The regulation organises around a small set of interacting concepts: undertakings and security (Part 2 of the Act as applied by the regulation), counselling orders, departmental protocols for welfare in public places (Part 3 of the Act as applied by the regulation), and police recordkeeping. Each concept defines decision-making powers, required procedural steps, and information flows that the court, police and departments must follow.

Undertakings and security

• The regulation treats security given under the Act, Part 2 as property subject to refund or forfeiture (ss 5-6). Forfeiture is constrained by procedural safeguards: the parent must either be present and have an opportunity to be heard, or be given a notice to show cause personally or by post and an opportunity to show cause (s 5). At the end of the undertaking, security must be refunded unless the court, from information available to it at the end of the period, forms the view that the person failed to comply (s 6). The standard or content of the "information available" and how the court evaluates it are matters the regulation leaves to judicial assessment (s 4 and s 6).

Counselling

• The regulation sets preconditions for a court to require counselling under the Act, Part 2 (s 7). The court must identify a counsellor or body able and consenting to provide counselling (s 7(1)(a)-(b)), determine whether fees apply and the person’s financial capacity or eligibility for government assistance (s 7(1)(c)), and must not require counselling if it would cause undue financial hardship (s 7(2)). These rules structure the way courts appoint external providers and how cost burdens are assessed.

Departmental protocols and conformity

• The Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice may enter protocols relating to functions in Part 3 of the Act (s 8(1)). Protocols are subject to the Act and the regulation and can be amended or revoked (s 8(2)). Police and other authorised persons must exercise Part 3 functions in conformity with protocols "as far as practicable" (s 8(3)). The regulation clarifies that failure to comply with a protocol does not, by itself, invalidate acts or omissions (s 8(4)).

Police recordkeeping

• When removing or escorting persons under Part 3 of the Act, police officers must make specified records with particular particulars. The regulation lists the items that must be recorded when removing a person (s 9(1)) and when escorting a person under s 22 of the Act (s 9(2)-(3)). The regulation defines "relevant information" for these records (s 9(4)). The recordkeeping concept connects to evidence and administrative oversight because these records constitute documented events that courts and departments may rely on; the regulation does not state evidence rules but requires the creation of standardised particulars.

Statutory relationships and saving

• The regulation explicitly ties itself to the Act and to the Interpretation Act (s 3 note), repeals its 2019 predecessor (s 10(1)) and saves pre-existing acts, matters and things (s 10(2)). Sections of the regulation frequently refer to Part numbers and sections of the Act, signalling that the regulation operationalises procedures within the Act’s substantive framework.

Across these concepts the regulation emphasises procedural formality (notice and opportunity to be heard for forfeiture), administrative coordination (protocols), and record creation (police records and the court’s use of information). The regulation leaves significant evaluative judgments,what constitutes reliable information, what is undue financial hardship, what counts as "as far as practicable" conformity,to the relevant decisionmakers, namely courts, police, the Commissioner and the Department Secretary.

The regulation affects a compact list of actors by name and function. The primary groups and how they are implicated follow directly from the text.

Courts and judicial officers

• Courts are central decisionmakers. The regulation authorises courts to use information they consider reliable when determining whether a parent or child must attend court for failing to comply with an undertaking (s 4). Courts decide whether to forfeit security (s 5), whether to refund security at the end of an undertaking (s 6), and whether to require counselling under the Act, Part 2 after performing the procedural steps in s 7. Courts thus bear procedural duties and evaluative discretion.

Parents and children subject to undertakings

• Parents who give security under the Act, Part 2 are directly affected by the regulation’s rules on forfeiture and refund (ss 5-6). Parents and children who are required to attend court for non-compliance may have their attendance determined by courts relying on "information available to the court" (s 4). If counselling is ordered under the Act, Part 2, the person required to undergo counselling is covered by s 7’s preconditions and protections.

Persons who give security

• The regulation treats persons who give security (the text refers to "a person who gives security under the Act, Part 2") as having a right to refund at the end of the undertaking unless the court finds non-compliance from its information (s 6). Parents are the most obvious category but the text does not limit "person" to parents alone in s 6.

Police officers and the Commissioner of Police

• Police officers who remove or escort persons from public places under Part 3 of the Act have statutory recordkeeping obligations (s 9). The Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice may enter protocols concerning the exercise of Part 3 functions, and police officers must conform to those protocols as far as practicable (s 8).

Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice

• The Secretary may enter protocols with the Commissioner and is an addressee of obligations relating to placement of an escorted person in the Secretary’s care (s 9(2)(e)). The Secretary’s office is implicated in administration and coordination of Part 3 functions via protocols (s 8).

Counsellors and counselling bodies

• The regulation requires courts to identify a counsellor or body and to ascertain the counsellor’s or body’s ability and consent to provide counselling before ordering it (s 7(1)(a)-(b)). Counsellors or bodies are thereby subject to a nomination process and must be in a position to consent and supply relevant information on fees.

Approved persons, carers, close relatives

• When a person is escorted, police must record the identity and contact details of the parent, carer, close relative, an approved person, or the person in whose care the escorted person is left, depending on the disposal (s 9(2)(a)-(f)). These relatives and carers will be engaged by police and can find themselves recorded as the receiving party for an escorted child.

Administrative staff and records managers

• Police and departmental administrative staff who create, manage and retain the records required by s 9 are affected operationally. Their work produces the "information available" that courts may consider (s 4).

Other parties indirectly affected

• Entities that provide government assistance for counselling fees are indirectly implicated because the court must ascertain whether the person is eligible for government assistance before imposing counselling (s 7(1)(c)(ii)). Similarly, persons or bodies named as "approved persons" under the Act are indirectly affected because police must record their details if an escorted person is left in their care (s 9(2)(f)).

The regulation therefore maps to a limited universe: courts exercising powers under the Act, parents and persons giving security or subject to undertakings, police and the Department working under Part 3 functions, and counsellors or bodies who may be appointed by courts. The legislative text places procedural duties on these actors, allocates decision-making discretion primarily to courts and designated officials, and sets recordkeeping and notice steps to protect opportunities to be heard and to provide transparency about the handling of escorted or removed persons.

This section identifies the principal statutory duties the regulation imposes and the principal rights it secures, each grounded to specific provisions.

Duties on courts

• Use of information: courts may use information they consider reliable in deciding whether a parent or child must attend before the court for failing to comply with an undertaking (s 4). This is a permissive power rather than a duty, but it structures courts’ evidence practices.
• Forfeiture: a court must not forfeit part of security given under the Act, s 9 unless either the parent is present and has an opportunity to be heard, or a notice to show cause was given personally or by post and the parent had an opportunity to show cause (s 5). This imposes a procedural duty to ensure presence or adequate notice prior to forfeiture.
• Refund: a court must effect a refund of security at the end of the undertaking period unless it appears to the court from information available at the end of the period that the person failed to comply with the undertaking (s 6). The duty is to refund unless the court has information indicating noncompliance.
• Counselling prerequisites: before requiring counselling under Part 2 of the Act, the court must identify an appropriate counsellor/body, ascertain ability and consent to provide counselling, and determine whether fees apply and the person’s capacity to pay or eligibility for government assistance (s 7(1)). The court must also not require counselling if it would cause undue financial hardship (s 7(2)). These are mandatory procedural steps the court must take.

Duties on police and departmental officers

• Protocols: the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice may enter into protocols (s 8(1)). Police and other persons on whom Part 3 functions are conferred must, as far as practicable, exercise those functions in conformity with the protocol (s 8(3)). This imposes a duty of conformity subject to practicability.
• Recordkeeping: a police officer who removes a person from a public place under Part 3, Division 2 must make a record of specified particulars (s 9(1)). A police officer who escorts a person under s 22 of the Act must make records of specified particulars about the person left in whose care, and if not left with the listed parties must record the reason (s 9(2)-(3)). The regulation defines "relevant information" for these records (s 9(4)). These are mandatory recordkeeping duties.

Rights and protections for persons

• Right to be heard before forfeiture: parents are protected from forfeiture of part of security unless present and afforded an opportunity to be heard, or personally or postally given notice to show cause and an opportunity to show cause (s 5). This is an explicit procedural protection.
• Right to refund: a person who gives security must be refunded at the end of the undertaking period unless the court, from information available, finds noncompliance (s 6). The presumption is refund, subject to informational evidence to the contrary.
• Protections against financial hardship for counselling: courts must not require counselling where, in the court’s opinion, the person would suffer undue financial hardship as a result (s 7(2)). Before ordering counselling the court must determine whether fees are payable and whether the person can pay or is eligible for government assistance (s 7(1)(c)). These are affirmative protections shielding persons from financially burdensome orders.

Discretion and limits

• The regulation delegates evaluative judgments to decisionmakers. Courts decide what constitutes "information available" and whether it is "reliable" (s 4, s 6). The court decides what amounts to "undue financial hardship" in relation to counselling (s 7(2)). The Commissioner and the Secretary may enter, amend or revoke protocols (s 8(2)), while police must conform "as far as practicable" (s 8(3)). These formulations import standards that are fact-specific and leave margins of discretion.

Obligations on counselling providers

• While the regulation does not impose duties on counsellors beyond consenting to nomination, it requires courts to ascertain whether a nominated counsellor or body is able to provide counselling and consents to being nominated (s 7(1)(b)). This requires interaction between courts and providers and an availability/consent check before a direction is made.

Administrative continuity

• The regulation preserves acts, matters and things in progress under the prior regulation (s 10(2)), which places a duty on administrative officers to treat pre-existing matters as continuing under the new regulation.

Overall, the regulation structures procedural safeguards (notice, opportunity to be heard, financial hardship assessments), imposes recordkeeping duties on police, and grants courts discretion to evaluate compliance using available information. The obligations are procedural rather than substantive, and the rights correspond to process and financial protections for affected persons.

The regulation itself is light on new penalties. It mainly provides for enforcement mechanisms that fit within the Act’s existing enforcement architecture; those mechanisms are procedural rather than introducing new fines or criminal offences.

Forfeiture of security

• The clearest enforcement mechanism in the regulation is forfeiture of security given under the Act, s 9. Section 5 regulates when a court may forfeit part of that security. The regulation does not specify a penalty scale, quantum, or criminal classification in itself. It prescribes preconditions for forfeiture: the parent must be present and have an opportunity to be heard, or must have been served a notice to show cause personally or by post and had an opportunity to show cause (s 5). This turns forfeiture into a remedial enforcement device controlled by procedural safeguards. The regulation does not provide for automatic forfeiture without notice or hearing.

Court use of information and compliance orders

• The regulation allows courts to use information they consider reliable to determine whether a parent or child must attend before the court for failing to comply with an undertaking under the Act, Part 2 (s 4). That provision is an evidence-related enforcement tool: it permits courts to treat available information as the basis for ordering attendance or other enforcement steps under the Act. The regulation does not define reliability; courts must exercise evaluative judgment.

Refund control as enforcement lever

• Refund of security (s 6) operates as a practical enforcement lever. Security must be refunded at the end of the period unless the court forms the view from information available that the person failed to comply. In practice this means the court can withhold refund where it judges non-compliance has occurred, subject to the same informational assessment used for other enforcement actions.

No direct criminal penalties in the regulation

• The regulation does not prescribe criminal penalties, fines, imprisonment or civil liability regimes by itself. Any such penalties would derive from the Act or other legislation, not from this regulation. The regulation focuses on process,how information is used, how notices and hearings must be conducted, counselling preconditions and recordkeeping,rather than expanding punitive options.

Administrative conformity and non-invalidity rule

• Protocols entered into by the Commissioner and the Secretary are binding as guidance insofar as officers must conform to them "as far as practicable" (s 8(3)). Importantly, failure to comply with a protocol does not invalidate an act or omission done by the officer (s 8(4)). That clause limits remedial exposure for officers and departments; procedural non-compliance with an internal protocol does not itself create a statutory ground to invalidate police actions.

Recordkeeping as an enforcement and oversight input

• Police are required to create detailed records when removing or escorting persons (s 9). Those records create a trail that enforcement actors, oversight bodies or courts will be able to access. The regulation does not specify retention periods, disclosure obligations, or admissibility rules; it merely prescribes the particulars that must be recorded. The practical effect is to supply material that courts may later treat as "information available" under s 4 or s 6.

Procedural constraints on enforcement actions

• The regulation imposes procedural constraints that limit enforcement action without process: personal or posted notice to show cause before forfeiture (s 5), opportunity to show cause (s 5), and a court’s duty to avoid imposing counselling that would cause undue financial hardship (s 7(2)). These rules act as formal barriers to immediate or summary enforcement without process.

In short, enforcement under the regulation is exercised through court discretion, retention/forfeiture of security, and the use of available information as a basis for compliance orders. The regulation does not itself expand criminal penalties but prescribes process controls and recordkeeping that shape how enforcement proceeds in practice. The non-invalidity clause for protocol non-compliance constrains remedies against officers for procedural protocol failures.

The regulation explicitly situates itself within the framework of the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 (the Act) and the Interpretation Act 1987. The regulation’s operation is therefore inherently derivative of the Act’s substantive powers, definitions and offences.

Direct statutory linkage

• The regulation defines "the Act" to mean the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 (s 3). Throughout the regulation, powers, duties and processes are expressed as adjuncts to specific Parts or sections of the Act, for example "undertaking under the Act, Part 2" (s 4, s 6), counselling "under the Act, Part 2" (s 7), and functions conferred "under the Act, Part 3" (s 8). Consequently the regulation does not displace or override the Act; it prescribes procedural detail for implementing Act powers.

Interpretation Act and definitions

• The regulation’s s 3 note records that the Act and the Interpretation Act 1987 contain definitions and other provisions that affect interpretation and application of the regulation (s 3 note). That means general interpretation rules (for example, about time, service, or construction) in the Interpretation Act will apply when construing this regulation and the procedural obligations it imposes.

Subordinate legislation relationships and saving

• The regulation repeals the 2019 regulation (s 10(1)) and saves acts, matters and things that had effect immediately before repeal (s 10(2)). The s 2 note refers to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989, s 10(2) as the statutory mechanism that would otherwise have repealed the 2019 regulation. The saving provision ensures continuity so that pre-existing instruments, decisions, or arrangements made under the old regulation continue under the new regulation unless otherwise superseded.

Interaction with court and evidence rules

• The regulation allows a court to use information it considers reliable (s 4) to determine whether a parent or child must attend due to non-compliance with an undertaking. The regulation does not displace the Act’s or general court rules regarding admissibility or evidence. Therefore, the practical interplay will be that courts assess reliability in the context of whatever evidentiary rules apply under the Act and court rules. The regulation does not itself set evidentiary thresholds or admissibility processes.

Protocol interaction with departmental and police powers

• s 8 permits the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice to enter protocols regarding exercise of Part 3 functions. Protocols are expressly subject to the Act and the regulation (s 8(2)(a)), so protocols must conform to statutory limits. The clause that failure to comply with a protocol does not invalidate an act or omission (s 8(4)) restricts the potential interplay between internal administrative protocols and statutory invalidity doctrines: courts or tribunals cannot simply void actions on the basis of protocol breaches alone; the statutory validity of actions is governed by the Act and this regulation.

Administrative assistance and government support for counselling

• The court must assess whether a person is eligible for government assistance in paying counselling fees (s 7(1)(c)(ii)). That creates an operational interface with any separate legislation or administrative schemes that provide government assistance for counselling. The regulation does not itself create the assistance scheme; it requires courts to make an assessment against whatever assistance frameworks exist.

No express cross-references to privacy, retention or FOI laws

• The regulation requires police to make records with personal particulars (s 9). The regulation does not cross-reference privacy laws, records retention schedules, or freedom of information statutes. Interactions with privacy legislation, records retention obligations or FOI processes will arise in practice but are not specified in the regulation, so those interactions are governed by the separate applicable statutes and administrative policies.

Limits on non-statutory protocol remedies

• Because s 8(4) states that failure to comply with a protocol does not invalidate an act or omission, the regulation limits remedies based solely on non-compliance with protocols. Any challenge to an action must show non-conformity with the Act or regulation, or other statutory grounds, not merely protocol non-compliance.

In sum, the regulation is an implementing instrument that augments the Act and operates in conjunction with the Interpretation Act and the prior subordinate legislation regime. It leaves substantive obligations, admissibility, and other cross-cutting legal frameworks (privacy, FOI, evidence rules) to their respective statutes and rules while prescribing specific procedural and administrative steps that must be observed when exercising the Act’s powers.

The regulation’s own text records a concise amendment and replacement history, limited to the repeal of its predecessor and an accompanying saving provision.

• Repeal of 2019 regulation: Section 10(1) expressly repeals the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Regulation 2019. This is the core mechanical amendment the 2024 regulation effects; it replaces the 2019 regulatory instrument with the 2024 instrument.

• Saving of existing acts, matters and things: Section 10(2) provides that an act, matter or thing that immediately before repeal had effect under the 2019 regulation continues to have effect under the 2024 regulation. This is an explicit continuity clause, ensuring that decisions, arrangements, or instruments made under the 2019 regulation are not extinguished by the repeal.

• Commencement timing and legislative context: Section 2 provides that the regulation commences on the day it is published on the NSW legislation website. The s 2 note states that the 2019 regulation would otherwise have been repealed on 1 September 2024 by operation of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989, s 10(2). The new regulation’s timing may therefore be understood in the context of the Subordinate Legislation Act’s roll-over provisions, but the regulation itself simply says it commences on publication.

• No other amendments contained in the text: The regulation does not list incremental amendments, transitional provisions beyond the saving clause, or ministerial instruments apart from allowing protocols to be entered or amended under s 8(2). The only formal amendment action it records is that replacement of the 2019 regulation and the saving of pre-existing effects.

What the amendment history implies operationally

• The saving clause (s 10(2)) requires administrators to treat pre-existing actions and arrangements effected under the 2019 regulation as continuing under the 2024 regulation. That avoids legal lacunae where ongoing undertakings, recorded disposals, or security instruments could otherwise fall between instruments.

• The regulation’s structure indicates it is intended as a one-step replacement rather than a series of incremental amendments. The Commissioner of Police and the Secretary retain the ability to amend, revoke or replace departmental protocols under s 8(2), but those are administrative instruments rather than statutory amendments.

This is the full amendment history recorded within the regulation text. The instrument does not provide a longer historical narrative, enumerated changes to individual clauses from the 2019 regulation, or a schedule comparing old and new wording. The replacement together with the saving provision is the primary historical content included.

The regulation text does not cite or record any judicial decisions, cases, or litigation outcomes. It contains no statutory notes summarising case law or judicial interpretation. Therefore there is no litigation history contained in the instrument itself to summarise.

Potential litigation themes that the regulation’s provisions could generate, as discernible from the text

• Reliability and admissibility of information used by courts: Section 4 permits a court to use "information available to the court that the court considers reliable" to determine whether a parent or child must attend for failing to comply with an undertaking. While the regulation does not specify evidentiary rules, that permissive formulation may give rise to disputes about what qualifies as information available to the court, how reliability is determined and whether reliance on particular information satisfies procedural fairness. Challenges could conceivably engage administrative law and evidence law principles, though the regulation itself does not set evidentiary standards.

• Procedural fairness in forfeiture: Section 5 requires either personal presence with an opportunity to be heard or personal or posted notice to show cause before forfeiting part of security. Litigation could arise over whether a parent was given adequate notice, whether service by post met the statutory requirement, and what constitutes an "opportunity to be heard." Disputes could concern sufficiency of service, postal delays, or the adequacy of the hearing opportunity.

• Counselling orders and financial hardship: Section 7 makes courts assess fees and financial capacity and prohibits counselling where it would cause undue financial hardship. Litigation may arise where a person alleges the court failed to properly assess financial capacity or misapplied the "undue financial hardship" standard, or where a provider challenges nomination processes. The regulation leaves assessments to the court, so these would be fact-based disputes.

• Protocol conformity and legal effects: Section 8(3) requires officers to exercise functions in conformity with protocols "as far as practicable" yet s 8(4) states that failure to comply with a protocol does not invalidate an act or omission. Litigation could surface where claimants seek remedies for protocol non-compliance; claimants would need to establish statutory illegality or other legal grounds rather than relying on mere protocol breach because of s 8(4).

• Record completeness and consequences: Section 9 imposes required particulars that police must record when removing or escorting persons. Disputes could arise where records are incomplete or contested, particularly in proceedings under the Act where those records are relied upon as "information available" by the court. Litigation could centre on the weight to be given to incomplete records or whether failure to make a required record affects the validity of subsequent actions under the Act.

• Transition questions under the saving provision: Section 10(2) saves continuing acts, matters or things from the 2019 regulation. Litigation could arise if parties argue that a particular administrative act under the 2019 regulation was not properly saved or that the saving provision did not preserve a specific procedural step taken under the old regulation.

Because the regulation is new and narrowly procedural, any litigation will likely focus on procedural compliance, evidentiary sufficiency, and the exercise of discretion rather than on new substantive liabilities. The regulation itself records no cases; the foregoing themes are prospective and derive from the text rather than from an existing litigation record in the instrument.

The regulation contains several provisions where administrative practice or a failure to follow prescribed procedural steps could produce unintended consequences. These items are matters of statutory design, not policy judgments.

"Information available" and reliability are undefined (s 4, s 6)

• The regulation permits courts to act on "information available to the court that the court considers reliable" when determining attendance for failure to comply with undertakings (s 4) and when deciding refund of security at the end of the undertaking (s 6). The regulation does not define the phrase "information available" or the standard for "reliable." That leaves considerable scope for differing judicial approaches and uncertainty for parties about what documentary material or hearsay may be decisive. Parties should not assume that only formal evidence will be used; courts have express latitude to rely on available information.

Forfeiture procedural traps: service and opportunity to be heard (s 5)

• A court "must not" forfeit part of security unless the parent is before the court and has an opportunity to be heard, or a notice to show cause is given personally or by post and the parent has had an opportunity to show cause (s 5). The statutory avenue for forfeiture permits postal service as an alternative to personal service, but it conditions forfeiture on the parent having "had an opportunity to show cause." Postal service may be unreliable in practice; administrators and litigants should ensure personal service or evidence of actual receipt to avoid challenges. The regulation does not specify minimum notice periods or contents for a show cause notice.

Refund presumption with information caveat (s 6)

• Refund is the default at the end of the undertaking period, but the court can refuse refund if it appears from information available that the person failed to comply (s 6). The flip side is that absence of information or incomplete records may lead to refund even where non-compliance occurred, or conversely incomplete records may be treated as adverse information. Parties providing security should preserve evidence of compliance, and courts should be mindful of the evidential basis for withholding refunds.

Counselling nomination and fee assessment complexities (s 7)

• Before ordering counselling, courts must identify a counsellor/body, ascertain the provider’s capacity and consent, and determine whether fees apply and whether the person can pay or is eligible for government assistance (s 7(1)). Courts must not require counselling if it would cause undue financial hardship (s 7(2)). A practical "gotcha" is that courts must engage with external providers and with fee/assistance arrangements before ordering counselling. If a court fails to make these enquiries, an order might be vulnerable to challenge for non-compliance with s 7. Likewise, the concept of "undue financial hardship" is subjective; parties should be prepared to provide clear financial evidence.

Protocol conformity but non-invalidity (s 8(3)-(4))

• Police and other persons must conform to departmental protocols "as far as practicable" (s 8(3)), yet s 8(4) provides that failure to comply with a protocol does not invalidate an act or omission. This creates a tension: protocols carry operational force but carry limited direct legal remedy if breached. Parties seeking to challenge police action cannot rely solely on protocol breach to invalidate an action; they will need to show statutory invalidity under the Act or regulation or other legal grounds.

Police record completeness obligations and gaps (s 9)

• Police must make detailed records when removing or escorting persons, including names, ages, wishes expressed, addresses, reasons for removal, and particulars of carers or approved persons (s 9(1)-(2)). Failing to capture these particulars could undermine the administrative record that courts may rely on under s 4 and s 6. Police and departmental staff should ensure complete entries; litigants should preserve contemporaneous records to avoid disputes over what "information was available."

Lack of retention or disclosure rules

• The regulation requires record creation but does not specify retention periods, disclosure obligations, or privacy safeguards. Records containing personal information will therefore intersect with other regimes (privacy, FOI) but the regulation does not supply guidance. Practitioners should consult local policies on records management when dealing with these records.

Ambiguity over who qualifies as "person" giving security (s 6)

• Section 6 refers broadly to "A person who gives security under the Act, Part 2" without explicit limitation to parents. That leaves some uncertainty about third-party security providers, guarantors or others who might provide security. Administrators should clarify on a case-by-case basis who gave security and the conditions attaching to it.

Practical enforcement uncertainty

• Because many key standards are left to discretionary assessment (reliability, undue financial hardship, practicability), parties face uncertainty about outcomes. Administrative actors must document their reasoning and factual bases to withstand scrutiny where an order affects rights or property.

These "gotchas" arise directly from the text. They point to operational risks: uncertain evidentiary thresholds, the need for careful service and recordkeeping, the requirement to engage with counselling providers and assistance schemes before making orders, and the limited remedial impact of protocol breaches.

Below are concrete, source-grounded steps for courts, police, departmental officers, parents or persons who give security, and counselling providers to ensure compliance with the regulation’s requirements. Each step is tied to the relevant section.

For courts and judicial officers

• Using information for enforcement (s 4 and s 6): If relying on "information available" to determine attendance or to withhold refund of security, record what information is available, how it was obtained, and the basis for treating it as reliable. Document the assessment of reliability and ensure an opportunity is afforded to the person affected to respond, particularly where the information forms the basis for withholding property (security).
• Forfeiture procedures (s 5): Before ordering forfeiture of part of security under the Act, ensure either that the parent is physically present before the court with an opportunity to be heard, or serve a notice to show cause personally or by post and provide a meaningful opportunity to show cause. Record service method, date and any responses. Prefer personal service where practicable to avoid disputes about postal delivery.
• Refund administration (s 6): At the end of an undertaking period, effect refund of security unless information available to the court establishes non-compliance. If withholding refund, prepare written reasons showing the information relied on and how it indicates non-compliance.
• Counselling orders (s 7): Before making a counselling direction, identify an appropriate counsellor/body and obtain confirmation that the counsellor/body can provide the counselling and consents to nomination (s 7(1)(a)-(b)). Ascertain whether a fee is payable and inquire into the person’s financial capacity to pay or eligibility for government assistance (s 7(1)(c)). If the person would suffer undue financial hardship as a result of counselling, do not order counselling (s 7(2)). Document the enquiries and the decision on financial capacity or assistance.

For police officers and police administrators

• Protocols (s 8): Follow any protocol entered into by the Commissioner and the Secretary "as far as practicable" when exercising functions under Part 3. Maintain records of decisions where conformity to protocol was not practicable and the reasons why to support later review.
• Removal and escort records (s 9): When you remove a person from a public place under Part 3, Division 2, make a record containing the specified particulars: name and age if known, any wishes or feelings expressed about the place to which the person is to be escorted, the address of the public place, the reason for removal, and names of other police officers involved when relevant (s 9(1)). When escorting under s 22, record the appropriate receiving party’s "relevant information" (name, telephone number, and address as defined at s 9(4)) depending on whether the person is left with a parent, carer, close relative, approved person or placed in the Secretary’s care (s 9(2)). If none of the applicable dispositions were used, record the reason why (s 9(3)). Keep records contemporaneous and complete.
• File management: Ensure records are stored according to police records management policies and are retrievable for court processes, since courts may use those records as "information available" (s 4).

For parents and persons who give security

• Security refunds and forfeiture (ss 5-6): Keep copies of any documentation demonstrating compliance with undertakings. If you gave security, expect a refund at the end of the undertaking unless the court has information that you failed to comply. If a notice to show cause is received, respond promptly and attend any hearing to avoid forfeiture, and preserve evidence of postal receipt or personal service where relevant.
• Counselling orders (s 7): If a court signals intention to order counselling, prepare to provide evidence of financial circumstances, and enquire about government assistance availability. If counselling would cause undue financial hardship, present that evidence to the court to prevent an order being made.

For counselling providers and counselling bodies

• Consent and capacity (s 7(1)(a)-(b)): Be prepared to respond to court inquiries about ability to provide counselling and to confirm consent to nomination. Provide clear information on fees, availability, and whether you accept court-nominated referrals.
• Fee disclosures: Provide courts with fee structures and any government assistance arrangements you participate in, so courts can properly determine whether the person has the financial capacity to pay or is eligible for assistance (s 7(1)(c)(i)-(ii)).

For the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice

• Protocol drafting and amendment (s 8(1)-(2)): Draft protocols that are consistent with the Act and the regulation (s 8(2)(a)). If amending or revoking protocols, document the change and communicate it to operational staff. Ensure protocols are practical and include guidance on what constitutes "practicable" conformity.
• Training and operational guidance: Provide police and other authorised persons with training and operational guidelines to ensure protocol conformity and comprehensive recordkeeping under s 9. Emphasise the requirement to record specific particulars and the need to document reasons where conformity with protocol is not practicable.

Recordkeeping and evidentiary preparation

• Make records complete and contemporaneous: Both police and courts should ensure records are sufficiently detailed to show compliance with the regulation’s procedural steps. For example, courts should record steps taken before imposing counselling orders and the analysis of financial capacity; police should capture the particulars specified in s 9.
• Preserve evidence of service and notices: When issuing a notice to show cause for forfeiture, preserve proof of personal service or postal service and any response or lack of response by the parent. These records will be important to demonstrate compliance with s 5.

Practical recommendations

• Prefer personal service for show-cause notices where possible to avoid contested postal-service issues under s 5. If postal service is used, obtain evidence of posting and, where practicable, tracking evidence or acknowledgement of receipt.
• Before making orders that affect property (forfeiture of security) or place financial burdens (counselling fees), document the factual basis for the decision, the information relied upon and give affected persons a formal opportunity to respond.
• Police should develop standardised templates for the s 9 records to ensure consistent capture of the particulars listed and facilitate transfer of those records to courts or departments when required.

These compliance steps are drawn directly from the regulation’s text; they operationalise the statutory duties and protect the procedural rights the regulation enshrines.