Parliamentary Service Commissioner's Directions 2025

The Directions operates around a small number of recurring legal and administrative concepts. Define them as used in the instrument itself.

• Procedural floor for s 15(3) procedures: The Directions is expressly framed to set minimum procedural requirements that Secretaries’ written procedures (established under s 15(3) of the Act) must meet (s 6). It does not replace those procedures; it prescribes baseline content that they must include.

• Notice and opportunity to respond: Sections 7 and 8 require that, before a determination or a sanction is made, the employee or former employee be informed of the details of the suspected breach, any variations to those details, the possible sanctions (s 7(a)(ii)), and, where a sanction is under consideration, the factors being considered in determining the sanction (s 8(a)(iii)). In both cases the employee must be given a reasonable opportunity to make a statement (ss 7(b), 8(b)).

• Independence and appearance of independence: Section 9 requires Secretaries to take reasonable steps to ensure both actual independence and the appearance of independence and lack of bias, for both the person who determines breach and the person who determines sanctions.

• Informality and expedition: Section 10 requires that the process be conducted with as little formality and as much expedition as proper consideration allows. This establishes a standard requiring balance between procedural efficiency and fair consideration.

• Records and archival obligations: Section 11 mandates that a written record be made of the suspected breach, the determination, any sanction imposed, and any statement of reasons given to the employee or former employee. The Directions notes the Archives Act 1983 applies to records made under s 11.

• SES‑specific consultation: Section 12 creates two duties to consult the Commissioner: first, consultation about the investigative process where a suspicion about an SES employee is formed (s 12(1)); second, consultation before imposing a sanction on an SES employee once a determination of breach has been made (s 12(2)). The Commissioner may also issue guidance.

• Temporal application: Section 13 clarifies that the consultation duties in s 12 apply to suspicions or determinations formed on or after commencement, irrespective of when the underlying conduct occurred.

• Repeal of prior Direction: Schedule 1 repeals the entire Parliamentary Service Commissioner’s Direction 2014.

The Directions also invokes other statutory instruments or terms defined in the Act: Code of Conduct; Commissioner; Parliamentary Service employee; former Parliamentary Service employee; relevant Department; Secretary; SES employee (cl 5; note). It references sanctions under subsection 15(1) of the Act and procedures established under subsection 15(3) and s 48A(2) of the Act (s 12(2)). The instrument is narrow in scope: it sets process standards rather than creating new substantive liabilities or enforcement powers.

The Directions identifies and allocates duties and procedural rights to particular actors within the Parliamentary Service framework. Primary subjects are:

• Parliamentary Service employees and former Parliamentary Service employees: The Directions frames notice, opportunity to respond and record obligations around both current employees and former employees (ss 7 and 11). When a person makes a determination that a Parliamentary Service employee or former employee has breached the Code, the notice, opportunity to make a statement and record obligations attach.

• Senior Executive Service (SES) employees: The Directions places additional procedural duties on Secretaries in relation to SES employees. Secretaries must consult the Parliamentary Service Commissioner about process where an SES suspicion is formed (s 12(1)) and must consult prior to imposing a sanction after a finding of breach (s 12(2)). The application provisions (s 13) clarify that these consultation duties apply to suspicions or determinations formed on or after commencement even if underlying conduct was earlier.

• Secretaries: The Secretary of a relevant Department bears primary operational responsibility to establish procedures that comply with these minimum requirements (s 6; s 9 requires the Secretary take reasonable steps to ensure decision‑makers are independent and unbiased). The Secretary (or delegate) is the actor who may impose sanctions; where the Secretary or delegate is considering imposing a sanction on an SES employee, a consultation requirement with the Commissioner applies (s 12(2)).

• Persons making determinations and delegates: The Directions uses the term “a person” making a determination (ss 7, 11). That includes delegates engaged by Secretaries to determine breaches or sanctions. The Secretary must take reasonable steps to ensure those persons are independent and unbiased (s 9).

• The Parliamentary Service Commissioner: The Commissioner has an express role in being consulted about SES processes and proposed sanctions (s 12(1)-(2)). The Directions notes the Commissioner may issue guidance from time to time (note to s 12(2)). The Directions itself is made by the Commissioner under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 (cl 3).

• Relevant Departments: The Directions operates through the relevant Department’s Secretary, and therefore applies at the departmental level; the instrument presumes the Secretary will craft departmental procedures under s 15(3) of the Act to comply with these Directions (s 6).

Indirect affected actors include investigators and human resources staff who must implement the procedural steps and maintain records, and legal or compliance advisers assisting Secretaries or staff. Private parties and employers outside the Parliamentary Service are not directly affected by the Directions; its reach is internal to the Parliamentary Service and to determinations under the Code referenced in the Act.

The Directions prescribes discrete duties for decision‑makers and Secretaries and identifies practical rights for employees and former employees. Below are the core duties and the associated employee rights, with section references.

Duties imposed by the Directions

• Take reasonable steps to inform and allow response before making a breach determination: A person must not determine that an employee or former employee breached the Code unless that person has taken reasonable steps to inform the employee or former employee of the details of the suspected breach (including any variation) and of the sanctions that may be imposed under s 15(1) of the Act, and given them a reasonable opportunity to make a statement (s 7).

• Take reasonable steps to inform and allow response before imposing a sanction: A person must not determine to impose a sanction on an employee found to have breached the Code unless that person has taken reasonable steps to inform the employee of the determination of breach, the sanction under consideration, and the factors under consideration in determining the sanction; and has given the employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement about the sanction (s 8).

• Ensure decision‑makers are independent and appear independent: The Secretary must take reasonable steps to ensure that the person who determines whether there has been a breach, and the person who determines any sanction, are independent and unbiased and appear to be so (s 9). The duty is on the Secretary to take reasonable steps to secure that independence.

• Maintain informality and expedition consistent with proper consideration: The process must be carried out with as little formality and as much expedition as a proper consideration permits (s 10).

• Keep specific written records: If a determination is made, a written record must be made of the suspected breach, the determination, any sanction imposed, and, where a statement of reasons was given to the employee, that statement of reasons (s 11). The Archives Act 1983 applies to those records (s 11 note).

• SES consultation duties: The Secretary must consult with the Commissioner on the process for determining whether an SES employee has breached the Code if a suspicion arises (s 12(1)). The Secretary must consult with the Commissioner before imposing a sanction on an SES employee where a determination of breach has been made (s 12(2)).

Employee rights and entitlements established or implied by the Directions

• Notice of suspected breach and potential sanctions: Employees and former employees must be informed of the details of the suspected breach, including variations, and must be informed of the sanctions that may be imposed under s 15(1) (s 7).

• An opportunity to be heard: Employees and former employees must be given a reasonable opportunity to make a statement both in relation to the suspected breach and in relation to any sanction under consideration (ss 7(b), 8(b)).

• Information about factors relevant to sanctioning: Before imposition of a sanction, the employee must be told of the factors under consideration in choosing the sanction (s 8(a)(iii)). That provides transparency into the sanctioning rationale to allow targeted responses.

• Preservation of reasons and records: Where a statement of reasons is provided to the employee, a copy must be recorded in the written record of the determination (s 11(d)), and records are subject to the Archives Act (s 11 note), providing a retention/inspection regime consistent with archival law.

Duties that are framed in non‑specific terms and therefore leave material discretion

• “Reasonable steps” and “reasonable opportunity”: The Directions repeatedly uses “reasonable steps” and “reasonable opportunity” (ss 7-9). Those standards are not quantified in the instrument, leaving substantial scope for Secretaries to define timing, notice content, and the manner of participation through the written procedures they adopt under s 15(3).

• “Independent and unbiased” and “appears to be”: The Secretary must ensure decision‑makers are independent and appear independent (s 9), but the Directions does not specify processes for appointment, recusal or conflict identification.

• “As little formality and as much expedition as a proper consideration allows”: This balancing test (s 10) leaves Secretaries discretion to trade off speed and formality depending on case complexity.

The Directions therefore creates a minimum procedural framework, conferring employee procedural entitlements while leaving a level of design and operational detail to Secretaries’ written procedures.

The Directions is a procedural instrument; it prescribes minimum procedures rather than attaching statutory penalties within the instrument itself. The instrument is made under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 (cl 3) and operates as a Commissioner’s Direction. Enforcement and consequences of non‑compliance with the Directions fall into several administrative channels and legal intersections set out or implied by the instrument.

Administrative compliance obligations and internal accountability

• Duty bearer is the Secretary: The Secretary must establish procedures under s 15(3) of the Act that comply with the Directions (s 6). The Directions is therefore an instruction to Secretaries to adopt compliant processes; internal oversight of compliance will occur through the Departmental chain and the Commissioner’s supervisory role (s 12 notes).

• Commissioner’s consultative role: For SES matters the Commissioner must be consulted (s 12). The Commissioner's engagement provides an oversight mechanism in respect of SES processes and possible sanctions. The Directions also notes the Commissioner may issue guidance, which can function as soft enforcement via guidance and public expectations (note to s 12(2)).

Legal and archival constraints

• Records must be created and are subject to Archives Act: s 11 requires a written record and the instrument expressly states the Archives Act 1983 applies to such records. That brings statutory record‑keeping and retention obligations into play and exposes records to legal regimes governing preservation, access and destruction.

Sanctions mentioned but not created

• Sanctions are referenced, not defined: The Directions repeatedly references sanctions under subsection 15(1) of the Act (ss 7(a)(ii), 8(a)(ii)), but does not itself prescribe sanctions or civil/criminal penalties. Actual sanctions and their legal effects remain those provided by the Act and any determinations or instruments (eg, the Parliamentary Service Determination 2024) that authorise specific responses to breaches.

Consequences of non‑compliance with the Directions

• The Directions does not specify penalties for failure to follow it. As an instrument made under the Act, non‑compliance is likely to be relevant in administrative review, internal appeals, or external scrutiny (for example, as evidence that the Secretary’s s 15(3) procedures were not compliant with the Directions). The instrument itself does not create criminal or civil offences or new enforcement powers beyond its procedural requirements.

• Practical consequences of non‑compliance include possible challenge to the procedural fairness of a determination, reputational and administrative consequences for the Department and Secretary, and potential archival or oversight findings given the record‑keeping obligations.

Interaction with other enforcement regimes

• The Directions cross‑references the Act and the Parliamentary Service Determination 2024 (s 6 note), indicating disciplinary sanctions and performance management may sit in parallel with other instruments that do prescribe sanctions or steps for performance management (as noted by the reference to s 54 of the Determination). Any formal disciplinary sanction will be drawn from the Act and relevant Determination, not from the Directions itself.

In summary, the Directions establishes process obligations and creates administrative oversight points (notably the Commissioner’s consultation role and archival record obligations). It does not create statutory penalties in this instrument; enforcement will be administered through the Departmental procedures required by the Act, the Commissioner’s oversight and reference to existing statutory sanctioning powers under the Act and related determinations.

The Directions explicitly and implicitly interacts with several legal instruments and regimes; the instrument itself names a few and points to practical intersections. The principal interactions are as follows.

Parliamentary Service Act 1999

• Statutory basis and procedural architecture: The Directions is made under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 (cl 3) and is expressly intended to set the minimum procedural requirements for the written procedures Secretaries must establish under s 15(3) of the Act (s 6). The Directions therefore supplements and operationalises the Act’s disciplinary architecture by prescribing process standards for how s 15(3) procedures must operate.

• Reference to sanctions in s 15(1): The Directions refers to sanctions available under subsection 15(1) of the Act (ss 7(a)(ii), 8(a)(ii)), indicating that the universe of sanctions remains defined by the Act. The Directions does not alter the substantive sanctions the Act permits; it requires employees to be notified of those possible sanctions in advance.

Parliamentary Service Determination 2024

• Cross‑reference on performance management: The Directions notes the reader should also see s 54 of the Parliamentary Service Determination 2024, which deals with managing performance in cases of a potential breach of the Code of Conduct (s 6 note). That indicates that performance management rules in the Determination may intersect with Code breach handling and that departmental procedures must reconcile Directions’ procedural minimums with any relevant Determination provisions.

Archives Act 1983

• Records produced under the Directions fall under the Archives Act: Section 11 requires a written record of determinations and specifically notes that the Archives Act 1983 applies to records made under s 11. This connects procedural record‑keeping under these Directions to statutory archiving obligations, retention schedules and potentially to access/FOI pathways depending on archival rules.

Substantive Code of Conduct and other Act provisions

• The Directions references the Code of Conduct as defined in the Act (cl 5, note). The Directions does not define misconduct or change the substantive content of the Code; it sets process requirements for investigations and determinations about alleged breaches of that Code.

Temporal and retrospective operation rules

• Application to conduct that pre‑dates commencement: Section 13 provides that the SES consultation requirements apply to suspicions formed, and to determinations made, on or after commencement even if the underlying conduct occurred before commencement. That creates an explicit temporal interaction with prior conduct and indicates the Directions does not have purely prospective effect in relation to investigations and determinations formed after commencement.

Delegation and Secretary powers

• Delegates and Secretary: The Directions is operationalised through Secretaries and their delegates, and it references a Secretary or delegate imposing sanctions (s 12(2)). The Secretary’s obligations to take reasonable steps (s 9) apply to persons who may be delegates or other decision‑makers, so the Directions interacts with internal delegation arrangements under the Act.

No express override of other legal obligations

• The Directions sets minimum procedural standards but does not purport to override other legal duties (for example, obligations under employment law, privacy law or external judicial review). Where other statutory obligations exist, the Secretary’s procedures must reconcile them with the Directions’ minima. The Directions itself does not discuss interactions with privacy legislation, workplace health and safety law, judicial review remedies or freedom of information law, but the record‑keeping and consultation obligations indicate possible points of intersection.

In short, the Directions sits as a procedural supplement to the Act and to the Parliamentary Service Determination 2024. It binds Secretaries to certain practices, draws records into the Archives Act regime, and imposes consultation obligations with the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for SES matters, while leaving the substantive sanction regimes and external legal remedies governed by other statutes and instruments.

The Directions document itself contains the following amendment and commencement history items and repeal action.

• Making date and commencement: The Directions was made by Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM, Parliamentary Service Commissioner, dated 27 March 2025 and commences on 1 April 2025. Clause 2 contains a commencement table that states “the whole of this instrument” commences 1 April 2025.

• Repeal of an earlier instrument: Schedule 1 repeals the whole of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner’s Direction 2014 (Schedule 1, item 1). The Directions therefore replaces the 2014 Direction in full with the 2025 instrument.

• Note about the commencement table: Clause 2(2) states any information in column 3 of the table is not part of the instrument; it is administrative metadata and may be edited in published versions without affecting the legal text.

• No further amendments recorded in the text provided: The instrument as supplied does not show any prior amendments, transitional amendments other than Schedule 1’s repeal, or future amendment provisions. It contains its own application provisions for temporal operation of s 12 (s 13).

• Relationship to other instruments: Clause 4 provides that each instrument specified in a Schedule to the Directions is amended or repealed as set out in the Schedule; Schedule 1’s sole entry is the repeal of the 2014 Direction. The Directions does not itself insert or amend provisions into other instruments beyond that repeal.

This instrument therefore represents a replacement of the 2014 Commissioner’s Direction with a new procedural baseline, effective 1 April 2025. There is no text in the instrument indicating staged commencement of particular clauses; the whole instrument is listed as commencing on that date.

The text of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner’s Directions 2025 contains no litigation history. It does not cite any judicial decisions, and there are no recorded cases, decisions, appeals or challenges referenced in the instrument. The instrument also does not record prior adjudications that prompted the new Directions.

Practical implications of the absence of litigation history in the instrument

• No internal precedent cited: The Directions does not rely on, or cite, any court or tribunal decisions as interpretative authority. It is a standalone procedural instrument made by the Commissioner under the Act.

• Potential for future litigation or review: The Directions sets procedural minima (eg, “reasonable steps”, “reasonable opportunity”), which are inherently fact‑dependent standards. In practice such standards commonly generate disputes about whether adequate notice or a reasonable opportunity was provided. Those disputes, if litigated, would generate case law interpreting the Directions and its interplay with the Act and the Code. None of that case law appears in the instrument text.

• Administrative review channels: The Directions does not describe internal appeal routes or external review mechanisms. Where a party alleges procedural non‑compliance it may seek remedies available under the Act or under administrative law (judicial review), relying on the Directions as the procedural benchmark. The instrument itself contains no precedent or litigation examples.

• Commissioner guidance: The Directions notes the Commissioner may issue guidance from time to time (note to s 12(2)), which could shape practice and reduce litigation risk if the guidance clarifies ambiguous standards. There is no such guidance included in the instrument.

For this instrument, the operative statement is: no litigation history is recorded in the instrument. Practitioners should treat the Directions’ standards as potentially subject to judicial or administrative review should factual disputes arise in future determinations.

This section highlights specific drafting features, ambiguous standards and operational points in the Directions that commonly generate implementation risk, unintended outcomes or compliance lapses. Each point is grounded in the text of the instrument.

“Reasonable steps” and “reasonable opportunity” are undefined (ss 7-9)

• The Directions repeatedly requires “reasonable steps” to inform employees and “reasonable opportunity” to make statements (ss 7(b), 8(b), 9). These are open standards; nothing in the Directions quantifies timeframes, modes of communication, or what constitutes adequacy of information. Departments must decide, in their s 15(3) procedures, how to operationalise these standards; variability across departments may lead to inconsistency and dispute.

“Inform” includes any subsequent variation of details (s 7(a)(i))

• The duty to inform must include “any subsequent variation” of the details of the suspected breach (s 7(a)(i)). Administrative processes that treat the initial notice as sufficient, without robust mechanisms to track and re‑notify about materially different allegations or newly discovered facts, risk non‑compliance. Departments must document how variations are logged and how fresh notice is provided.

Independence and the appearance of independence (s 9)

• Secretaries must take reasonable steps to ensure both actual independence and appearance of independence for the person who determines breach and the person who determines sanction. The Directions does not set standards for what steps suffice (eg, recusal protocols, appointment panels, conflicts checklists), so poor design risks procedural fairness or bias challenges. The “appearance” limb is particularly sensitive in smaller Departments where insiders routinely make decisions.

Informality vs fair process tension (s 10)

• The Directions demands that the process be “with as little formality and as much expedition as a proper consideration of the matter allows” (s 10). In complex matters, line managers may over‑apply informality and curtail legitimate opportunities to respond; conversely, parties seeking increased formality may assert that insufficient process occurred. Departments must balance speed with fairness and document why an expedited informal process was nevertheless adequate.

Record‑keeping and Archives Act implications (s 11)

• The requirement to make a written record (s 11) plus the Archives Act annotation brings statutory retention obligations. Departments that fail to preserve records or that treat records as ephemeral risk contravening archival requirements and facing later disclosure or preservation challenges. The Directions requires recording a statement of reasons only “if a statement of reasons was given” (s 11(d)) , departments must then be clear whether and when a statement of reasons is issued and ensure the copy is retained.

SES consultation can delay action and constrains Secretary discretion (s 12(1)-(2))

• For SES matters Secretaries must consult the Commissioner about the investigative process when a suspicion is formed (s 12(1)) and must consult before imposing a sanction after a determination (s 12(2)). The word “consult” is not defined, and timing is not specified. Consultation obligations can introduce delay or uncertainty about when a sanction can lawfully be imposed. Departments must define practical timelines for consultation and record the consultation outcomes.

Temporal application may catch legacy conduct (s 13)

• The Directions applies the SES consultation duties to suspicions and determinations formed on or after commencement even where the conduct occurred before commencement (s 13(1)-(2)). That means investigations opened after 1 April 2025 will be governed by the Directions’ SES consultation rules even if the alleged conduct predates the Directions. Departments must review ongoing and anticipated investigations to determine whether the amended procedures apply.

No specification of sanctions; notice requirement refers to s 15(1) only (ss 7(a)(ii), 8(a)(ii))

• The Directions requires notice of “the sanctions that may be imposed under subsection 15(1) of the Act” (s 7(a)(ii)), but does not list or explain those sanctions. Departments must ensure their notice documents accurately describe the universe of available sanctions under the Act and any relevant Determination. Failure to adequately inform employees of potential sanctions could render a process procedurally defective.

Delegation and who is “a person” (ss 7, 11)

• The Directions uses “a person” to describe who must comply with notice and record duties, but the Secretary remains responsible to “take reasonable steps” to ensure independence (s 9). Where delegates make determinations, Secretaries need clear delegation instruments and compliance checks to ensure the Directions’ steps are followed and documented.

Repeal of 2014 Direction (Schedule 1)

• The Directions repeals the 2014 Commissioner’s Direction in full. Departments that previously relied on the 2014 Direction for internal practice must ensure their procedures are updated to reflect the 2025 minima. Gaps between the old and new standards may cause transitional issues.

No procedural appeal pathway specified

• The Directions does not prescribe an internal appeal mechanism or timeline for reviewing procedural compliance. Employees who claim the process failed to meet the Directions’ standards will need to rely on the departmental procedures under s 15(3), on the Commissioner’s guidance (if any), or on external review mechanisms.

Practical summary of gotchas: the Directions supplies minimum standards while leaving precise operational detail to Secretaries. Ambiguities around “reasonable” standards, consultation timing with the Commissioner for SES matters, and the interplay with archival requirements are the key points likely to generate dispute or implementation risk.

This section sets out concrete steps to bring departmental procedures and decision‑makers into compliance with the Directions. The Directions leaves many operational specifics to Secretaries’ written procedures under s 15(3); the checklist below maps the instrument’s requirements to implementable measures and records to maintain. Each recommendation ties back to the relevant section(s).

1. Update s 15(3) written procedures to incorporate the Directions’ minima (s 6)

• Action: Amend the Department’s written procedures to expressly reflect each requirement in ss 7-12. Cross‑reference the relevant clauses in your departmental procedure to the Directions. Retain a version history noting the 1 April 2025 commencement.
• Documentation: A consolidated procedural document that includes standard templates for notices, record registers, consultation checklists and timescales.

2. Standardise notices for suspected breaches and sanctions (ss 7-8)

• Content checklist for initial notice under s 7(a)(i)-(ii): describe with specificity the alleged conduct; identify the Code provisions claimed to be breached; state any likely or possible sanctions under s 15(1) of the Act; explain any potential variations and how variations will be notified.
• For variation: include a formal re‑notice template that triggers when investigations uncover new facts (s 7(a)(i)).
• Template for sanction notice under s 8: include the determination of breach where applicable, set out the sanction under consideration, list the factors being considered in imposing the sanction (s 8(a)(iii)), and state the process and deadline for making a statement.

3. Define timelines that operationalise “reasonable opportunity” and “reasonable steps” (ss 7-9)

• Practical approach: set a default minimum period (eg, number of working days) for employees to respond to notices with a procedure to extend in complex matters. Record the rationale for any shorter or longer periods.
• Document the methods of service accepted (email, secure portal, registered post) and steps to verify receipt.
• Provide guidance on what evidence or witness submissions an employee may produce.

4. Ensure independence and the appearance of independence (s 9)

• Establish conflict‑check protocols and recusal rules for decision‑makers, including mandatory declarations of interest.
• Where feasible, use panels or independent decision‑makers outside the immediate management line for determinations and sanctions to help satisfy the “appears to be” limb.
• Keep a written charter on selection/appointment of decision‑makers describing why a proposed decision‑maker is independent.

5. Develop an “informal and expeditious” process architecture with safeguards (s 10)

• Create a triage protocol to assess case complexity. For low complexity matters, apply a streamlined checklist; for higher complexity, document additional steps taken to preserve fairness.
• Record decisions to expedite, showing why expedition was necessary and how fairness was preserved.

6. Implement record‑keeping and archival workflows (s 11)

• Maintain a central case file for each allegation that records: the suspected breach, dates of notice(s), any variations, employee statements, the determination, sanctions imposed (if any), and any statement of reasons given to the employee.
• Ensure records are captured in systems and retained consistent with the Archives Act 1983; consult agency archives or records manager to confirm retention periods and disposal authorities.
• Use checklists to ensure that when a statement of reasons is given to the employee it is simultaneously archived in the central case file (s 11(d)).

7. Design SES consultation workflows with the Commissioner (s 12)

• Define the form and timeline for “consultation” with the Commissioner: specify who in the Department engages with the Commissioner, the materials to be provided, acceptable response windows, and how to record consultation outcomes.
• For s 12(1): when a suspicion about an SES employee arises, trigger the consultation workflow immediately and document the Commissioner’s input on the investigative process.
• For s 12(2): before imposing any sanction on an SES employee after a determination, document the consultation and any advice or direction received. Ensure decisions are not made until consultation has occurred unless there is an urgent operational reason, documented and justified.

8. Align notices with statutory sanctions and Determination references (ss 7, 6 note)

• Ensure that notices refer to the correct list of possible sanctions under s 15(1) of the Act and to any relevant provisions of the Parliamentary Service Determination 2024 (eg, s 54) that may affect performance management or sanction selection.
• Provide employees a plain explanation of the possible consequences.

9. Training and quality control for investigators and decision‑makers

• Provide targeted training on the Directions’ requirements, including how to give effective notice, record content, independence checks and how to conduct informal but fair processes.
• Use internal audits to check compliance with notification timelines, record completeness and consultation proof for SES matters.

10. Prepare for transitional and retrospective matters (s 13)

• Review any ongoing investigations or expected determinations to determine whether s 12 consultation duties now apply due to the Directions’ commencement. Update case management to trigger consultation where relevant.
• For cases involving conduct pre‑dating commencement but with suspicions/determinations after commencement, apply the full Directions process where SES is involved.

11. Documentation of discretionary judgments

• For every decision to depart from default timelines, appoint a non‑decision‑maker to approve deviations and record the reason why. This provides an audit trail showing the Department took “reasonable steps” and gave a “reasonable opportunity.”

12. Engage legal and records specialists early

• Ensure legal advisers review notification templates, sanction descriptions and the evidence capture plan.
• Engage records managers regarding Archives Act obligations before disposing of any records.

13. Monitor Commissioner guidance

• Track any guidance issued by the Commissioner (note to s 12(2)). Incorporate it promptly into procedures and training.

In sum, compliance requires procedural drafting, templates, timelines, independence safeguards, records infrastructure and a clear SES consultation loop with the Commissioner. The Directions leaves many specifics to departmental judgment; best practice is to translate open standards into defensible, documented rules and to maintain a searchable central case file for every matter subject to the Directions.