HND v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATOD 14;

(1) The Applicant was in a relationship with the victim's mother in 2016 for a few weeks.

(2) He believed that the victim's mother sought revenge because he did not want to pursue a relationship with her.

(3) After the relationship with the victim's mother ended, the victim requested the Applicant's number, to which he declined.

(4) The Applicant believed that the victim then sought out his social media usernames and contacted him via Facebook and Snapchat on numerous occasions.

(5) After initially dismissing the messages, he then began replying. He denied that the messages were primarily of a sexual nature, and believed that the victim initiated the sexual content.

(6) The Applicant disclosed that he then began to request explicit naked photos of the victim and reciprocated the photos and sexual messages for a period of two months.

(7) He denied that he had intention to meet with the victim and have a sexual relationship, but rather he engaged in these discussions out of boredom and stress.

(8) The Applicant stated that "she looked a lot older than 12 and I didn't know how old she was at first".

1. Other relevant observations made by the psychologist include:

(1) The Applicant demonstrated limited insight and poor judgment at the time of the offending.

(2) It was believed that the Applicant's primary goals were to seek sexual gratification stating "it made me excited but I wasn't thinking".

(3) The Applicant justified his offending conduct by stating that he was not thinking and felt stressed because he was away from his family.

(4) The Applicant initially minimised and denied his offending behaviour by stating that the victim appeared older than her stated age, but towards the end of the sessions, he demonstrated some responsibility and remorse for his behaviour stating "I will never do this again".

(5) At the time of the initial assessment, the Applicant expressed some disregard and minimisation toward his offending conduct and the impact on his behaviour on the victim and her mother. However, throughout the course of treatment, his attitudes and empathy towards the victim appear to have shifted and he expressed appropriate remorse over time.

1. In October 2023, the Applicant was convicted by the Local Court for the offence of failing to comply with his reporting obligations under the CPOR Act. The Applicant was fined $1,200.
2. The failure to comply with reporting obligations under the CPOR Act is a serious offence, that has a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units and/or imprisonment for five years.
3. During the hearing, the Respondent tendered a copy of the Court Attendance Notice and Facts Sheet for the 2023 offence. The Facts Sheet notes that:

(1) The Applicant had been issued a warning in the past for failing to comply with his reporting obligations under the CPOR Act.

(2) In January 2018, the Applicant attended a Police Station and was issued with a "Form 3 - Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000", a notice that outlines the obligations of a registrable person with respect to reporting of certain information and other requirements.

(3) In June 2018, the police served the Applicant with the same notice.

(4) Part 9 of the CPOR Act provides that the relevant personal information to be reported by a registrable person consists of the following information: "the make, model, colour and registration number of any motor vehicle owned or hired by, or generally driven by, the person."

(5) Part 11 of the CPOR Act provides that a registrable person must report changes to relevant personal information to the Commissioner of Police within seven days after the change occurs.

(6) In August 2020, the Applicant attended a Police Station, met with a Senior Constable, and was read, and had explained to him, a 7-page document titled "Child Protection Register - Explanation of Conditions Form", which had 55 questions.

(7) The Applicant was read each of these questions, including question 24: "You must tell police details of any motor vehicle you own or hire. Do you understand this?" The Applicant replied: "Yes."

(8) In June 2023, the Applicant purchased a motor vehicle. In July 2023, the Applicant disposed of a separate motor vehicle. The Applicant failed to notify police of the sale and purchase and disposal of these motor vehicles.

(9) In August 2023, the Applicant sent a text message to police stating that he forgot to notify police about the car.

1. In February 2024, the Applicant was again convicted by the Local Court for the offence of failing to comply with his reporting obligations under the CPOR Act. The Applicant was fined $2,400 and made subject to a community corrections order for six months, which commenced in February 2024 and ended in August 2024. During the hearing, the Respondent tendered a copy of the Court Attendance Notice and Police Facts Sheet for this offence. The Facts Sheet notes that:

(1) Part 9 of the CPOR Act provide that if a registrable person is a worker, they are to report the nature of their work, the name of their employer and the address at each of the premises at which they work, or otherwise each of the localities where they generally work (if not working at particular premises).

(2) In August 2020, the Applicant attended a Police Station, met with a Senior Constable, and was read, and had explained to him, a 7-page document titled "Child Protection Register - Explanation of Conditions Form", which had 55 questions.

(3) Questions 16, 17 and 20 were relevant to the Applicant's obligations to report information about his employment. The Applicant was read each of these questions and answered "yes" to each question. Question 17 states that employment includes being self-employed (contractor or subcontractor). Question 20 requires that the registrable person must tell police within 7 days if they are employed at any place for 14 days or more in a 12-month period. The 14 days does not have to be 14 consecutive days.

(4) In March 2023, the Applicant was given a document by police titled "Quick Guide for reporting changes", which is a picture and word document which explains when a registrable person needs to report changes in circumstances to comply with their reporting obligations.

(5) In January 2024, the Applicant attended a Police Station for his annual review. The Applicant advised a Senior Constable that he needed to add new employment to the form. When he was asked when he started, he said it was before he went overseas between January 2023 and March 2023. The Applicant said that he had worked for this employer on two occasions - a month after he returned from overseas and again in November 2024 (with this job continuing).

(6) The Applicant then agreed to be interviewed by police. During the interview the Applicant stated that he had worked more than 30 days with his current employer on a casual basis. The Applicant could not confirm the start date but stated it was in March 2023 after returning from overseas.

(7) When asked why he did not tell police about the new job, the Applicant stated "I didn't know I had to" and "not full-time".

(8) Since March 2023, the Applicant had been visited on two occasions at his residence by police and failed to notify police of a change in his employment information.

(9) The Applicant was aware of his reporting obligations, as he had reported on four other occasions changes in his case during 2023.

(10) The police allowed the Applicant extra time (until 1 May 2023) to provide the exact start date of the new job, however he failed to do so.

(11) The Applicant was then charged with the relevant offence.

1. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that he had made "one mistake". It was put to the Applicant that, in addition to the 2017 offence (the "one mistake") he had two further offences for failure to comply with various conditions. The Applicant stated that he failed to report the information in the right way, that he had reported that he had worked for one company, but did not mention another company that was the labour/hire company that was paying him. The Applicant conceded that he was meant to report his employment with the labour/hire company. The Applicant stated that the reason he had not reported this information was because he wasn't full-time and was a casual worker.

Applicant's disclosure of his criminal history to the Respondent

1. In the application for a licence submitted in December 2024, the Applicant completed an "Additional Details Form 3" as to whether he had any criminal history in the last 10 years. The Applicant attached to this form a NPC that had been issued in March 2024. The form states that an applicant is to provide a detailed explanation as the circumstances that led to all of the criminal offences or charges, and that it was not sufficient to simply list the outcome of the court. An applicant is to provide information on what happened in the situation and the reasons why this resulted in being recorded as a criminal conviction. The Applicant did not do this, and simply attached the NPC which records the court outcome for the 2017, 2023 and 2024 offences.
2. The Respondent could not process the application as more information about the Applicant's criminal records was required. The Applicant was asked, in March 2025, to provide a "current" NPC, another Additional Details Form 3 - to be completed "in detail", a copy of any community correction/intensive correction orders, and any additional support documents that may be relevant.
3. In March 2025, the Applicant completed another Additional Details Form 3, which still did not explain the circumstances that led to the offences and only stated the outcomes. The Applicant provided the same NPC, issued in March 2024. The Applicant also provided one of two pages of a community corrections order made in February 2024 in relation to the 2024 offence.
4. The Respondent was not satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence, due to the seriousness and nature of the 2017 offence and the further offences in 2023 and 2024, which caused concerns about a pattern of unfavourable behaviour. As no current (issued within the last three months) NPC was provided as requested, the Respondent could not be satisfied that the Applicant had not further offended since March 2024 and that further offending will not occur.
5. For the internal review, the Applicant provided an image of confirmation that he had applied for a NPC, but there was no date for when this application had been made. The Applicant claimed he did not know that a new NPC was required. The Applicant stated the following in the request for internal review:

"Regards my police check i sorry for any misunderstanding I didn't know u guys need a new one i already requested a new police check today i don't have any recent crimes and i will be appreciated not to be judged for a mistake i did in the past it was very long time ago and it was something i regret i appreciate your understanding i am a grown man now with a family and 2 kids i want to look after i will resend the police check as soon as i receive it."

1. The Respondent concluded that the information the Applicant submitted for the internal review in relation to the NPC was still insufficient evidence to establish that the Applicant was a fit and proper person.
2. In these proceedings, the Applicant filed a NPC dated 16 April 2025, which provided the details of the 2017, 2023 and 2024 offences and confirmed that there were no further disclosable court outcomes since February 2024. This NPC was submitted to the Respondent after the internal review had been completed.

1. The Respondent was not satisfied that the Applicant was a bona fide employee who had obtained the required experience for the issue of a licence. While this goes to the Tribunal's consideration of Issue 2, the Tribunal has considered the Applicant's provision of information about his work experience in the assessment of the Applicant's candour with the Respondent as the regulator.
2. A licence cannot be issued unless the Respondent is satisfied that the applicant has had experience of such a kind and for such a period as the Respondent considers would enable the applicant to do, or to supervise, the work for which the certificate is require (HB Act, ss 33C(1)(b)(i), 33DD(1)(b))
3. On 15 December 2022, the Commissioner of Fair Trading signed an Instrument in accordance with the HB Act (ss 20(2), 25(2)) ("the Instrument") that sets out what is required in relation to experience required for a licence. The Instrument defines experience as: "experience lawfully gained by the applicant (whether during or after completion of an Apprenticeship) as a bona fide employee who has been paid during the relevant period of employment in accordance with an award or enterprise agreement, and this is verified in the Relevant Application Form". At least 12 months relevant electrical wiring work experience utilising knowledge and understanding of the wiring rules AS/NZS 3000:2018 is required to obtain a licence in the category of electrician.
4. The Applicant completed the "employment and experience history" section of the application, detailing his employment history as follows (the names of the three separate employers have not been identified):

(1) December 2017 - July 2020 - "Employer 1" - trade assistant

(2) June 2022 - July 2024 - "Employer 2" - trade assistant

(3) July 2024 - December 2024 - "Employer 3" - trade assistant

1. A Referee's Statement is the method that the Respondent uses for the application process to verify an applicant's experience. The Applicant submitted only one Referee's Statement with his application, by a referee who identified the relevant employer as Employer 3. The referee declared that the Applicant was a full-time employee between September 2022 and December 2024 (27 months) in the position of "electrician".
2. The Referee's Statement sets out the responsibilities of the referee and states that the person must be the applicant's employer or supervisor, and "must have supervised the applicant carrying out the electrical work". The Applicant's referee for Employer 3 states that the Applicant was a full-time employee and had been under his supervision. The referee has his own contractor licence, but has not been the nominated supervisor of Employee 3. The Respondent was unclear, therefore, of the basis on which the referee had capacity to verify the Applicant as a full-time employee of Employer 3, and had the capacity to supervise the Applicant's work.
3. During cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that he had filled out the Referee's Statement for his application for a licence, and asked the referee to sign it.
4. The Respondent noticed the inconsistency between the period of employment that the Applicant had attributed to Employer 3 in his application and the Referee's Statement. Due to this, the Respondent asked the Applicant to provide proof of employment.
5. In response, the Applicant provided a single payslip dated 27 June 2024 for a 2-week period from Employer 2 and a bank statement (August 2024 to February 2025). The payslip confirms that the Applicant was identified as an "Unlicensed Electrician" with a gross payment of $81,107.00 for the year to date. The bank statement confirms that Employer 3 deposited regular payments in the Applicant's bank account identified as "invoice payment".
6. The Respondent refused the application as, amongst other matters, the Respondent was not satisfied that the Applicant was a bona fide employee who had been paid during the relevant period of employment in accordance with an award or enterprise agreement.
7. In his internal review request, the Applicant stated that he had the following work experience:

(1) 2017 - 2020 - Employer 1.

(2) July 2022 - December 2023 - Employer 2 (where he worked for another company through Employer 2, a labour hire company but his payslips and tax records reflect employment through Employer 2).

(3) January 2024 - June 2024 - Employer 3 through Employer 2.

(4) July 2024 - present - Employer 3 - "directly as a subcontractor under my ABN, which I have been doing full time until now".

1. During the hearing, the Applicant stated that he worked for Employer 2 as labour hire, but that he was engaged through Employer 2 and worked on a full-time basis for Employer 3.
2. During the hearing, the Applicant confirmed that he has held an ABN and has been subcontracting since June 2024 with Employer 3. The Applicant stated that he chose to change to a subcontractor as he was able to earn more money.
3. In the material that the Applicant filed after the hearing was an Agreement for Services between the Applicant and Employer 3, dated in July 2024. This agreement makes it clear that the Applicant was a "independent contractor", and "cannot be deemed to be an employee or an agent of the Company or in partnership with the Company".
4. In his internal review request, the Applicant provided other references, none of which verified the Applicant's experience in the manner required by the Instrument and contradicted other information that the Applicant had supplied to the Respondent. None of these references were nominated supervisors of Employer 3.
5. During cross-examination, the content of the facts sheet for the 2024 offence was put to the Applicant, in which it states that he had not told police about his new job with Employer 2 as he did not know he had to as it was not full-time. The Applicant stated that he "got scared" and had effectively lied to the police. The Applicant maintained that he was working with Employer 2 but assigned to Employer 3 on a full-time basis.
6. However, included in the material filed by the Applicant after the hearing were signed casual employment agreements between the Applicant and Employer 2 from September 2022 and January 2024. These documents state that the Applicant was a "Casual Assignment" with Employer 2.

1. The Applicant requested that the Tribunal not judge him on his past and that he was "still a kid at that time". The Applicant submits that he is now a father with children and his own business, and is looking toward his future. The Applicant submits that he is committed to his contribution to the electrical industry as a licensed professional.
2. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's original offending behaviour is inherently serious, and the Applicant's two subsequent offences of failing to comply with conditions compound the concerns about the Applicant, noting the regulatory scheme under the HB Act. The Respondent submits that the Applicant does not have the required insight into his own previous offending. The Respondent also submits that it is open to the Tribunal to find that the Applicant provided incomplete and/or false information to the Respondent and the Tribunal in respect of his purported experience and criminal history.

1. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not show candour in terms of his evidence during the hearing and the evidence he gave to the Respondent in his application for a licence in relation to the 2017 offence.
2. During the hearing, the Applicant stated that the victim was 14 years of age, and it involved one conversation on Snapchat. However, according to the evidence filed by the Applicant after the hearing, the victim was 12 years of age, and the conversations involved the exchange of explicit naked photos and sexual messages for a period of two months.
3. Further, in his application for a licence, the Applicant referred to his ex-partner's sister as seeking revenge on him and tricking him into a sexual conversation over the phone. However, the victim was the child of his ex-partner, and the Applicant requested sexually explicit images from the child and sent sexually explicit images to the child, and engaged in this conduct for two months.
4. The Applicant therefore gave the Tribunal and the Respondent an inaccurate account of the 2017 offence. Further, the Applicant did not provide the Tribunal with the "full facts" of the 2017 offence and did not explain why he could not file the Police Facts Sheet or any other police records.
5. Despite the passage of over eight years, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant is still minimising his offending conduct, blaming another person for the offence, showing no regard for the victim and making himself out to be the victim. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not developed insight into his conduct in respect of the 2017 offence.

1. The 2023 and 2024 offences are similar in nature, both involving the Applicant's failure to comply with his reporting obligations under the CPOR Act.
2. The objects of the CPOR Act, set out in s 2A, are to protect children from serious harm, ensure the early detection of offences of recidivist child sex offenders, monitor persons who are registrable persons and to ensure that registrable persons comply with the CPOR Act. The proper reporting of information by registrable persons is vital to the management of the Child Protection Register and to assist police to achieve the objects of the CPOR Act.
3. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant was aware of his reporting obligations under the CPOR Act, but was not forthcoming with providing relevant information to Police, even when specifically requested to do so (i.e. the start date for his new job in 2023).
4. The Tribunal found that the Applicant minimised his offending conduct during the evidence he gave about these offences. While not of the same seriousness as the 2017 offence, these are still serious offences.
5. The HB Act is a regulatory scheme where licence holders are required to comply with the ongoing legal obligations. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has the high level of honesty and trust that are required for public confidence in the industry.

1. It is evident that the Respondent has had difficulties in obtaining relevant and accurate information from the Applicant about his criminal history and proof of employment which is required to process his application for a licence. This is relevant to the Tribunal's assessment of whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person, in terms of whether he has appropriate candour in his dealings with the Respondent as the regulator. As stated by the Tribunal in Dinh, candour with the regulator is required from the licence holder to maintain public confidence in the industry.
2. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated candour, because he has not been forthcoming with information to the Respondent (and also the Tribunal) that is relevant to the assessment of whether he is a fit and proper person. The Applicant has also been inconsistent and contradictory with the information he has provided to the Respondent and the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's claims that he did not know what information was required of him, given the clarity of the instructions and guidance provided by the Respondent during the application process. This was the same reason he provided to police in relation to his reporting obligation as a registrable person which were not accepted by the police.
3. While not determining Issue 2 at this point, it is clear to the Tribunal that the Applicant's evidence about his work experience has been inconsistent and not in accordance with the requirements of the HB Act or the Respondent's requests.
4. While the Applicant may not want to be "judged" unfavourably for his "mistake", applicants (and licence holders) withholding information or providing inconsistent information prevents the Respondent from achieving the objects of the HB Act, to regulate the building industry and the necessary qualifications and experience of builders and tradespersons licenced to perform work under the Act.

1. Given the Tribunal's findings as set out above in relation to the Applicant's lack of insight and minimisation of his offending conduct, and overall lack of candour, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

1. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, it follows that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.
2. As the Applicant must be refused a licence if he is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence, it is therefore unnecessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the Applicant has experience in electrical wiring work as required by the HB Act.
3. Given that the Applicant is a registrable person under the CPOR Act, the Tribunal considers it desirable, due to the confidential nature of this situation and the prohibition on disclosure of information concerning registrable persons set out in s 21E of the CPOR Act, to make an order prohibiting the disclosure of the Applicant's name.

(1) The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the disclosure of the name of the Applicant is prohibited.

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.