GTX v Children's Guardian - [2025] NSWCATAD 278

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: GTX v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 278
Hearing dates: 25 September 2025, 3 November 2025 and 4 November 2025
Date of orders: 13 November 2025
Decision date: 13 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: A Starke, Senior Member
J Herberte, General Member
Decision:
The decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 20 December 2024 to place an Interim Bar on the applicant’s working with children check clearance is affirmed pending finalisation of the Children’s Guardian’s risk assessment.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Application for review under s 27(3) of Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 — Interim Bar placed on the applicant’s clearance pending a risk assessment to decide whether the clearance should be reinstated or cancelled — Report made by former foster child that she had been sexually assaulted by the applicant and an allegation that the applicant’s ex-wife failed to act protectively towards the child — Tribunal to assess whether applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69
BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115
BHY v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91
BJB v The Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164
BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214
Children’s Guardian v BRL [2016] NSWSC 1206
Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949
Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111
Commissioner for Children and Young People v IK [2005] NSWSC 1136
CRG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 295
CTE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 28
CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338
CYY v Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262
DAI v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308
Drake v Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60
DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136
FZ v Commissioner for Children and Young Persons [2010] NSWSC 1144
ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162
McDonald v Guardianship and Administration Board [1993] VR 521
Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184
Tilley v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174
VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
ZZ v Secretary, Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: GTX (Applicant)
Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McCallum (Applicant)
B Dean (Respondent)

Solicitors:
T Elliot-Orr (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00249659
Publication restriction:
With the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings is prohibited. This order was made on 10 July 2025 under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
Note: A reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant sought administrative review under s 27(3) of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) (‘the Act’) of the decision of the Children’s Guardian made on 20 December 2024 to impose an Interim Bar pending the respondent’s completion of a risk assessment to decide whether his working with children check clearance should be maintained or cancelled.
The Interim Bar was imposed because information held by the respondent indicated there is a likely risk to the safety of children if the appliant engages in child-related work while the risk assessment is conducted.
The applicant was a former foster carer, along with his ex-wife, GTZ. They have provided foster care to as many as 100 children during their foster careers with Burrun Delai Aboriginal Corporation (“Burrun Dalai”). Notably, they provided long-term care for IB since his birth in December 2010 and his sister VB since her birth in August 2015. They also provided care for BB (who is unrelated to IB and VB) in two separate periods, the first from January 2018 to December 2019 and the second from January 2021 to September 2021.
On 11 December 2024, just over 3 years after leaving their care, BB alleged to police that she had been sexually abused by GTX during the second period of her care with GTZ and GTX. BB also alleged that GTZ knew about the abuse and failed to act protectively towards her.
As a result of the allegations, IB and VB were removed from the care of the applicant and GTZ on 11 December 2024. GTX’s and GTZ’s carer authorisations were suspended on 13 December 2024. The respondent issued a Notice of Interim Bar and Risk Assessment to each of GTX and GTZ on 20 December 2024.
On 1 July 2025, GTX applied for a review of the respondent’s decision to place an Interim Bar on his clearance.
GTX emphatically denied the allegations made against him and asserted that the allegations against him and GTZ were without foundation and untested against his evidence. Prior to the removal of the siblings IB and VB, the applicant was a foster carer for around 25 years, with around 100 children placed in the care of his ex-wife and himself.
It was submitted on behalf of GTX that he is a proud First Nations man with a strong sense of social justice and is a respected elder in his community who, in his spare time, advocates for disadvantaged people. He provides services in mental health for youth (under the age of 25) and requires a clearance to continue in that work. He is also involved as a volunteer in soccer at State and National levels.
It was also submitted on behalf of GTX that a reasonable person would allow their child to have unsupervised contact with the applicant while he is engaged in child-related work, and that the Tribunal should find that it is in the public interest to remove the Interim Bar placed on his clearance.
The respondent submitted the decision to impose an Interim Bar is correct and ought to be affirmed, having regard to the accumulated weight of BB’s allegations and a number of other allegations against GTX.
After considering all the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant does not pose a risk to the safety of children. However, the Tribunal was satisfied that a reasonable person would not allow their child to have unsupervised contact with the applicant while he is engaged in child-related work, and that it is not in the public interest to set aside the Interim Bar.

Non-publication order

Due to the sensitive nature of these proceedings and to protect against the identity of any child being disclosed, an order was made on 10 July 2025 pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (‘NCAT Act’) that with the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings or referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings is prohibited.

Material and evidence before the Tribunal

The following material was filed on behalf of the applicant in support of his application:

his affidavit affirmed on 19 August 2025 (marked for identification as “Exhibit AX1”);

an affidavit by his ex-wife (GTZ) affirmed on 13 August 2025 (marked for identification as “Exhibit AX2”);

an Outline of Submissions dated 1 September 2025 (not marked).

The following material was filed on behalf of the respondent:

a bundle of documents filed on 31 July 2025 pursuant to s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (“the ADR Act”) (marked for identification as “Exhibit RX1”);

a bundle of documents labelled “Respondent’s Further Evidence” filed on 16 September 2025 (marked for identification as “Exhibit RX2”);

a further bundle of documents in two volumes labelled “Further s 31 responses from Department of Communities and Justice and Burrun Dalai” filed on 26 September 2025 (marked for identification as “Exhibit RX3”);

a bundle of documents comprising further material produced under Summons by the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force and the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”) (marked for identification as “Exhibit RX4”);

written Submissions dated 15 September 2025 (not marked)

Additionally, the material filed in the associated Case No. 2025/00278297 concerning the applicant’s ex-wife (GTZ v Children’s Guardian) was before the Tribunal. That material included:

an affidavit by GTZ affirmed on 19 August 2025 (marked for identification in the associated case as “Exhibit AZ1”);

a bundle of documents filed pursuant to s 58 of the ADR Act in two volumes (marked for identification in the associated case as “Exhibit RZ1 Volumes 1 and 2”).

Oral evidence

The applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined during the hearing.

Background leading to the application for review

The applicant is a First Nations man aged 54. He was married to GTZ for almost 30 years, and together, they raised four biological children. He and GTZ separated in or around 2018 and were divorced in 2022.
GTX and GTZ have been authorised foster carers for around 25 years. They were accepted to provide foster care services with a not-for-profit Aboriginal community-controlled organisation, Burrun Dalai Aboriginal Corporation (“Burrun Dalai”) since 18 July 2008.
They have provided foster care to many children, including biological siblings IB and VB (“the siblings”) who are Aboriginal and were placed with GTX and GTZ shortly after each of their births. IB was placed in their care in January 2013 and VB was placed with them in August 2015. The siblings remained in the care of GTX and GTZ until 11 December 2024 when they were removed and placed in respite care following allegations made by another child BB who had been in the care of GTX and GTZ that she had been sexually abused by GTX and that GTZ knew about the abuse and had failed to act protectively towards BB. At that point in time when the siblings were removed, IB was about to turn 12 years of age and VB was aged 9 years.
GTX and GTZ also provided care for BB (who is not biologically related to IB and VB) in two separate periods of time. The first period of care was from January 2018 until December 2019 (prior to the carers’ separation). The second period of care was around 9 months in duration, from January 2021 to September 2021, and was subject to an informal co-parenting arrangement agreed between GTX and GTZ. The children lived primarily with GTZ, and GTX provided respite care every alternate weekend.
GTX moved out of the family home by the end of 2018. However, there were occasions when GTX stayed over the weekend, sleeping downstairs on a mattress, taking the children on outings during the day.
GTX and GTZ maintained shared foster care responsibilities of the children IB and VB until 11 December 2024 when they were removed and placed in respite care. The siblings have not been returned to the applicants’ care.
The circumstances giving rise to the removal of IB and VB from GTX and GTZ’s care were a precursor for the respondent’s decision to place Interim Bars on their working with children check clearances.
In early December 2024, the Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”), received a number of reports alleging that BB had made disclosures to the effect that she had been sexually assaulted by GTX whilst in his care and in the care of GTZ. BB also alleged that she told GTZ about the alleged abuse and that GTZ failed to act protectively towards BB and failed to notify police or Burrun Dalai. At the time of the alleged abuse, BB was 10 years old, turning 11 in September 2019. At the time of disclosing the alleged abuse in December 2024, BB was 14 years of age.

Allegations against GTX and GTZ causing imposition of Interim Bar

In her interview with police on 11 December 2024, BB alleged that:

GTX called BB up to his and GTX’s bedroom, BB knocked on the door and GTX told her to come in, at which time BB saw GTX get on top of GTZ and start “humping” (having sex).

After school, GTZ was at work and GTX called BB up to his bedroom. She knocked and he told her to come in and then “grabbed” her on the vagina and said “this is good for you”.

Another afternoon, after school, BB saw GTX, his son TH and TH’s friends walking around the home naked.

BB saw GTX watching pornography on TV in the loungeroom and told BB, IB and VB to sit down and watch it because he said it was “good for you”.

GTX would force BB, IB and VB to watch him use the toilet.

When GTZ was out of the home, GTX called BB up to his bedroom, pushed her onto her back on the bed, pulled her legs apart and put his penis up her vagina, causing her to bleed. GTX then made BB get the bleach and clean up the blood. GTZ came home and asked what had happened and GTX told her BB had fallen over and started bleeding.

GTX attempted to sexually assault BB again but she ran away. BB said she ran downstairs, grabbed clothes, a phone and a knife and ran away. She said she didn’t get very far before GTX’s son TH saw her and took her home. GTZ later askd BB why she ran away and BB told GTZ it was beause GTX sexually abused her. BB asserted that GTZ said “okay” and BB was upset that that GTZ didn’t tell the “police or DOCS”.

GTX and GTZ have denied the allegations made by BB.
On 11 December 2024, police officers contacted DCJ to express concern about the safety of IB and VB in the care of GTX and GTZ and about the possibility of them being “coached” before being interviewed by police. An investigation was commenced by the State Crime Command, Child Abuse Squad.
On the same date, Burrun Dalai decided to place IB and VB into a respite placement.
On 13 December 2024, Burrun Dalai suspended GTX and GTZ’s carer authorisations.
On 16 Deember 2024, police officers interviewed IB and VB. They made no disclosures.
On 19 December 2024, an Apprehended Violence Order (“AVO”) was made against GTX for the protection of BB. The AVO was withdrawn and dismissed on 13 February 2025.
On 20 December 2024, the respondent issued to each of GTX and GTZ a Notice of Interim Bar and Risk Assessment.
Between 27 and 31 December 2024, police officers spoke with GTX and GTZ’s children, TH, IH and MH. They denied knowledge of any offending behaviour by GTX and denied they were exposed to pornography or nudity in the family home.
On 30 December 2024, police officers spoke with MW, a child previously in GTX and GTZ’s care. MW said that GTX was a bit weird and got in her space such that he would get close to her when talking and this made her uncomfortable. However, she denied that GTX ever sexually touched or sexually assaulted her, and had no complaint to make against him.
Also on 30 December 2024, police officers spoke with GTZ who made it clear she was unaware of any offending by GTX towards any children including BB. GTZ strongly denied all the allegations and said GTX would not have done such things. She said she had kicked GTX out of the house at least before BB’s second stay with her. She said GTX did not sleep at her house and was living with his mother. She said that if he did sleep over it would be on a mattress on the floor in the loungeroom. She said he would only generally come to the house on weekends and was not home during the week after school. She said she was always home in the afternoons after school and never worked. GTZ also said that BB never disclosed any offending by GTX or any other person to her. GTZ strongly denied BB ever seeing her and GTX have sexual intercourse and strongly denied BB ever disclosing any offending to her.
On 15 January 2025, DCJ officers separately interviewed IB and VB and neither child made any disclosures with respect to GTX.
On 29 January 2025, GTX declined an invitation to participate in an interview with police.
On 21 Febuary 2025, NSW police advised GTX’s legal representative that the investigation into the disclosures made by BB was suspended with no charges pending. DCJ notes confirm that several lines of inquiry were exhaused. However, after review of all the available evidence, it was determined that the threshold of proving all criminal offences beyond any reasonable doubt could not be met.
At around the same time, officers of the Joint Child Protection Response Program (JCPRP) completed a safety assessment and concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, sexual abuse had been substantiated. As a result, DCJ recommended that GTX be allocated the highest alert level available. On 10 April 2025, the JCPRP Director determined that GTX would be designated as a “Person Causing Harm”.

Independent assessment of GTZ’s capacities to act protectively

DCJ commissioned an urgent independent assessment of the applicant’s ex-wife’s suitability and protective capacities to care for IB and VB and ensure their safety and well-being. The assessment was undertaken by a Cultural Consultant who provided a comprehensive report dated 29 May 2025. The Consultant concluded that GTZ had “effectively demonstrated her protective capacities to provide a safe and caring environment for the children that supports their physical, emotional and cultural wellbeing”. The Consultant recommended reinstatement of GTZ’s carer authorisation on the conditions that her clearance is reinstated and the outcome of Burrun Dalai’s investigation is that the allegations are unsubstantiated.

Outcome of reportable conduct investigation by Burrun Dalai

On 23 June 2025, the Reportable Conduct Officer at Burrun Dalai wrote to GTX and GTZ to inform them that Burrun Dalai had finalised its investigtions into the allegations made against them and determined there was insufficient information to substantiate the claims made by BB.

Application for administrative review

On 1 July 2025, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the respondent’s decision to impose the Interim Bar on his clearance.

Other matters to be weighed in the assessment of risk

In addition to the allegations by BB that caused the imposition of the Interim Bar, there are a number of other allegations against GTX allegations in the workplace, socially and in the context of caring for foster children. These matters are taken into account when assessing GTZ’s risk to the safety of children under the heading “Consideration”.

Applicable legislation and legal principles

Protective jurisdiction of the Act

The protective jurisdiction of the Act is plainly evident from its stated object as set out in s 3:

3 Object of Act
The object of this Act is to protect children—
(a) by not permitting certain persons to engage in child-related work, and
(b) by requiring persons engaged in child-related work to have working with children check clearances.

Paramount consideration

The paramount consideration in the operation of the Act is set out in s 4:

4 Safety, welfare and well-being of children to be paramount consideration
The safety, welfare and well-being of children and, in particular, protecting them from child abuse, is the paramount consideration in the operation of this Act.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is protective, and not punitive

Having regard to that paramount consideration, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s 27 of the Act is protective, and not punitive, in nature: DAI v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308 (DAI) at [8]; AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69 (AYU) at [34]; Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111 per Young JA at [61]. The object of the Act is not to impose additional punishment on a person such as the applicant, but to eliminate possible risks to children: CYY v Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262 (CYY) at [26].

The protective jurisdiction of the Act was emphasised in CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338 (CXZ) per Simpson AJA at [58]:

“It is plain that in some cases this will be the cause of potential injustice to the applicant for a clearance. A person entirely innocent of any allegations may be refused a clearance because the evidence does not permit a conclusion that the allegations are without foundation and the inability to reach such a conclusion leaves open sufficient possibility that the risk exists. Analysis of the relevant provisions of the Child Protection Act satisfies me that the legislature preferred the risk of injustice to an applicant to risk to the safety of children.”

Definition of “children”, “child abuse” and the meaning of “risk to the safety of children”

“Children” is defined in s 5(1) of the Act to mean “persons under the age of 18 years”.
The words “child abuse” appearing in s 4 above are not defined in the Act. The Tribunal stated in BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115 at [29] that the words would be aptly described as “maltreatment of a child consisting of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, neglect, or any combination of these, and includes exposure to harm caused by or being subjected to family violence”.
The meaning of “risk to the safety of children” is defined in s 5B of the Act to mean a “real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.” The meaning of the word ‘risk’ was considered by Young CJ (in Equity) in Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949; 56 NSWLR 476 at [42]:

“One does not define risk as meaning minimal risk. One would… exclude fanciful or theoretical risk but what one is looking for is whether, in all the circumstances, there is a real and appreciable risk in the sense of a risk that is greater than the risk of any adult preying on a child. One, however, must link the word ‘risk’ with the words that follow, namely ‘to the safety of children’…”

His Honour’s consideration of the meaning of risk was cited with approval in a number of cases before the Tribunal and the NSW Supreme Court: CTE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 28 at [30]; BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523 (BKE) at [26] and AYU at [39]. Ultimately, the Tribunal must consider whether a clearance, if granted, will create a “real and not fanciful” risk to the safety of children: CXZ per Basten JA at [26].

Child-related work requires a WWCC clearance

Under s 8(1) of the Act, a worker must not engage in child-related work unless the worker holds a clearance. A worker who is subject to an Interim Bar must not engage in child-related work: s 8(2) of the Act.
Work that involves direct contact by a worker with a child or children and that contact is a usual part of and more than incidental to the work is defined as “child-related work” for the purposes of the Act: s 6(1) of the Act.

Test to be satisfied that a person is not a risk to the safety of children

Under s 18(2) of the Act, the Children’s Guardian must grant a clearance to a person who is subject to a risk assessment unless satisfied that the person poses a risk to the safety of children.

Risk assessment under s 15(4) of the Act

Subsections 15(1) and (2) of the Act set out circumstances in which the respondent must conduct a risk assessment into a person who has applied for or holds a clearance. Section 15(3) makes clear that the respondent may decide when to conduct a risk assessment concerning a person who holds a clearance. That discretion is not limited by subsections 15(1) and (2).
In making an assessment, the Children’s Guardian may consider the matters set out in s 15(4) of the Act. The Children’s Guardian does not limit its consideration to offences involving children because some offences or behaviours might have an impact on children in the community or home. This is clearly advised to applicants applying for clearance.
If the Children’s Guardian is not satisfied of risk based on the s 15(4) matters alone, the ‘reasonable person’ and ‘public interest’ tests set out in s 15(4A) of the Act must be considered:

(a) a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the applicant that was not directly supervised by another person while the applicant was engaged in any child-related work, and
(b) it is in the public interest to make the determination.

If the person fails either the ‘reasonable person’ or the ‘public interest’ test, clearance will not be granted.

Imposition of an Interim Bar

At any time after commencing an assessment of a person who holds a clearance, the respondent may determine that the person is subject to an Interim Bar: s 17(1) of the Act.
The effect of an Interim Bar is to prevent the clearance holder from engaging in child-related work or residing on the same property as an authorised carer, as defined in s 137 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act 1998 (“the CYP Act”).
Section 17(2) provides that “[t]he Children’s Guardian may make a determination under this section if it is of the opinion that it is likely that there is a risk to the safety of children if the [clearance] holder engages in child-related work or resides on a property referred to in [s 17(1] pending the determination of the application or assessment.”
An Interim Bar may only be in place for up to 12 montjs: s 17(4)(c) of the Act.
A person made subject to an Interim Bar may apply to the Tribunal for review of the decision to impose the Interim Bar provided the Interim Bar has been in force for more than 6 months: s27(3) of the Act.

Issue for the Tribunal’s determination

The issue for determination is whether GTX poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children and, consequently, whether the correct and preferable decision (under s 63(1) of the ADR Act) is to affirm the imposition of the Interim Bar on his clearance.
For the purpose of determining an application for administrative review, the Tribunal exercises all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision: s 63(2) of the ADR Act.
However, in exercising those functions, the Tribunal must not simply “stand in the shoes” of an administrator. The Tribunal does not conduct a review of the respondent’s decision to impose an Interim Bar. As explained in DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136 at [21], the Tribunal must conduct its review without any presumption as to the correctness of an administrator’s decision:

“The effect of these two subsections is sometimes characterised as the Tribunal being required to “stand in the shoes” of the administrator who made the decision. But that is not entirely accurate. I must conduct this review without any presumption as to the correctness of the decision: McDonald v Guardianship and Administration Board [1993] VR 521 at [530] and I am required to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material before me. It is clear that that may include material which postdates the making of the decision: YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 (YG) at [25], Drake v Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 at 77.”

The Tribunal has regard to the material before it, including material that may not have been before the Children’s Guardian, and the applicable law: YG at [25], per Hodgson JA (with whom Foster and Brownie A-JJA agreed); applied in BHY v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91 at [14].

What orders the Tribunal can make

The Tribunal may make orders that affirm, vary, set aside or remit the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration, with or without any directions or recommendations from the Tribunal. If the decision is set aside, the Tribunal may make a decision in substitution for the decision it set aside: s 63(3) of the ADR Act.

Mandatory matters for the Tribunal’s consideration under s 30(1) of the Act

In determining this application, the Tribunal must consider the matters set out in s 30(1) as set out below:

30 Determination of applications and other matters
(1) The Tribunal must consider the following in determining an application under this Part—
(a) the seriousness of the offences with respect to which the person is a disqualified person or any matters that caused a refusal of a clearance or imposition of an interim bar,
(b) the period of time since those offences or matters occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred,
(c) the age of the person at the time the offences or matters occurred,
(d) the age of each victim of any relevant offence or conduct at the time they occurred and any matters relating to the vulnerability of the victim,
(e) the difference in age between the victim and the person and the relationship (if any) between the victim and the person,
(f) whether the person knew, or could reasonably have known, that the victim was a child,
(g) the person’s present age,
(h) the seriousness of the person’s criminal history and the conduct of the person since the matters occurred,
(i) the likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition,
(i1) any order of a court or tribunal that is in force in relation to the person,
(j) any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application,
(j1) any relevant information in relation to the person that was obtained in accordance with section 36A,
(k) any other matters that the Children’s Guardian considers necessary.

Further considerations under s 30(1A) of the Act

In addition, if the Tribunal is considering making an order enabling an applicant to work with children, it must then consider the two-part test set out in s 30(1A) of the Act:

(1A) The Tribunal may not make an order under this Part which has the effect of enabling a person (the affected person) to work with children in accordance with this Act unless the Tribunal is satisfied that—
(a) a reasonable person would allow his or her child to have direct contact with the affected person that was not directly supervised by another person while the affected person was engaged in any child-related work, and
(b) it is in the public interest to make the order.

First limb of the two-part test under s 30(1A)(a) - the “reasonable person” test

The first limb of the two-part test is known as the “reasonable person” test. It requires the application of an objective standard based upon the views of the “reasonable person”. It assumes that the “reasonable person” is acquainted with all the relevant facts of which the Tribunal is aware: CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214 at [127]; CYY at [26].
The legislation in Victoria contains provisions similar to those in s 30(1A) of the Act. In VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789 (VQB) at [36], the Tribunal held that an objective test was called for by the legislation:

“… The reasonable person would, in reaching his or her conclusions, acquaint himself or herself with all of the matters that have been placed before me, giving an applicant for a positive assessment a right to be heard, as well as considering the material gathered by the Secretary. A reasonable person would not approach the task with a closed mind, thinking that once a person has offended, he or she can never be redeemed. The reasonable person, however, would not put aside all scepticism and reasonable caution in this most difficult area in some over-optimistic attempt to facilitate rehabilitation.”

The reasonable person approach taken in VQB was endorsed in NSW in CRG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 295 at [85] and DAI at [90]. In DAI at [91], the Tribunal said:

“In order to properly consider this test, a ‘reasonable person’ would need to know about the disqualifying offence, the circumstances surrounding the offence, the applicant’s entire criminal history, the length of time since those offences occurred, his conduct since then and any expert assessment made for him.”

Second limb of the two-part test under s 30(1)(b) - the “public interest” test

The second limb of the two-part test is referred to as the “public interest” test. The notion of “public interest” was addressed by the High Court of Australia in ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162 in which French CJ, Gummow and Crennan JJ said at [20]:

“The term ‘in the public interest’ is one of broad import. When used in a statute, the term classically imports a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute in question.”

Accordingly, in proceedings under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012, the “public interest” must be considered in light of the paramount purpose of the Act, namely, to ensure the protection of children from sexual or physical harm: s 4 of the Act.
When applying the public interest test, the Victorian Supreme Court has endorsed a broad and not a narrow approach: ZZ v Secretary Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267 (ZZ) per Bell J at [205]. While emphasising the main purpose of the Victorian legislation (equivalent to the NSW legislation) is the protection of children from harm, the decision in ZZ at [202] also acknowledged the relevance and importance of rehabilitating offenders and their right to work. The private interests of an applicant such as their right to work in their chosen area of employment are also a factor to be taken into consideration insofar as those private interests also have a broader community benefit as per Bell J at [203]:

“In the context of the right to work, the tribunal has (in my view, correctly) taken into account the public interest in enabling persons to engage in their chosen field of employment or in the field in which they are most suited to work, in not lightly turning people away from their commitment to a chosen career and in encouraging people to use their qualifications, experience and expertise for the benefit of others.”

The concept of public interest has been determined by the Tribunal on the basis of giving priority to the broad interests of the community over private interests: Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184; CYY at [75].
If the Tribunal is not satisfied that an applicant has met either of the first or second limbs in the two-part test, it is precluded from making an order enabling the applicant to work with children.

The approach to fact finding and the assessment of risk

In recognition of the protective jurisdiction of the Act and the paramount consideration being the safety, welfare and well-being of children, the Tribunal is bound to follow the decision in BKE at [33] when assessing risk:

“Thus in such cases it may be that NCAT can be satisfied that an allegation of sexual abuse against an applicant is established. Equally, NCAT may be affirmatively satisfied that the relevant incident did not occur, in which case it can be put aside. However, in a context where the welfare of the child is paramount and the question being posed concerns the risk of harm to children, NCAT may not be satisfied that an allegation of abuse has been made out, but nevertheless conclude that the circumstances surrounding a particular incident or course of conduct means that there is a risk to a child or, more correctly, that the existence of a risk has not been disproven.”

The approach to fact finding as explained in BKE at [33] has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Tilley v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174 at [34]-[45] and in CXZ per Simpson AJA at [57]:

“The task of the Tribunal is, to expand on what Beech-Jones J said in BKE, to determine, even if it is unable to be satisfied one way or the other as to the truth of all or any of the allegations, whether, by reason of the possibility that the alleged conduct occurred, the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children. [emphasis in original] If so, the Tribunal must refuse to grant a clearance. Of course, in that process the Tribunal will give consideration to the strength of the evidence supporting the allegations and will, inevitably, reach conclusions about the truth or falsity of some. If it finds any allegation to be without foundation it will discard it from further consideration. If it is satisfied that the allegation is well founded, it will assign to it such weight as it sees fit, in the consideration (inter alia) of the circumstances listed in s 30. It is the allegations between those two extremes, those that are neither proved nor disproved, that the Tribunal must address in determining whether the applicant for a clearance poses a risk to children.”

Thus, relying upon the analysis in CXZ at [51], many cases will not lend themselves to definitive factual determination. Where an allegation is neither “well founded” nor “groundless”, the Tribunal must decide whether, on the evidence before it, the possibility that the conduct did occur justifies a finding that the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children: CXZ at [52]. The assessment and the weight to be assigned to allegations will depend upon the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of any evidentiary support for those allegations, and the relevance of the conduct the subject of the allegations to the risk to the safety of children if a clearance is granted to the applicant: CXZ at [53].
In determining the application, the Tribunal is required to consider “the totality of the evidence”: BKE at [28] citing The Commissioner for Children and Young People v IK [2005] NSWSC 1136 at [83]-[84]. The Tribunal is to make a decision based on the “cumulative effect” of the matters before it: CYY at [69]-[71].

Burden and standard of proof

Neither party bears an onus of proof in relation to an application for review under s 27 of the Act: BJB v The Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 at [32].
Section 28(2) of the NCAT Act provides that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice.
The standard to which the Tribunal must be satisfied before making a positive finding in relation to an allegation is the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities, and not the criminal standard: CFW at [14]-[17], subject to the need to have regard to the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 (Briginshaw). The Briginshaw principle can broadly be described as a standard of satisfaction to be reached where serious allegations are concerned. Put simply, serious allegations with serious consequences require more compelling evidence for the decision maker to reach the necessary state of reasonable satisfaction that the facts in dispute are more likely than not to exist.

Consideration

In proceedings before this Tribunal, the allegations are assessed according to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, subject to the Briginshaw principle.
In evaluating the evidence before us, it is not necessary to find that the offences or the alleged conduct occurred. It is sufficient to conclude that it is possible that the alleged conduct occurred before then proceeding to consider whether, based on the allegations, the applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.
There were difficulties in assessing some of the evidence in this case. It was correctly submitted on behalf of the applicant that there was a risk of injustice if the serious allegations by BB were to be accepted without having been tested, where the respondent did not propose to call BB to be cross-examined. It was further submitted on behalf of the applicant that it was open for the Tribunal to draw an inference that BB’s allegations were false (citing Children’s Guardian v BRL [2016] NSWSC 1206 per Fagan J at [32] and the reasoning of Harrison J in FZ v Commissioner for Children and Young Persons [2010] NSWSC 1144 and the Court of Appeal decision in Commissioner for Children and Young Persons v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111).

Counsel for the respondent submitted that caution had been exercised when considering whether to call a vulnerable person to be cross-examined, and in this case BB is a 15 year old teenage girl who has been assessed by DCJ as having significant vulnerabilities by virtue of her status as foster child and her medical diagnoses, and because of her various placements and experiences in foster and family/kinship care. In evaluating the weight of BB’s allegations, we have therefore taken into account those and a number of other factors, discussed below.

Mandatory considerations in s 30(1)(a)-(k) of the Act

In determining the application, we are obliged to consider the evidence under each of the headings in s 30(1)(a)-(k) of the Act.

The seriousness of the offences with respect to which the person is a disqualified person or any matters that caused a refusal of a clearance or imposition of an interim bar: s 30(1)(a) of the Act

The allegations made by BB against GTX that caused the imposition of the Interim Bar are serious and sexual in nature.
BB’s allegations were said to concern the period of her placement with the applicant’s ex-wife and the applicant following their separation, a period from January 2021 to September 2021. She appeared to be very clear about the time when the conduct occurred.
GTX’s affidavit evidence was that the allegations that he had sexually assaulted BB were untrue and that he found it very distressing to be accused of such things. He said that, in between the first and second periods when BB was placed with them, BB was placed with her family and then with a family who were not authorised carers. When Burrun Dalai became aware of this unauthorised change in placement, they again placed BB with the applicant’s ex-wife.
The applicant’s evidence was that he was not living in the family home in 2019 because he had separated from GTZ. He said that, even before the separation, he was regularly staying at his mother’s home to provide care for her. During the second placement, GTZ did occasional casual work when IB and VB and BB were at school. He said that this was deliberately planned so that GTZ could be at home before and after school. The applicant visited the home to provide respite help with the care of the children on weekends or after school hours when GTZ was already home. On the occasions when he stayed over, he slept on a mattress on the floor of the loungeroom.
The applicant said that he was never alone with BB. He said that his daughter (MH) also lived at home and often had friends over so it was a very busy household. He also said that the layout of the house and the frequent movements of visitors meant that there was “no way that anyone would be alone with anyone else”.
GTX said that after he separated from his ex-wife, they were not sexually active.
GTX’s written testimony was that BB sexually assaulted VB in the bath when she was living with GTZ which prompted them to immediately inform Burrun Dalai. After being placed with family, followed by the unauthorised placement with another family, the applicant would occasionally collect BB so she could accompany IB and VB to the beach. He said that BB told him she was angry about being removed from GTZ’s house, and that she missed living with them.
GTX also said that BB was reported to have been exposed to sexual abuse in previous foster placements (including having been exposed to a convicted paedophile) and was reported to have exhibited highly sexualised behaviours, including towards the partner of one of her family member carers (AB).
Under cross-examination in these proceedings, the applicant confirmed that he had not participated in a police interview. He said that he offered police the opportunity to interview him in a particular location and it could not, apparently, be accommodated.
He described his relationship with his ex-wife as being “at arm’s length”, and that they each had new partners. He acknowledged there was tension, but not hostility, between them. He also acknowledged that his biological children were closer to their mother because they lived in close proximity to her.
His oral evidence corroborated his affidavit testimony. He said the allegation that BB saw him and his ex-wife having sex was false. He denied that he had any sexual relations with BB or that he attempted to sexually assault BB. He denied that BB had seen him going to the toilet. He said that her allegations were fabricated and were “absolutely false”. He said that Burrun Dalai had cleared him and his ex-wife of the allegations.
When questioned as to whether he had a theory about what may have occurred, GTX proffered that when BB was placed with family in between the first and second placements with GTZ, she was exposed to sexual abuse and that DCJ failed to protect her.
We note that, under cross-examination in associated proceedings (Case No. 2025/00278297), GTZ’s oral evidence corroborated the applicant’s written and oral evidence with respect to their relationship and the physical arrangements in the household after their separation. Her evidence corroborated the applicant’s testimony that GTZ had acted protectively towards VB and had asked Burrun Dalai to remove BB from the placement after VB disclosed that BB had touched her inappropriately. GTZ’s evidence in the associated proceedings corroborated the applicant’s denial of allegations that GTZ had participated in the offending conduct by having sex with GTX and his rejection of the allegation that GTZ had not acted appropriately to report sexual assault allegations to the police or Burrun Dalai.
GTX’s and GTZ’s three biological children (TH, IH and MH) were all interviewed by police and said that BB’s allegations were false. TH said he never saw his father show pornography to BB or any other child. He denied ever walking around the house naked and denied seeing his father or anyone else walking around the house naked. MH denied any knowledge of her father’s offending, saying he would not do such things. IH said he never saw or heard of any sexual offending regarding his father and that BB never disclosed any offending to him.
The Cultural Consultant engaged by DCJ to assess GTZ’s protective capacities recorded that MH was interviewed by police and found the allegations to be “disgusting” and “gross”. She said that she caught the bus home every afternoon with BB and if anything had happened, she would have seen it and would have said something to someone.
IB and VB were also interviewed by police and made no disclosures.
We do not dismiss the possibility that, sadly, BB has at some point in time, been the victim of sexual abuse. Both GTX and GTZ postulated that BB may have been subjected to abuse when she was living with her own family and then with non-authorised carers before the second period of care with GTZ and the applicant in 2021. We make no finding concerning the possibility that their assertions (about who may have perpetrated any abuse towards BB) may be correct.
In light of all the evidence, we are not persuaded that the abuse has been perpetrated by GTX or GTZ. We say this, taking into account GTX’s consistent and emphatic denial of the allegations made against him and GTZ, and the prevailing circumstances in the household at the time of the alleged conduct, following the parties’ separation. From 2020, GTX was not having sexual relations with GTZ and he did not have a bedroom in the house at that time. GTZ did not work full time and only engaged in inconsistent casual work. If she did work, it was during school hours so that she could be home when the children arrived home from school. This was necessary because of the children’s complex conditions and their need for consistent supervision. GTX was not alone with the children on the weekdays after school as GTZ was already home.
We acknowledge that, as a result of the PCPRP assessment, GTX was designated to be a “Person Causing Harm”. However, there are a number of counterbalancing factors to be taken into account. They include that there is no corroborating evidence to support BB’s allegations, the police investigation was suspended with no charges pending, no charges have subsequently been laid against either party, the AVO against GTX was withdrawn, and the reportable conduct investigation concluded that the allegations against both GTX and GTZ were unsubstantiated.
We have accepted the evidence of GTX with respect to BB’s allegations to be truthful. In the overall assessment of the applicant’s risk, we have given a substantial amount of weight to our finding that GTX did not engage in the alleged conduct.

Other matters

Charge of indecent assault – Alleged incident in February 1994

Police records note that a nursing colleague of GTX alleged that on 7 February 1994 he indecently assaulted her. The allegation was that she had driven him to his residence where she was invited in to read bridal books while he prepared his work uniform, that he walked behind her and put her in a bear hug, carried her against her will to his bedroom and put her on his bed where he lay on top of her and kissed her a number of times. He then attempted to pull up the victim’s dress and unzipped her dress. The victim persuaded GTX to stop the attack and then drove them both to the medical centre where she reported the incident to her supervisor. The victim asserted that GTX repeatedly apologised to her.
The applicant was charged with assaulting, beating and ill-treating the victim but the matter was dismissed at the Local Court and no further action ensued.
The applicant’s affidavit evidence was that the allegations were not true. In giving his oral evidence, he said the victim had made a false report. He asserted that he had rejected her, and that she knew he was getting married but wanted “one last fling”. He denied that he repeatedly apologised to the victim on the drive to their workplace.
GTX argued that this matter had been considered previously by the Children’s Guardian and it had not prevented him from being given his clearance.
Given the historical nature of this matter (more than 30 years ago), and that the allegations were not tested by a court and the complainant was not called by the respondent to be cross-examined in these proceedings, we have not allocated weight to the allegations in assessing GTX’s likelihood of risk. However, when assessing whether the reasonable person test has been satisfied, the allegations may be taken into account as part of the accumulated allegations that the reasonable person would be assumed to take into account.

DCJ report May 2007 of “bashing” children

In May 2004, DCJ received a report that GTX and GTZ “bashed” children in their home and that GTX smacks them. It was also alleged that a child was sexually assaulted by another child in the home, and that she was told by her carer that she was “not allowed to tell”.
These allegations were comprehensively addressed by the applicant’s ex-wife in the associated Case No 2025/00278297.
GTX denied the allegations that he “bashed” children and smacked them.
There is insufficient evidence to support the allegations. Accordingly, we have not taken them into account when assessing GTX’s risk.

Allegation that a female teenage foster child was left in the unsupervised company of three teenage boys - November 2004

Another report stated that a female child had asserted that in November 2004 when GTZ and GTX went out, she was left with three teenage boys who touched her inappropriately and smacked her with a wooden spoon and a piece of garden hose.
These allegations were comprehensively addressed by the applicant’s ex-wife in the associated Case No 2025/00278297.
GTX also denied the allegations.
There is insufficient evidence to support the allegation and we have not taken it into account when assessing GTZ’s risk.

Charge and conviction for offensive behaviour – February 2005

In February 2005, GTX was charged with “behave in offensive manner in/near public place/school” after he engaged in a verbal altercation with a worker at a local hotel whilst GTX was employed as head of security at the hotel. GTX received a Section 10 bond.
GTX gave oral evidence that he had a verbal disagreement with the complainant and had not handled the incident to the best of his ability. He said that he told the magistrate hearing the matter that he and the complainant “got loud”. His affidavit evidence was that he was sorry for his actions on that occasion, but felt he had been targeted by police because he is Aboriginal.
We have not allocated weight to this incident in assessing the applicant’s likelihood of risk towards the safety of children. However, when assessing whether the reasonable person test has been satisfied, the allegations may be taken into account as part of the accumulated matters that the reasonable person would be assumed to take into account.

Allegation in March 2007 of sexual intercourse with 15 year old girl and verbal abuse

The applicant was the subject of an historical allegation that he engaged in sexual intercourse with a 15 year old girl and that he later hurled abuse at her. The complainant later retracted the allegations but the police officer involved, Senior Constable Costigan, found the victim’s account of the offending to be believable and she was unconvinced of the veracity of the version of events provided by the victim at the time the complaint was retracted.
The allegation was that GTX met the victim in or around 2003 when she was 15 years of age whilst working in community health. It was alleged that two weeks after meeting her, he asked her to his office where they had sex. Following this, he often said things to her such as “You’re a slut”, “Town bike”, and “Hope you die”. The victim claimed that over a period of four years they had sex about 50 times, with about 10 of those occasions occurring before she was 16 years of age. She stopped having anything to do with GTX after January 2007 but he continued to yell abuse at her. She also said that GTX threatened her by saying that another person was going to “bash” her. She alleged that in or around 2005 GTX was physically abusive towards her by twisting her arm and making her cry. He is also alleged to have slapped her across the face during a sexual encounter, whilst calling her a “dirty slut”. She said that GTX was aware that she suffers from depression and schizophrenia.
The applicant’s affidavit evidence is that the allegations were not true and that he had never had sex with the complainant and did not have a relationship with her. His oral evidence in these proceedings corroborated his denial of the allegations which he said were false. GTX also said that he and Constable Costigan did not see “eye to eye”.
The applicant argued that the matter was considered previously by the Children’s Guardian and did not prevent the applicant from being given a clearance.
The allegations were not tested by a court and the complainant was not called by the respondent to be cross-examined in these proceedings. Senior Constable Costigan was also not called to give evidence. Accordingly, we have not allocated weight to the allegations in assessing GTX’s likelihood of risk. However, when assessing whether the reasonable person test has been satisfied, the allegations may be taken into account as part of the accumulated allegations that the reasonable person would be assumed to take into account.

DCJ reports re welfare of baby in GTX and GTZ’s care – 2009 and 2010

Throughout 2009 and 2010, DCJ received several reports raising concerns for the welfare of a baby who was placed in the care of GTX and GTZ. The reports primarily concerned the care and supervision of the baby, claiming she had swallowed a balloon and that she presented with blistering around her vagina and bottom due to severe nappy rash, and also to bruising, grazes and a burn.
The allegations were comprehensively addressed by the applicant’s ex-wife in the associated Case No 2025/00278297.
GTX’s oral evidence was that he recalled the baby had swallowed part of a balloon. He also recalled that she had hit herself with a toy on one occasion. He had no recollection of there being blood in the baby’s nappy or of a staph infection but said the baby may have been taken to hospital. He said that a burn was never identified on the baby’s stomach and an allegation that they neglected the baby was never put to him. He said that they were asked to strip the baby naked and photograph her before she went to see her biological mother and upon her return to their care.
We accept that there were complex circumstances surrounding the care of this baby whose very young and inexperienced mother appeared to be seeking to discredit the applicant’s and GTZ’s efforts to care for, and keep, the child safe. On balance, we do not accept that the reports demonstrate neglect on the carers’ parts, and have not given weight to the allegations in assessing whether GTX poses a risk to the safety of children.

Allegation of workplace incident concerning a patient and an employee – September 2010

The incident concerns GTX, who at the time occupied a senior position with a medical service, engaging in an argument with a patient about appointment scheduling and directing the patient to leave. One of the employees was distressed at having witnessed the exchange. As she walked away, GTX allegedly yelled at her: “You can leave the building as well”. A short time later, she went to leave and observed the patient on a stretcher being placed into an ambulance after having a heart attack. The employee reported the incident to police.
GTX’s affidavit evidence was that the employee became annoyed with him after he asked for the patient list for the day to be re-scheduled and started yelling. He asked her to stop yelling and, after she refused his request, he advised her to leave the workplace. He asserted that the matter was investigated and he was cleared of any wrongdoing.
His oral evidence was that he said: “If you don’t like it, go home”. He acknowledged that she was visibly distressed, saying that this was “expected” He added that she is non-Aboriginal, with a strong personality.
We note that, on 25 October 2010, GTX received a formal written warning that he had made several errors of judgment in dealing with an incident involving an employee in the presence of other staff and patients. The formal written warning asserted that GTX’s exchange with the employee amounted to an “over reaction” and that other employees felt intimidated by him stating to them that they should be careful about what they put in their statements.
We do not accept GTX’s evidence to be a reliable account of the incident or the investigation that followed. We are of the view that GTX’s reaction to the incident was inappropriate and disproportionate, particularly given his position of leadership in the organisation. We note that his employment was ultimately terminated on 13 December 2011 due to a breach of his employment agreement (referred to below).

Termination of employment due to alleged mismanagement of funds - 2011

In December 2011, GTX was terminated from his position as CEO of the community medical service due to alleged laundering of $265,342.78. In February 2013, the District Court ordered GTX to repay the funds to the medical service within 56 days. To date, the funds have not been paid.
GTX’s affidavit evidence was that legal proceedings were initiated against him after corrupt conduct within the organisation and the mismanagement of funds. He said that he was unrepresented during the initial court proceedings and could not properly advocate for himself. He asserted that the issue is being reinvestigated “due to new evidence coming forward” and is hopeful his name will be cleared.
We note that an email from the Australian Government Solicitor on 7 February 2025 to GTX advised that his complaint was still being considered.

The applicant’s oral evidence in the proceedings before the Tribunal was that he had been terminated for breach of contract, for not acting in the best interests of the organisation. He said he was accused of embezzling monies and acknowledged that he had not paid the monies as ordered. GTX deflected blame onto other employees with respect to his authorisation of various amounts, asserting that advice had been sought from the finance department of the organisation at the time which he relied upon. Allegations against GTX included that he had authorised payment of monies with respect to items such as fabricated repairs to a motor vehicle, travel allowances, a diagnostic medical procedure unrelated to the activities of the organisation, and construction works to GTX’s residence, and that he had used the corporation credit card for personal items without justification or explanation. GTX asserted that the majority of the allegations made against him were not true, but he did not identify which of those allegations were not true.
We note that GTX advised the Australian Government Solicitor in an email dated 8 February 2025 that “the proceedings and the couple of years following are the most traumatic time in my life and where I was being treated by a clinical psychologist for severe depression and anxiety”. There is no evidence before the Tribunal from an independent psychological expert to support that assertion.
The applicant’s evidence demonstrates that he does not accept responsibility for the entirety of the allegations. However, in light of the current review by the Australian Government Solicitor, it is unsafe to make any finding in relation to this matter.

Soccer Club ban due to aggressive behaviour – August 2012

According to police records, GTX was the subject of a complaint that, in August 2012, he confronted a member of a soccer club who was involved in a decision to impose a one-match ban on him. The complaint was that GTX shouted and swore at the person and refused to calm down despite her requests. He eventually calmed down when another person (described as an Indigenous female) intervened.
GTX’s affidavit evidence was that he thought the decision to ban him was unfair and so he challenged it. He said that the lady who issued the ban started crying and the matter was left there and not raised again.
His oral evidence to the Tribunal was that he is aggressive on the field, and not on the sideline. He denied that he had shouted and sworn, and been aggressive. He said that he had a raised voice and that the report to police was simply the Committee member’s version of events.
The allegation was not corroborated by any other evidence. However, GTX’s acknowledgment that the Committee member had cried suggests that his conduct was more aggressive than he has conceded. Whilst we have not taken this matter into account when assessing GTX’s risk, it is a matter that the reasonable person may take into account with respect to the applicant’s desire to be involved in volunteering in community soccer events.

Allegation of excessive discipline on foster child (BB) – September 2018

In a DCJ report in September 2018, it was claimed that GTX used physical discipline on BB, then 8 years of age (now 15), claimed GTX used physical discipline on her. BB disclosed that GTX had hit her with a thong but did not leave a mark.
GTX denied the allegation.
The allegation is not corroborated by any other evidence and is not substantiated. We have therefore not taken it into account when assessing GTX’s risk.

Various allegations concerning foster child (BB) – not sexual nature – September 2019

In a DCJ report in September 2019, BB had expressed feeling left out and not wanted and that GTX and GTZ told her they “can’t wait until you go”. It was also reported that she had torn shoes and was always cleaning the home, and that she did not like GTX.
These allegations were comprehensively addressed by the applicant’s ex-wife in the associated Case No 2025/00278297.
GTX denied the allegations. He said that his relationship with BB was the same as his relationship with the other foster children in his care, and that BB called him “foster dad” or “dad”. He said that he treated her as part of the family. When asked if he understood the vulnerability of foster children in out-of-home-care, GTX said that he had been a carer for 25 years and that he loved the foster children a “little harder” and “deeper” than normal. In response to the suggestion that BB did not like him, GTX said that she was always the first one in the car to go out. He also rejected the allegation that BB had holes in her shoes.
In light of GTX’s previous evidence that, even between BB’s first and second placements with him and GTZ, he would collect her and take her on outings on the weekend with IB and VB, we regard his evidence about his treatment of BB as truthful. The allegation is not corroborated by any other evidence and is not substantiated. We have therefore not taken the allegations into account when assessing GTX’s risk.

DCJ report of foster child feeling uncomfortable in GTX’s company – January 2020

A report by DCJ in January 2020 noted that a child previously in GTX’s care said she never wanted to go home and she felt uncomfortable in GTX’s company. She alleged that GTX is very “touchy” with women and makes them uncomfortable.
GTX’s oral evidence was that he is a “touchy” person but he always asks for consent.
The allegation is not corroborated by any other evidence and is not substantiated. We have therefore not taken the allegations into account when assessing GTX’s risk.

Allegations of sexual harassment and bullying in workplace – March 2023

According to records obtained by DCJ, in April 2024, GTX’s employment with a large health organisation ended, following allegations that he engaged in sexual harassment and bullying of colleagues in March 2023 and June 2023. It was alleged that, in March 2023, GTX “purposely invad[ed] the personal space of colleagues on three occasions” and “sat on a colleague’s lap uninvited during a training program, which left her speechless and uncomfortable”. It was also alleged that, in June 2023, he “used sexualised language toward a colleague during a training program” and “showed a sexually explicit text message to a colleague regarding his intimate relationship with his partner”. The DCJ record stated that his employment “ceased on 10 April 2024 following four substantiated allegations”.
GTX’s affidavit evidence stated that the allegations were not true. He said that he was interviewed about the matters alleged, and decided to resign. Following his resignation, he received a termination letter. The reasons he gave for resigning are that the allegations were not true and he asserted that the workplace was not safe. He asserted that he and other First Nations colleagues had made a number of complaints about a manager in the organisation, saying that she had misused health service funds. A complaint was also made as to identity fraud since GTX alleged the manager had falsely claimed to be Aboriginal and had recruited two team members who were not Aboriginal, to fill two Aboriginal positions. GTX asserted that the manager had orchestrated false allegations against him in response to the complaints he had made around her behaviour and conduct.
In giving his oral evidence to the Tribunal, GTX said that he had accidentally landed in a colleague’s lap. He said that she said: “Should I call you daddy?” to which he responded: “No, don’t call me daddy”. His evidence with respect to another colleague seeing an intimate text message from his partner, was that he was driving at the time and the text message appeared on his phone and she asked about the message. He said that the allegation that he had shown the message to his colleague was false. He said that he acknowledged the personal and professional boundaries in the context of his employment. He added that he is a huge target for false accusations because he can speak “white language”.
The purported substantiation of the allegations as a result of an investigation was not provided to the Tribunal. We are therefore not in a position to assess the strength of the allegations or the rigour applied to assess the veracity of any allegations made. The complainants were not required by the respondent to be called to be cross-examined and no explanation was provided as to why they were not called. It is therefore not safe to make a finding that the conduct occurred since it could result in an injustice. However, when assessing whether the reasonable person test has been satisfied, the allegations may be taken into account as part of the accumulated allegations that the reasonable person would be assumed to take into account.

Aggressive, verbal abuse of biological daughter – April 2024

In a casework team note dated 3 May 2024, of a meeting to discuss concerns about the GTZ household, an exchange between GTX and his daughter MH in late April 2024 had been reported to police. It was alleged that GTX had abused his daughter MH at a local shop by yelling: “You’re a dog ####” and “I hope you and your mother die”. It was alleged that IB and VB were a few metres away, sitting in the car, and had witnessed this. It was alleged that GTX also made threats: “You wait, your other is going to be crying at pick up, you wait.”
It was reported that the police interviewed MH that night and that VB was awake in bed at the time and was crying with worry. It was reported that VB was scared and that MH was really scared.
The allegations were addressed by the applicant’s ex-wife in the associated Case No 2025/00278297. GTZ’s evidence was that she found GTX’s conduct to be “disgusting” and explained that emotions had been heightened on that occasion as it was the anniversary of their son’s passing.
In the associated case, MH gave evidence, saying that GTX’s conduct was unusual. Her evidence was that the comments were not made in the presence of IB and VB.
GTX’s oral evidence to the Tribunal was that he recalled the incident, but not the words he had used. However, he denied that he had said “I hope you and your mother die”.
This appears to be an isolated incident, possibly reflecting the level of grief experienced by GTX over the loss of his son. We have accordingly not given a great amount of weight to it in terms of assessing GTX’s risk to the safety of children. However, it reflects his demonstrated tendency to make very aggressive verbal statements in response to situations of conflict and his statements are disproportionate to the circumstances. GTX did not express remorse for his deeply offensive comments to MH which demonstrates that he has limited insight into the impact of his behaviour upon others.

Allegation by ex-wife of GTX’s intimidating behaviour – May 2024

In May 2024, the applicant’s ex-wife raised with an officer of Burrun Dalai that she had concerns about GTX following a recent situation when they met to exchange the siblings IB and VB. She alleged GTX had stood at her car door window just looking at her and she later observed him following her with the children in the car. She also claimed GTX had attended hospital with their daughter MH which left her with concern that VB and IB were unaccompanied at the time.
GTX’s oral evidence to the Tribunal was that he did not engage in the conduct as alleged, and that he had simply let GTZ know what had happened on the weekend. He denied stalking and denied intimidating GTZ.
On balance, given the conflicting statements by each of GTX and GTZ, the incident is indicative of tension between the parties. It appears that the handover occurred around the time of the anniversary of their son, a time of heightened emotions when dealing with grief. It is possible that GTX has little insight into how his conduct may be perceived by GTZ but it is not a matter on which the Tribunal can safely make a finding against GTX. We have therefore not given it any weight in our assessment of GTX’s risk towards children.

Reports of GTX online communications with IB – July/August 2025

On 30 July 2025 and 1 August 2025, DCJ received reports raising concerns that IB was having contact with GTX and that VB was having contact with MH. It was further reported that GTX sent approximately 2000 messages, including a message stating: “We will get you home as soon as you can” (sic).
These allegations were also addressed by the applicant’s ex-wife in the associated Case No 2025/00278297.
GTX’s oral evidence was that he had his first face-to-face contact with IB and VB for two hours, as arranged by DCJ, in late October 2025. He said they had cuddles and played “UNO”. He said that he was not good with technology but had “liked” some messages received through TikTok by sending love hearts, to remind IB that he loved them. He acknowledged that his communication in July 2025 had not been authorised through DCJ.
GTX’s evidence demonstrates his love for the siblings and his insight into the vulnerability of the siblings who were cared for by GTX and GTZ since birth. We understand there are no formal restraints imposed on the carers with respect to their communications to IB and VB. We accept that the comments may be emotionally confusing for the siblings at this time and may cause disappointment if it transpires that they are not returned to the care of GTZ’s primary care.

The period of time since those offences or matters occurred and the conduct of the person since they occurred: s 30(1)(b) of the Act

The allegations by BB concern events that she asserted took place in the second period of her placement with GTX that is, between January and September 2021. GTX continued to co-parent (with GTZ) IB and VB until their removal on 11 December 2024 when BB made the allegations. Neither IB nor VB have made any disclosures against GTX or GTZ. The applicant GTX has denied all the allegations made against him and has endeavoured to have IB and VB restored to care with GTZ.
Since 11 December 2024, GTX’s alleged conduct towards his daughter MH and towards his ex-wife during a handover of the siblings indicate that he has a tendency to be intemperate and engaged in threatening behaviour.

The age of the person at the time the offences or matters occurred: s 30(1)(c)

The applicant was aged between 49 and 50 at the time of the matters alleged by BB.

The age of each victim of any relevant offence or conduct at the time they occurred and any matters relating to the vulnerability of the victim: s 30(1)(d)

BB was aged between 10 and 11 at the time of the alleged conduct. She was 14 years of age at the time that she made the allegations.
There is no question that BB was vulnerable, being a child placed in foster care, and reliant on GTZ and GTX for her physical and emotional safety and wellbeing.

The difference in age between the victim and the person and the relationship (if any) between the victim and the person: s 30(1)(e)

The age difference between the applicant and BB at the time of the matters alleged is approximately 39 to 40 years.
BB was a child placed in foster care with the applicant and GTZ in January 2018 until December 2019 and then from January 2021 until September 2021.

Whether the person knew, or could reasonably have known, that the victim was a child: s 30(1)(f)

Clearly, the applicant knew that BB was a child at the time of the alleged abuse.

The person’s present age: s 30(1)(g)

The applicant is currently 54 years of age.

The seriousness of the person’s criminal history and the conduct of the person since the matters occurred: s 30(1)(h)

The applicant’s criminal history is at the lower end of seriousness.
Otherwise, GTX’s conduct since 11 December 2024 has been discussed above under s 30(1)(b). With respect to BB’s allegations against GTX of sexual assault, he has been designated by DCJ to be a “Person Causing Harm”.

The likelihood of any repetition by the person of the offences or conduct and the impact on children of any such repetition: s 30(1)(i)

This Tribunal has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant did not engage in the conduct as alleged by BB. If he were to engage in such conduct in the future, towards a child in his care, it would likely cause emotional and psychological harm, and potentially physical harm.
GTZ has not participated in an expert assessment of his risk or the likelihood that he may engage in the nature of the conduct alleged against him.
GTX advised the Australian Government Solicitor, in connection with the allegations against him concerning the mismanagement of funds with a community health service, that he was being treated by a Clinical Psychologist for severe depression and anxiety. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about this treatment.
There is, also, no evidence before the Tribunal that he has engaged in psychological counselling to reflect upon the potential triggers for his occasional, aggressive, verbal outbursts that appear to be disproportionate in the circumstances.
There is no evidence of an unstable family upbringing, or of any psychological or psychiatric history or diagnosis, or of any drug or alcohol abuse.
Without the benefit of an expert psychological assessment, and in light of our finding in relation to BB’s sexual assault allegations, we are not in a position to assess the applicant’s risk or likelihood of engaging in conduct in the nature of that alleged by BB.

Any order of a court or tribunal that is in force in relation to the person: s 30(1)(i1)

GTZ is not the subject of any order of a court or a tribunal that is presently in force.

Any information given by the applicant in, or in relation to, the application: s 30(1)(j)

The applicant affirmed an affidavit in support of his position in which he denied the allegations made against him by BB. He also denied other allegations which have been comprehensively addressed above. His oral testimony was generally consistent with his affidavit evidence.
He also provided one personal/professional character reference from CC and a professional reference from MM.
The reference from CC dated 16 April 2025 confirms that she has known GTX all her life (she is his niece) and she appears to know about the investigations into allegations made against him and court matters, without specifiying any particular matter.
CC worked with GTX in two separate organisations and attested to his professionalism and his commitment and compassionate leadership. She said he is passionate about safety for children and adults, not only in his home or work environment, but for his community as well.
CC attested to GTX’s good character, describing him as “trustful, dependable and authentic”. In her opinion, he has never been inappropriate in any way, shape or form, and she has always felt safe in his presence. He is a respected role model for his own family and the wider community, and is respected by elders who have confidence in GTX’s leadership as a young elder himself.
Having regard to her familial connection with GTX and her scant reference to allegations made against him, we have only given a small amount of weight to CC’s refernce.
The reference from MM dated 10 August 2025 refers to his association with GTX with respect to a number of professional circumstances. MH said he was shocked to learn that GTX’s clearance had been suspended and that he was required to defend his position.
We extract the following from MM’s reference:

“I have found [the applicant] in his time working with my students, staff and extended community at [name of entity] to be an honest, co-operative, organised and self-directed man, who has a good sense of humour and an understanding of how trauma has affected a large number of our students and their families…As a leader within the local community; [the applicant] demonstrated he was able to form stronger links and earnt the respect of the students through his manner and calming and patient influence on them He was able to guide them through the volatile and reactive behaviours that have caused them to not be allowed to participate in these days to gain a successful result for all.”

MM’s reference attested to the applicant’s involvement in local soccer club programs. He said that GTX makes it his quest to learn about each person involved so they feel valued and an integral part of the squad. He also said that no job was ever too menial or challenging for GTX. We extract from the reference the following comment:

“[The applicant] has earnt the trust, respect and confidence of those involved in sport as an honest, reliable and dedicated ambassador of bringing equality to the playing field for all young people. [The applicant] was also a respected referrer for the 35 years at all levels.. ”.

MM also attested to the applicant’s multiple leadership and advisory posts. He has mentored parents, supporting them in their domestic challenges. He has actively volunteered his expertise around suicide prevention, from lived experience and targeted training. The following comment attests to the applicant’s success in mentoring young men to ensure they live healthy lives, and also attests to the applicant’s commitment to foster care:

“A true character of a person is when they are following up on something out of the public eye without personal gain for them. [The applicant] has made it his goal to stay in touch with the many young men who have come out of his courses and programs over the past 15 years. Making sure that they are healthy and their lives are on track and that they know they have someone who they can speak with in those times when it is needed. He is often taking calls from those in need of a yarn or advice. These young people all know this and have often spoken to me about how it’s special that [the applicant] still remembers them and how his humour, his little quotes and genuine nature is very special. He actively lives out his family values and commitment to a better life for all children including those young children who are ‘bonus’ (foster) and their daily connections on a daily basis.”

In considering this application, we have given a moderate amount of weight to MM’s reference, discounted because he does not appear to know the details of BB’s allegations and of other allegations made against GTX.

Any relevant information in relation to the person that was obtained in accordance with section 36A: s 30(1)(j1)

The Tribunal understands there is no other relevant information in relation to the applicant obtained in accordance with s 36A of the Act (exchange of information to bodies in other jurisdictions) to be taken into consideration.

Any other matters that the Children’s Guardian considers necessary: s 30(1)(k)

It was submitted on behalf of the Children’s Guardian that the allegations made by BB ought not be viewed in isolation from the totality of information available in relation to the applicant. Those other matters were put to GTX in cross-examination and have been taken into account, with no significant negative findings made by this Tribunal that have been evaluated as determining that he poses a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children.

Overall evaluation of risk

In a number of respects, GTX impressed the Tribunal as a dedicated foster carer for a significant period of some 25 years. His oral evidence demonstrates his genuine interest in the welfare of foster children and his references confirm this.
GTX demonstrated that he is highly principled on the need to keep children safe and protected, and is committed to cultural truth and custom, referring to Aboriginal “lore”. He said that his whole life he had adhered to the “lore” to look after Aboriginal kids. He has insight into the vulnerability of children in foster care and the risks associated with their care.
The respondent, in submissions, acknowledged that, in the period since September 2021, GTX has (with GTZ) co-parented two high needs children, without complaint, and that neither IB nor VB have made any disclosures about their time in the care of GTX.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant does not pose a risk to the safety of children.

Reasonable person and public interest tests

Before making an order that has the effect of enabling a person to work with children, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the reasonable person and public interest tests in s 30(1A) of the Act have been met.
The applicant presented as a complex person, extremely proud of his First Nations heritage and, at the same time, confident of his ability to use the “white man’s” language. He speaks passionately on matters that concern disadvantaged people in the Aboriginal community and appears to have significant influence as a trusted elder in his community. During his cross-examination he identified some complainants in terms of whether he considered they could genuinely and truthfully claim their cultural heritage, appearing to know their kinship connections. We observed him to be somewhat mercurial, quick to attack an allegation or argument if he disagreed with a statement. He challenged Counsel for the respondent for applying what he described as “white man’s thinking”.
Turning first to the reasonable person test, the Tribunal must be satisfied that a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant while he is engaged in any child-related work.
A reasonable person would need to be acquainted with all of the matters that are before this Tribunal. That includes:

the applicant’s long history of being an authorised carer for around 100 children, with the two long-term placements of children with complex diagnoses and high needs;

the matters considered by the Tribunal with respect to BB’s allegations including:

the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation and divorce from GTX and the logistical arrangements that he and GTZ put in place concerning the applicant’s sleeping arrangements on the occasions when he stayed over at GTZ’s house. The logistical arrangements ensured that GTZ was at home before and after school so that IB and VB were always cared for by her and, on those occasions, the siblings and BB were not left alone with the applicant;

the result of Burrun Dalai’s reportable conduct investigation which found there was insufficient evidence to substantiate BB’s allegations;

the fact that BB’s allegations were not corroborated and the police suspended their investigation with no charges pending;

the allegations made regarding “Other matters” which have been comprehensively examined by the Tribunal and which indicate a number of concerns including:

that the applicant is often easily provoked in situations of conflict in which he has demonstrated a tendency to respond impetuously, defensively and disproportionately;

that he was intemperate in the employment sphere, on the soccer field, and with his own family;

that he has been the subject of a number of allegations of harassment of women in the workplace which, cumulatively, suggest that the applicant’s conduct and reputation regarding his treatment of women (particularly where the allegations are sexual in nature or involve the use of sexualised language) are matters to be regarded with caution;

that, even allowing for heightened emotions around the anniversary of the applicant’s and GTZ’s son’s passing, his conduct towards his daughter involving the use of extremely offensive and threatening language, and his behaviour towards his ex-wife which she perceived to be intimidating, demonstrates a lack of self-control and a lack of insight into the impact of his conduct and language upon his daughter and ex-wife. If that conduct occurred in the presence of children, it could cause emotional and psychological harm;

that, on a number of occasions, the applicant was reactive and aggressive, using offensive language which, if it occurred in the presence of children, could cause emotional and psychological harm.

On balance, we are not satisfied that a reasonable person, fully acquainted with all the relevant information, would leave their child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant while he is engaged in any child-related work.
In our view, the test in s 30(1A)(a) of the Act has not been met.
With respect to the public interest test, the broad interests of the community are clearly served by having persons such as the applicant providing care for foster children, providing mental health services to youth (under the age of 25), and volunteering in community soccer programs.
We acknowledge that the applicant’s right to use his experience and expertise as a carer, to work in mental health for youth, and provide volunteer services for community based sport are each of at least equal importance to the public interest, and is entirely consistent with the community interests.
However, to find that it is in the public interest test for this applicant to have the Interim Bar removed from his clearance, would undermine our decision that a reasonable person would not leave their child in his care if engaged in child-related work. It would appear to be contrary to the public interest to remove the Interim Bar.
We are therefore satisfied that the public interest test in s 30(1A)(b) of the Act has not been met.

Orders

The decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 20 December 2024 to place an Interim Bar on the applicant’s working with children check clearance is affirmed pending finalisation of the Children’s Guardian’s risk assessment.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Amendments

13 November 2025 - Administrative formatting corrected.

Decision last updated: 13 November 2025

Medium Neutral Citation:	GTX v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 278
Hearing dates:	25 September 2025, 3 November 2025 and 4 November 2025
Date of orders:	13 November 2025
Decision date:	13 November 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	A Starke, Senior Member J Herberte, General Member
Decision:	The decision of the Children’s Guardian dated 20 December 2024 to place an Interim Bar on the applicant’s working with children check clearance is affirmed pending finalisation of the Children’s Guardian’s risk assessment.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Application for review under s 27(3) of Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 — Interim Bar placed on the applicant’s clearance pending a risk assessment to decide whether the clearance should be reinstated or cancelled — Report made by former foster child that she had been sexually assaulted by the applicant and an allegation that the applicant’s ex-wife failed to act protectively towards the child — Tribunal to assess whether applicant poses a risk to the safety of children.
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 (NSW) Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AYU v NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 69 BFX v Children’s Guardian [2014] NSWCATAD 115 BHY v Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 91 BJB v The Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 164 BKE v Office of Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 CHB v Children’s Guardian [2016] NSWCATAD 214 Children’s Guardian v BRL [2016] NSWSC 1206 Commission for Children and Young People v V [2002] NSWSC 949 Commissioner for Children and Young People v FZ [2011] NSWCA 111 Commissioner for Children and Young People v IK [2005] NSWSC 1136 CRG v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 295 CTE v Children’s Guardian [2018] NSWCATAD 28 CXZ v Children’s Guardian [2020] NSWCA 338 CYY v Children’s Guardian (No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 262 DAI v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCATAD 308 Drake v Minister of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 DYH v Public Guardian [2021] NSWCATAD 136 FZ v Commissioner for Children and Young Persons [2010] NSWSC 1144 ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 162 McDonald v Guardianship and Administration Board [1993] VR 521 Smith v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 184 Tilley v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174 VQB v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 789 YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 ZZ v Secretary, Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	GTX (Applicant) Children’s Guardian (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: K McCallum (Applicant) B Dean (Respondent) Solicitors: T Elliot-Orr (Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/00249659
Publication restriction:	With the exception of expert witnesses and officers of government agencies, the publication or broadcast of the name of any person mentioned in these proceedings referred to in the documentary material lodged in these proceedings is prohibited. This order was made on 10 July 2025 under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Note: A reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.