What I’m Not Seeing Being Mentioned by the Media

Last week’s news of the Melbourne childcare abuse case was horrifying. As we grieve for the children and families impacted, I’ve also been reflecting on the system-level vulnerabilities that allowed this to happen in the first place.

For years, I owned a small nursing agency that grew into a national one. We placed staff in aged care homes and hospitals, roles involving high trust, intimate care, and vulnerable people. Our recruitment process wasn’t fast, and it wasn’t meant to be.

A potential buyer once asked, “Can’t you drop the interview to 10 minutes?” Absolutely not. We weren’t on site with our staff, so we held a strong line: never place someone you wouldn’t want caring for your own loved ones.

We interviewed every candidate thoroughly, spending a minimum of an hour with each. Two-hour orientation. We checked AHPRA registration, completed clinical assessments, references, WWCCs, police checks… not to tick boxes, but to meet client standards and what our conscience demanded. Even though we were inundated with bookings from our clients in dire need of staffing, it didn’t influence us to push through someone because that is where issues arise. We’d decline applicants, and thankfully, nothing similar to what has just happened in the childcare sector happened on our watch.

But last week’s case reveals the flaws: Even the most robust onboarding won’t guarantee detection of someone intent on harm.

WWCCs and police checks are only a snapshot, valid only on the day they’re issued. What if the next offence happens tomorrow? Or isn’t caught at all?

That’s the terrifying part – many perpetrators never come to the attention of authorities.

So I find myself asking:

What else can we do at the recruitment stage?

Is psych testing viable for high-trust child-facing roles?

Should buddying or close supervision be required for all new hires?

How do we ensure early-stage staff aren’t left alone, especially where trust can be exploited?

Yes, it adds cost. Yes, most people are good. But we’re talking about babies and toddlers.

We can’t keep only focusing after the fact. The fact is: he got the job. He got shifts and was paid. He should never have been there.

The answers are not straightforward, but perhaps the real question is: Where are we focusing our attention, and are we looking back far enough in the process? I anticipate that there will be challenges at every milestone related to recruitment. The pressure to meet staff-to-children ratios, combined with a shortage of personnel and dissatisfied employees—resulting in sick leave—creates a stressful environment that leaves others overworked and under pressure.

We frequently observed the urgent need to quickly process candidates to fill gaps in staffing, particularly in the aged care and healthcare sectors, and this approach often had negative consequences. It frequently led to reliance on agency staffing, which only compounded the problems. When everyone is under pressure, mistakes become common. In situations where staffing is a critical issue, no one has the time to look up and recognise what is happening right before their eyes.


This case is devastating. And yet, it offers a vital opportunity to examine recruitment, onboarding, and supervision practices and rebuild them with greater foresight and safety in mind.

I’d love to hear from those who draw from best practice globally. I often looked to countries like the Netherlands when redesigning for safety and excellence. I didn’t always look directly at nursing agencies either; it’s sometimes better to explore other industries for best practices that you can then adopt and reshape to suit the service you deliver.

What safeguards could make a real difference, before someone ever sets foot in a room with a child?

Don’t miss out on the good news!

We send good news out only on an as-needed basis.

We don't spam! Read more in our privacy policy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *