Commissioner;\n\n(c) former Parliamentary Service employee;\n\n(d) Parliamentary Service employee;\n\n(e) relevant Department;\n\n(f) Secretary;\n\n(g) SES employee.\n\n  In this instrument:\n\nAct means the Parliamentary Service Act 1999.\n\nPart 2—Basic procedural requirements for handling suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct\n\nDivision 1—Introduction\n\n6  Purpose of this instrument\n\n  For the purposes of subsection 15(6) and paragraph 15(4)(a) of the Act, this instrument sets out the basic procedural requirements with which procedures established by a Secretary under subsection 15(3) of the Act must comply.\n\nNote 1: Subsection 15(3) of the Act requires a Secretary to establish written procedures for determining:\n\n(a) whether a Parliamentary Service employee, or a former Parliamentary Service employee, in the relevant Department has breached the Code of Conduct; and\n\n(b) the sanction that is to be imposed (if any) on a Parliamentary Service employee who is found to have breached the Code of Conduct.\n\nNote 2: See also section 54 of the Parliamentary Service Determination 2024 (which deals with managing performance in cases of a potential breach of the Code of Conduct).\n\nDivision 2—Procedural requirements\n\n7  Employee must be informed that a determination is being considered\n\n  A person must not make a determination that a Parliamentary Service employee or former Parliamentary Service employee has breached the Code of Conduct unless the person takes reasonable steps to:\n\n (a) inform:\n\n (i) the employee or former employee of the details of the suspected breach of the Code of Conduct (including any subsequent variation of those details); and\n\n (ii) the employee of the sanctions that may be imposed on the employee under subsection 15(1) of the Act; and\n\n (b) give the employee or former employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to the suspected breach.\n\n8  Employee must be informed before a sanction is imposed\n\n  A person must not make a determination to impose a sanction on a Parliamentary Service employee who is found to have breached the Code of Conduct unless the person takes reasonable steps to:\n\n (a) inform the employee of:\n\n (i) the determination that the employee has breached the Code of Conduct; and\n\n (ii) the sanction that is under consideration; and\n\n (iii) the factors that are under consideration in determining the sanction to be imposed; and\n\n (b) give the employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to the sanction under consideration.\n\n9  Person making determination to be independent and unbiased\n\n  A Secretary must take reasonable steps to ensure that:\n\n (a) the person who determines whether a Parliamentary Service employee or former Parliamentary Service employee has breached the Code of Conduct is, and appears to be, independent and unbiased; and\n\n (b) the person who determines the sanction to be imposed (if any) is, and appears to be, independent and unbiased.\n\n10  Determination process to be informal\n\n  The process for determining whether a Parliamentary Service employee or former Parliamentary Service employee has breached the Code of Conduct must be carried out with as little formality and as much expedition as a proper consideration of the matter allows.\n\n11  Record of determination and sanctions\n\n  If a person makes a determination in relation to a suspected breach of the Code of Conduct by a Parliamentary Service employee or former Parliamentary Service employee, a written record must be made of:\n\n (a) the suspected breach; and\n\n (b) the determination; and\n\n (c) any sanction imposed as a result of a determination that the employee breached the Code of Conduct; and\n\n (d) if a statement of reasons was given to the employee or former employee—the statement of reasons.\n\nNote: The Archives Act 1983 applies to a record made under this section.\n\nDivision 3—Additional procedural requirements for SES employees\n\n12  Role of Secretary and Commissioner\n\nConsultation on process\n\n (1) A Secretary must consult with the Commissioner on the process for determining whether an SES employee in the relevant Department has breached the Code of Conduct if a person suspects the employee of doing so.\n\nConsultation on possible sanctions\n\n (2) A Secretary must consult with the Commissioner before the Secretary or delegate imposes a sanction on an SES employee in the relevant Department if:\n\n (a) a person determines (under procedures established under subsection 15(3) or 48A(2) of the Act) that the employee has breached the Code of Conduct; and\n\n (b) the Secretary or delegate is considering imposing a sanction on the employee.\n\nNote: The Commissioner may, from time to time, issue guidance about matters relating to breaches of the Code of Conduct.\n\nPart 3—Application provisions\n\n \n\n13  Application provisions\n\n (1) Subsection 12(1) of this instrument applies in relation to a suspicion formed on or after the commencement of this section, whether the suspicion relates to the conduct of an SES employee occurring before, on or after that commencement.\n\n (2) Subsection 12(2) of this instrument applies in relation to a determination made on or after the commencement of this section that an SES employee has breached the Code of Conduct, whether the determination relates to the conduct of the SES employee occurring before, on or after that commencement.\n\nSchedule 1—Repeals\n\n \n\nParliamentary Service Commissioner’s Direction 2014\n\n1  The whole of the instrument\n\nRepeal the instrument.\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument is primarily an update and consolidation of procedural minimums required by the Parliamentary Service Act rather than a substantial expansion of subject matter. It repeals the 2014 Directions and restates basic procedural safeguards (notice, right to respond, recordkeeping, informal/expeditious process). The principal substantive additions are a formal, written consultation role for the Parliamentary Service Commissioner in SES cases (s12) and clear archiving direction (s11); it also contains retrospective-application clauses for SES-related consultation and sanction decisions (s13). These are incremental expansions of procedure and oversight rather than a significant growth beyond the original purpose of setting minimum procedures for Code of Conduct processes."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument: 13 numbered provisions plus one repeal Schedule.","Limited number of new defined terms; most expressions are defined in the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 (s5 cross-reference).","Several cross-references to the Act (particularly s15) and to the Parliamentary Service Determination 2024 (note to s6).","Multiple provisions use open-ended standards—\"reasonable steps\", \"reasonable opportunity\", \"independent and unbiased\"—which create interpretive discretion.","One specific additional pathway for SES employees creating extra procedural layers (consultation requirements in s12).","Retrospective-application style clauses for SES consultations and sanctions (s13) that require attention when applying to conduct before commencement.","Repeal of the 2014 Directions (Schedule 1) — instrument both replaces and updates prior directions."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)\n\n- Establishes the minimum procedural steps that departments must follow when they consider that a Parliamentary Service employee (or a former employee) may have breached the Code of Conduct (see s6).  It implements the Secretary's obligation under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to have written procedures for breaches and sanctions. (s6; notes reference s15(3), s15(4)(a), s15(6) of the Act)\n- Sets specific procedural safeguards that departments must follow before making breach findings or imposing sanctions: telling the person what is alleged, giving a reasonable opportunity to respond, telling them the sanction under consideration and the factors being weighed, and creating a written record of the process and outcome. (ss7–11)\n- Requires the Secretary to take steps to ensure those who decide breaches or sanctions are, and appear to be, independent and unbiased. (s9)\n- Directs that the breach-determination process be informal and as quick as is consistent with proper consideration. (s10)\n- Requires written records of suspected breaches, determinations, sanctions and any statements of reasons; those records are covered by the Archives Act. (s11)\n- Adds extra consultation steps for Senior Executive Service (SES) employees: the Secretary must consult the Parliamentary Service Commissioner on the process when someone suspects an SES employee of a breach, and must consult the Commissioner again before imposing a sanction on an SES employee after a finding. (s12)\n- Repeals the earlier Parliamentary Service Commissioner’s Direction 2014 and takes effect from 1 April 2025. (Commencement and Schedule 1)\n\nWho this affects\n\n- Parliamentary Service employees and former Parliamentary Service employees: their employment-related conduct that may be said to breach the Code of Conduct is subject to the procedures set out here (s7).  The instrument sets procedural rights (notice, chance to respond) and creates paperwork and archiving obligations (s11).\n- Secretaries and departmental decision-makers: they must adopt written procedures meeting these minimum requirements and take steps to ensure decision‑makers appear independent (ss6, 9). Departments retain the decision-making power but must follow the steps set out.\n- SES employees specifically: their cases must involve consultation with the Parliamentary Service Commissioner both at the stage of designing the process and before sanctions are imposed (s12).\n- The Parliamentary Service Commissioner: gains a formal consultative role in SES cases and is authorised to issue guidance (s12 note).\n\nWhy it matters (purpose-claims in the instrument and practical effects)\n\n- The instrument says it exists to define the \"basic procedural requirements\" that Secretaries’ procedures must meet under the Act (s6).  That is a claim of ensuring minimum procedural fairness and consistency across departments.\n\nTest of that claim against costs, incentives and trade-offs\n\n- Who pays: departments incur administrative costs — informing employees, documenting matters, archiving records, and (for SES matters) consulting the Commissioner. Employees spend time preparing responses if alleged to have breached the Code.\n- Who decides: departments (Secretaries or delegates) continue to make findings and impose sanctions, but must do so in ways that meet the directions; the Commissioner has a consultative role for SES matters (ss9, 12).\n- Behaviour change incentivised: departments will be more likely to follow documented, prompt, informal processes and to keep records; SES cases will involve the Commissioner early, which may slow processes and use Commissioner resources.\n- Bureaucratic discretion and vagueness: several standards are expressed as \"reasonable steps\" and \"reasonable opportunity\" (ss7–9). Those phrases create interpretive discretion and may produce variation in application between departments and cases.\n- Trade-off speed versus formality: the instrument requires processes to be \"as little formality and as much expedition as a proper consideration of the matter allows\" (s10). That pushes for faster, less formal handling but leaves open how much investigatory work is \"proper\", which affects thoroughness and legal risk.\n- Compliance and implementation risk: departments must align existing procedures with these minimums; differing interpretations of \"independent and unbiased\" or \"reasonable\" timeframes may lead to disputes or external review. The requirement to archive records means records will be preserved and may be accessible for future scrutiny or litigation (s11).\n- Effects on private sector: direct effects on private businesses are minimal. Indirectly, clarity and recordkeeping may affect contractors or consultants engaged by departments if their conduct feeds into Code processes (via reputational risk or evidence preservation).\n- Concentration of benefits and diffuse costs: procedural protections (notice and chance to respond) are concentrated benefits for employees; compliance and consultation obligations are diffuse costs borne by departments and the Commissioner.\n\nConcrete mechanisms to watch in implementation\n\n- How departments define and apply \"reasonable opportunity\" and \"reasonable steps\" in practice (ss7–9).\n- How \"independent and unbiased\" decision‑makers are appointed or constituted within departments (s9).\n- How the Commissioner exercises the consultative role for SES cases and whether that changes timing or outcomes (s12).\n- The interaction of these directions with the Parliamentary Service Determination 2024 (noted at s6) and with the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 provisions they implement.\n\nKey sections to refer to: ss6–12 (procedural rules), s11 (recording and archiving), s12 (SES consultation), Schedule 1 (repeal of 2014 Directions).\n"},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument maintains its original narrow purpose: setting basic procedural requirements for Code of Conduct breach determinations. It replaces the 2014 version with updated but substantively similar content. The scope remains focused on procedural fairness requirements and has not expanded beyond this administrative law function."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument (13 sections plus Schedule)","Minimal defined terms (only 1 explicit definition: 'Act'; others reference the parent Act)","Simple structure with clear Part/Division organisation","Limited cross-referencing (primarily to the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 and Parliamentary Service Determination 2024)","Straightforward procedural requirements without nested exceptions","Single application provision with clear temporal rules","No conditional logic beyond basic 'if/then' statements in sections 7-12"],"plain_english_summary":"These rules tell parliamentary departments how to handle suspected breaches of the public service Code of Conduct for current and former Parliamentary Service employees, with extra safeguards for senior (SES) staff and requirements for Secretaries’ internal processes. \n\nThey require independent, documented, and fair investigations that give accused staff clear notice and an opportunity to respond, ensuring consistent treatment across Parliament and protecting employees from unfair punishment."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/parliamentary-service-commissioner-s-directions-2025","history":"/api/acts/parliamentary-service-commissioner-s-directions-2025/history","analysis":"/api/acts/parliamentary-service-commissioner-s-directions-2025/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/parliamentary-service-commissioner-s-directions-2025/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/parliamentary-service-commissioner-s-directions-2025/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/parliamentary-service-commissioner-s-directions-2025/documents"}}