Warning: This article discusses child safety, abuse, and neglect. The content may be distressing or triggering for some readers. Please take care when reading and consider whether this material is appropriate for you at this time.

By Luke Geary, Partner and Erin Hill, Associate

The Child Safety Commission of Inquiry (Commission of Inquiry) has well and truly begun following three weeks of hearings in Far North Queensland between 8 September 2025 and 26 September 2025, hearing from various witnesses, including foster carers (including kinship carers), former Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety (Department) Child Safety Officers and children and young people, in Cairns during a mixture of public and private sessions before Commissioner Paul Anastassiou KC.

The full Terms of Reference can be found on the Commission of Inquiry website. In summary, the Commission will consider a broad range of issues which have been identified as currently existing in the child safety system in Queensland, including but not limited to:

1. how the child safety system in Queensland has changed since the Carmody Inquiry held in 2012 and 2013 and the extent to which the 121 recommendations that resulted from the inquiry were implemented or adopted across the child safety system;
2. past and/or existing failures of the Department to intervene or protect children from harm, including with respect to interagency communication and inefficiencies in obtaining approvals to protect children from harm;
3. industry staff (particularly Child Safety Officers), volunteer and foster carer recruitment and retention, especially in regional, rural and remote communities; and
4. the licensing system for residential care providers and the state of the market for not-for-profit and for-profit models.

Key issues considered by the Commission to date

Week 1 of the hearing saw a number of foster carers provide evidence as to what their experience of the child safety system is/was, primarily focussed on the existing inefficiencies in obtaining support for a child or children in their care (whether this be financial, educational, cultural and/or medical) and lack of communication and information sharing across agencies within the child safety system. Former Departmental employees also provided evidence relating to their experience of the pressures on themselves and others in Child Safety Officer roles with respect to decision-making (especially with respect to culturally safe decision-making) and overwhelming caseloads.

Week 2 of the hearing focused on the evidence of various representatives from peak organisations in the child safety sector, including PeakCare and local community services offered to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community (including Mookai Rosie Bi-Bayan, Wuchopperen Health Service, Kanda Care, Anglicare). Similarly to the evidence heard in Week 1, evidence was heard relating to a failure of communication across agencies/services and with the natural family of children within the child safety system.

Week 3 of the Commission of Inquiry was conducted through a mixture of hearings and community forums with local youths cared for within the child safety system. Former children in care provided evidence relating to their experiences within the child safety system in previous years and their experiences with respect to the availability of support services (including timely educational and healthcare supports) while in care and when transitioning out of care after their 18^th birthday (including housing and tertiary supports).

What does this mean for child safety service providers and their insurers?

The themes which became the focus through the first three weeks of evidence during the Commission of Inquiry seemed to be widespread across the sector, particularly regarding:

1. the suitability of the present residential care model in supporting the wellbeing of children within the child safety system;
2. the role of Child Safety Officers in the day-to-day care of children within the child safety system with respect to overseeing and making decisions regarding the day-to-day care provided by out of home care service providers (relating to kinship care, foster care and residential care models) and decision making with respect to the placement of children in out of home care services;
3. the role of private out of home care providers in the day-to-day care of children within the child safety system and the funding / other resources presently available to the providers to ensure the needs of children in their care are met;
4. the appropriateness of the current information sharing requirements, restrictions and protocols between service providers and the Department within the child safety system;
5. the emerging public health concern relating to Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and the level of support required to respond to an increase in demand for services relating to the treatment of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome;
6. the cultural safety of children and employees / volunteers / kinship carers within the child safety system;
7. the vulnerability of children requiring care within the child safety system and the suitability of qualifications and training available to individuals providing care services to children within the child safety system; and
8. the stark difference in the risk appetite of out of home care providers, the Department and natural parents in relation to the day-to-day care of children within the child safety system.

The Commissioner appeared particularly interested in understanding the present residential care model within the child safety system and, based on the evidence provided and queries the Commissioner had for witnesses, it would be unsurprising if the Commissioner made substantial recommendations toward reforming the residential care model within Queensland. The recommended reforms may be targeted towards regulatory obligations of providers and the presence of unlicensed providers of residential care within the sector.

The Commissioner also seemed intrigued regarding the implications that the differing risk appetites of stakeholders who are involved with the day-to-day care of children (for example, the Department, individual Child Safety Officers, licensed out of home care providers, health care providers, NDIS providers and the natural parents, among others) can have on decision-making in relation to the day-to-day care of children. The Commissioner and a witness engaged in some dialogue around the need for the child safety system to adopt policies and procedures which appropriately balance the need to ensure children are suitably prepared for independent living later in life when leaving the Department’s care and any risk of harm when participating in what might be considered ‘capacity-building’ and / or culturally necessary activities (for example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children participating in culturally appropriate activities on country, such as subsistence hunting). Ultimately, there was a large amount of evidence provided by community service providers within the child safety system indicating the Department’s understanding of child safety concerns with respect to neglect within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities can greatly differ to what is considered culturally safe and appropriate parenting within these communities.

For service providers within the child safety system, we may see a shift in the level of compliance required to remain a licensed care provider under child safety legislation. Similarly, there may be changes to the delegation of day-to-day decision-making powers and subsequent responsibility for the day-to-day care of a child within the various out of home care service models.

Flowing from this, the level of compliance requirements and level of responsibility for day-to-day decision making with respect to a child’s care will impact the level of risk insurers of service providers within the child safety system will take on under their policies. We may also see a shift in the dispute landscapes between the insurers of various stakeholders involved with the day-to-day care of children in care. For example, there may be recommendations (possibly through legislative change) from the Commissioner regarding the State’s level of responsibility for a child’s day-to-day care while they are in residential care in circumstances where they may be subject to physical or sexual abuse from a third party; that is, not an employee at the residential care service. It was provided in evidence that this can happen in circumstances when the child is away from the residential care home and self-placing somewhere else.

One thing we do know from the first three weeks of the Commission of Inquiry, is that there are numerous areas for improvement in the child safety system which will no doubt impact community service providers and their insurers. Many more will emerge as the hearings continue, with the final report of the Commission of Inquiry 30 November 2026.