Australian Federal Police (Categories of Conduct) Determination 2023

The Determination works as a categorisation instrument. Its core concepts are:

• Category labels: The Determination sets out three categories of conduct, described in tables under ss 7 (category 1), 8 (category 2) and 9 (category 3). Each category is defined "for the purposes of subsection 40RM(1) of the Act", so the Determination is an instrument that feeds into the Act’s broader misconduct regime (ss 7-9).
• Corruption carve‑out: Section 6 makes an express rule that any conduct "of a kind that raises a corruption issue" is not to be treated as category 1, 2 or 3 conduct under this Determination. The instrument notes that conduct giving rise to a corruption issue is treated as the highest category under the Act, by reference to subsection 40RK(5) (s 6 and s 6 note).
• Examples and non‑exclusivity: Each category table contains examples, and each table is accompanied by a statutory note that an example is not exhaustive and may extend operation of the provision (ss 7-9 notes). The instrument therefore sets out illustrative conduct rather than an exhaustive code.
• Interplay with other instruments and laws: The Determination refers to other internal AFP instruments such as Commissioner’s Orders, National Guidelines, Practical Guides, Better Practice Guides and the AFP Code of Conduct and AFP Core Values (s 5 and parts of ss 8-9). It also imports statutory meanings from other legislation, for example "prescribed information" from s 60A of the Act and "sexually harass" from s 28A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (s 5).
• "Could not" threshold: Many entries qualify conduct with the words "does not, and could not, result in" certain harms (see multiple items in ss 8 and 9). Those phrases frame the assessment as a forward looking, foreseeability style test, not merely an observed outcome test. The presence or absence of potential harm to operational or national security, to individuals, or to reputation is a central sorting mechanism between categories.
• Managerial and procedural context: Several items pick up supervisory or governance failures (for example failure to supervise, failure to report conflicts of interest), signalling that the Determination covers not only frontline operational misconduct but also governance, administrative and supervisory deficiencies (ss 8 and 9, items on supervision, conflicts of interest and reporting).

Conceptually, the Determination is a classificatory tool to be applied by AFP decision makers under the Act. It fixes a menu of conduct descriptions and tie‑break rules (for example corruption outranks categories 1-3; "could not" language differentiates minor from serious conduct). It does not itself provide penal rules or the specific remedial actions to be taken; those remain located in the Act and in internal AFP procedural instruments referenced by the Determination.

Principal persons directly affected by this Determination are AFP appointees, as that term is used in the Act and defined in s 5 of the Determination. The Determination will therefore apply to the full range of AFP personnel to whom the Act’s misconduct and disciplinary regime applies.

Secondary affected groups include:

• AFP managers and supervisors who will use the Determination to classify conduct for the purpose of deciding investigative pathways, remedial options and potential disciplinary steps. Several items expressly address supervisory failures and managerial duties, which means supervisors may find themselves both subject to categories and responsible for classification decisions regarding others (see ss 8(4)(a), 8(12)(b) and 9(4)(a)).
• The Commonwealth Ombudsman by virtue of co‑signature and the standing role that office plays in oversight of AFP administrative conduct. The instrument is made by the Commissioner and the Ombudsman together (front pages) and the Ombudsman may therefore be an interlocutor in oversight or reporting contexts, although the Determination itself does not set out oversight mechanisms.
• External stakeholders who interact with the AFP including members of the public and victims, because the Determination identifies conduct affecting members of the public (for example, customer service failings in s 7(1), misuse or mishandling of property in s 8(11), and misuse of prescribed information in s 9(13)). The Determination defines how such conduct will be classified when arising from AFP appointee actions.
• Legal, HR and compliance professionals who advise the AFP or represent AFP appointees in misconduct processes. The Determination is the primary reference for conduct classification under the Act once it commences, and it will therefore be central to case framing and mitigation strategies.
• Agencies and processes that intersect with the AFP on matters such as procurement, finance and governance, as some examples explicitly reference the Commissioner’s Financial Instructions and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (s 9(2)(b)). Where conduct implicates these areas, other administrative and statutory consequences may follow.

The Determination draws lines that matter to affected persons. For instance:

• Conduct that "could not" result in operational or national security harm, reputational damage, or harm to individuals is placed in category 2 or 1 (ss 7, 8). That means many administrative errors, interpersonal failures, and lower‑level governance breaches are intended for lower categories and the remedial responses that correspond under the Act.
• Conduct that "results, or could result, in" operational or national security breach, harm to individuals, or reputational damage is placed in category 3 (s 9). That elevates a range of failures into the highest non‑corruption category and will affect the processes and seriousness with which matters are dealt.
• Alleged victims’ choice matters for sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying: the Determination distinguishes between matters the alleged victim wants dealt with informally and those the alleged victim wants dealt with formally (see ss 8(7)-(9) and 9(8)-(10)). That creates an affected‑person enabled route into different classification outcomes.

Finally, the transitional provision (s 10) affects who is subject to which Determination: incidents before the commencement remain governed by the 2013 Determination; incidents after commencement are governed by this 2023 Determination. That timing line will matter for individuals and processes that straddle the changeover.

The Determination itself does not create freestanding criminal or penal duties, nor does it enumerate specific rights of appeal. Instead it functions as the statutory instrument that operationalises subsection 40RM(1) of the Act by specifying the conduct categories that the Act will use to allocate conduct to procedural paths. From the Determination we can extract the following operational duties and claimant‑facing rights, insofar as they are embedded or referenced in the text:

Duties placed on AFP appointees, expressed or implied:

• Comply with the AFP Code of Conduct and the AFP Core Values, as those instruments are in force at commencement; failures to comply are expressly captured across categories and may be treated as category 2 or 3 conduct depending on severity and consequences (see s 5 definition; ss 8(4) and 9(4)).
• Observe Commissioner’s Orders, National Guidelines, Practical Guides and Better Practice Guides, with specific items identifying breaches of those instruments as falling into category 2 or 3 depending on the risk of harm (ss 8(1)-(3), 9(2)-(6)).
• Report conflicts of interest and comply with governance requirements related to conflicts of interest; failures to comply are listed under category 2 when they "do not, and could not" affect decision making, and category 3 where they "affect, or could affect" decision making or the functions and interests of the AFP (ss 8(12)-(13), 9(6)-(7)).
• Protect prescribed information, avoid unlawful or improper access, use or disclosure of prescribed information, and otherwise handle sensitive material lawfully (s 9(13) citing prescribed information as defined in s 60A of the Act).

Duties on managers and decision makers inside the AFP:

• Apply the categorisation rubric when making decisions about how to handle allegations, investigations, remedial actions and discipline (the tables in ss 7-9 supply the descriptive boundaries to be applied for the purposes of subsection 40RM(1) of the Act).
• Respect the carve‑out for corruption issues: where conduct raises a corruption issue it must not be shoehorned into categories 1-3, but must be handled according to the Act’s corruption provisions (s 6).

Rights or procedural implications for those subject to classification:

• The Determination gives effect to different procedural channels under the Act by sorting conduct into categories. While this Determination does not itself specify the precise remedial actions or sanctions for each category, the Act will prescribe or enable different investigatory and disciplinary responses once the category is determined (see ss 7-9 preambles referring to subsection 40RM(1)).
• The Determination respects alleged victims’ preferences for informal versus formal handling in sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying matters, explicitly making those preferences a classification trigger (ss 8(7)-(9), 9(8)-(10)). That confers a limited handling right to the alleged victim when the conduct does not otherwise require formal intervention.

Limits to duties and rights in the Determination:

• The Determination does not itself create enforcement mechanisms or appeals. Any remedial action, disciplinary sanction or appeal right will derive from the Act and other AFP or statutory instruments. The Determination is a classificatory input into that broader regime (see ss 7-9 opening words, referencing subsection 40RM(1) of the Act).
• The Determination fixes the AFP Code of Conduct and AFP Core Values "as in force at the commencement of this instrument" for interpretive purposes (s 5). That means subsequent amendments to those documents may not automatically change how the Determination is read in relation to conduct that occurs from commencement, unless the Determination or the Act provides otherwise.

In short, the Determination establishes the duty to categorise conduct according to the provided rubric, embeds a set of discrete obligations for AFP appointees to avoid conduct that maps into the listed items, and creates classification‑dependent procedural implications for alleged perpetrators and victims. The precise rights to review or appeal classification decisions are not contained in this Determination; they will be a function of the Act and AFP policy implementing the Act.

This Determination does not itself prescribe penalties, fines or removal from office. It is expressly a category‑setting instrument used "for the purposes of subsection 40RM(1) of the Act" (ss 7-9). The enforcement and sanctioning powers remain the province of the Act and AFP internal processes. From the Determination and its cross‑references we can identify the enforcement architecture and practical consequences:

• Classification as a gate to enforcement: The Determination creates the taxonomy which will trigger different investigative and disciplinary approaches under the Act. Conduct classified as category 1, 2 or 3 will be processed through the Act’s misconduct framework, with category 3 being the highest non‑corruption level. Where conduct "raises a corruption issue" it is explicitly taken out of categories 1-3 and dealt with under the Act’s corruption handling regime (s 6 and s 6 note referring to subsection 40RK(5) of the Act). Thus the Determination functions as the front end of enforcement rather than as the enforcement instrument itself.

• Internal AFP enforcement mechanisms: The instrument repeatedly references Commissioner’s Orders, AFP governance instruments, National Guidelines and Practical Guides as the prescriptive sources of conduct expectations and as the standards whose breach is captured by categories (s 5 and ss 8-9). Enforcement and remedial action are therefore likely to be drawn from those instruments and from the Act. The Determination lists examples such as failures to comply with Commissioner’s Financial Instructions or the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, which suggest that financial governance and procurement failures can lead to category 3 handling (s 9(2)(b)).

• Criminal law intersection: Certain entries capture conduct that may independently be criminal, for example "being arrested, summonsed or charged in relation to an alleged criminal offence" and driving above prescribed alcohol limits (s 9(1)(a)-(b)). The Determination treats those as category 3 conduct where they are sufficiently serious. The Determination does not itself commence criminal prosecution or change criminal law; criminal processes proceed under relevant criminal statutes. The Determination’s role is to classify such conduct within the AFP administrative misconduct framework.

• Safeguards and oversight: The Determination is signed by the AFP Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. While the Determination itself does not set out oversight procedures, the Ombudsman’s involvement indicates an institutional connection to external oversight structures. The instrument does not specify whether classification decisions are subject to internal review, merits review, or judicial review; those questions will be governed by the Act and relevant administrative law.

• Discretion and subjectivity in classification: Many items depend on an assessment of whether the conduct "could result" in harm to operational or national security, individuals, or reputation (ss 8 and 9). That invites evaluative judgements by decision makers about risk and foreseeability. The Determination thus devolves substantial classificatory discretion to AFP decision makers, constrained by the express text but not mechanistically defined.

• No automatic sanction matrix: The Determination provides neither a tariff of penalties nor prescriptive remedial actions tied to each category. It therefore leaves enforcement outcomes to be determined under the Act and AFP procedural instruments. Category assignment is an input to enforcement rather than an enforcement measure.

In practice, the Determination will affect enforcement by directing which matters are escalated, which matters may be handled informally (for example some category 2 items), which require formal processes (category 3 and corruption matters), and which areas require immediate protection of information or individuals. The legal consequences for the alleged actor, including termination, suspension, redeployment, remedial training, reprimand or referral for criminal investigation, will follow the Act and AFP procedures rather than this Determination itself.

The Determination expressly imports and references several provisions and instruments external to itself. These interactions shape interpretation and operational effect.

Direct textual imports and references:

• Australian Federal Police Act 1979: The Determination is made under subsection 40RM(1) of the Act (s 3). Many of the Determination’s phrases and its legal purpose arise from the Act, including the meaning of "category 1 conduct", "category 2 conduct", "category 3 conduct", "Commissioner’s Orders", "duties", and "remedial action", which the instrument explicitly says are defined in the Act (s 5 note and s 5 opening text).
• Section 60A of the Act: The Determination uses the term "prescribed information" and adopts the meaning from s 60A of the Act (s 5). Misuse or mishandling of prescribed information is a listed category 3 item (s 9(13)).
• Sex Discrimination Act 1984: The Determination takes the meaning of "sexually harass" from s 28A of that Act (s 5). This anchors the sexual harassment entries in the Determination to an external statutory definition.
• Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013: The Determination cites breaches of the PGPA Act as examples of conduct that would be category 3, specifically under breaches of Commissioner’s Financial Instructions or the PGPA Act (s 9(2)(b)).

Application of interpretive Acts:

• Acts Interpretation Act 1901: The Determination invokes section 15AD to indicate that examples in the tables are not exhaustive and may extend operation of the provision; and it invokes section 18A as it applies through paragraph 13(1)(a) of the Legislation Act 2003 regarding grammatical forms of "sexually harass" (notes in ss 7-9 and s 5 note).
• Legislation Act 2003: The Determination refers to paragraph 13(1)(a) of the Legislation Act 2003 when applying interpretive provisions.

Interaction with internal AFP instruments:

• Commissioner’s Orders, Commissioner’s Financial Instructions, National Guidelines, Practical Guides, Better Practice Guides, AFP Code of Conduct, AFP Core Values: The Determination repeatedly references these instruments as sources of standards whose breach maps to categories 2 or 3 (s 5, ss 8-9). The Determination thus operates in tandem with internal AFP regulatory instruments, and its operational effect depends on how those instruments are written and enforced.

Overlap with criminal law and external administrative law:

• Criminal offences and court processes are referenced as examples of category 3 conduct in the Determination (s 9(1)(b), s 9(16)(a)). The Determination does not supplant criminal law enforcement; it identifies when criminally relevant conduct ought to be classified as the highest non‑corruption category for administrative purposes.
• Administrative and governance statutes may be engaged where conduct implicates procurement, financial management or breaches of the PGPA Act, and such legal duties are used in the Determination as benchmarks for category 3 conduct (s 9(2)(b)).

Transitional interaction:

• The Determination repeals the 2013 Determination (Schedule 1), but preserves the 2013 instrument for conduct occurring before commencement (s 10). That temporal split means practitioners must consult two instruments when handling matters that straddle the commencement date.

Net effect:

• The Determination is a node in a wider legal and administrative network. It anchors AFP internal classification to statutory definitions and to external substantive law, but leaves enforcement and procedural detail to the Act and to internal AFP instruments. Practitioners must therefore use the Determination alongside the Act, the AFP Code of Conduct and other AFP governance instruments and applicable external statutes such as the PGPA Act and the Sex Discrimination Act when advising on conduct, classification and consequence.

The Determination contains its own limited amendment and repeal history within its text. The relevant mechanical history that the instrument records is:

• Repeal of the 2013 Determination: Schedule 1 item 1 repeals "the whole of the instrument" known as the Australian Federal Police Categories of Conduct Determination 2013. The Determination thereby replaces the earlier instrument in full for future conduct (Schedule 1).
• Transitional provision for continuity: Section 10 provides a transitional rule by which the 2013 Determination continues to apply to conduct that was engaged in before the commencement time. The effect is that classification of conduct is governed by the 2013 Determination if the conduct occurred prior to commencement, and governed by the 2023 Determination if engaged in on or after commencement (s 10).
• Commencement mechanics: Section 2(1) sets the commencement timing as "the day after this instrument is registered". The text supplied with the Determination is dated 8 September 2023; however, the Determination’s operative commencement is tied to its registration date, which the instrument records in the commencement table (s 2(1) and commencement table).
• Fixed references to instruments at commencement: The Determination fixes the AFP Code of Conduct and AFP Core Values "as in force at the commencement of this instrument" for interpretive purposes (s 5). That is an internal stability mechanism that means subsequent amendments to those instruments after commencement will not automatically alter how the Determination reads for incidents from commencement. It is a textual choice to root definitions in the contemporaneous versions of those instruments.

There are no other amendment entries in the text. The Determination does not record any amendments after its making. It does not include a mechanism for automatic future amendment by reference to later instruments. Any future change to this Determination would need to be effected by a further instrument under the Act.

Practically, the repeal plus transitional pair means that when advising on a complaint or disciplinary matter practitioners must identify whether the conduct in question occurred before or after commencement, and apply the respective determination. The fixed‑as‑at‑commencement approach to the Code of Conduct and Core Values may create interpretive questions where the AFP subsequently amends those instruments, because the Determination points to the version in force at commencement (s 5). This could produce disputes about which version governs classification for conduct occurring after commencement, and may lead to amendments either to the Determination or to the AFP instruments to ensure alignment if that was intended.

The Determination itself contains no case law, litigation references or recorded disputes. It does not name any judicial decisions, and the document provides no internal record of legal challenge to its terms. The Determination is an instrument of administrative classification rather than a judicial or quasi‑judicial decision.

Nevertheless, the Determination’s contents create plausible administrative law issues that could generate litigation or review claims, depending on how the Act and AFP processes implement classification decisions. The instrument:

• Leaves evaluative assessments to decision makers, particularly through "could result" language that turns on foreseeability and risk assessment (ss 8 and 9). Those evaluative calls, when determinative of an employee’s disciplinary outcome, could be the subject of administrative law review if a decision maker fails to apply the Determination’s criteria or misapplies the Act.
• Does not specify internal review or appeal rights concerning classification decisions. That means the availability of internal merits review or external judicial review will depend on the Act and on other AFP procedural instruments. Affected appointees who consider themselves incorrectly classified may seek remedies under administrative law, employment law or the Act’s specific review provisions, subject to the Act.
• Crosses into criminal matters for certain behaviours (s 9(1) and s 9(16)). Where an AFP appointee faces both administrative classification and criminal proceedings, sequencing and evidence sharing may raise procedural fairness and legal privilege questions that could be litigated in appropriate forums.
• Fixes certain definitions to the versions of the AFP Code of Conduct and Core Values in force at commencement (s 5). Disputes could arise about whether a conduct assessment should be governed by a later or earlier version of a code, in which case litigants might seek declaratory relief about the proper interpretive frame.

Because the Determination is silent on appeals and on precise remedial consequences, any litigation history that arises will be driven by actions taken under the Act and by AFP processes. The Determination will be an important contextual document in such litigation, as it sets out the policy grammar used by the AFP to classify misconduct.

At present, the Determination does not itself record any litigation. Practitioners should therefore look to the Act and to subsequent AFP policies and decisions for any reported challenges arising from the application of these categorical definitions.

The Determination contains specific textual features and cross‑references that create practical pitfalls for advisees and decision makers. The following "gotchas" are drawn directly from the instrument’s text and structure.

1. Corruption carve‑out overrides table entries

• Section 6 says explicitly that conduct "of a kind that raises a corruption issue" is not to be treated as category 1, 2 or 3 conduct. That means a matter that might otherwise appear to fit an entry in the category tables should be diverted to the Act’s corruption processes when it raises a corruption issue. The note refers to subsection 40RK(5) of the Act as treating corruption as the highest category. Practitioners must therefore test for corruption separately and not rely only on comparing behaviour to the tables.

2. "Could not" language is a foreseeability gate

• Many items use the phrasing "does not, and could not, result in" versus "results, or could result, in". Decision makers must make counterfactual or prospective judgements about possible harms, not merely catalogue what actually happened. This invites risk assessment, and inconsistent application may lead to disputes over whether the factual matrix made harm foreseeable.

3. Examples are non‑exhaustive and may extend operation

• Each category table carries a warning that examples in column 2 are not exhaustive and may extend the application of the provision (notes applying section 15AD of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901). Do not treat the examples as a closed list; the textual descriptions in column 1 are the primary definitional anchors.

4. Fixed versions of Code and Core Values at commencement

• Section 5 fixes the AFP Code of Conduct and AFP Core Values "as in force at the commencement of this instrument". If those instruments are later amended, the Determination’s reference point may diverge from the operationally current code, potentially producing interpretive confusion. Record‑keeping about the version in force at commencement will be important.

5. Victim preference matters in harassment/discrimination/bullying

• The classification of sexual harassment, discrimination and workplace bullying depends in part on whether the alleged victim "wants the matter dealt with informally" or "wants the matter dealt with formally" (ss 8(7)-(9) and 9(8)-(10)). That downstream decision by an alleged victim can materially affect whether the matter is classified as category 2 or 3. Decision makers must reliably record and respect such preferences while also testing whether the conduct is so serious that formal intervention is nonetheless required.

6. Overlap with criminal law and administrative statutes

• Several items refer to conduct that may be criminal or in breach of statutes such as the PGPA Act (s 9(2)(b), s 9(1)(b), s 9(16)). The Determination does not double as a charging instrument. Practitioners must manage concurrent criminal and administrative processes and ensure that investigative steps respect evidentiary and disclosure obligations.

7. Transitional application requires timeline analysis

• Section 10 keeps the 2013 Determination operative for conduct occurring before commencement. Practitioners must establish whether conduct occurred before or after the commencement date to determine which Determination applies. The commencement is the day after registration (s 2), so accurate dating of events and registration is essential.

8. Prescribed information is defined elsewhere

• The Determination uses "prescribed information" but takes the meaning from s 60A of the Act (s 5). That term carries statutory content and may attract specific protections and penalties in the Act. Misuse is listed as category 3 (s 9(13)), so make sure to consult s 60A to understand what material is captured.

9. Managerial failures are actionable

• Failures to supervise, to put in place management plans for conflicts, or to report conflicts are all explicitly captured (ss 8(4)(a), 8(12)-(13), 9(6)-(7)). Supervisors should not assume that only frontline misconduct matters; governance lapses are expressly categorised.

10. The Determination does not specify consequences

• There is no penalty schedule, no list of remedial actions tied to particular categories and no internal appeal route embedded in this instrument. Those operational details are in the Act and AFP internal procedural instruments. Advisers must consult the Act and AFP policy to advise on likely outcomes.

Attending to these gotchas will materially affect both investigative choices and defence or mitigation strategies in misconduct matters.

Compliance with this Determination is effectively compliance with the AFP categorisation scheme required by subsection 40RM(1) of the Act. Concrete steps for AFP decision makers, HR teams, supervisors and advisers are as follows:

1. Update internal policies, forms and triage flows

• Amend misconduct‑intake forms, investigation triage checklists and manager guidance to reflect the new category tables in ss 7-9. Ensure the intake process explicitly asks whether the conduct "raises a corruption issue", and if so diverts the matter from categories 1-3 as required by s 6. Add a question to capture whether the alleged victim prefers informal or formal handling for harassment, discrimination or bullying matters, because this preference affects classification (ss 8(7)-(9), 9(8)-(10)).

2. Train decision makers on the "could result" test

• Provide practical training on how to assess whether conduct "could result" in harm to operational or national security, harm to individuals or reputational damage. Use scenario exercises linked to examples in ss 8 and 9 to make the forward‑looking assessment concrete. Document the risk assessment rationale in every classification decision to reduce administrative law exposure.

3. Lock in and document the Code and Core Values used

• Record and archive the AFP Code of Conduct and AFP Core Values versions that are "in force at the commencement of this instrument", since s 5 fixes those versions for interpretive purposes. Maintain a dated file showing which version was in force on commencement to defend against any later interpretive dispute.

4. Integrate Commissioner’s Orders and other governance instruments

• Make sure the relevant Commissioner’s Orders, Financial Instructions, National Guidelines and Practical Guides referenced in the Determination are accessible to investigators and managers. Where a breach of a specific order or guideline is alleged, capture evidence of the order in force at the relevant time.

5. Ensure appropriate handling of prescribed information

• For allegations involving "prescribed information" under s 60A of the Act, attach counsel or information security specialists early. Misuse of prescribed information is category 3 (s 9(13)), so apply information‑handling protocols immediately and ensure chain of custody and protection measures are enforced.

6. Revise governance on conflicts of interest

• Because failures to manage or report conflicts of interest may be category 2 or 3 depending on impact (ss 8(12)-(13), 9(6)-(7)), update conflict reporting forms, supervisory obligations and internal reminders. Make sure managers understand that continuing involvement in investigation of a family member or failure to disclose interests in procurement can be category 3.

7. Create clear escalation thresholds

• Map conduct entries to escalation steps. For example, category 1 entries such as customer service issues (s 7(1)) can be handled at line management level with remedial action. Category 2 matters involving breaches of Commissioner’s Orders that "could not" result in security, harm or reputational damage should follow an intermediate pathway. Category 3 matters, including misuse of prescribed information or serious weapon or force misuse (s 9), should be automatically escalated to the highest internal investigative team and considered for suspension or referral to external authorities where appropriate.

8. Preserve and manage victim preferences

• Where handling choices hinge on the alleged victim’s desire for informal or formal resolution, ensure records are kept of the victim’s choice and that the choice is respected unless the conduct is so serious as to require formal intervention (ss 8(7)-(9), 9(8)-(10)). Create scripts and documentation templates to capture informed preferences.

9. Apply transitional rules when date‑sensitive

• For any incident that may cross the commencement date, determine which Determination applies. Use the event date for classification and apply the 2013 Determination where the conduct predates commencement per s 10. Keep a case file rationale explaining which Determination was applied and why.

10. Coordinate with external legal and oversight bodies

• For matters that may engage criminal law, PGPA obligations, or external oversight, coordinate early with legal counsel, finance officers and the Commonwealth Ombudsman as appropriate. The Determination references these external regimes (s 9(2)(b), s 9(13), signing by the Ombudsman), so early alignment will reduce conflicts and duplication.

11. Keep detailed decision records

• Because the Determination invites evaluative judgement, maintain contemporaneous written rationales for classification decisions, the list of documents considered, and any consultations undertaken. This record supports both administrative fairness and defensibility in any subsequent review.

12. Communicate to staff and union representatives

• Publish guidance for AFP appointees explaining the new categories, the examples and the implications for reporting and investigatory pathways. Engage with union or representative bodies to explain how the Determination interacts with existing procedures and with s 10 transitional expectations.

Following these steps will align operational practice with the Determination’s text. The Determination prescribes a structure rather than a closed procedural manual, so an effective compliance approach treats the Determination as the taxonomy and builds procedural rules, documentation and training around it in a manner consistent with the Act and the referenced AFP instruments.