Child safeguarding failures in Queensland: Key findings and reform directions from the 2025 systemic review

Before continuing to read this piece, readers should be aware that the content of this article may prove distressing, and should consider their own circumstances prior to continuing to engage. A list of support services has been provided at the conclusion of the article

 

The Review into System Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2025) has revealed serious and systemic failures in Queensland’s child safeguarding frameworks, exposing persistent gaps that allowed serial offender Ashley Paul Griffith to operate undetected for decades.

 

Led by the Queensland Child Death Review Board (CDRB), the review examined multi-agency responses to concerns about Griffith, identifying a widespread lack of coordination, accountability, and action.

 

The structure of the Review into System Responses to Child Sexual Abuse reflects the scope of the inquiry, to understand the nature of child sexual abuse, identify contemporary best practice, and develop actionable recommendations to better protect children.

 

The review drew on diverse methodologies including document analysis, stakeholder interviews, targeted submissions, case file reviews, and expert consultation. Care was taken to ensure that the report did not interfere with any outstanding court matters and that the voices of those directly impacted were acknowledged and respected throughout the process.

 

The report is structured in seven parts:

 

• Part A examines the broader context of child sexual abuse in Australia and Queensland, including shifts in social conditions, prior inquiries, and the functioning of key safeguarding systems such as the Blue Card Scheme, Queensland Police, and early childhood education and care.
• Part B provides a chronological account of the Griffith matter, exploring missed opportunities from the perspectives of the offender, the organisations involved, and the victim-survivors and their families.
• Part C focuses on early detection, how abuse, grooming and risk behaviours can be identified across institutions, and the role of integrated intelligence in recognising threats.
• Part D analyses how systems respond to reports, complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse, and highlights barriers to effective investigations and safeguarding outcomes.
• Part E centres the voices and experiences of victim-survivors, offering evidence-based guidance on recovery, support, and trauma-informed service delivery.
• Part F addresses prevention, including educational initiatives for children, families and professionals, and a whole-of-system approach to preventing both victimisation and perpetration.
• Part G defines the future of safeguarding systems, proposing a layered and integrated model for the early childhood education and care sector, policing, and the blue card system in Queensland.

 

The Queensland Child Death Review Board found that child protection efforts were undermined by siloed information, unclear responsibilities, and a failure to act on credible reports. Seven key themes emerged:

 

1. Missed Early Detection

 

Opportunities to detect and disrupt Griffith’s behaviour were missed. While multiple agencies recorded concerns, these were never consolidated into a broader safeguarding picture. Information remained siloed, and warning signs were not connected.

 

2. Ignored Reports from Adults and Children

 

Children, parents and staff repeatedly raised legitimate concerns. However, no coordinated response followed. Ultimately, the offender was only apprehended after uploading digital images, exposing the system’s failure to respond meaningfully to earlier warnings.

 

3. Over-reliance on Criminal Justice

 

The current system focuses heavily on detecting crimes, rather than recognising and responding to emerging safety risks. This model delays intervention and leaves children unprotected.

 

4. Limitations of the Blue Card System

 

Although operating within its legal framework, the Working with Children Check (blue card) did not alert organisations to risk patterns and failed to prevent harm. The gap between public expectations and legal limitations has led to misplaced trust in the system.

 

5. Organisational Inaction

 

Some organisations acted in isolation—removing the perpetrator but failing to record, report or escalate concerns. This response allowed further offending and delivered no systemic protection for other children.

 

6. Fragmented Legislative and Policy Frameworks

 

There is no single accountable authority for child safeguarding in Queensland or nationally. The over-reliance on both the criminal justice and child welfare systems has created a significant gap in coordinated responses.

 

7. Lack of Clear Reporting Pathways

 

Public submissions highlighted a vacuum in reporting avenues, particularly where police or the Department of Child Safety were not involved. Without a mechanism for early intervention, families and organisations are left unsupported and children remain at risk.

 

The review confirmed that the offending could and should have been detected and disrupted earlier. Despite the existence of sufficient concerns across multiple agencies and organisations, these were never treated as part of a broader safeguarding response.

 

The reality is stark:

 

• Parents, children and staff raised legitimate concerns that were not resolved.
• The criminal justice system’s thresholds for action often meant that victim-survivors had no recourse when police chose not to proceed.
• Police resourcing limitations and procedural constraints inhibited early action, exposing children to further risk.
• The blue card system functioned legally but failed to deliver meaningful protection, exposing a disconnect between community expectations and legal scope.
• Organisational responses often led to the perpetrator being ‘moved on’ rather than subject to system-wide safeguarding measures.
• Fragmentation across legal and policy frameworks, coupled with the absence of a dedicated safeguarding authority, left serious risks unaddressed.
• A lack of pathways to report or seek services meant some families were left in a protective vacuum.

 

These findings reveal systemic failures: fragmented responsibilities, siloed intelligence, and an absence of coordinated, proactive action. The result is that risks are identified but remain unmitigated, often until catastrophic harm is evident.

 

The Board concludes that only a stronger whole-of-system approach with proactive detection, coordinated safeguarding leadership, investment in prevention, and sustained recovery pathways can truly protect children and uphold their right to safety.

 

The review makes 18 recommendations, divided into two categories, Transformational and Operational to rebuild trust, strengthen detection systems, and improve accountability.

 

Transformational Recommendations: Structural Reform

 

• Establish a Ministerial Council on Child Safeguarding (under National Cabinet) and a Queensland Cabinet Sub-Committee.
• Create a standalone Child Safeguarding Entity to lead and coordinate reforms.
• Develop a Child Safeguarding Intelligence Hub to integrate data from across systems and identify emerging threats.
• Introduce enforceable child safeguarding duties for organisations, modelled on Work Health and Safety legislation.
• Develop a national mandatory training program, linked to WWCC eligibility, for all workers in child-facing roles.
• Pilot victim-centred service models based on the Child Advocacy Centre and Barnahus frameworks.
• Enable victim impact statements to accompany digital child exploitation material in legal proceedings.

 

Operational Recommendations: Immediate Action

 

• Fund compulsory, standardised training on grooming behaviours and reporting obligations across all sectors.
• Establish a legally authorised Child Safeguarding Intelligence Network to support inter-agency information sharing.
• Integrate worker registers (including ECEC, disability and education) with WWCC and reportable conduct systems.
• Allow use of non-prosecuted police intelligence in safeguarding assessments.
• Create public navigational support to help families and professionals access reporting and complaint pathways.
• Mandate Safeguarding Plans and physical environments that reduce unsupervised adult–child interactions.
• Launch a child-centred national safeguarding strategy, co-designed with young people and victim-survivors.
• Queensland’s Reportable Conduct Scheme will commence on 1 July 2026. By comparison, New South Wales has operated under the scheme since 1999, Victoria since 2017, the Australian Capital Territory since 2018, and Western Australia since 2023.

 

The report envisions a six-layer safeguarding model comprising:

 

• Government leadership
• Criminal justice
• Oversight and regulation
• Organisational accountability
• Community vigilance
• Family engagement

 

The review urges a shift from reactive investigation to proactive prevention, with real-time information-sharing and clear responsibility across all layers.

 

Immediate Next Steps

1. Public Commitment
   Queensland and Australian governments must publish strategic responses, including timelines, leadership responsibilities, and resourcing.
2. Child-Centred Government Structures
   Child safety should be elevated to a core government function, with permanent governance mechanisms established.
3. Centralised Oversight
   A new Child Safeguarding Entity and Intelligence Hub must unify leadership and ensure no signal of risk goes unaddressed.

 

The full report and complete list of recommendations can be accessed via the Queensland Family and Child Commission website.

 

If this article has raised concerns for you or someone you know, support is available:

 

• Bravehearts: 1800 272 831 | bravehearts.org.au
• 1800RESPECT (24/7 family violence and sexual assault support): 1800 737 732 | 1800respect.org.au
• Kids Helpline (for children and young people): 1800 55 1800 | kidshelpline.com.au
• Lifeline: 13 11 14 | lifeline.org.au