The heartbreaking death of the four-year-old boy at Wyong has shocked communities across New South Wales. As the criminal proceedings continue, our thoughts remain with the innocent child whose life was tragically cut short.

What has already emerged publicly, however, raises difficult but necessary questions.

NSW Minister for Families and Communities Kate Washington has confirmed that the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) had received a number of reports concerning the child’s welfare before his death, with the last report approximately 18 months earlier. An independent review has now been commissioned to examine the Department’s previous involvement with the family, whether its decisions were appropriate, and whether more could have been done to protect the child.

These questions extend far beyond this single tragedy.

Every year, children suffer abuse after concerns have been reported to government agencies or institutions entrusted with protecting them. When those systems fail, victims often seek answers as well as compensation through the courts. Yet one significant obstacle regularly encountered in New South Wales matters is the attempted over-reliance on section 29 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 by defendants.

The purpose of section 29 is an important one. It protects people who make reports of suspected child abuse by ensuring they cannot be sued, identified or otherwise discouraged from reporting. Those protections should remain.

However, section 29(1)(e), together with related provisions, can have the practical effect of preventing the production or full use of reports and their contents in many civil proceedings. In cases where survivors allege that government departments or institutions failed to act on repeated warnings, this can significantly limit access to evidence that may demonstrate what information was available, when it was known, and whether reasonable protective action was taken.

Protecting the identity of mandatory reporters is essential. Protecting institutional failures is not.

There is a sensible balance that can and should be achieved.

The identities of teachers, doctors, neighbours, carers and other individuals who report concerns should remain confidential. But the reports themselves—appropriately redacted to remove identifying information—should be capable of being disclosed where they are relevant to determining whether a public authority or institution discharged its legal responsibilities to protect a child.

Transparency is not about assigning blame before the facts are known. It is about accountability.

If an institution received multiple reports of risk, that history may be critical in understanding whether opportunities to intervene were missed. Families, survivors and the courts should not be denied access to that evidence simply because disclosure may expose systemic shortcomings.

The 2024 audit of the NSW child protection system described it as “ineffective” and “unsustainable”. The independent review into the Wyong case may identify lessons for future reform, but meaningful change requires more than another report. It requires laws that promote accountability while continuing to protect those who courageously report concerns about children.

No one is suggesting that confidential reporters should be exposed.

Rather, the law should distinguish between protecting the messenger and shielding institutions from scrutiny.

Children deserve a system that learns from its failures instead of concealing them. Survivors deserve access to the evidence needed to fairly determine whether those entrusted with protecting them met their legal obligations. And the public deserves confidence that when warning signs are raised, they will be acted upon—and, if they are not, that those failures can be openly examined.

If the tragic death of one little boy teaches us anything, it should be that transparency and accountability are indispensable components of child protection. We cannot prevent future tragedies if we are prevented from honestly examining the past.