Children’s Guardian cover-up. Changing the law to justify sacking

The state government is trying to stop MWM from reporting on the dismissal of the NSW Children’s Guardian, despite there being a clear public interest in the case. Rex Patrick reports.

A politically explosive child protection case is underway in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The case involves only one woman we could find. Referred to as GNN for legal reasonsand the lawsuit filed against the Ministry of National Education. As GNN neared the truth, multiple government lawyers and two commercial lawyers became involved.

MWM is following GNN’s case because it is closely related MWMInquiry into the dismissal of the NSW Children’s Warden (‘Guardian’). This little-known scandal began when NSW Minister for Families and Communities Kate Washington tricked the NSW Parliament into changing the law to allow the minister to sack the Guardian.

This allowed Washington to sack the Guardian after he answered questions honestly in Budget Estimates and revealed disturbing facts about his budget.

Knowing this, on Friday the NSW Government MWM He instructed the NSW Crown Solicitor to silence us while he investigated the dismissal.

Unfounded accusations of abuse

GNN was declared a ‘harmmaker’ in 2015 following a false allegation. This robbed her of the opportunity to work with children, resulting in a 2024 NSW Department of Education restraining order and forcing her to vacate the child care facility she owned.

The allegation was later re-investigated and found to be false, with the Minister for Communities and Justice apologizing to GNN. But the damage had already been done; GNN’s life was in ruins.

Despite the ministry’s apology, the ban was never rescinded and the operation of child care centers was prevented. That’s why GNN is fighting to have the ban lifted at NCAT.

As part of the challenge, GNN subpoenaed documents from the new Guardian showing the Government knew he did not pose a risk to children. The Guardian resisted the subpoena but lost.

GNN collected the documents from the NCAT registry just minutes before the Guardian objected to the Court’s subpoena decision. As GNN already had the documents, the Guardian then desperately tried to get the NCAT Appeal Panel to issue a confidentiality order on the documents. The NCAT Appeal Panel rejected this request.

Even without a confidentiality order, GNN may only use documents for transactions. He cannot be made public in order to use them to regain his reputation.

dirty little secrets

The problem for the NSW Government is this: MWM He was present at the open NCAT hearing when GNN read the documents. This information is already public

He disclosed the following documents:

“[GNN] “It is not a risk for children” and “It is in the public interest” [GNN] Issued with a Working with Children Control permit. [The Guardian] happy about it [GNN] does not create any risk that any reasonable person would allow [GNN] being around their children unsupervised.

The documents also criticize the Ministry of National Education:

The Ministry of Education’s investigation was incomplete.

They knew GNN posed no risk to children but refused to lift the ban. But that’s not all; The documents are also linked to the political scandal.

On Friday the Government asked GNN to keep quiet MWMor they would seek a confidentiality order.

For MWMThe story needs to be told and

The only way to protect the right to publish is to publish.

A brutally honest Guardian

GNN’s story is directly linked to the sacking of previous Guardian Steve Kinmond.

In 2019, the NSW Government, in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, established the Guardianship Office to “protect and promote the safety, welfare and well-being of children and protect children from child abuse and exploitation”. The law made clear that the Guardian was “not subject to the control or direction of the Minister” and could only be dismissed “on the direction of either House of Parliament”.

Kinmond was appointed as the NSW Children’s Guardian in 2023. He had not applied but was invited to take on the role because he was so respected. The Guardian’s job is a tough one.

The Auditor General recently found the child protection system in NSW was ‘inefficient, ineffective and unsustainable’.

Family in distress as police Fixed Persons Unit hits wrong target again

In response to questioning from Green Councilor Sue Higginson in the Senate Estimates on 3 September 2024, Kinmond explained that he had been asked by the Government to consider ways to raise revenue and had proposed modest increases in wages for Working Children’s Checks (WWCC) and NDIS Workers’ Checks. The government took his offer forward but diverted the money elsewhere, leaving the Child Guardianship Office in a “difficult situation.”

Higgenson asked whether Kinmond had made his views known to the government and he replied:

“I’m interested in having a productive relationship with the government and Parliament, but a productive relationship also involves putting one’s cards on the table and that’s why we’ve made it clear in our discussions with the government that we’re willing to work with them to avoid having a regulatory system that then becomes part of the problem.”

These words may have sealed his fate.

constructive dismissal

In March 2025, Secretary Washington initiated a special departmental investigation into the Workplace Culture of the Office of the Child Guardian. He appointed Kate Eastmond SC to lead the investigation.

Then in May 2025, Minister Washington introduced a bill to the NSW Parliament that sought to address the recommendations of the 2024 plan. Legal review of the Guardianship of Children Act. Although the review recommended changes to the Guardian’s dismissal, it did not recommend that the power to dismiss be taken from the Governor “on the direction of both Houses of Parliament”.

But the Bill did exactly that; It eliminated the need for an act of Parliament and stated, “The Governor may remove the Children’s Guardian at any time…” on the advice of an upset minister, of course. The minister has eliminated a critical limb in the Guard’s independence.

If the Minister is not satisfied with this person, he can now dismiss the person taking on this role.

Washington did not announce this change in him Second reading speech in the Parliament. and the Bill was passed by the NSW Parliament on 6 August 2025.

Four days later, Eastman’s special ministerial investigation report was delivered to the Minister. This was a wide-ranging report, but what disturbed Kinmond in the report was the revelation that the Guardian had failed to maintain appropriate and appropriate boundaries with a person who had requested that his office grant him a Working with Children Control (WWCC).

Kinmond was engaged to this person. Eastmond learned that he met with her, called her 90 times and exchanged 357 text messages.

But later, when Parliament forced Kinmond’s response to Eastman’s report to be tabled, it emerged that many of these communications related not to the WWCC request but to other reports he had made on children at risk.

On one occasion, the person reported a matter of concern regarding a child who later sadly died.

Since Kinmond was in contact with this person, he stayed away from publishing the person’s WWCC. But when the WWCC director refused to give the person a WWCW, Kinmond intervened:

He knew the NSW Ombudsman had cleared the man of false allegations of harming children.

Still unwilling to be involved in any actual decision-making, Kinmond instructed a senior manager to re-examine the matter.

However, Eastmond felt that communication with this person constituted an undeclared conflict of interest, and Secretary Washington now had everything he needed to remove the Child Guardian and the excuse to do so.

Kinmond in September removed from office.

We now know that Kinmond’s contact was GNN, who were seeking WWCC, and that Kinmond sensibly intervened to ensure that a past wrong was righted.

Kinmond forced a senior manager to review and the document the Guardian wanted to keep was the senior manager’s final finding that GNN was not a risk to children”.

muzzle maneuver

On May 14, I informed the Government that: MWM He was going to publish a story. Last Friday (29 May) the Government tried to make commitments that we would not make, and intended to ask NCAT to silence us with a formal secrecy order if we persisted.

MWM he published this story in the public interest, and he did so in haste to avoid the remote possibility of being silenced by an order. We gave the government 24-hour broadcast notice and invited them to seek an injunction from the NSW Supreme Court.

Apparently they didn’t want the attention that such a case would attract.

MWM Comments were also sought from the Minister’s office and the new Children’s Guardian, with no response received at the time of publication.

Definitely. The notebook that shows how Australia is failing its women

Rex Patrick is a former South Australian Senator and formerly a submariner in the armed forces. Known as an anti-corruption and transparency warrior, Rex is also known as “Transparency Warrior“