Reportable Conduct investigations in Queensland:

Fire doesn't start with a blaze. It starts with an ember — a rumour that has been circulating without leadership's knowledge, a disclosure that sparks a fire, a parent complaint that lands on the principal's desk at 2:55pm on a Friday afternoon . Left unchecked, that spark or smouldering can ignite a fire that then spreads, consuming all in its path. Before long the School or organisation is dealing with an allegation that now threatens innocent reputations and relationships, and the peace and safety of the community itself. 
For independent schools and faith-based organisations in Queensland, the Child Safe Organisations Act 2024 has made the expectations clearer than ever: when an allegation involving a child arises, institutions must act promptly and decisively, investigate thoroughly, and extinguish the flames. In this way, the children in their care are protected from harm (or further harm). 

Today we are chatting through what is the same between a normal workplace investigation and a reportable conduct investigation, and what needs to be done differently. 

What Is Reportable Conduct?
Reportable conduct in Queensland includes allegations or information leading a person to form a reasonable belief that an employee, volunteer, or contractor associated with an organisation has:

• Engaged in a child sexual offence; 
• Engaged in sexual misconduct with or in the presence of a child;
• Engaged in ill-treatment of a child; 
• engaged in significant neglect of a child; 
• engaged in physical violence to or in the presence of a child; or 
• engaged in behaviour that causes significant emotional or psychological harm to a child. 

The threshold is an allegation being made or information being received that leads a person to form a reasonable belief — not certainty. Schools are not expected to prove the allegation before reporting; they are expected to recognise when a matter crosses into reportable territory and respond accordingly.

Queensland's Framework: What Has Changed?
The Child Safe Organisations Act 2024 brought Queensland into alignment with broader national momentum toward mandatory child-safe standards. For independent schools, the key shifts in terms of investigation of issues are:
​

• Obligations around reporting to the QFCC ;
• Increased external scrutiny of the quality of investigations;
• Greater regulatory oversight of how organisations handle allegations internally; and
• Expectations of trauma-informed practice throughout the investigative process

Queensland's scheme mirrors elements of the NSW Children's Guardian Act 2019 and Victoria's Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005, but the procedural nuances differ in ways that matter. Schools operating across borders must ensure their investigation approach satisfies the applicable regime (and if it relates to conduct in more than one state, with both). 

Why internal investigations can fail the Regulator's expectations:
When a complaint ignites, the instinct for many schools is to handle it in-house — assign it to HR or compliance, or a leadership team member. The intention is sound: protect privacy, act quickly, keep control of costs. But this approach introduces some critical risks, as seen in other states and territories who have had a similar scheme for some time:

Risk #1: Insufficient Independence:
This is the issue regulators in other states have consistently been concerned about. When an investigator sits within the same organisational hierarchy as the person whose conduct is under review — or has professional relationships with key witnesses — the entire investigation can become vulnerable. The regulator must be satisfied that the investigator was sufficiently independent of the situation being investigated. An internal HR manager who has a working relationship with multiple witnesses, or a leadership staff member who supervises the team that includes the staff member under investigation often carries inherent biases that can undermine the integrity of findings before evidence is even examined. Regulators in other states and territories have criticised internal investigations on the basis of not being sufficiently arms length, and required schools and child safe organisations to obtain an independent investigator to look at the matter with fresh eyes. 

External investigators eliminate this risk. They bring no (or limited) prior relationships, no institutional loyalties, and no career incentives or requirements to work with the people involved on a daily basis. Their findings stand or fall on the quality of the process and evidence available.

Risk #2: Process  Challenges:
Investigations must be robust and meet the usual natural justice requirements - that is, respondents are entitled to natural justice — to know the case against them and the opportunity to respond before findings are made. It is criticial for there to be clear and documented interview protocols, clear links between evidence and findings, and a report that sets out the evidence, the reasoning and the findings and consequent recommendations. They need to stand against a legal challenge. However, the Act requires additional obligations to "normal" workplace investigations - cultural safety, the opportunity for a child to express a view, and providing an additional opportunity to a worker that is the subject of a the reportable allegation  to respond after a preliminary adverse finding notice is given to them. Failure to ensure a good process that complies with the Act will leave the organisation open to criticism by the regulator.

Risk #3: Trauma-Informed Practice Gaps
Standard corporate investigation techniques can cause secondary harm to child witnesses, complainants, and even respondents. The way the process is designed, questions are framed, where and how interviews are conducted, and the language used in findings — all of these matter. Investigators must understand how to gather evidence rigorously while treading sensitively and minimising re-traumatisation for all the people involved. Investigators that don't have significant experience working with victims of trauma, including working with victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and extensive bullying can often miss nuances that are critical. We don't. With over 20 years working with victim-survivors of domestic violence, physical and sexual violence, and workplace harassment and bullying, we see what sometimes gets missed. We understand that taking time and building rapport with witnesses is a critical first step to them trusting you with their story.  

Many investigators in this space are used to interviewing adults - but speaking with kids adds a layer on top that needs different approaches to interviewing. As an Independent Children's Lawyer and as a staff member within a school, our Principal has spoken to plenty of kids in tough situations. Not your "normal" lawyer. 

Risk #4: Multi-Jurisdictional conundrums.... 
An allegation involving a staff member who previously worked within your organisation in multiple states? What about where the allegation involves a staff member from Queensland who was on premises at a NSW camp site when the alleged conduct occurred? You need an investigator who can comply on both sides of the border! Like us! 

The Window Between Ember and Blaze
The most dangerous moment in any reportable conduct scenario isn't the allegation itself — it's the gap between when a concern surfaces and when decisive, compliant action begins. That gap is where fires take hold. Schools and organisations that wait, deliberate without expert input, or attempt to quietly resolve matters without proper process are allowing the ember to ignite. Our school communities deserve better. The strongest institutions aren't the ones that never face an allegation. They're the ones that respond with speed, independence, and expertise — containing the fire while preserving the trust at the heart of their community.

Need Help With an Active Matter? Whether you're managing an active allegation or reviewing your institution's readiness before something arises, we provide confidential scoping conversations at no cost.

Fiona Manderson — practising solicitor since 2005, AMDRAS accredited mediator, Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner — brings twenty years of experience supporting schools and faith-based organisations through their most challenging moments.

Start with clarity. End with peace.