CW v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 219

CITATION: CW v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency [2015] QCAT 219 PARTIES: CW (Applicant) v Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: CML021-15 MATTER TYPE: Childrens matters HEARING DATE: 28 April 2015 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Rogers DELIVERED ON: 16 June 2015 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. The decision of the Chief Executive to issue Mr CW a negative notice is confirmed. 2. The Tribunal prohibits the publication of material held on the Tribunal file and the names of the applicant and family members and witnesses in the decision relating to the application number CML021-15. CATCHWORDS: CHILDREN’S MATTERS - Blue Card application—where recent offences- whether change in behaviour demonstrated- whether offences relate to harm to children -whether exceptional case exists APPEARANCES: APPLICANT: CW RESPONDENT: Chief Executive, Public Safety Business Agency REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT: represented by Dr Berry Zondag, Junkuri Laka -- 1 of 13 -- 2 Community Legal Centre RESPONDENT: represented by Mr Peter Reid, Advocacy Officer REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr CW saw some children playing at the river when they should have been at school and thought he should have a go at getting them to school. He approached the Principal of the local school and became one of a number of people employed through a Community Employment Development Programme to address the serious issue of children failing to attend school. He applied for a blue card and on 17 December 2014 the Chief Executive issued a Mr CW a negative notice. He applied to this tribunal seeking a review of that decision on 30 January 2015. [2] In his application Mr CW’s representative submitted ‘the officer failed to properly take into account the cultural and community context, which would place Mr CW in a precarious position to obtain a blue card by reason only of him being an aboriginal man. The officer failed to take into account Mr CW’s positive contribution to his community’ The relevant law [3] Assessment for eligibility for a blue card is carried out under the provisions of the Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld). The principles for administering the Act, set out in s 6, are that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount and that every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing. Section 360 restates that principle for the purposes of reviewing a child-related employment decision. [4] Where an applicant has been convicted of an offence, other than a disqualifying or serious offence as defined in the Act, a positive notice must issue unless it is an exceptional case such that it would not be in the best interests of children for the applicant to be issued with a positive notice.1 [5] The Act does not define an ‘exceptional case’ It has been frequently commented that what constitutes an exceptional case is a matter of discretion. It is a question of fact and degree. 2 This means the circumstances of each individual case must be explored within the framework imposed by the principles of the Act to determine whether an exceptional case exists. S 226 of the Act sets out the factors that must be 1 Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld) s 221. 2 Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Maher & Anor [2004] QCA492 at paragraph 34. -- 2 of 13 -- 3 considered when making the determination however it does not confine consideration to those matters.3 [6] Any hardship or prejudice suffered by an applicant as the result of a refusal to issue a positive notice is irrelevant to this consideration.4 [7] The purpose of a review is to produce the correct and preferable decision and the tribunal must hear and decide a review of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.5 [8] It is not necessary to show a mistake of fact or law on the part of the original decision maker when bringing an application for review. Neither party bears an onus of proof. Once an application is before the tribunal the reviewable decision carries no evidentiary or legal weight. [9] Mr CW has not been convicted of a serious or disqualifying offence, as those terms are used in the Act, and therefore he must be issued a positive notice unless an exceptional case exists. Background [10] Mr CW provided his life story to the tribunal and later enlarged on its contents in his oral evidence. He was born in 1955. Both his parents identify as local community people. They worked on cattle stations and when he was ten or eleven years Mr CW went to a mission school fulltime. He describes severe physical abuse which ‘taught me that violence and beatings are the final answer to any question and they made it hard for me to look at white people with respect’. [11] He went to a State High School, which he says was much better, and completed Year 10. He left school to work in the cattle industry as a ringer on large stations. [12] In 1976 he married his wife Mrs CW and says ’She is the best thing that has happened to me and we are still together after all these years.’ They have four children, 12 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren. He is deeply involved with his grandchildren. Some of his children have had troubles and have children subject to a care and protection. Some of those grandchildren live with Mr CW and his wife at different times. He gets on well with the officers from Child Safety who visit his house to see the children and they have no concerns about his ability to care for them. [13] In 1983 Mr CW completed a diploma in community welfare at Brisbane TAFE. He was politically active and participated in protests and marches for indigenous rights. In 1986 he was elected as the mayor of the local community, the youngest person to hold that position. It was not paid so he started to work in the building trades. He was mayor 1986-1992, a 3 Ibid at paragraph 42. 4 Chief Executive Officer, Department of Child Protection v Scott (No 2) WASCA 171 at 23. 5 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20. -- 3 of 13 -- 4 further period from 1998 and then 2006-2007. By 2008 he was working as a mentor/trainer for young men in the building and road construction industry and in 2013 he started working at the local school. [14] Mr CW states he drank heavily from 1975 to 1992, when he gave it up. He got involved with marijuana when he was 40 years of age because alcohol wasn’t fixing things, so he tried something else. He did use gunja heavily for a period ‘for dinner, breakfast and supper’ until he decided to give it up. He described how he took himself off both drugs and alcohol. On each occasion he went by himself into the bush, and went cold turkey. With alcohol it was for three months and for the gunja it took five months before he could come back to town. He said the way he gave it up made it hard for him to go back on it. He did not seek professional help or counselling. That was about ten years ago. [15] Mr CW said he is not tempted to return to these substances. He had a heart attack in 2011. He goes to church now and finds the answers he needs in the bible. It teaches love not abuse and hatred, which he experienced at the mission school. He used substances because of what he had been through but he has learnt from his past mistakes and he can now sit in a room without getting angry. He says ‘I have no mental health issues other that the frustration and anger that was beaten into me by the Missionaries...This affects me to this day.’ [16] He acknowledged his lengthy criminal history but says the past is in the past. Mr CW says he does not try to minimise his responsibilities or culpability for what he has done. He acknowledges he has had issues dealing with frustration and anger and that this problem reached its peak when he was of a mature age. However he says he has grown out of this and has other ways of dealing with his past now. [17] He did continue to offend after he gave up drugs and alcohol and says that was the result of his training in the mission school. He was brought up thinking the only way to fix a problem was with violence. He says these days he is more likely to try to sit down and talk about the problem and use mediation. He tries to keep out of conflict and not get involved. [18] He says the recent offending on January 2014 occurred against a background of family feuds. It started as a trivial matter between two brothers. It escalated and other members of the extended family became involved. It has now been going on for many years and few people remember what it was about. He says there is not just one person who starts an argument, it involves everyone. At the time of the offence a group of 50 or 60 people with rocks and bars came into his mother’s yard. He had to defend her. He said he was not going out to talk to them without something in his hand so he picked up his boomerang and this resulted in a conviction for ‘going armed so as to cause fear’. [19] The Chief Executive has identified two offences specifically relating to children on Mr CW’s criminal history. The first, in 2001 concerns a girl 16 years old and he cannot remember that incident. The second was the -- 4 of 13 -- 5 January 2014 incident where he struck a young man of unknown age with his boomerang. Mr CW says the man was about 19 years of age and not a child. [20] When asked to comment on the charges of assaulting police as recently as 2012 Mr CW says someone has to stand up to them but if you do you get victimised. He says people need someone to show them the right way. You don’t want them to grow up thinking the white man is their boss. He said he has no intention of hurting children and he no longer uses weapons, he relies on his tongue. [21] Mr CW says he is proud of what he has achieved in the community. [22] The school attendance rates improved when he was involved. He has arranged for 13-14 children to go to boarding school so they can complete their education. He is respected as a leader and preacher in the church. He teaches children at Sunday school. People come to talk to him. They are always welcome at his home and he never shuts the door on them. He can understand his past actions but he has more friends than enemies now. Witnesses [23] A is the Regional Manager of My Pathway. He has known Mr CW for 14 years and said, as a public servant, he has had to say things to Mr CW he did not want to hear. He says Mr CW can be forceful and assertive when he is a passionate about the community and when he feels the government of the day does not show respect, but he has not felt threatened or intimidated by him. He has seen him with children and observed them show him respect and listen to what he says. He has not seen him become agitated since his health scare in 2011. [24] B was the Principal of the local school in 2014. He saw Mr CW on a daily basis and said he offered a unique perspective and skillset. Because he was well known, a grandfather and is involved with the local church he was able to influence parents in a way a school principal could not. He was a member of a team responsible for increasing school attendance rates. He would drive around and pick the children up and take them to school. He has a protective nature and is a strong advocate for students and across the community. There was no conflict in the workplace. He is a suitable person to work with children in the community. [25] C works at a local centre and runs a child protection programme. She says she has known Mr CW her whole life. He was always at the front line, strong and outspoken. She has seen a whole different side of him in his work as a mentor of kids in school. He is respectful and uses different strategies. She said it was not common for men to seek help from a mental health professional. There were other ways to deal with withdrawal from drugs and alcohol such as going up country. She has no concerns about Mr CW and is prepared to recommend him as a positive role model to work with children. -- 5 of 13 -- 6 [26] D is a local person with community responsibilities. He was introduced to Mr CW by his father and now makes it a point to visit him when he is in the area because he actively pursues the interests of the community. When he first met him he was more radical, a political activist. He is not as aggressive in the past few years. He has seen Mr CW affected by drugs and alcohol about 15-20 years ago, maybe drugs more recently. He is aware of Mr CW’s criminal record and he has seen people reform before. He says what stands out here is the level of reform. He has spoken to others about Mr CW. He says when police and school and people in the community are telling you he was doing a good job the rejection of the blue card would be a bad outcome. He said one way to turn around the current situation is by self-empowerment and you need someone from that background to work in the community for that to happen. He feels the blue card system is failing and needs adjustment. It keeps getting in the road. It has to be accepted there is violence in communities and some leniency needs to be shown. People who stand up in communities should be allowed to go on from their activist stage. [27] E has known Mr CW for 38 years. She works with a community centre. It is located on the school ground but is not part of the school. It supports families with financial issues, helps with family intervention, conducts a playgroup and provides facilities such as phones and computers. She also conducts cultural awareness inductions. She says violence in the community with children present is wrong and she does not condone it, however people can be rehabilitated. She states Mr CW is an excellent person for the school, he is a good leader in the community. The children view him as an elder and would go up to him in the playground. He is well respected. [28] Dr H did not give evidence but he provided a report dated 8 April 2015. He met with Mr CW once. He set out what Mr CW told him and addressed some specific questions. He opined Mr CW had good insight into the impact of his behaviour on children, he talks of children as the future and wishes to do them well. He said Mr CW recognises triggers or risk factors and supports this by saying he has given up alcohol and drugs and attends church. The continuation of his present behaviour causes no concerns and the continuation of his present lifestyle and values are preventative strategies to minimise any risk. Mr CW’s family and prior working with children justify confidence in his low risk. There was discussion at the hearing about whether Dr H had the Statement of Reasons and an opportunity to read it. He did not refer to it in his report. Criminal History [29] Mr CW has an extensive criminal history with charges and convictions starting in 1974 when he was 19 and continuing to the present time. The convictions include a) Assault offences including; occasioning bodily harm, serious assault, unlawful assaults, common assaults, assaults against a police officer and obstructing a police officer. -- 6 of 13 -- 7 b) Weapons offences including; armed in public in a manner to cause fear, carrying weapons through a screening point, discharging a weapon on private land without the owners consent and unlawful possessions of weapons category A, B or M. c) Drug offences including; possessing dangerous drugs, producing dangerous drugs and possessing utensils or pipes. d) Various other convictions including; public nuisance offences, using a carriage service to make a threat to kill and killing an animal with intent to steal. [30] There are also charges for threatening violence, assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company and supplying dangerous drugs on which no evidence was offered. [31] He is currently facing further charges in the Magistrate’s Court, namely discharge of a weapon on private land without the owner’s consent, killing an animal with intent to steal and unlawful possession of a weapon category A/B/M. These charges had not been dealt with at the time of the hearing. Mr CW indicated he intended to plead not guilty because he found an animal down by the road with a broken leg and put him out of his misery. Chief Executive’s submissions [32] The Chief Executive submits Mr CW a) Has an extensive criminal history with many offences of violence where he was not a personal risk. b) He has not sought the assistance of a psychologist to address anger management issues and the tribunal cannot be satisfied he will not resort to violence or other criminal behaviours. c) He has minimised the risk of his behaviours. He started using cannabis 1995 with the most recent drug related offences at the end of 2009 but he said he only used drugs for a few years. In the 2009 offence 20 foils of cannabis were found. It is submitted these were intended for distribution and when the drugs went from him to another person they could have fallen into the hands of children. d) He went cold turkey on both drugs and alcohol. He has not sought assistance and therefore remains at risk. He did have access to ATODs programmes but did not choose to attend. e) None of the court orders imposed deterred him from future reoffending because he did not identify the triggers to his anger management issues and therefore remains at risk. f) He is a mature man who has had ongoing issues with authority figures. He has armed himself with weapons including traditional aboriginal weapons and has ready access to firearms. g) He assaulted a child aged 16 years in 2001. -- 7 of 13 -- 8 h) In 2012 there were offences of violence with children in the vicinity. i) In the January 2014 offence the age of the complainant is unclear with suggestions he was 15-16 years. Mr CW says he was 19 years. j) While he expresses remorse for his past he fails to acknowledge the recent offences which indicate he is prepared to take matters into his own hands. [33] The Chief Executive further submitted the report of Dr H should be given limited weight. He spoke only once with Mr CW and he did not give consideration to the criminal history. In considering the views of D it was submitted the place for changing legislation is the legislature, not the tribunal. [34] Mr CW was between the ages of 41 and 58 at the time of the offences of concern. This raises a particular concern that he understood the criminality of his behaviour in relation to the offending. His history is relevant to regulated child related employment. [35] The benefit to the community is not a consideration. Children rely on adults to keep them safe. The adults need to be positive role models. Mr CW’s submissions [36] Mr CW’s representative submitted the threshold must be high for a blue card to be refused. It must be an exceptional case. The harm must be significant and it is not the role of the tribunal to continue to punish people for their past offences. [37] He argued that although Dr H report has little detail it was the correct approach and should be given appropriate weight. [38] Mr CW’s life story is a picture of how children were treated in the dormitory days. It is an experience he shares with many in the community. However he has insight and a clear focus on the future. [39] He hasn’t used alcohol since 1992 or drugs since 2009. It was not his way to see a psychologist instead he chose a culturally relevant way to deal with his addictions. It was a hard experience and he came out a stronger man. The value of this experience should not be lessened because it was not overseen by a health care professional. [40] Since his serious health scare in 2011 he has to be careful of getting too upset. He has continued working in the community even though he has not been able to work at the school. He is now very religious and believes violence is not the answer. He still believes in standing up for people but in a reconciliatory rather than an adversarial way. [41] The Department of Child Safety material does not indicate Mr CW has harmed a child and says there is a positive and caring interaction between him and his grandchildren. -- 8 of 13 -- 9 [42] There is objective statistical evidence Mr CW made a difference to school attendance rates when he was in his role. [43] The witnesses were members of the community aware of Mr CW’s transgressions and the work he has done. They were very supportive of his application to work with children. [44] It is not against the best interests of children for him to be given a positive notice and blue card. Consideration and decision [45] I find Mr CW has the following protective factors a) A sincere commitment to contributing to the welfare of children b) A long and stable relationship with his wife with no reported incidents of domestic violence c) He no longer engages in drug or alcohol abuse. He has shown an awareness of the impact of his abuse and remorse for his past behaviours d) His recent health scare has made him more aware of his behaviours e) He is developing anger management strategies that allow him to deal with his anger and frustration without resorting to anger and abuse f) He has the support of many members in the community who are confident he has changed his ways and will not relapse into drug or alcohol abuse or violence. g) His positions in the church and as a respected member of the community are important to him and he is reluctant to jeopardise them. [46] I find the following risk factors remain a) Mr CW has a long history continuing to recent times of resorting to physical and verbal abuse. These convictions are not restricted to occasions when his personal safety is threatened or when he is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. b) He has recent convictions of assault/obstruct police officer on 10/4/2012, commit public nuisance on 22/05/2012 and going armed so as to cause fear on 24/01/2014 c) When he armed himself with a traditional weapon in 2014 he showed no remorse for that act as he thought it was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. d) He is prepared to take matters into his own hands. e) He has had extended periods without offending in the past and then committed further offences. f) He has been charged with new offences in the past few months. -- 9 of 13 -- 10 [47] The Chief Executive submits that adults need to be good role models for children, which is part of the obligation to promote their well being, and Mr CW is not a good role model. I do not accept that it is a requirement of the legislation that a holder of a blue card be a good role model. This would create a much higher standard for members of the community who have committed an offence than for those people without conviction who are given a blue card on application. It is an embellishment on the language of the legislation that is not helpful or justified, as the term itself does not have a precise meaning. [48] The Chief Executive submits that Mr CW remains at risk of returning to drug or alcohol abuse because he has not attended counselling to identify the triggers and avoid a relapse. I do not accept this submission. Mr CW chose to withdraw from alcohol and later from cannabis use by taking himself away from the community and dealing with the effects of withdrawal in his own way. It is his evidence this was so hard the process itself remains a deterrent to future use. I accept his evidence. [49] The Chief Executive submits Mr CW has not had counselling to address anger management issues so the tribunal cannot be satisfied these will not reoccur, resulting in criminal behaviour. [50] Mr CW says he has developed strategies. These include giving up drugs and alcohol, accepting he can’t change what has happened to him, being prepared to sit down and talk things out, being involved with the men’s group, participating in his church community and relying on reading his bible, which says you have to love everyone and that is what he is doing. While he did say he is open to attending a psychologist at another part of his evidence Mr CW said he didn’t think he had anger issues because he went to see a psychiatrist not long ago and he said there was nothing wrong. [51] While I agree it may be helpful for him to develop self awareness, I do not accept that it is a requirement for Mr CW to attend a counsellor. There may be other ways for him to address his issues, it can be difficult to access long term treatment in a remote community and it could be culturally difficult for Mr CW to enter that process. However it appears from his recent history that Mr CW still has issues with authority and anger and there is a risk these will continue to result in criminal behaviour. [52] It is Mr CW’s submission that the past is in the past and his criminal history should not prevent his obtaining a blue card. This is supported by D’s evidence that the blue card system is failing communities. The Chief Executive responded that this is a matter for the legislature. [53] I have considered five other cases6 relating to indigenous communities. Three decisions were set aside and two were confirmed. It is clear that 6 AA v Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety Business Agency [2014] QCAT 651; Loogatha v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2011] QCAT 72; Aruba v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian -- 10 of 13 -- 11 when considering all the evidence the weight to be given to a criminal record must depend on the nature, number and recency of the offences themselves. In Mr CW’s case I accept his lengthy criminal history is not of itself a reason to deny a blue card and I have given little weight to offences occurring more than five years ago because that is when Mr CW identified he turned his life around. People can and do change and this change should be respected. [54] However the record is useful to identify behaviours that were a problem and to see if they are still occurring. For example Mr CW has not had any drug or alcohol related offences since 2009. This evidence supports a finding that he no longer abuses drugs or alcohol. If there are ongoing anti-social behaviours that can be evidence that the changes might need more time to take effect. [55] I considered the submissions concerning Dr H report. I have given it little weight because it was complied following a brief consultation, he relied heavily on Mr CW’s self report and he did not articulate the reasoning that supported his conclusions. [56] I must order Mr CW be issued with a positive notice and blue card unless there is an exceptional case such that it is not in the best interests of children for him to be given a blue card. [57] When considering what is the best interests of children in this case I am guided by the principles of the legislation, which say that every child is entitled to be cared for in a way that that protects the child from harm and promotes the child’s wellbeing. [58] I am satisfied Mr CW ‘promotes the child’s wellbeing.’ Without attempting to limit or define the phrase I see the legislation as imposing a positive obligation on carers to contribute to the child’s existence rather than just provide for an absence of harm. Specifically Mr CW can point to the works he does to get children to school, his involvement in conflict resolution with children and their parents and his efforts to get children into boarding school to satisfy this requirement. He has and continues to make a great contribution to the community by his interactions with people of all ages who come to him for assistance and by his ongoing involvement in developing community resources. [59] I have considered Mr CW’s criminal record, the evidence of witnesses and the material from Child Safety and I am satisfied Mr CW, if responsible for young children, would act in a way that protected them from harm from others and that he would not intentionally inflict harm on them himself. [2011] QCAT 468; JAJ v Commission for Children Young People and Child Guardian [2014] QCAT 351; Fa'Aoso v Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian [2010] QCAT 691. -- 11 of 13 -- 12 [60] However two things continue to concern me. The first is that Mr CW does not necessarily distinguish between adults and adolescents. This means older children are at the same risk of harm from Mr CW as are adults so there is a real risk that if his anger management strategies fail a child could be harmed. [61] The second is that Mr CW fails to demonstrate awareness that adult behaviours can cause harm to children even though they are not directed towards children. Steps must be taken to protect children from that harm. [62] I refer to the following examples; a) In September 2009 he became involved in an incident when police were trying to separate two girls engaged in a fight. He was charged with multiple charges, including serious assault, and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six months. b) In May 2012 Mr CW was involved in a serious confrontation in a public place. It is alleged he yelled abuse and threatened to kill people. He was charged with common assault but no evidence was offered. He was convicted of public nuisance and fined $600. c) In January 2014 he was involved in a mass fight resulting from family feuding. He was convicted of going armed so as to cause fear and fined $1500. [63] When speaking to an officer of Blue Card Services on 28 July 2014 Mr CW said he has been a different person for four years. While the 2009 incident occurred before Mr CW took steps to change his behaviours, the 2012 and 2014 events took place during that timeframe. [64] These events all occurred when children were in the vicinity and would have witnessed the confrontation. These behaviours harm children because they indicate to children it is acceptable to deal with conflict in this way. This is especially the case when the behaviour is by someone who is known to them and is considered a leader in the community. [65] There is no evidence Mr CW was under the influence of drugs or alcohol on any of these occasions and therefore it can’t be argued they resulted from behaviours he has ceased. If they relate to anger management issues, though that is not clear, they would demonstrate that the strategies Mr CW has developed failed him on these occasions. [66] I cannot be satisfied that Mr CW will not become involved in public disturbances in the future if he forms the view it is necessary for him to do so. If this occurs he could harm a child by direct contact or by engaging in behaviours that are harmful for them to witness. [67] Further, it was commented in evidence that in a small community people are aware of who is appearing in court. It can be harmful for children to become aware people they respect don’t obey the law because it can create confusion for them as they try to develop a sense of right and wrong. This issue is magnified in remote communities attempting to -- 12 of 13 -- 13 discourage anti-social behaviours where an awareness of repeat offending can normalise the behaviours. [68] Mr CW is facing charges still before the court. He must be considered innocent of these charges until convicted, however s 226 requires me to consider charges as well as convictions. These charges are similar to previous convictions in 2011 resulting from events in 2009. If he is convicted that would suggest Mr CW has not modified his behaviour and is prepared to continue with criminal conduct, which would give rise to the risk I have previously identified. This is an example of adult behaviour that might have an adverse impact on children. [69] I acknowledge the changes Mr CW has made to his behaviours, his genuine commitment to children, his desire to work closely with them and the support he has in the community. I accept the need for the community to have respected adults involved in the development of children. [70] Denying Mr CW a blue card will not necessarily impact on his future behaviour but children will be less affected by his behaviour if he is not a person working at the school and held out to them as a leader and person to be respected. [71] The focus of a blue card decision must be on children. I have considered the circumstances of Mr CW’s 2012 and 2014 convictions, insufficient time elapsing to be satisfied he will not continue to engage in violent confrontations, the possibility that children could suffer physical harm if a confrontation occurs, the pending charges, and the position of influence over children employment in the school would give him. [72] I have decided this is an exceptional case such that it would not be in the interests of children for a blue card to issue to Mr CW at this time. I order the decision of the Chief Executive to issue a negative notice be confirmed. Non-publication order [73] I have formed the view a non-publication order is appropriate in this matter. Non-publication orders can only be made in specific situations. In this case the publication of information could lead to the identification of children who have been the subject of an investigation under the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld). Publication of the information is prohibited by s 189 of that Act. This order includes material held on the Tribunal file and the names of the applicant and family members. -- 13 of 13 --