Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Definition of Employee) Notice 2006 (3)

The instrument rests on three interconnected legal concepts expressed in its text: (1) ministerial declaration under a statutory power, (2) targeted statutory characterisation of persons as “employees” for a particular legislative purpose, and (3) limitation of that characterisation to specified classes of acts.

1. Ministerial declaration under statutory power: The Notice is made under subsection 5(6) of the SRC Act, which is invoked in the formal preamble and again in clause 3. The operative verb is “declare” (clause 3). That shows the instrument is an exercise of a delegated statutory power to change legal characterisation by administrative instrument rather than by primary legislation.

2. Purpose-limited employee characterisation: The Notice does not generically declare the listed persons to be AFP employees for all legal purposes. Clause 3 states that the classes of persons are “employees of the Australian Federal Police for the purposes of the acts mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule.” That wording creates a purpose-limited legal status: the persons are treated as employees only in relation to certain acts specified in the Schedule. The Schedule thus functions as the defining matrix: each Item links a defined class of persons (Column 2) to a defined class of acts (Column 3) for which the “employee” characterisation applies.

3. Conditions and scope set within the Schedule: The Schedule contains the substantive boundaries. Examples of limiting language include “without receiving any remuneration (excluding payment for expenses incurred)” in Items 1 and 2, the reference to secondment under section 69D(1) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 in Item 3, the reliance on appointment instruments and the AFP Act in Items 4 and 5, and the multi‑part conditions in Item 6 that specify request/direction or an “honest and reasonable belief” combined with actual or imminent danger and necessity for action. The Note accompanying clause 3 summarises the common feature that the persons are engaged at the request or direction, or for the benefit, of the Commonwealth.

Other administrative details: clause 2 provides the commencement trigger , registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments , so the declaration takes legal effect on registration rather than on the date of signature. The Notice is identified as Notice No. 3 of 2006 and is dated 28 June 2006 (front matter and signature block), which situates it as a 2006 instrument and signals any chronological relationship to other instruments or changes in the SRC Act within that year, although the instrument itself contains no amendment history entries.

Collectively, these concepts mean the instrument is narrowly tailored in form: it is not a statutory redefinition across multiple statutes, but a ministerial, purpose-limited declaration made under a specific power, with the precise boundaries defined by the Schedule language.

The instrument identifies six classes of persons in the Schedule (Items 1-6). Each class is described by the circumstances of their engagement with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and by restrictions or conditions attached to that engagement. The instrument’s operative effect is to treat those persons as “employees of the Australian Federal Police” for the specific classes of acts listed in Column 3 opposite each Item (clause 3; Schedule).

Broad categories and immediate stakeholders:

• Volunteers engaged under a written agreement with the AFP who receive no remuneration other than reimbursement of expenses (Item 1). The Schedule limits this class to persons “engaged as volunteers under a written agreement with the Australian Federal Police without receiving any remuneration (excluding payment for expenses incurred).” The corresponding class of acts covers “Acts performed, under the direction or control of an AFP employee, special member or special protective service officer, which render assistance to the Australian Federal Police in the performance of its functions under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.”
• Persons assisting in AFP training exercises who receive no remuneration other than expense reimbursement (Item 2). The relevant acts are those “performed, under the direction or control of an AFP employee, special member or special protective service officer, in connection with carrying out training exercises.”
• Persons on secondment to the AFP under section 69D(1) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Item 3). Their declared employee status applies to acts “performed, in connection with rendering assistance to the Australian Federal Police, pursuant to the secondment agreement.”
• Persons appointed special members under section 40E(1) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Item 4). Their acts are “performed, in connection with rendering assistance to the Australian Federal Police, pursuant to the instrument of appointment and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.”
• Persons appointed special protective service officers under section 40EC of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Item 5). Their declared acts are “performed, in connection with rendering assistance to the Australian Federal Police, pursuant to the instrument of appointment and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.”
• Persons rendering assistance to the AFP more generally (Item 6). The class of acts is formulated as acts “performed in rendering assistance to an AFP employee, special member or special protective service officer in the performance of their duties under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979” and is subject to two alternatives: (a) assistance at the request or direction of the employee/member/officer; or (b) assistance given in the honest and reasonable belief that the employee/member/officer requires assistance where (i) there is actual or imminent danger of injury to a person or damage to property and (ii) that assistance is necessary to protect life or property. Item 6 therefore captures ad hoc rescuers and bystanders in specified emergency circumstances, provided those two subconditions are met.

Who makes decisions and who bears administrative responsibilities:

• The Minister has made the declaration using the delegated power in the SRC Act (clause 3 and instrument header). That creates the legal status but does not itself administer claims or manage practical application.
• The AFP will be the organisation most directly affected operationally because the declaration attaches employee status to people performing acts that assist the AFP. Operational staff will need processes to demonstrate direction/control or to document requests for assistance, appointment instruments, secondment agreements, and written volunteer agreements to establish when the declared status applies (Schedule text).
• The individuals in the listed categories are affected because they will be treated as employees of the AFP for the specified acts. The Schedule’s conditions about remuneration, written agreements, secondment agreements and appointment instruments determine who falls inside or outside the declared classes.

Persons or actions excluded by the Schedule’s language:

• The Schedule explicitly excludes remuneration for volunteers and training-assistants (Items 1 and 2 refer to “without receiving any remuneration (excluding payment for expenses incurred)”), so persons who are paid (outside reimbursement of expenses) are not the target of those Items.
• The declared status is tethered to acts performed “in connection with” rendering assistance or “under the direction or control” of specified AFP personnel; acts outside that connection or not under direction/control are not captured by the Schedule wording.

Geographic and temporal scope:

• The instrument does not state geographic limits; the Schedule links acts to the AFP’s functions under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. The temporal trigger for the Notice’s effect is registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (clause 2).

In short, the Notice affects discrete groups: unpaid volunteers (with written agreements), unpaid training assistants, secondees under a specified AFP Act provision, appointed special members and special protective service officers, and persons who render assistance in specific emergency or request contexts, by classifying them as AFP employees for the narrow purposes set out in the Schedule.

The Notice itself does not create a broad set of new duties or rights directly within its text; rather, it declares certain persons to be “employees of the Australian Federal Police” for specified acts “for the purposes of” the SRC Act power used (clause 3). Therefore the primary legal effect is a change in legal characterisation: persons in the Schedule’s classes will be treated as employees for the limited purposes described in Column 3. The Schedule’s language contains the operative conditions that determine when that characterisation applies, and those conditions create obligations of proof and compliance for both individuals and the AFP.

Duties (as derived from the Schedule’s operative conditions and the instrument’s structure):

• Duty to ensure the engagement meets the Schedule’s prerequisites: For Items 1 and 2 the person must be “without receiving any remuneration (excluding payment for expenses incurred).” That creates a practical duty for the AFP and the individual to document that no remuneration was paid other than expenses. Evidence such as the written volunteer agreement (Item 1) or records that expenses alone were paid will be material (Item 1 explicitly requires engagement “under a written agreement with the Australian Federal Police”).
• Duty to document lines of direction or control: Multiple Items (1, 2 and Item 6 alternative (a)) require that the relevant acts be “performed, under the direction or control of an AFP employee, special member or special protective service officer” or be at the request/direction of such persons. This places an evidential expectation on the AFP to demonstrate when its staff directed or controlled activities and on individuals to show they acted under such direction.
• Duty to maintain appropriate secondment and appointment instruments: Items 3-5 tie the declared status to secondment agreements (Item 3) and instruments of appointment (Items 4 and 5). The AFP and the secondee or appointee will need to ensure the secondment agreement, instrument of appointment, and any related documentation demonstrate the scope of assistance for which the declaration applies.
• Duty to establish that ad hoc assistance meets Item 6’s conditions: For persons rendering assistance under Item 6 who rely on the “honest and reasonable belief” pathway, there is a twofold factual requirement: (i) there must be actual or imminent danger of injury to a person or damage to property; and (ii) assistance must be necessary to protect life or property. The Schedule therefore imposes an evidential duty on the assisting person to show that both elements were present and that their belief was honest and reasonable.

Rights (as derived from the instrument’s effect):

• Right to be treated as an AFP employee for the specified acts: The immediate right created by the declaration is statutory recognition of employee status “for the purposes of the acts mentioned in Column 3.” Because the instrument is made under the SRC Act, the declared status is expressly for the purposes of that Act’s relevant provision (clause 3). The Schedule therefore confers, in legal form, the status that triggers whatever rights or entitlements flow from being an “employee” under the SRC Act for those acts (the instrument itself does not spell those downstream entitlements out).
• Right to rely on appointment/secondment/written agreement for evidential clarity: Persons appointed or secondees whose status is captured by Items 3-5 have the right to rest their claim to declared employee status on the instrument of appointment or the secondment agreement described in the Schedule.
• Right to have out-of-pocket expenses excluded from the remuneration bar: The Schedule explicitly excludes reimbursement of expenses from the “no remuneration” limitation in Items 1 and 2, which is a defined exception that people can rely on to avoid disqualification.

Procedural implication for disputes and claims:

• Because the instrument is a ministerial declaration under the SRC Act, any dispute about whether a particular person falls within a Schedule Item will turn on the Schedule’s factual and documentary criteria (for example, whether a written volunteer agreement exists, whether the person was under the direction or control of specified AFP personnel, or whether the elements of Item 6’s emergency condition are satisfied). The Notice itself does not create adjudicative procedures but supplies the legal characterization that will be applied by the SRC Act’s mechanisms or by tribunals/courts in resolving claims.

Limitations and conditionality:

• The rights and duties created by the Notice are explicitly conditional on the acts being those listed in Column 3 opposite each Item; actions outside those specified contexts are not within the declared “employee” status according to the instrument’s terms (clause 3 and Schedule wording). Thus the Notice creates narrow, conditional rights and duties rather than broad, unconditional employment obligations.

The Notice contains no express penalty provisions, sanctioning regimes, or detailed enforcement mechanisms within its text. Its operative clauses are the declaration of employee status for defined classes of persons and the Schedule that delimits that status (clauses 1-3; Schedule). Consequently, enforcement or any penalty consequences must be derived from the SRC Act or other relevant legislation referenced in the Schedule and not from the Notice itself.

Matters to note about enforcement pathways and evidential burdens:

• The Notice is an instrument made under subsection 5(6) of the SRC Act, and it alters legal characterisation for the purposes of that Act (clause 3). Any enforcement or penalty consequences for failure to recognise a person as within the Schedule, or for a dispute about a person’s status under the Declaration, would therefore be channelled through the SRC Act’s administrative and judicial mechanisms, which are not restated in this Notice. The Notice does not itself create separate enforcement procedures.
• Because the Schedule relies on documentary instruments and factual conditions (for example, written volunteer agreements (Item 1), secondment agreements (Item 3), instruments of appointment (Items 4 and 5), or the “honest and reasonable belief” standard plus imminent danger in Item 6), persons seeking to rely on the declaration will bear an evidential burden to show those conditions are satisfied. Conversely, authorities or insurers examining a claim will look to these documents and facts when deciding whether the declared status applies.
• The Notice does not stipulate administrative record‑keeping or reporting requirements, but the lack of such requirements means that practical enforcement will depend on parties’ capacity to produce the relevant agreements and to establish the facts required by the Schedule. Failure to keep records or to document direction/requests may impede a person’s ability to rely on the declaration.

Absence of sanctions in the Notice itself:

• There are no penalties in the Notice for non‑compliance by the AFP or by individuals. For example, the instrument does not prescribe fines, criminal offences, or civil liabilities tied to breaches of the Schedule’s conditions. Any sanctioning event would instead arise under the substantive law that the declaration affects (that is, the SRC Act as applied, or potentially under the AFP Act where Items 3-5 expressly reference it), but the Notice contains no direct statement about those downstream remedies.

Interaction with third‑party insurers and indemnities:

• The instrument does not address indemnities, insurance, or third‑party liability arrangements. Where a person’s status as an “employee of the Australian Federal Police” for the purposes of specified acts affects coverage under insurance or liability schemes, the instrument does not provide procedural guidance; those effects would be determined under relevant insurance contracts, the SRC Act’s machinery, or other applicable laws.

To summarise: the Notice itself imposes no penalties and sets no enforcement procedure. The practical enforcement of the declared status and any remedial consequences will be handled under the SRC Act and any other relevant statutes, with the Schedule’s documentary and factual conditions forming the evidential basis for decisions.

The Notice explicitly situates itself within the framework of at least two statutes by reference and by tailing its operative effect to acts linked to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 and to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Statutory foundation and purpose-limitation:

• The instrument is made under subsection 5(6) of the SRC Act (mentioned in the opening paragraph and in clause 3). Clause 3 states that the Minister declares classes of persons “are employees of the Australian Federal Police for the purposes of the acts mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule.” The express reference to the SRC Act in the instrument’s operative language means the declaration is intended to operate within the SRC Act’s legal context; the instrument itself does not purport to reclassify the persons for the purposes of other statutes, unless those statutes’ application depends on the SRC Act’s definitions.

References to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979:

• The Schedule repeatedly links the declared acts to the AFP’s functions “under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979” (see Items 1 and 6 and formulation in Items 4 and 5 referencing the “instrument of appointment and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979”). Items 3-5 explicitly reference specific provisions of the AFP Act: section 69D(1) for secondments (Item 3), section 40E(1) for special members (Item 4), and section 40EC for special protective service officers (Item 5). The Notice therefore relies on the AFP Act as the substantive canvas against which the “acts” are defined, but it does not re‑state or interpret those AFP Act provisions. The instrument’s effect therefore depends on the content and operation of those AFP Act provisions, which are cited as the provenance of appointment or secondment powers and the AFP’s functions.

Limited scope of cross‑statutory effect:

• Because clause 3 confines the declaration to the purposes of subsection 5(6) of the SRC Act, the Notice does not itself assert that the persons become employees for all Commonwealth or state legal purposes. Instead, any cross‑statutory consequences must arise either because other statutes adopt the SRC Act’s definitions or because decision‑makers in other legal regimes accept the SRC Act classification as relevant. The instrument does not itself create those cross‑statutory linkages.

Operational intersections and evidentiary effects:

• For functions under the AFP Act, the Schedule’s reliance on instruments of appointment and secondment agreements (Items 3-5) means that those documents are the relevant interaction point between the instrument and the AFP Act. Where the AFP Act confers powers or duties on employees, the Schedule’s linkage suggests that persons whose acts fall within Column 3 , and who meet the Schedule’s prerequisites , will be treated as employees for purposes that touch on the AFP Act. The Notice itself, however, does not specify which AFP Act consequences follow because it confines its change to the SRC Act context.

Insurance, workers’ compensation and related regimes:

• The Notice’s title and statutory source signal a connection to rehabilitation and compensation regimes. It declares persons to be employees for the purposes of the SRC Act provision used. The instrument does not itself describe how insurance, indemnities, or workers’ compensation under other laws will be affected; any such effects will have to be determined by the other statutes, by contract, and by administrative practice in light of the declared SRC Act characterisation.

Potential points of ambiguity when other laws use “employee”:

• Because many statutes and contracts use the term “employee” as a trigger for rights and duties, the Schedule’s purpose‑limited declaration can create interpretive issues in practice. The instrument does not state that the declared status applies across the board, so parties relying on the declaration in other legal contexts (for example, for enterprise bargaining, taxation, or common law duties) will need to consider whether those regimes accept the SRC Act’s purpose‑limited characterisation or require separate analysis.

In short, the Notice interacts with other laws principally through (1) its reliance upon subsection 5(6) of the SRC Act as the enabling power, and (2) its repeated linking of the acts covered to the AFP Act 1979 and to instruments of appointment or secondment under that Act. The Notice confines its effect to the SRC Act purpose and leaves other cross‑statutory outcomes to be resolved under the other statutes and prevailing administrative or judicial interpretation.

The instrument identifies itself as the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Definition of Employee) Notice 2006 (3) (title and header). The front matter records the making date as 28 June 2006 and identifies the maker as Kevin James Andrews, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, with the signature block showing “KEVIN ANDREWS” and the date (front page). Clause 2 establishes that the Notice “commences on registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.”

The Notice itself contains no internal amendment provisions, transitional provisions, revocation clauses, or memorialised amendment history. It is a single-purpose, standalone notice with three clauses and a Schedule. The instrument does not record prior versions or amendments to this particular Notice within its text. The numbering “(3)” in the Notice title indicates that it is the third such Notice in 2006, which suggests there were at least two other similarly titled notices in the same calendar year, but the instrument does not describe their content, relationship, or whether this Notice varies, supersedes, supplements, or co-exists with them.

Because the instrument commences on registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, any formal amendment, repeal, or replacement would occur by subsequent instrument made under the relevant statutory power and recorded on the Register. The instrument does not itself note any expiry date or scheduled review date.

Practical implications for amendment tracking:

• Any practitioner or administrator requiring the current content of the declaration must consult the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments to confirm whether this Notice remains in force, whether it has been amended, or whether a later notice has superseded it. The Notice’s text does not provide a self-contained amendment history; that record-keeping is external to the instrument and maintained by the Register.

No textual amendments within the Notice:

• The Schedule contains a small error in Item 6 where the word “preformed” appears instead of “performed” (“Acts preformed in rendering assistance...”); aside from this typographical error the Schedule’s substantive terms are set out without in-text amendment markers or legislative notes.

In summary: the instrument’s internal amendment history is nil; to identify amendments or revocations one must consult the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments or the enabling statute’s subsequent instruments. The Notice is recorded as Notice No. 3 of 2006 and bears the date 28 June 2006.

The Notice contains no references to decisions, cases, or judicial interpretations. The instrument itself does not record any litigation or administrative proceedings concerning its provisions. The Schedule and operative clauses make no mention of disputes, precedent, or interpretive guidance deriving from courts or tribunals.

Consequently, within the text of the Notice there is no litigation history to report. Any litigation or case law that might have arisen in relation to whether a particular individual falls within one of the Schedule’s Items, or disputes over the application of the declaration under the SRC Act, is not documented in this instrument. Users requiring an authoritative account of litigation touching this Notice would need to search external legal databases and court records for decisions addressing the Schedule’s application, as the Notice itself is silent on that point.

Where queries arise in practice:

• Disputes over whether particular acts were “under the direction or control” of specified AFP personnel, whether a volunteer was “without receiving any remuneration,” or whether an ad hoc assister’s belief was “honest and reasonable” under Item 6 are the types of legal questions that would likely generate litigation if contested. The Notice does not provide procedural rules for resolving such disputes; resolution would rely on the SRC Act’s dispute mechanisms or ordinary judicial review and evidentiary processes in courts and tribunals.

In short, the instrument contains no litigation history; it is a declaratory administrative instrument whose practical interpretive issues would, if contested, appear in external case law not recorded in the Notice.

The Schedule is compact but contains several drafting features and factual conditions that create potential pitfalls for practitioners, administrators and claimants. The following points flow from the instrument’s text and are presented as concrete practical risks or uncertainties that arise from the Notice’s wording.

1. Purpose‑limited characterisation: Clause 3 declares persons to be “employees of the Australian Federal Police for the purposes of the acts mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule.” This is a narrow, purpose‑tied declaration. Do not assume the Schedule confers employee status for other statutory regimes, contractual entitlements, taxation, or industrial instruments. The Notice does not state cross‑statutory effect, so the application outside the SRC Act’s purposes will require separate analysis.

2. “Without receiving any remuneration” phrase: Items 1 and 2 limit the classes to persons “without receiving any remuneration (excluding payment for expenses incurred).” The bracketed exception for expenses is explicit, but the Schedule does not define what counts as an expense reimbursement, what rates are acceptable, or how to document them. Small reimbursements that are in truth remunerative could disqualify a person from the Item’s scope. Practitioners should ensure written volunteer agreements and expense reimbursement policies are clear, contemporaneous and documented.

3. Reliance on documentary instruments: Items 1, 3, 4 and 5 tie the declared status to a written agreement, secondment agreement or instrument of appointment. If such documents are absent, incomplete, inconsistent or poorly worded, a claimant may fail to satisfy the Schedule’s documentary requirement even if they performed the acts in question. The AFP should maintain properly executed and accessible copies of these documents.

4. Direction or control evidentiary issue: Several Items require acts to be “performed, under the direction or control of an AFP employee, special member or special protective service officer” (Items 1, 2 and parts of Item 6). The Notice does not define what constitutes direction or control. The absence of a statutory definition means that, in practice, parties will need contemporaneous evidence (orders, communications, tasking records) to show direction or control existed at the relevant time. Vague supervision or informal instruction may produce disputes.

5. Two alternative pathways in Item 6: Item 6 contains a bifurcated test for ad hoc helpers: assistance (a) at the request or direction, or (b) in the honest and reasonable belief that the employee/member/officer requires assistance, where (i) there is actual or imminent danger and (ii) assistance is necessary to protect life or property. These elements are factual: “honest and reasonable belief,” “actual or imminent danger,” and “necessary” invite case‑by‑case assessment. That creates uncertainty for bystanders who render assistance and later seek to rely on the declaration. Absence of contemporaneous evidence (what was said, visible danger, witness statements) may hamper reliance on Item 6.

6. Typographical and drafting care: Item 6 contains a typographical error (“Acts preformed” rather than “performed”). While unlikely to alter substantive meaning, such drafting slips can be seized upon in close disputes and highlight the importance of precise record-keeping and argumentation.

7. Intersection with appointment and AFP Act provisions: Items 4 and 5 link declared acts to the “instrument of appointment and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.” The Notice does not elaborate which AFP Act provisions determine the scope of the role or duties, so practitioners must consult the AFP Act and the instrument of appointment to determine whether a particular act falls within the declared class. The Notice therefore creates an interpretive dependency on external instruments and statutes.

8. Commencement on registration: Clause 2 makes the Notice commence on registration on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. There may be questions about acts performed close to the register date (for example, whether retroactive application is intended). The Notice does not state any retrospective operation; the safe approach is to treat the declaration as effective from registration forward.

9. No procedural guidance on disputes or claims: The Notice does not provide administrative steps for claiming declared status, no prescribed documentary form and no timeframe for making claims. Parties unfamiliar with the SRC Act’s processes may misfile or fail to lodge claims that rely on this declaration. Practitioners should map SRC Act procedures in parallel when advising clients who seek to rely upon the Notice.

10. Narrow scope may produce borderline cases: The Schedule’s cumulative conditions , e.g., unpaid volunteer with written agreement, assistance under direction or control, or emergency assistance meeting Item 6’s two subconditions , produce many borderline fact patterns. Where a helper is partly remunerated, where direction/control is ambiguous, or where the danger was not “actual or imminent,” the person may fall outside the declaration even though intuitively they assisted the AFP. Those borderline patterns are likely sources of dispute.

These “gotchas” all derive from the instrument’s precise wording. Practitioners and administrators should therefore focus on documentary clarity, contemporaneous evidence, and careful mapping of acts to the Schedule’s exact requirements when advising or making claims under the Notice.

Compliance in the context of this instrument is primarily documentary and evidential: the Schedule sets out factual and documentary conditions that must be met for a person to be treated as an AFP employee for the purposes described. The following practical steps follow directly from the instrument’s text and will assist the AFP, individuals and advisers in creating and preserving the evidentiary trail required by the Notice.

For the Australian Federal Police (administrative steps):

• Maintain written volunteer agreements: For persons falling under Item 1, ensure each volunteer has a written agreement on file that specifies the voluntary nature of the engagement and that the person will not receive remuneration, save for expense reimbursement. The Schedule expressly conditions Item 1 on a written agreement “with the Australian Federal Police” and on being “without receiving any remuneration (excluding payment for expenses incurred).”
• Record training-assistant terms: For Item 2, document the role and status of persons who assist in training exercises and record that they receive no remuneration other than expense reimbursement. Ensure supervisors record the training exercises and the direction/control exercised by AFP staff to establish the nexus required by Item 2.
• Preserve secondment agreements: For Item 3, keep contemporaneous, signed secondment agreements compliant with section 69D(1) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 as cited in the Schedule. The Notice ties the declared status to acts “pursuant to the secondment agreement,” so the agreement must clearly set out the seconded person’s duties and the AFP assistance conditions.
• Retain instruments of appointment: For Items 4 and 5, ensure instruments of appointment for special members and special protective service officers are properly executed and readily accessible. The Schedule ties declared employee status to acts performed pursuant to those instruments and to the AFP Act 1979.
• Document direction, control and requests: Across Items 1, 2 and 6, the Schedule repeatedly requires acts to be “under the direction or control of an AFP employee, special member or special protective service officer” or at the request or direction of such persons. The AFP should institute processes to record tasking orders, communications, dispatch notes and any formal instructions where volunteers, trainees or secondees are asked to assist. Where possible, contemporaneous written logs and electronic records will be decisive evidence.
• Create an incident log and witness statements for ad hoc assistance: For Item 6 emergency assistance, compile incident reports, witness statements and photographic/video evidence that establish the presence of “actual or imminent danger” and the necessity of assistance. Also record any statements of the AFP employee, special member or special protective service officer requesting assistance, or, if no request was made, the circumstances giving rise to an honest and reasonable belief in danger.

For individuals (volunteers, training assistants, secondees, appointees, bystanders):

• Secure and retain copies of agreements and instruments: If you are a volunteer (Item 1), ensure you have a signed written agreement with the AFP. If seconded (Item 3) or appointed (Items 4-5), keep a copy of the secondment agreement or instrument of appointment. These documents are central to establishing whether the Schedule applies.
• Avoid remuneration that would disqualify you from unpaid categories: Items 1 and 2 require absence of remuneration. If you receive payment beyond expense reimbursement, you may fall outside those Items. Ensure that any payments are categorized and documented as reimbursements for actual expenses to avoid ambiguity.
• Gather contemporaneous evidence of direction or request: If assisting under the direction, control or at the request of AFP personnel, obtain or preserve records of communications, written tasking or witness statements supporting that direction/request. This is often decisive in establishing the nexus to the Schedule.
• For emergency assistance, record factual details: If relying on the “honest and reasonable belief” pathway in Item 6, document what you saw, the timing, the nature of the danger, any statements made, and the reasons you believed assistance was necessary. Witness statements and photographic evidence strengthen the claim that disbelief was honest and reasonable and that danger was actual or imminent.

For AFP policy and risk management:

• Align volunteer and training‑assistance policies with the Schedule: Update volunteer engagement policies, expense reimbursement policies, training-assistant arrangements and secondment templates to ensure they mirror the Schedule’s prerequisites (written agreements, no remuneration except expenses, clear secondment terms, appointment instruments that define scope of assistance).
• Train supervisors and operational staff on “direction or control” practices: Given the frequency with which the Schedule rests on direction or control, provide guidance to AFP staff on how to task, direct and record the involvement of volunteers, training assistants and bystanders in a way that produces clear evidentiary trails.
• Establish a central registry of relevant documents: Maintain a searchable, secure central repository for volunteer agreements, training-assistant records, secondment agreements and instruments of appointment so claims can be supported quickly and consistently.
• Develop a claims handling protocol referencing the Notice: Because this Notice is made under the SRC Act, coordinate with whatever internal and external claims processes apply under that Act so that declarations of employee status are considered promptly and consistently in claims handling.

For advisers and claimants preparing disputes:

• Map each claimed act to the relevant Schedule Item: In any claim, explicitly identify which Schedule Item is relied upon and demonstrate how the factual and documentary criteria are met (for example, cite the written volunteer agreement, show absence of remuneration, show direction/control, or document the emergency circumstances under Item 6).
• Anticipate evidentiary challenges: Given the Schedule’s reliance on facts and documents, prepare to meet challenges over whether payments were remuneration, whether direction or control existed, and whether the helper’s belief in danger was both honest and reasonable.

These compliance steps derive directly from the instrument’s operative wording. Practitioners should treat the Schedule’s documentary and factual conditions as gating criteria: if they cannot be satisfied by contemporaneous evidence, it will be difficult to establish that the Notice applies to a particular person or act.