What the Reportable Conduct Scheme Requires You to Tell Families
Understanding your disclosure obligations under section 57 of the Children's Guardian Act 2019.
What the Reportable Conduct Scheme Actually Requires You to Tell Families
A reportable allegation lands on your desk. Somewhere in the middle of managing the investigation, notifying the right people, and keeping everything on track, there's a question that trips up even experienced HR teams: how much do you actually have to tell the child involved, and their parents?
The Reportable Conduct Scheme in NSW gives a clear answer, and it's not the one most organisations expect. Under section 57 of the Children's Guardian Act 2019, telling families what's going on isn't a courtesy. It's the default position, and staying quiet is what needs a proper reason.
Who You're Legally Required to Tell
The obligation is narrower than people often assume, but it's firm within that scope.
Whenever a reportable allegation or reportable conviction is raised, the head of the relevant entity or their investigator must disclose relevant information to two people:
the child the information relates to
a parent of that child
The only way out of this is if you're genuinely satisfied that disclosure wouldn't be in the public interest. That's a real test, not a box you tick out of caution.
There's also a second, smaller group you can choose to inform, rather than must. This covers authorised carers and anyone with daily care and control of the child under care and protection legislation, and it applies where telling them supports the child's safety or wellbeing. This one is discretionary.
What Counts as "Relevant Information"
The law doesn't set a word count on what you have to share, but it does set clear boundaries on the type of information involved. Relevant information means:
what the allegation or conviction actually involves
how the investigation is progressing
what the investigation found
what action has followed
Sharing the finding is not the same as handing over the investigation file. Families are entitled to the outcome and the reasoning that led to it, not interview transcripts, witness statements, or raw evidence.
When You're Allowed to Hold Back
There are legitimate reasons to limit or delay disclosure, and the Scheme recognises this. Common ones include where telling someone would:
put the child's safety or wellbeing at risk
interfere with a police investigation, coronial inquiry, or Children's Court matter
expose someone to harassment, intimidation, or physical risk
waive legal privilege
create unfairness to the employee that outweighs the family's interest in knowing
reveal a confidential source
None of these give you a free pass to withhold everything. Even where one of these concerns applies, the better approach is usually to ask whether a smaller, carefully worded disclosure could still be made, rather than defaulting to silence.
Every Family's Situation Is Different
Section 57 asks you to weigh up the specific circumstances of each child rather than run a single script for every case. A few situations worth thinking through:
Separated parents may have court orders or an Apprehended Violence Order in place that shapes who can be told what. An older child who doesn't want a parent informed should have a strong reason before that wish is overridden. And where the parent or carer is the person the allegation is against, telling them first clearly isn't the right move.
For children in out of home care, decisions about informing a carer need to line up with guidance from the Department of Communities and Justice, and take into account whether that carer is a witness or the subject of the allegation themselves.
Start the Conversation Early
The best time to think about section 57 is the moment an allegation comes in, not once the investigation wraps up. Giving families an early, honest picture of the process, including how findings get made on the balance of probabilities and that investigations can occasionally stall pending an exemption from the Children's Guardian, sets realistic expectations for what's ahead.
How to Actually Deliver the Information
There's no set format here. You can share information verbally, in writing, or by letting someone read a document. Where it's feasible, an in person conversation for both the first and final updates tends to land better, especially with the right support in place at the time.
Confidentiality doesn't stop once the information is shared. Make sure the recipient understands that what they're being told is protected, that your organisation has a lawful basis to share it under section 57, and that passing it on further could amount to an offence under section 159 of the Act.
Explaining Findings, Especially When One Isn't Sustained
Not every disclosure ends in a sustained finding, even when the organisation believes the child. That's a hard conversation, and it goes better when the process has been clearly explained from the outset. A finding that falls short of the required threshold doesn't mean the child wasn't believed, and walking families through what was investigated and how the evidence shaped the outcome usually builds more trust than a bare result on its own.
If remedial action was taken, or a systemic issue was fixed as a result, sharing that helps families see the process was handled fairly.
Being Fair to the Employee Too
Disclosure decisions involve a real balancing act. It's usually appropriate to give specific detail about steps taken to protect the child at the centre of the matter, while keeping broader risk management action more general. Letting a family know that formal action is being taken is enough, without going into the finer points of a disciplinary process.
Employees should be told early on that section 57 exists and how it could apply to them, so nothing comes as a surprise later. If they push back on disclosure, weigh their reasons properly, check any evidence they raise, and keep a record of how you reached your decision.
What About Everyone Else?
Third party complainants sit outside section 57 entirely. Sharing information with them risks breaching both section 159 and privacy law, so it's better to redirect those enquiries to NSW Police or the Department of Communities and Justice.
A child who's indirectly affected, such as one who made the initial report or gave evidence, is only owed disclosure where the information relates to them and no public interest factor stands in the way.
The Takeaway
A blanket policy of never disclosing information doesn't hold up under the Scheme, and the Office of the Children's Guardian has been clear it will use its audit and investigative powers where organisations can't show sound reasoning for withholding information.
The safest path is a genuine, case by case assessment every time, with the reasoning written down. Good documentation is what turns a judgement call into a decision you can defend later.
This article summarises Fact Sheet 7 of the NSW Reportable Conduct Scheme, issued by the Office of the Children's Guardian (revised October 2025). For full legal detail, refer to the original fact sheet and section 57 of the Children's Guardian Act 2019.