Charged, or told the Commissioner of Police has lost confidence in you? Three routes, three clocks.

1. Discipline is a charge under Police Act s 23. An appeal goes to the Police Appeal Board within 14 days, and its decision is final.
2. Loss of confidence is removal under s 8 and Part IIB. An appeal goes to the WAIRC, constituted by at least three industrial Commissioners, within 28 days of removal. The burden stays on the officer at all times.
3. Medical retirement is under Part IIC. It has its own page: Injury, medical retirement and compensation.

A probationary constable is different again. Removal under r 505A has no appeal on the text. The overview is at WA police officers.

The word "Commissioner" means three different people in this area, so this page keeps them apart: the Commissioner of Police; an industrial Commissioner of the WAIRC; and the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission (Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 (WA) (CCM Act) s 3).

1. conduct "likely to bring discredit on the Force" (r 601);
2. disobeying a lawful order (r 603);
3. false or misleading statements (r 606);
4. unlawful arrest and unnecessary force (r 609);
5. feigning sickness, and absence (rr 610, 611);
6. outside work without approval (r 621);
7. inducing a member to withhold services (r 622).

Other duties are easier to miss:

1. reporting that you have been charged with an offence (r 605(1)(h));
2. reporting certain notices and orders, including restraining orders and infringement notices (r 605(1)(i));
3. off duty, declaring and reporting your presence at or involvement in an incident police attend (r 605(1)(f), (g));
4. reporting "any corrupt, criminal, unlawful, dishonest or unethical conduct or breach of discipline" known or reasonably suspected in a member (r 605(1)(j));
5. not commenting publicly on "any administrative action, or upon the administration of the Force" without permission (r 607(2)(a));
6. complying with a medical board direction (Police Act s 33ZC(5)) and the testing rules on refusal, avoidance and tampering (Member Testing Regulations rr 36 to 39), since a failure is itself an offence.

The examiner must record a finding in writing and may give a caution or, by written order, one or more of these punishments (s 23(4)):

1. a reprimand;
2. a fine of up to 3% of the annual base rate of pay;
3. demotion;
4. reduction in salary within the limits for the office;
5. suspension from duty;
6. discharge or dismissal or, for an auxiliary or liaison officer, cancellation of appointment.

An order for (c) to (f) has no effect until imposed or confirmed by the Commissioner of Police or, for a commissioned officer, confirmed by the Governor (s 23(5)). The Governor's confirmation waits for the appeal period or the appeal (s 23(6)).

1. Schedule 3. Despite the Act applying as if a police officer were a government officer, the WAIRC "does not have jurisdiction to enquire into or deal with" any matter relating to or arising from the transfer, demotion, reduction in salary, suspension, removal, discharge, dismissal or cancellation of appointment of a police officer, auxiliary officer or liaison officer, or the cancellation of a special constable's appointment (IR Act Sch 3 cl 2(3)).
2. Section 23(3)(d). The WAIRC must not regulate discipline, suspension or dismissal where another Act provides for it and for an appeal (s 23(3)(d)). It has applied that bar to orders about threatened discipline, even though no process had begun, and held that cl 2(3) "does not lead to a conclusion that police officers are to be treated differently" ([2026] WAIRC 00789 at [49], [53], [55]).

Two consequences follow:

1. discipline and loss of confidence are different roads, so a member dismissed under Part II has no s 33P appeal ([2023] WAIRC 00140 at [18]–[22]);
2. the unfair dismissal route in IR Act s 29 is not available for any of these decisions.

The WAIRC has said removal "is not a dismissal even if the consequence is the same" and that the focus "is not whether the penalty was too severe" ([2005] WAIRC 01989 at [21]–[22]). The purpose of the power "is not to punish police officers" ([2014] WAIRC 00302 at [210]).

The test is that the Commissioner of Police "does not have confidence in a member's suitability to continue as a member, having regard to the member's integrity, honesty, competence, performance or conduct" (Police Act s 33L(1)). Removal under s 8 can be taken only if s 33L has been complied with (s 8(2)).

1. Alcohol. After a confirmed adverse result the Commissioner of Police may refer you to the Health and Welfare Unit, impose managerial interventions, start s 23 discipline or invoke removal powers under s 8 (r 34(1)), subject to an exception in r 34(2) for a member recalled to duty.
2. Drugs generally. The same choices apply (r 35(1)).
3. Listed drugs. For a Schedule I or II drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), a Schedule 8 or 9 poison, a specified drug or a masking agent, "the Commissioner will invoke removal powers" (r 35(2)). That does not apply to a masking agent or Schedule 8 poison prescribed to you by a medical practitioner (r 35(3)).

Section 33L's process and s 33P's appeal still apply to a member other than a probationer. Rule 505A is unaffected for a probationer (rr 34(3), 35(4)).

"Reviewable police action" is wider than misconduct. It includes action "contrary to law" or "unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory" (s 3). The Commissioner of Police must notify it (s 21A(1)).

It meets discipline in five ways:

1. the CCC may investigate alone or in cooperation, refer the matter, or take no action (s 33(1));
2. it may recommend whether consideration should or should not be given to "the taking of disciplinary action", which expressly includes action under Police Act s 8 (s 43(1)(a)(ii); s 3);
3. a recommendation "is not a finding" (s 43(6));
4. otherwise nothing in that Part limits lawful discipline, so the Commissioner of Police keeps s 8 and s 23 (s 44);
5. the CCC may direct an authority not to start, or to stop, its own investigation (s 42).

Part 6-4 (unlawful termination) is not tied to the national system, and it uses a different definition. It probably does not reach a sworn WA officer, and no decision settles it.

The reason in short: s 770 gives "employee" its "ordinary" meaning, which a Full Federal Court has said is the common law meaning and which applies to s 772 (C v Commonwealth of Australia [2015] FCAFC 113 at [34]–[36], [65]). At common law a police officer holds an office and is not an employee (Falconer v Commissioner of Police [No 2] [2024] WASCA 47 at [44]).

Two limits on that reasoning should be stated:

1. C concerned an Air Force member, and its remarks on Part 6-4 answered an amendment that was abandoned;
2. older decisions went the other way on the former federal law, whose wording is no longer in the Act (Konrad v Victoria Police [1999] FCA 988 at [13]; [1999] FCA 1058 at [9]–[10]).

If an officer is contemplating a federal claim, the time to diary is 21 days after the alleged termination took effect, with a further period only in exceptional circumstances (s 774). That is shorter than the 28 days under s 33P. Diarying it does not mean the claim is available.

Part 6-3 (extended parental leave, family and domestic violence leave, and notice) uses the same words (s 742). It also probably does not reach a sworn WA officer, and no decision on s 742 was found.