The short version is simple: when child‑safety systems don’t talk to each other, harm doesn’t stop – it spreads.
What happened in Dubbo is the case study we can’t ignore. It also explains why community members have been asking local organisations to “show their work” on screening and supervision – and why the silence that followed felt like another failure.
Here’s the mechanism.
A support‑unit worker in Dubbo was later found to have filmed a vulnerable student without consent and laughed while showing colleagues the video, according to a departmental investigation recounted by the ABC.
Years later, after a 14‑month process, the department placed him on its Not‑To‑Be‑Employed list (NTBE), a confidential list that bars employment in public schools. The family of another student described escalating distress and humiliation linked to the same worker’s behaviour. The department later apologised to a staff member for how her original complaint had been handled.
Now the part that reads like a design flaw.
Despite the NTBE ban, the same worker held roles around young people elsewhere because the NTBE database and the Working with Children Check (WWCC) scheme are separate systems.
One can say “barred from the public education system” while the other still says “check is current”.
As one source put it, the systems “don’t talk to each other” and that gap – between a sector‑specific ban and a cross‑sector clearance – is the loophole communities keep falling through.
That’s the big picture. The local picture is quieter but no less important.
On 12 May, I wrote to the CEO (Troy Ruttley) and Chairperson (Jean Hands) at the Red Chief Local Aboriginal Land Council (RCLALC) with respectful, specific questions: What are your child‑safe controls? How do you verify WWCCs? How do you supervise external cultural presenters?
The CEO acknowledged my enquiry on 5 June and promised a comprehensive response when able; after a 14 July follow‑up, no substantive policy detail had been provided. I escalated to the Registrar (ORALRA) seeking a basic compliance check on WWCC verification, complaint handling and code‑of‑conduct standards, but no response / progress to date…
That silence didn’t land in a vacuum. It landed in a community mailbox where people had already written things like “Can you assist and protect our gaayli/kids?” and sent through investigation letters and clippings. They weren’t asking for drama. They were asking for systems that listen and respond.
If you only remember one idea from this piece, make it this: verification is not vetting.
A WWCC simply tells you the person is not barred under that scheme at the time you checked but it does not tell you whether their conduct aligns with your code, whether they understand boundaries or whether they’re a safe fit for a youth‑accessible role in your setting.
The Dubbo case shows how a person can be barred in one system and still appear “green‑ticked” in another; the host organisation must close that gap with fit‑for‑role screening and active supervision.
Regulators are, to their credit, leaning in…
The Office of the Children’s Guardian (OCG) has been out publicly with “Check Your Checks”, reminding organisations to verify WWCCs and implement the NSW Child Safe Standards, with webinars and eLearning for capability building. That’s good policy.
Policy only works when leaders operationalise it and report back in plain English.
What would “showing your work” look like here, in Gunnedah?
First, publish the stack. Put your child‑safe policy, WWCC verification procedure, complaints pathway and code of conduct where the public can see them. If you don’t have a website, pin the PDFs to your Facebook page and keep a one‑pager ready to email on request.
Second, keep an auditable WWCC log: name, number, status, verifier, date checked, expiry, notes. Re‑verify before each program cycle.
Third, vet for conduct, not just clearance. Ask referees to address boundaries and respectful communication. If public posts include threats or intimidation, pause youth‑facing work and run a documented risk assessment.
Fourth, respond within five business days to credible concerns. Acknowledge receipt, outline next steps and timeframes, and give a contact name. Silence is not neutral; it reads as avoidance.
Fifth, close the loop publicly. Publish a short note: “We verified WWCCs on [date], ran our Child Safe briefing, will supervise all youth‑accessible activity with two staff, and updated our code to cover public conduct.”
Schools have a role too.
When I asked a local principal about their approach, the answer was candid: they consult other principals, rely on WWCCs and character references and at that point “no concerns” had been identified. That’s a start… But if the question is conduct, not just clearance, references alone may not surface the risk.
That’s where a simple public‑behaviour screen and a short, written conduct commitment from the presenter can prevent grief later.
A word about fairness. This is not an argument to ban people forever. People can and do change.
But roles carry duties. If you’re in a cultural facilitation role, your conduct (including public posts) should model safety. When behaviour doesn’t meet that standard, the risk assessment has to be real, not rhetorical.
There’s also a journalism point worth stating.
In 2024, I offered a right of reply to Mark Prince while investigating the Dubbo matter.
He replied that the documents sounded confidential and asked me to destroy them; I responded that they’d been provided anonymously, that I’d report responsibly on a matter of public interest, and invited an interview to ensure fairness. The back‑and‑forth didn’t change the core lesson, but it did matter: listening applies to everyone named.
So what does the timeline teach us?
In Dubbo, it took years to get to an apology for how the initial complaint was handled, and 14 months to close the investigation that eventually placed the worker on NTBE.
In that time, people caused harm that could have been avoided.
Locally, it took only five minutes to say “we’ll respond soon” but months passed without the basics being published. You don’t need a taskforce to fix that. You need a calendar and a PDF.
The fix is not glamorous. It’s interfaces.
Make WWCC logs talk to program rosters. Make codes of conduct talk to contracts. Make complaint receipts talk to the board agendas. And make all of it legible to the people you serve – parents, carers, Elders and kids who want to know the room they’re walking into is safe.
If the system is a chain, every weak link is a risk.
Dubbo showed us what happens when links snap in private. Gunnedah can show what happens when leaders show their work in public.
Discover more from I-News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
