HDS v Secretary, Department of Education [2025] NSWCATAD 310;

(1) The respondent's case against her relies heavily on a 58 second video clip of the incident in question which "removes all context of the sustained behaviour that immediately preceded the action".

(2) By contrast, the child's ongoing behavioural issues are documented in the Police Fact Sheet and were confirmed in the video interviews the Regulator undertook with the Nominated Supervisor and the Centre Manager. The child in question was described by another staff member as "our most challenging child".

(3) The applicant refuted the respondent's arguments seeking to minimise the weight afforded to character references including that some were unsigned and she also sought to correct some of what she describes as factual inaccuracies about the references (including about the length of time the witness had known the applicant), as well as what she contended were mischaracterisations of what is said in them;

(4) The applicant also sought to distinguish some of the case law authorities relied on by the respondent: this will be dealt with below.

(5) The applicant refuted the respondent's contention that the applicant has not demonstrated "clear insight": she stated that she is not seeking to "justify her action but to provide an explanation" and she reiterated that what she did was completely unacceptable and that she is truly sorry (applicant's emphasis). She also set out some examples of what she contended were "emotional and psychological pressures" by way of "context and explanation", mostly relating to being asked to perform functions in her role at the child care centre that involved taking responsibility well above her experience (such as in effect acting as room leader) in circumstances where she was an "assistant educator".

(6) As for her failure to provide evidence from her counsellor, to which the respondent had referred, she attributed this to a lack of financial resources, said to be a direct consequence of her losing her employment following the incident, and the later issuing of the prohibition notice.

(7) The applicant also retracted a submission that had been included in the first material provided (by her then solicitor) seeking to argue that there was a "cultural context" to her conduct. She stated emphatically during the hearing that she had not instructed her solicitor to include any such submission.

(8) The applicant sought to respond to the respondent's criticism of her conduct in seeking to de-escalate the situation. She further denied having attempted to "minimise or justify" her behaviour and explained that her attention to the context was by way of "explanation, not justification". Finally she reiterated that she had genuine insight, accepted accountability for her actions, and submitted that she did not pose an "unacceptable risk of harm to children".

(1) Respondent's bundle of documents received 14 August 2025; that bundle contained the following:

(a) Information about the ownership and service approval for the approved provider;

(b) Notification of the incident to the Regulator;

(c) CCTV footage and a case summary report;

(d) The prohibition notice issued to the applicant dated 18 June 2025;

(e) USB containing interviews between the Regulator and the approved Provider (the nominated supervisor); and between the Regulator and the person with management of the approved Provider;

(f) A final investigation report dated 25 June 2025 which included various policies of the approved Provider; the applicant's certificates of completion and indication checklist; witness statements; court attendance notice and police fact sheet;

(g) A compliance notice issued to the approved provider.

(2) Affidavit of Joanne Lutherborrow, affirmed 8 October 2025 (received 9 October 2025) (Lutherborrow affidavit);

(3) Affidavit of Luke Fisher dated 14 October 2025 and received on that date (Fisher affidavit).

1. In addition, the respondent relied on written submissions received by the Tribunal on 14 October 2025.
2. Neither Ms Lutherborrow nor Mr Fisher was required for cross examination by the applicant.
3. The Lutherborrow affidavit dealt with the following matters:

(1) Ms Lutherborrow is the Relieving Manager, Approvals and Services within the NSW Early Childhood Education and Care Regulatory Authority of the Department of Education. In that capacity, she is responsible for staff that manage approvals for providers of early childhood education and care services under the National Law. She had no involvement in the matter before this Tribunal but has been provided with the bundle of material that is before it

(2) She has been employed by the Department, since April 2018 and her roles have included case managing education and care services in the "very high risk cohort". Prior to that she was a field officer, which role involved visiting education and care services for monitoring, compliance, assessment and rating purposes. Before joining the Department she was an early childhood educator.

(3) On the basis of her work in the department and as an early childhood educator she has "acquired detailed knowledge and skills in providing quality education and care to children and assessing compliance with the national law and the national regulations".

(4) Ms Lutherborrow's affidavit sets out key parts of the regulatory framework (specifically, the National Quality Framework (NQF) which comprises the National Law, the Education and Care Services National Regulations (2011 SI 653) (National Regulations); the National Quality Standard (NQS) and a "nationally consistent assessment and quality rating system".

(5) She refers to regulation relating to inappropriate discipline, referring specifically to s 166 of the National Law which creates an offence for a staff member to subject a child to any form of corporal punishment or discipline that is unreasonable in the circumstances. She also refers to Clause 155 of the National Regulations which refers to the need to maintain the "dignity and rights of every child".

(6) Ms Lutherborrow notes that "discipline" is not defined in the National Law. However, she refers to a Guide to the NQF published by the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), the national peak body on early childhood and care, which deals with the "rights and dignity of the child".

(7) ACECQA has also published information sheets, including one on "inappropriate discipline" (July 2023). In that document, examples of what might be "inappropriate discipline" are identified as including "hitting, pushing, slapping, pinching or biting a child".

(8) Ms Lutherborrow outlined the key steps that took place in the investigation as follows:

(a) The Department received a notification of the incident: 29 May 2025;

(b) The applicant was issued with a prohibition notice: 18 June 2025.

(c) The Department determined, following an investigation by Luke Fisher, investigator, that the incident was substantiated and constituted an offence under s 166(3) of the National Law.

(9) Ms Lutherborrow opined that having watched the video footage, the applicant's conduct "constitutes inappropriate discipline". She also expressed the opinion that the applicant's actions caused the incident, commenting on aspects of the conduct that she observed in the short extract of the CCTV footage. These include that the applicant appeared to approach the child and take a toy away from him, which she claimed, "exacerbated rather than de-escalated the child's behaviour". She also indicated that what she observed was not a "gentle slap" (as had initially been claimed by the applicant).

(10) Ms Lutherborrow considered that the applicant had engaged in "inappropriate discipline", but conceded that the applicant had demonstrated "some level of insight". She concluded by stating that the applicant's attempt to "downplay" the slap "raises concerns that she could repeat the same behaviours again and expose another child to the risks she identified earlier in her statement.

1. In his affidavit, Mr Fisher set out details of the investigation he conducted:

(1) Mr Fisher has worked as a police officer (including as Detective Senior Constable in the Child Abuse and Sex Crimes Squad from 2016 to 2023). Prior to taking up his role as an Investigator in the Compliance and Investigations unit of the Early Childhood Education Directorate in March 2025, he had also held investigative roles as a private investigator and with a disability services provider.

(2) He commenced his investigation on the date that the incident was notified to the Department (29 May 2025). He described what he saw on the CCTV footage. He spoke with the child's mother on 5 or 6 June, and on 6 June 2025 visited the service where he took statements and gathered further information, including relevant policies which he annexed to his affidavit.

(3) He also spoke with the police and subsequently obtained a copy of the Court Attendance Notice (CAN) as well as the Police Facts and Charge Sheet, both of which are included in the Respondent's Bundle.

(4) Mr Fisher noted that after confirmation that the Police had decided to charge the applicant in relation to the incident, he drafted a prohibition notice, which he considered needed to be issued "immediately".

(5) He did not interview the applicant and explained that this was because he understood that the applicant would be interviewed by Police (though this apparently did not occur). He did, however, conduct interviews with the nominated supervisor and with the approved provider, for the purpose of obtaining further information about what occurred. Transcripts and recordings of these interviews are included in the Respondent's bundle.

(6) Mr Fisher produced an Investigation Report (included in the Respondent's bundle) on 25 June 2025. In that report, he found that the allegation was substantiated. His conclusion was that his initial view, to the effect that it was appropriate to issue a prohibition notice, was the appropriate course for the Department.

1. As noted above, the applicant, who had previously been assisted by a solicitor, appeared at the hearing without representation. She gave evidence on her own behalf and she was also cross examined by the respondent's legal representative.
2. The respondent had relied in its submissions on some of the matters that were included in the Applicant's Bundle. Specifically, the respondent referred at [38] to three statements that were included in the Applicant's Bundle, as follows:

(1) I "gentle slapped him on the chin";

(2) [Applicant] is of Bangladeshi cultural background, where physical gestures such as placing a hand on a child's cheek are often used as a form of gentle redirection ...

(3) ... [t]he gesture was not forceful, and while it was inappropriate in the context of Australian education and care standards, it was not motivated by malice or aggression" ...

1. The respondent submitted that these statements were either incorrect or inappropriate (or both) and submitted that if it were the case that "cultural background" played any part in the incident, the Tribunal may find that this "reinforces the risk that she may engage in similar conduct in the future".
2. The applicant was adamant when questioned that she did not seek to rely on any argument about cultural background and this had been included by the solicitor she consulted when charged with a criminal offence. She had relied on his legal expertise and denied ever instructing him to this effect. On the contrary, she insisted that corporal punishment of children was treated the same in Bangladesh as it is in Australia: that is, that it is not appropriate to use corporal punishment. That aspect of the material was never discussed with her by the solicitor, nor did she instruct him to include it.
3. She stated that to the extent that parts of the bundle were based on what she had told the solicitor, she was in shock when she consulted him and the material was prepared and she may not have been sufficiently attentive.
4. The applicant also told the Tribunal that her solicitor had not shared with her the CCTV footage: she first saw it on 21 October 2025, ie, 10 days before the hearing. That was the first occasion on which she saw what actually occurred.
5. The applicant was extensively questioned about her actions with the child and it was put to her that rather than deescalate the situation, some of her conduct had been inappropriate. For example, it was put to her, based on what was in the Lutherborrow affidavit, that she had initiated physical contact with the child, which may have exacerbated the situation. The applicant reiterated her concern about the conduct of the child vis a vis other children and stated that he had a history of throwing things at other children, so that even if he was alone in the room, that did not necessarily mean that the other children were safe.
6. She told the Tribunal that strategies had been put in place for dealing with the Child A but on that occasion, the strategy was not working and in addition, she was not getting the assistance she needed. Specifically, one of the strategies involved taking him into a separate room to play with "special" toys. But the centre policy prevented her from any conduct that would have required her to leave the other children unattended. Usually when a situation such as this arose, she would obtain assistance from a team leader: one educator would deal with the difficult child while the other was dealing with the remaining children. On this occasion, no one came to her assistance, even though she believed that a senior staff member saw what was happening.
7. It was put to her that it was a common feature of the sector that there might be inadequate staff/assistance but she said usually if the room leader hears what is going on they would come and help out. She conceded that she did not call for help and if a situation such as this were to occur in future, she was adamant that she would proactively call for help.
8. As for the proposition put to her that she had escalated the situation by trying to take the toy that he was holding from the child, she explained that her concern was that he would throw it at the other children, one or more of whom could have been harmed by this.
9. A key point made by the applicant in her oral evidence and in the AS is that the CCTV extract is non-contextualised. As she noted, the Police Fact Sheet identified that the child's aggressive and disruptive behaviour had continued for 14 minutes before the short time on the video clip immediately leading to the incident. She states that this shows it was not a "common enough situation" but a particular crisis.
10. During cross examination the applicant was also questioned about her statement that she was an "assistant educator with inadequate experience to manage the room independently" but that she was "regularly assigned the primary responsibilities for managing the entire group, including a child such as the child in question who has "complex high needs". She explained that while she had previously worked as a support worker with children with high needs, that had been in a context where she was able to work one-on-one with the child. The child in this case was one of a much larger group and the only other adult present was a casual employee and the policy was that she was not to leave the children in the care of a casual employee, which she would have had to do to take the child into a different space and deal with him one-on-one in an attempt to de-escalate.

1. In addition to categorically resiling from the statement in the first bundle of material about the behaviour being "cultural" (discussed above), the applicant expressed concern that the decision was based on a video clip that went for just 58 seconds which she states did not reflect the context in which the incident occurred. In addition to referring to the Police Fact Sheet and providing more information than the Department material, she referred to statements from some of the witnesses indicating that the child's ongoing aggressive behaviour was confirmed by the nominated supervisor and she has included a number of quotes from the nominated supervisor interview that confirm that he was broadly considered to be an extremely difficult child to deal with. The nominated supervisor noted that he is usually ok when he is one-on-one but not when there are other children around. The Nominated Supervisor also confirmed that the strategies they had developed for him were working "less and less", and the centre was seeking outside help to deal with him. The applicant also quoted from another witness statement where that witness identified that the child in question was the centre's "most challenging child".
2. She also sought to rebut the proposition in the RS that the character references ought to be afforded little weight given how short a time she had worked at the centre and thus how limited was the acquaintance between the applicant and the character witnesses. She pointed out that before she had a permanent job at the centre, she had worked there casually for some time so was well known to those who provided her with character references.
3. In her submissions, the applicant drew particular attention to the financial hardship that the decision has caused her to experience. She told the Tribunal that she wanted the decision set aside so she could return to work in the child care sector and she had not, at the time of the hearing, sought other employment in a different field. She acknowledged that the case law indicated that financial hardship was not relevant to the assessment of risk and sought to distinguish the case the respondent relied on by the respondent for that proposition (Nilufar) in which the Tribunal had said at [63] that any hardship to the applicant was not relevant in assessing the risks.
4. In Nilufar, the risk arose from some substances that were found at the family home from which a family day care operated. They were found to belong to the applicant's sons. The Tribunal found that the presence of the material posed an "unacceptable risk" to the children but considered that the prohibition notice was "disproportionate to the risk". Instead of banning the applicant from providing childcare services, the Tribunal in that case narrowed the scope of the prohibition order to provide that the applicant was prohibited from providing those services at the particular address nominated in the notice, or at any other premises owned or operated by the applicant. That is, she could work at a childcare centre outside her home if owned/operated by someone other than herself.
5. The applicant sought to distinguish Nilufar on the basis that in that case, the applicant's children were adults whereas she is supporting minor children and that affected the issue of hardship as she was still supporting her children financially She also sought to distinguish the risk identified there: in that case it was related to the broader family members. By contrast, the risk she posed is "solely related to an isolated, reactive incident of inappropriate discipline in the workplace", and her hardship is a direct consequence of the prohibition notice.
6. The applicant also sought to distinguish another case relied on by the respondent: Kumar v Secretary Department of Education [2021] NSWCATAP 411 (Kumar).[1] Like the current case, it involved the use of physical discipline on a child. In Kumar, the applicant had pulled a child's hair with apparent force, causing the child to fall on the floor. The educator was found to have demonstrated a lack of accountability or responsibility; the child was found to be vulnerable and the Tribunal found that the educator's actions fell "well below that which would be expected of a reasonable educator in the same circumstances" and affirmed the primary decision.
7. The applicant contended that the force exerted by Ms Kumar was well in excess of what occurred in her case; that the conduct in that case consisted of an ongoing incident that went on for longer than her single immediate "reaction" and that the incident involving Ms Kumar only ended on the intervention of another worker. There was also no indication that the child in Kumar was engaging in aggressive or sustained misbehaviour as the respondent acknowledged was the case in the matter before the Tribunal. In addition, the applicant submitted that Ms Kumar had initially denied the allegation and showed a lack of insight and accountability. By contrast, the applicant contended that she expressed her remorse immediately and took full accountability for her actions, which was confirmed in the notification of the incident. The applicant also immediately engaged in an anger management course. She has also seen a counsellor but was unable to afford to pay for a report from that person to be provided to the Tribunal.
8. The applicant submitted that she had developed strategies for dealing with the particular child, but on that occasion, the usual strategy was not effective. She accepted full responsibility for her conduct and was truly sorry. She was also adamant that she would not present any future risk as she would never again be in a situation such as the one that occurred. She relied on her history of hard work and was prepared to accept any condition that would enable her to return to work in the childcare sector, as a safe person who had learned from making a mistake. In her view, the punishment was excessive as it prevented her from returning to work. She acknowledged that she had not tried to find other employment as she was hoping to be able to return to work in the childcare field.
9. She also sought to have the confidentiality order that had been made continued as she wanted to "protect her children from shame".

1. The respondent submitted that while there was no dispute about the fact that the applicant had slapped the child, there was a dispute about the characterisation of the incident. It was also submitted that the applicant had sought to downplay or minimise her conduct and this reinforced its concern that she may pose an unacceptable risk of harm. The respondent did not accept, from its viewing of the CCTV, that, as the applicant had claimed, other children were at risk from Child A. Even if that were the case, the respondent submitted that this would not justify slapping a child.
2. The respondent also sought to question the applicant's attempts to de-escalate the situation and asserted that the CCTV "does not appear to show the applicant offering to provide Child A with a special toy". It was also submitted that the applicant was the one to "initiate physical contact with the child" which the respondent claimed was a form of exacerbation rather than de-escalation. In addition, the respondent refers in its written submissions to the other claims in the Applicant's first bundle of documents from which she subsequently resiled (such as the "Bangladeshi cultural background" claim included by her solicitor).
3. The respondent contends that "When Child A was left to his own devices, there is no evidence that he posed a risk of harm to other children" and it would have been preferable for the applicant to have provided him with a cool down space, as indicated by Ms Lutherborrow. The respondent acknowledges that "two educators specifically note that Child A was "challenging" on most days" and thus the applicant should have been "specifically prepared for" his challenging behaviours and "deployed more appropriate strategies to address these behaviours".
4. In its oral submissions, the respondent contended that the conduct of the applicant that was in issue was not just the slap to the child, but the broader course of conduct. She was criticised for not giving the child space; for not calling for help and for seeking to place responsibility on others. It was also contended that the fact that the applicant undertook an anger management course was an implicit acknowledgment that she has issues with anger. In addition, the respondent contended that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant had changed as a result of counselling nor evidence that she had developed better strategies for dealing with the issues that led to the conduct in issue.
5. As for what is an "unacceptable risk of harm" (undefined in the National Law), the respondent relied on s 166 which proscribes inappropriate discipline and also referred to clause 155 of the National Regulations which refers to the obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that education and care services are provided to children in a manner that "maintains at all times the dignity and rights of each child"
6. The Respondent contended that the issuing of a prohibition notice with immediate effect (ie, without the opportunity for the applicant to respond) was clearly appropriate in circumstances where the applicant had slapped a child and been charged with a criminal offence.
7. In its written submissions the respondent questioned the steps taken by the applicant since the event, and is particularly critical of the material submitted, noting that the statements "alternate between the first and third person". The respondent submitted that the applicant's statements of remorse should be given limited weight and also questioned the reliance the Tribunal could place on the character references provided.
8. In conclusion, it was contended that the insight the applicant had shown did "not rise to the level required under the NQF" and that the Tribunal would be satisfied that she may pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of children in her care.

1. There was no dispute that the applicant slapped Child A across the face. While the applicant in the first bundle of material appeared to minimise the nature of the assault, the Tribunal accepts that she now acknowledges the gravity of the conduct.
2. The Tribunal also accepts that the incident (the actual slap of the child) lasted a very short duration and that the applicant had not at the time the Applicant Bundle was prepared had the opportunity to view the incident on CCTV. Once she had done so, the applicant did not seek to minimise the incident itself, but sought to have the Tribunal understand that it took place in a context that was much broader than the 58 seconds covered by the CCTV extract.
3. The Tribunal finds that Child A had been behaving disruptively (as he was known to do) and on this occasion, he had thrown an object against the wall while children were standing at the doorway watching; he had then knocked over some other items and when approached by the applicant, hit her in the face knocking her glasses off her face. It was seconds after that that the applicant slapped the child's face. While that occurred, a small group of children were watching from the doorway between the outdoor space and the room that Child A had entered. Those children were within a relatively short distance of Child A should he have chosen to throw an object at them.
4. Thus the Tribunal does not accept the respondent's submission that no other children were present or that it was not correct that other children could have been harmed by his behaviour.
5. Aside from finding that the applicant had slapped the child across the face, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to make findings, as the respondent submitted it ought to, to the effect that the applicant had exacerbated the situation, or that her conduct leading up to the incident in issue, was not appropriate. It is apparent from the CCTV footage that this was a tense and difficult situation. While there was another educator nearby, that person did not move toward the applicant and Child A to assist until after the incident. The applicant had explained in her evidence that she could not take the child away into another room as it was against the centre's policy for children to be left alone in the care of one staff person who was a casual employee. That was the situation at the time leading up to the incident.
6. There are a number of possible actions that might have been taken, such as the applicant calling for help, and she indicated that if a similar situation arose in future, she would do so. But the Tribunal does not accept the respondent's submission that the applicant's conduct in the very short period depicted on the CCTV, prior to her slapping the child, was itself somehow deficient or constituted an unacceptable risk of harm to children, separate from the conduct of hitting the child.
7. The Tribunal also finds that, other than what occurred in this incident, the applicant has an uneventful employment history, working in recent years with children, including as a (one on one) support worker for children with disabilities. It also accepts that she was highly regarded by those she worked with, as the character references attest. The Tribunal does not accept the respondent's submission that those references should be given less weight because, for example, they are unsigned, or that she had not worked at the centre long enough for the positive views to be formed. Her Director expressed "extreme .. surprise" at the incident, finding it "entirely inconsistent with my experience of her"; she was described by another colleague as an "invaluable team member" and as having a "remarkable ability to connect with children of all ages, creating a nurturing and stimulating environment". The owner of the business agreed with the other referees that the incident was "entirely out of character".
8. Having watched the CCTV extract and read the police facts, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was dealing with a particularly difficult child engaging in very challenging behaviours and had limited assistance in doing so. While that does not excuse the conduct in any way, it does, as the applicant contends, provide some context for it.
9. The Tribunal accepts that the prohibition order has caused hardship to the applicant but notes that the case law makes it clear that hardship to the subject of a prohibition notice is not relevant to the assessment of risk (see Nilufar at [63]). In GFQ, the Tribunal acknowledged the hardship to the applicant but stated at [138]:

However, the impact of a prohibition notice on an applicant, while it may be relevant to consider in the exercise of discretion, is not the paramount consideration. There is a balancing exercise that must be undertaken when exercising a discretion and the Tribunal must have regard to the objectives and guiding principles of the National Law, including the safety, health and wellbeing of children, whose rights and best interests must be paramount, when exercising this discretion.

1. The Tribunal accepts the respondent's contention that the fact that the applicant slapped a child and that she pleaded guilty to assault permits the drawing of an inference that the imposition of a prohibition order was warranted as the conduct, being contrary to the express proscription of corporal punishment in s 166 of the National Law, was clearly unacceptable (in addition to being proscribed under the National Law).
2. On the basis of the undisputed fact that the applicant slapped a child in her care, the Tribunal considers that the correct and preferable decision is to issue the applicant with a prohibition order on the basis that she may (and the Tribunal notes that the word "may" provides a low threshold) pose an unacceptable risk of harm to a child,.
3. The Tribunal notes that a prohibition order has no express duration under the National Law. However, as identified in the order served on the applicant on 18 June 2025, she can at any time apply to have the order cancelled (see National Law, s 186, set out above).
4. The Tribunal observes that the penalty imposed on the applicant by the local court when she pleaded guilty to assault was a conditional release order with a duration of 12 months. That order will operate until 17 July 2026. Once that period has expired, the applicant will not have a recorded conviction and will not be subject to any other penalty as a result of the finding of the court on the assault.
5. The Tribunal acknowledges that while the conduct in this case was inexcusable, it was also out of character for the applicant who has otherwise been shown to have been a commendable employee in the childcare sector. The Tribunal considers that the conclusion of the conditional release order of the Court would be an appropriate time for her to seek to have the prohibition notice cancelled. However, any decision on any such application is one for the Secretary to make.

Application for continuation of confidentiality orders

1. As noted above, the applicant sought to have a confidentiality order that had been made pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 continued.
2. On 7 August 2025, the Tribunal had ordered as follows:

(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014 (sic) there is to be no publication of the names of any children who receive education and care at [X] Early Learning Centre, or information that would identify them or their families.

1. A note recorded on the orders on the same date provided:

(1) The Respondent does not, at this point, consent to a s 64(1)(a) order being made in respect of the Applicant's name, even though the Tribunal has assigned a pseudonym for the applicant in the name of the case. The parties agreed that this issue could be dealt with at the hearing.

1. At the hearing, the respondent reiterated its opposition to the continuation of any such order. In particular the respondent referred to provisions in the National Law that empowered it to publish information that included information about enforcement action taken by the regulator. By s 270(5)(n), this includes where a prohibition notice has been issued.
2. However, by s 270(6)(b), the information the Regulator may publish "does not include information that may identify, or lead to the identification of a child".
3. The Tribunal was satisfied that identifying the applicant in this case could lead to the identification of the Child referred to as Child A and for that reason, was prepared to continue the previously made confidentiality order, including the allocation of a pseudonym for the applicant. The Tribunal also amended the order made on 7 August 2025 so that it includes the name of the Early Learning Centre which Child A attended, and has also anonymised the names of the staff members referred to in the reasons for decision. The rationale for the revised order is that the publication of any of that information could lead to the identification of Child A.

1. For the reasons set out above, the decision to issue a prohibition notice to the applicant is confirmed. The Tribunal notes that, as explained above, the applicant is able to apply to the Department to have the prohibition notice cancelled pursuant to s 186 of the National Law.

(1) The decision of the respondent made on 18 June 2025 to issue the applicant with a prohibition notice is confirmed.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

[1] Although this is styled as a decision of the Appeal Panel, this appears in fact to be a first instance decision of the Tribunal's AEOD.