KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Child-related organisations have commenced lodging reports under Queensland’s new Reportable Conduct Scheme.
• Implementing the Scheme’s notification, investigation and reporting requirements, including legislated timeframes, may place significant early demands on organisational resources.
• Supporting the safety and wellbeing of everyone involved in a reportable conduct matter is a central consideration along with fair investigation processes.
• Building staff capability in receiving disclosures, record-keeping and interviewing can support effective and child-centred investigations.
• Decisions about interviewing young people should carefully consider whether their evidence is necessary, in their best interest, and whether specialist clinical assessment and support may be needed.

Child-related organisations in Queensland are now lodging reports under the state’s new Reportable Conduct Scheme (RCS). Within three weeks of the scheme’s commencement on 1 July, 205 reports of inappropriate conduct towards young people were lodged with the Queensland Family and Child Commission.

The Scheme places varying demands on organisations depending on the maturity of their existing child protection frameworks, reporting systems, and investigation capability. For many, the immediate challenge is embedding new reporting requirements into established processes and ensuring workers and stakeholders (such as parents and carers) understand what has changed and why.

Communication about the Scheme requires ongoing and careful management to educate stakeholders, maintain trust and reinforce the organisation’s commitment to child safety.

Reportable conduct matters are likely to involve circumstances that are distressing for young people and workers (and potentially other workers and stakeholders), underscoring the importance of person-centred and trauma-informed practices to support participant wellbeing and procedural fairness.

Our national team of workplace investigators has more than a decade of experience conducting investigations for child-related organisations. In this article, we draw on this expertise, and our recent work leading RCS investigations, to share some observations and early insights.

Safety and wellbeing: How can organisations support everyone involved or impacted?

Like any workplace investigation, the safety and wellbeing of all participants is paramount. However, child-related organisations operate within relationships of deep trust, working with young people, sometimes highly vulnerable individuals, who rely on them for safety, consistency and care. When a reportable conduct matter arises, these organisations must meet strict reporting and investigation requirements while protecting those relationships and everyone within them.

Under the Scheme, organisations must notify the Queensland Family and Child Commission within three business days of becoming aware of a reportable conduct allegation or conviction and provide an interim report within 30 business days. These timeframes mean early decisions are often required quickly and with limited information, such as suspending with pay or transferring a worker. Decisions made at this early stage can significantly impact the worker, their colleagues, and young people in the organisation.

How an organisation manages the human dimensions of a reportable conduct matter is as important as how it manages the process. The following insights may assist organisations in navigating both.

Assess risk and formulate and implement appropriate control measures and continue to monitor and assess these throughout and post investigation: Ideally the risk assessment should be done as soon as the alleged reportable conduct becomes known. While the Scheme’s main emphasis is on the safety and best interests of the young person, organisations also have other legal obligations and duties in relation to workers, including preventing or minimising harm and the risk of harm (including psychosocial harm). An early risk assessment and implementation of appropriate control measures for the benefit of both the young person, the worker and others who may be affected is crucial to ensuring the organisation complies with its wider duties and obligations.

Communicate clearly, early and consistently about the process, even when information about the alleged conduct is limited: Participants who are kept informed about the process feel less isolated and more able to manage uncertainty. Confidentiality requirements must be carefully considered at every stage, including what can and cannot be shared, with who, and why.

From the outset, assure workers subject to allegations of a fair process with no predetermined outcome: For most workers, being advised they are the subject of a reportable conduct allegation comes as a significant shock, and how that initial conversation is handled will shape their experience of the process. Decisions to suspend with pay, transfer a worker or provide alternative duties are made on an individual basis, guided by the safety and risk considerations of each situation. Because these decisions may need to be made quickly, organisations may benefit from workshopping likely scenarios in advance. Having considered responses ready before a matter arises reduces the pressure of making decisions under time pressure. Organisations also have a duty to protect workers from hostile or unsupportive workplace dynamics and advise workers how to report any concerns.

Offering dedicated, impartial support to all participants is central to a person-centred process: Where available, a case manager who is independent from the investigation and decision-making chain provides a consistent and trusted point of contact for the subject worker and the young person throughout the process. Be guided by the needs and preferences of participants. Access to an Employee Assistance Program provides an additional layer of confidential support outside the workplace and should be clearly communicated to workers early.

The impact of a reportable conduct matter often extends beyond the immediate participants: The unexpected absence or changed duties of a staff member can unsettle colleagues, young people and the broader community, particularly in close-knit settings such as schools. Staffing, workload and service continuity may also require careful management. Where appropriate, organisations may wish to discuss with the subject worker what they are comfortable sharing about their situation, balancing privacy with the need to provide reassurance to those around them. Any such communications will also need to carefully consider the risk of detriment to the worker (such as reputational harm and embarrassment).

Participant safety and procedural fairness remain overriding considerations throughout the process.

Training: Who needs what type of training?

Child-related organisations are at varying stages of developing and embedding child safe systems and processes and have differing levels of capability conducting child-centred investigations.

It is therefore important to consider both the type of training required and who should receive it. For example, organisations may need to extend investigations training beyond senior leadership and safeguarding teams to include staff who are more likely to receive an initial disclosure from a young person. In school settings, for example, this could include teachers and pastoral care staff.

According to trauma-informed best practice, it is preferable that a young person only tell their story, with all the details, once. Investigators may not have the opportunity to re-interview a young person, making staff records of the initial disclosure critically important.

Basic training in interviewing and record-keeping can help workers who are most likely to receive disclosures feel more prepared and confident to ask key questions such as ‘Were there any witnesses?’ and ‘Have you told anyone else?’ and create thorough and accurate records.

Interviewing young people: Is it necessary or in their best interest?

One of the key decisions an investigator will make during an RCS investigation is whether interviewing a young person is necessary and in their best interest. The Queensland Family and Child Commission’s RCS Guide offers some practical guidance on the conduct of child-centred and trauma-informed interviews and investigations.

Decisions about whether to interview a young person should be made carefully, taking into account their age, circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the available evidence and procedural fairness requirements. Our RCS investigators have identified some questions to ask to inform this important decision:

• What are the young person’s circumstances and vulnerabilities? Is the young person in residential or foster care? Are there known behavioural or health risks or existing support plans? Where relevant, consider liaising with clinicians or other stakeholders before proceeding.
• Would it be beneficial for the young person, depending on the nature of the allegations, to participate in an interview? For example, for older students sharing their account may give them agency in the process. Participation, when handled carefully, can itself be part of a child-centred response.
• Is the young person’s account necessary? If sufficient evidence already exists, such as CCTV footage, witness accounts, text messages, or emails, the investigation may be able to proceed without the young person’s testimony.
• Does the available evidence support procedural fairness? That is, can allegations be put to the subject worker with sufficient detail for them to understand what is alleged and to respond fully?
• Will the absence of the young person’s account limit the ability to make findings or put allegations fairly to a subject worker? If so, and there are concerns about whether participation is in the best interests of the young person, it may be necessary to engage a qualified clinician to assist in determining the appropriate path forward.
• Is the young person’s experience integral to the findings? Where the allegation involves emotional or psychosocial harm, the young person’s account may be required to establish whether the conduct occurred and how it has impacted them.

Where a decision is made not to interview a young person, document the decision, the reasons for the decision and include any supporting evidence, such as a clinician’s assessment, in the investigation report.

The decision has been made to interview a young person: Important considerations

If the decision is made to interview a young person (with their consent and the consent of their parent/carer/guardian where appropriate), our investigators offer these observations:

Clinical experts: There may be circumstances where a young person’s evidence is crucial, however they are highly vulnerable. In these cases, a psychologist or other clinical child expert may be engaged to assess the young person and guide questioning.

Support people: Discuss who the young person would like to have present for support during the interview and any adjustments that may help them feel comfortable. Depending on the circumstances, a young person may prefer not to have a parent or family member involved. Their preferences, including who is involved, should be considered wherever possible.

Interview setting: Ask the young person where they would feel most comfortable being interviewed, recognising the importance of maintaining confidentiality. This could be online or in-person. For in-person interviews chose a location that is private. For example, in a school setting chose a room well away from other staff and students and avoiding busy times like lunch breaks. Where possible, use a relaxed space with couches rather than a formal boardroom and consider having water, tissues and refreshments available.

Interview time: Build in at least an additional thirty minutes for interviews. Young people often need time to settle, ask questions, and feel comfortable before the main conversation begins.

Investigator’s role: Before asking any questions, clearly explain your role as an investigator. Let the young person and their support person know that you approach the matter with an open mind, have no conflicts of interest, and are responsible for establishing the facts in a fair and impartial manner. Explain procedural fairness in plain language, including that information they provide may need to be shared with the person who is the subject of the allegation so they can respond. Providing a practical example of how this occurs can help explain the process.

Final reflection

Embedding new reportable conduct requirements will take time, resources and ongoing effort. Investing early in training, establishing clear processes and support arrangements can help organisations manage their reporting and duty of care obligations and better respond to notifications.

Experience in other states suggests reporting volumes are likely to increase as awareness of the Scheme grows. In 2024-25, 2,836 reportable conduct notifications were made in New South Wales and 2,232 in Victoria, representing an 18 per cent increase in both jurisdictions on the previous year.

As reporting and experience with reportable conduct investigations develops in Queensland, a stronger evidence base will emerge on what constitutes effective, child-centred and procedurally fair practice.

We expect the Queensland Family and Child Commission will provide further guidance to child-related organisations on compliance expectations and emerging good practice, including common gaps and areas for improvement observed across the sector, as they receive notifications, review investigations and assess final reports.

More information

Q Workplace Solutions’ team of experienced and legally qualified investigators is trusted by public and private organisations, including ASX-listed companies and government agencies, to investigate complex and often highly sensitive allegations of employee wrongdoing. The team also undertakes reviews of organisations, divisions, or units, and provides training, coaching and external advisory support to internal investigators and teams. Our expert team has documented best practice investigation approaches and processes in the industry-recognised expert guide, Workplace Investigations: Principles and Practice (2nd Edition).

Training 

Reportable Conduct Investigations: Child-Centred Interviewing and Documenting Disclosures

When a child makes a disclosure of harm, the people most likely to hear it first aren’t always trained investigators. They could be teachers, pastoral care staff or coaches. Under Queensland’s Reportable Conduct Scheme, how that initial conversation is handled may be critical to an investigation.

Our focused 2.5-hour workshop, Child-Centred Interviewing and Documenting Disclosures, is designed for staff who may find themselves speaking with a child about a potential incident. Grounded in trauma-informed and child-centred practices, the workshop covers training in interviewing and record-keeping to help employees who are most likely to receive disclosures ask key questions such as ‘Were there any witnesses?’ and ‘Have you told anyone else?’ and create thorough and accurate records.

Contact [email protected] for more information about booking in your staff for this tailored training workshop.

Internal Workplace Investigations: The Fundamentals | 17 & 18 Nov | Online

Onboarding new internal investigation team members or looking for a skills refresh? This workshop equips participants with the knowledge and skills to conduct procedurally fair, legally sound and trauma-informed workplace investigations.

Places are limited to ensure a highly interactive experience. Book here. For group bookings or enquiries, contact 1300 944 049.