NSW OCG Enforcement Trends: Reportable Conduct Penalties

NSW OCG Enforcement Trends: Reportable Conduct Penalties

Across NSW, the Office of the Children’s Guardian (OCG) is receiving a steadily increasing number of notifications under the Reportable Conduct Scheme. While not every notification results in formal enforcement action, the upward trend has sharpened the regulator’s focus on organisational compliance, governance and response quality.

For organisations, this means that how reportable conduct matters are identified, notified, investigated and managed is under closer scrutiny than ever before, and failures in process can attract regulatory consequences even where allegations are not ultimately substantiated.

The OCG’s Regulatory and Enforcement Approach

The OCG has consistently stated that its approach to regulation is graduated and risk-based. Enforcement action is not automatic. Instead, the regulator considers:

• the seriousness of the alleged conduct;
• the level of risk to children and young people;
• whether the organisation complied with its notification and investigation
  obligations;
• the organisation’s history of compliance; and
• the quality and timeliness of the organisation’s response;

In practice, this means most matters begin with engagement and guidance, but can escalate where risks remain unmanaged, or obligations are not met.

The Four “Warning-level” Intervention Scenarios

Warnings are often accompanied by expectations for improvement, and failure to act on those expectations is a key escalation trigger.

While the OCG does not publicly label enforcement stages in the same way as some other regulators, its annual reporting and sector guidance point to four recurring scenarios where warning-level intervention commonly occurs:

1. Late or missed notifications – Where organisations fail to make notifications of reportable conduct within required timeframes, even if the underlying incident is later assessed as low risk.
2. Inadequate internal investigations – Investigations that are incomplete, poorly documented, lack independence, or fail to properly assess risk to children.
3. Failure to implement interim risk controls – Situations where alleged conduct presents an ongoing risk and the organisation does not take timely protective
   action.
4. Repeat or systemic issues – Patterns of similar incidents, weak governance, or
   repeated non-compliance across multiple matters.

Warning, Inspection and Formal Action: What’s the Difference?

Understanding the regulator’s tools helps organisations assess where they sit on the compliance spectrum.

Warning or compliance correspondence

• Signals regulatory concern;
• Not legally binding;
• Usually includes guidance or required improvements; and
• Is often the final opportunity to self-correct.

Inspection or compliance review

• Deeper examination of systems, policies and practices;
• May involve document production, interviews or site visits; and
• Often used where issues appear systemic.

Formal enforcement action

• Can include adverse findings, regulatory directions, or referrals affecting Working With Children Checks; and
• May lead to significant operational, reputational and workforce impacts.

While the Reportable Conduct Scheme itself does not impose fines, non-compliance can have serious downstream consequences, particularly for child-related employment and regulatory standing.

What Triggers Escalation by the OCG?

Process failures can be as significant as the alleged conduct itself. Escalation most commonly occurs where the OCG identifies that:

• child safety risks are not adequately controlled;
• organisations minimise, delay or defensively manage incidents;
• reporting obligations are misunderstood or ignored;
• governance failures contribute to repeated incidents; and
• regulator guidance is not acted upon.

De-esculation Strategies for Organisations

Demonstrating insight, accountability and willingness to improve often prevents matters from progressing to more formal enforcement stages. Early and informed action can make a critical difference. Practical de-escalation strategies include:

• promptly correcting notification errors;
• strengthening interim risk management measures;
• commissioning independent investigations where appropriate;
• improving documentation and decision-making records; and
• engaging constructively and transparently with the regulator;

OCG vs CCYP: Understanding the difference

A common point of confusion for national organisations is the difference between NSW’s OCG and Victoria’s Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP).

While both oversee reportable conduct schemes, their enforcement styles differ:

• OCG (NSW) places strong emphasis on organisational process, investigation quality and workforce risk management, with enforcement closely linked to Working With Children Check outcomes.
• CCYP (Victoria) more frequently uses public enforcement tools, including Notices to Comply and published compliance outcomes, and

Understanding these jurisdictional differences is essential for organisations operating across state borders.

What This Means for Organisations

The enforcement trend is clear: regulators expect maturity, consistency and accountability in how organisations manage reportable conduct. Even well-intentioned organisations can find themselves exposed where systems have not kept pace with regulatory expectations. Reactive responses, informal processes and poor documentation significantly increase enforcement risk.

How Can Safe Space Legal Help?

The team at Safe Space Legal have extensive safeguarding experience. We have worked with many organisations across NSW, Victoria, and Australia, to ensure they are meeting their legal obligations and frequently conduct independent safeguarding investigations. We work with organisations to help build a culture of safety and accountability, moving beyond paper compliance to a genuine child safe organisation.

Safe Space Legal provides the following services to ensure organisations meet their legal obligations:

• Supporting organisations to have robust recruitment strategies to keep children and young people safe;
• Providing organisations with advice on their legal obligations and compliance;
• Drafting best practice child safety policies, procedures and codes of conduct;
• Conducting gap analysis audits of critical incidents;
• Providing training on legal obligations, duty of care and child safety;
• Conducting child safety investigations which are compliant with relevant state and territory schemes; and
• Provide sound legal advice on risk mitigation

Contact office@safespacelegal.com.au or call (03) 9124 7321 to organise a complementary discussion in relation to your organisation’s safeguarding needs.