Authorities failed to review accused childcare abuser's Working with Children Check
Premier Jacinta Allan stood alongside top police earlier this month to announce the 26-year-old had been charged with 70 offences she described as "shocking and distressing".
They said Mr Brown was not previously known to police and had a valid Working with Children Check.
The ABC can now reveal that two reports had been made to Victoria's Reportable Conduct Scheme about Mr Brown's interaction with children at Point Cook's Creative Gardens — the centre where he is alleged to have abused eight children.
Neither report related to allegations of sexual misconduct and both were made after the alleged offending — but the first came more than two years before he was charged and had his Working with Children Check revoked.
Childcare giant G8, which operates the centre, said it investigated and substantiated both of the reports.
A substantiated finding would typically trigger a review of the individual's Working with Children Check.
But it is believed the Commission for Children and Young People, which oversees the Reportable Conduct Scheme, used discretionary powers not to escalate Mr Brown's case as it was viewed as a lower-level incident — missing a key opportunity for authorities to review his clearance to work around children.
The commission declined to answer the ABC's questions about its handling of the reports, referring to an ongoing police investigation.
"If an organisation finds their worker or volunteer has committed reportable conduct, the Commission must notify the Secretary to the Department of Government Services for the purposes of a WWC check review," Acting Principal Children's Commissioner Meena Singh said in a statement.
In May, Mr Brown was charged with dozens of offences including alleged sexual assault and producing child abuse material, relating to eight alleged victims aged five months to two years.
Authorities took the rare step of publicly identifying Mr Brown as they urged families to come forward with information and 1,200 children to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
Mr Brown worked at Creative Gardens between October 2021 and February 2024, with police alleging he offended against the children between April 2022 and January 2023.
The first report in April 2023 alleged Mr Brown "aggressively picked up and put down" a child and then failed to support the upset child.
An investigation by the childcare operator substantiated the allegation and Mr Brown was disciplined — issued with a formal written warning and a performance improvement plan. He took three months' leave but returned to work at the centre.
The second investigation, in January 2024, alleged he raised his voice at three children and forcibly grabbed the arm of one, the leg of another and forcibly pulled off that child's shoe.
G8 said the allegations were raised by a parent and that an investigation "substantiated all allegations".
It suspended Mr Brown immediately after it received the allegations. He then resigned as the investigation continued and did not return to work with G8.
With no review of his Working with Children Check done, Mr Brown went on to work at 10 other centres, not owned by the same company, across Melbourne.
At a press conference on July 1, Victoria Police Acting Commander Janet Stevenson listed the childcare centres where Mr Brown had been employed, including the 10 where he worked after the reportable conduct notifications were made.
"We are not suggesting that the accused has offended against children in all these centres but we're encouraging anyone to come forward with any information to Crime Stoppers," she said.
Asked whether Mr Brown could face additional charges, Acting Commander Stevenson said: "The investigation is ongoing so I'm not sure where that will lead us at this point in time."
The ABC understands Creative Gardens reported Mr Brown's conduct to the commission, the Department of Education and Victoria Police.
It raises questions about authorities' knowledge of Mr Brown and concerns about his behaviour, having previously said he was "not known to police".
"Part of our investigation will uncover any complaints that were made but my understanding [is that] there were no formal complaints in relation to this individual," Acting Commander Stevenson told a press conference on July 1.
Ms Allan added: "I do want to re-emphasis the points Victoria Police have made, that this alleged offender was not known to Victoria Police and did have a Working with Children Check."
Asked about the apparent conflict between police having received the reports about Mr Brown and the public statements that he was not known to the force, Victoria Police said it had been "looking carefully at all [Mr] Brown's history and any complaints that have been made about his behaviour".
"We have made progress on this and continue to encourage parents or staff to contact Crime Stoppers if they are aware of any formal or informal complaints that have been made to the childcare centres or police," a police spokesperson said.
The Department of Education said: "Due to an active police investigation, we cannot comment at this time."
In a statement, G8 told the ABC it took "all allegations of this nature extremely seriously".
"If we are informed of any allegations occurring at one of our centres, our team takes all appropriate steps to report and investigate, and if they are found to have occurred, disciplinary action follows," G8 said.
Only after questions from the ABC, G8 issued a statement to parents that revealed the history of complaints against Mr Brown at the centre.
Victoria's Reportable Conduct Scheme was set up in 2017 in the wake of a damning inquiry into how abuse allegations were dealt with by religious and other non-government organisations.
The Commission for Children and Young People was tasked with overseeing the handling of allegations of reportable conduct, defined as sexual offences, sexual misconduct and physical violence committed against, with or in the presence of a child.
It also includes behaviour that causes significant emotional or psychological harm, or the significant neglect of a child.
An organisation, such as a childcare centre, must notify the commission within three days of becoming aware of a reportable allegation.
The organisation is then left to investigate the allegation itself, with guidance and oversight from the commission.
But the commission itself has publicly warned it is unable to provide thorough oversight of the vast majority of investigations.
This practice has been criticised as a conflict of interest by some in child protection, amid concerns that the increasingly overwhelmed commission is unable to provide thorough oversight of the investigations undertaken.
The number of allegations made to the Reportable Conduct Scheme has exploded, jumping 30 per cent in the year to 2023-24, and 136 per cent since it began seven years earlier.
Reports related specifically to incidents in day care have also seen a steep rise, increasing 53 per cent to 438 in 2023-24.
The ABC understands the commission has lobbied the state government for more funding to match the rapid rise in reports, warning children were being put at risk — but has been repeatedly knocked back.
It has been forced to "significantly reduce" its scrutiny of investigations.
"The Commission has received no additional funding for the Scheme since it began in 2017," its most recent annual report said.
The Victorian government has established a webpage with information for affected families. Information, including details of the government's dedicated hotline, can be found here.
The Allan government is under increasing pressure to act, with the premier having promised to "take every action within our power to keep Victorian children safe".
It did not respond to questions about why it had refused repeated requests to increase the scheme's funding but said it provided $14.2 million to the commission each year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Liquidator probes transfer of Queensland government funds to bank account of Cryptoloc Holdings founder Jamie Wilson
Liquidators are probing how money for a $15 million Queensland government project was transferred from the contract-winning cybersecurity company to its founder's bank account within 24 hours of the funds arriving. The funds transfer to Cryptoloc Holdings founder Jamie Wilson, who once wooed the state's top politicians and pop stars, is under investigation as a potential "fraudulent" transaction, according to a liquidator's report. The move is the latest shock from a disastrous cybersecurity tender won just before last year's state election by Cryptoloc Holdings. The government contract dissolved within months and the state has pursued $1.5 million paid in an initial sum. The ABC can also reveal Mr Wilson has just filed for personal bankruptcy. He declared having repaid $1 million to a family member in the months before his company failed, but only having $120 in cash on him now. Mr Wilson's entities donated more than $320,000 to both sides of politics over four years. He was a networker who was repeatedly nominated for the LNP Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner's businessperson of the year award and scored face time with then-Labor deputy premier Steven Miles. The 45-year-old accountant turned tech entrepreneur rubbed shoulders with celebrities, including pop star Ronan Keating at company-sponsored parties and appeared on video podcasts with influencers. His Cryptoloc Holdings won a tender last September to provide a $15 million cybersecurity program, hailed by the then-Labor government as helping "protect Queensland's small businesses". But after an ABC investigation in November uncovered financial problems, the state government alleged it could not get sufficient answers from Cryptoloc Holdings and tipped it into liquidation. Now liquidator Nick Combis of Vincents has zeroed in on the state funds. Cryptoloc Holdings "never had any assets of significance until the funds it received … from the Queensland state government", his report said. Creditors seek $2.4 million, including $1.51 million for the state and $44,000 for a subcontractor. "My investigations have revealed several uncommercial transactions, including the removal of funds from the company's bank account and paid directly to the director's bank account within twenty-four hours of funds being received from the Queensland state government," Mr Combis wrote. He noted management accounts had recorded expenses last year of $1.55 million and these were "amounts transferred primarily from the company's account to the director's bank account (I have traced) which I consider to be voidable and or fraudulent transactions". Mr Combis wrote Mr Wilson has "indicated that he has no assets [to] repay the funds". Mr Wilson has not answered ABC requests for comment. But in an email filed in earlier state litigation, Mr Wilson had maintained money advanced by the government had been spent on the cybersecurity program and his company was working to "successfully deliver" the project. His own records for bankruptcy, filed last month, said he is living rent-free with family. He listed $4.6 million in debts, including $1 million owed to the Australian Taxation Office, $2.62 million to Cryptoloc Holdings, $260,000 to two businessmen and $600,000 to a family member. That family member received $1 million in October for a personal loan repayment, the filings state. They also said Mr Wilson paid former conservative politician Santo Santoro, a lobbyist for Mr Wilson's business, $150,000 in the month before state money flowed. Mr Wilson wrote that the reason for the payment was "debt collector". Mr Wilson wrote another of his failed companies, Your Digital File (Aust), owed him $1 million for a business loan. He also had $110,312 in superannuation, but only $120 in cash. The rapid contract failure has raised questions about tendering — but bureaucrats have refused to hand over more than 180 pages of related documents the ABC has sought via right to information laws. Mr Wilson's Cryptoloc Technology paid $23,040 for Labor events a few months before the contract was awarded, including a Queensland Labor Business Roundtable membership, and political lunches hosted by then-premier Steven Miles and Energy Minister Mick de Brenni. A Queensland Labor spokesman said Cryptoloc donations did not influence the tender process, which the department ran independently. Neither Mr Miles, Mr de Brenni or then small business minister Lance McCallum, who announced Cryptoloc's win in September, intervened in the tenders, the spokesman said. A spokesman for Steve Minnikin, minister for customer services and open data in the new LNP administration, said an audit underway into the cybersecurity tender "aims to identify potential process improvements".
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Meet the pensioner taking NAB to Supreme Court over $1,338 in fraudulent transactions
It was a cool, grey spring morning in 2022 when Ian Williams woke up and discovered two transactions on his account he did not make. "I was sitting on the toilet and checking through my bank account, as you do," he said. One was for $515, the other was $823. They had been made a few days earlier at a Coles supermarket in Bundoora, about 150 kilometres from his regional Victorian home in Bendigo. He called the bank and was told to wait while staff investigated. Two hours later, he said, a customer service representative from uBank, a subsidiary of National Australia Bank (NAB), called him back and said, according to the bank's payment data, the transactions had been made using Williams's Google Pay account. "They said that I was guilty, I was responsible. I was personally at Coles to do the transactions with my phone and my thumbprint." That was an accusation he would never let go. Two and half years later, Williams was outside the Supreme Court in Melbourne. He'd just learnt he could be in line to win more than $300 million in his case against the bank over the fraud. After months of scrolling through codes, acts, and case law to represent himself in the most David and Goliath of cases, the bank hadn't shown up at court, and a judge had found in his favour. All that had to be decided was how much money he'd get for his trouble. Then, just as the scales were starting to tip his way, the bank's legal team came storming in. When NAB told Williams he was responsible for the missing $1,338 on that cool spring morning back in 2022, he wasted little time trying to prove them wrong. His maps app showed he never left Bendigo, his sleep app indicated he was asleep close to the time the transactions went through. He had call and text logs to prove a friend of his was headed over for a cuppa that morning. When that wasn't enough, he visited his local police station, filled out a fraud pack, made a statement, and had an officer sign off that he had witnessed the map data was from Williams's phone. He sent his police statement to the bank, believing it would finally clear up any misunderstanding. When that didn't work, he went to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). By now, the police had viewed and collected the CCTV from the supermarket. Williams wasn't provided a copy of the tape, but he was given a description in an email from police. "It looks like two young males who look nothing like you have somehow been able to create copies of your (and likely others) credit card details on phone handsets to buy gift cards," the email read. The evidence showed Williams wasn't the one using his phone to make those transactions at a supermarket 150km away from his home. Then, came the answer most scam victims desperately hope for. The bank would return the $1,338, in full. But, there was a catch. He would need to sign a non-disclosure agreement and, crucially, agree that the payment did not mean the bank was taking responsibility for the missing funds. Williams was ropeable. "Now they can pay me some compensation. I want a letter of apology and a letter of acknowledgement that they're at fault, not me." He told the bank the reason for his refusal. Five months later, they made him another offer: how about $1,500 as a "full and final settlement"? Williams would have to agree not to take legal action. The offer would expire in two weeks. Again, he said no. "It's the principle of the thing. I just won't wear being called a liar. "I had to fight for myself all my life and this sort of injustice, where common people are being trampled … it's just getting worse and worse. "I'm a stubborn old turd, and I will not give up." At 73 years old, Williams was no stranger to new and unfamiliar environments. He ran away from home at 15, he said, hitchhiking his way around the country, sleeping in the hollows of trees, under bridges, and squatting in abandoned terraced houses. "A 12-by-eight piece of black plastic is the best thing I've ever had," he said. The decades of his life were filled with a diverse range of jobs: stunt man, actor, prawn trawler fisherman. He ran his own business in security investigating stock shrinkage, bought a television tower in rural Victoria for $1, which he still owns. He learnt how to fly planes, play the acoustic guitar, and two years ago walked for 18 days straight as part of the Long Walk from Melbourne to Canberra. One of his biggest motivations to take on a corporate giant was to donate any money he won to Indigenous health charities. And so, for the past year, filled with the drive of a man who flourishes in the face of something new, Williams began most nights, about 8pm, scrolling through dozens of legal databases and dry legislation. He read the stories of those who've lost hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars to fraud and scams, and wrote and rewrote an argument to take to court, often huddled into his corner desk until the sun came up. "I might not go to bed until eight or nine o'clock the next morning," he said. He visited legal aid, the law institute, and universities, had meetings with civil lawyers who said they might be able to take on his case pro bono, but who, in the end, gave him advice about where to secure a personal loan to pay their fees. "Nobody would take it on. Maybe because it's a bank and they're too big to fight?" he said. So, about 18 months after the bank's final offer, on a mild summer day in December 2024, Williams caught the train down to Melbourne with his friend Richard Sugden, to the headquarters of NAB. There, armed with a stack of papers, he sat down with a woman from the bank called Sarah and took her through his 14-page writ that outlined he was seeking $379 million in exemplary damages. Williams had calculated that $1,338 was about 5.5 per cent of his annual pension. And $379.05 million was 5.5 per cent of NAB's 2022 profit after tax. "Things need to be proportionate," he said. In those documents, Williams claimed the bank: Williams claimed the reason he was suing for the vast amount of $380 million was because he believed NAB's demonstrated "a systemic abuse of power", knowledge of his vulnerability, "and deliberate disregard for fair dealing". The bank had about four weeks to respond. Williams didn't spend much time wondering how his Google Pay card got onto someone else's phone. He assumed he'd been hacked, and that the bank should have caught it. But on the other side of the world, Dutch cyber expert Eward Driehuis, was digging into the conundrum: how could a digital wallet be used in two places at once? Why were stolen digital cards suddenly turning up in supermarkets across Europe? Since 2017, Driehuis, supported by a team of 70, has worked with law enforcement and banks across the globe, helping them with digital scams. Last year, he got a call from a bank concerned its customers "seemed to teleport". It didn't take long for Driehuis and his team to figure out that criminals had created an enterprise out of stealing card details, adding a stack of them to digital wallets on burner phones. He said he saw photographs from authorities in Europe showing mobile phones side-by-side in a warehouse with the screens open to the phone wallet. "[It] was truly impressive. Each wallet [was] holding multiple stolen cards, ready to sell. And all those phones had stickers on them with Chinese handwriting." Here's how Driehuis says it works: The victim puts their credit card details into a scam site, thinking they're making a purchase. They are then asked for their phone number so they can be sent a text with a one-time password to confirm the purchase. But the scammer has actually registered those card details to be added to a phone's digital wallet, and that one-time password text message is from Google or Apple, asking the victim to authorise the new registration. It could be stopped if victims read the entire text message, but these days, few do, Driehuis said. "Some operating systems, including iOS, which is all the Apple phones, they just automatically read those codes and use them. Some phones don't even show those codes." He dubbed the fraud scam "ghost tapping" and gave a presentation on it earlier this year in Melbourne to Australia's biggest banks. Williams did receive text messages a few days before the fraudulent transaction went through, with a passcode for him to confirm he wanted to add his card to a new Google Pay account. But he said he doesn't remember receiving the texts. It's unclear how the scammer who added his card to a digital wallet managed to get that code. He said even if he did unwittingly give the scammer authorisation to add his card, he still believes the bank should have picked up that something wasn't right. It's now in the hands of a judge to decide if he's right. Ghost tapping is a problem that was on the cusp of being addressed by the United States when, late last year, the consumer watchdog agency the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), started to take control of Google Pay to find out how big of a problem fraud, scams and a lack of security was at the company. The CFPB could do this under its "supervisory authority" powers, allowing it to examine the company's transaction data, complaint responses and its anti-fraud systems. The department had received hundreds of complaints about money being taken via Google Wallet accounts, in circumstances very similar to Williams's. But there was considerable pushback, including Google making an application to sue the CFPB. But the death knell was President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which reversed the supervisory authority and significantly defunded the CFPB. Erin Witte, a consumer protection lawyer and policymaker at the Consumer Federation of America, said the tech company was effectively given a "free pass". She said what happened to Williams was an example of something the CFPB could have monitored. "How often did this happen? How often did Google ignore this … location discrepancy?" While investigators in Europe were looking at warehouses full of burner phones and the US was busy defunding consumer protection, Williams was preparing for court. On a mild morning in May, he slid on a black jacket he bought from a second-hand store the week before, checked his tie, zipped a bulging red folder of documents into a small suitcase and waited for his friend to take him to the train station. They arrived outside the Supreme Court a little before 1pm. NAB had made an application for the default judgement that found in Williams's favour to be set aside. The bank said it missed its deadline because it lost the paperwork served by Williams. It argued the default judgement had been "snapped on"; a legal term meaning Williams applied for it too quickly. It meant Williams and the bank would go head-to-head, in the flesh, for the first time. The hearing took a few hours, and ultimately, the bank succeeded in having the judgement reversed. "Now it goes back to where I was originally going to be, taking them to court and fighting it all the way through the court, and trying to make that as public and as embarrassing for the bank as I can," Williams said. Losing the case could mean he'll be ordered to pay the bank's costs, which Williams said could bankrupt him. But he was glad the bank had shown up. "My whole thing with running this through the courts is to make it very, very public." Later that afternoon, sitting on the train back to Bendigo, Williams talked about the case with Sugden and was overheard by other passengers. "I met three people who had been scammed or had fraudulent activity on their accounts. One was $10,000, and they didn't fight it. They just thought it was too hard." Williams said his fight is not about a payout (though he admits it would be nice to buy a house), but about making an example out of a corporate behemoth that he believes won't admit it got it wrong. "I'm the first [scam victim] that I can find that's actually thought it's worth doing this because people were just getting ripped off all the time, every single day." In a statement, NAB said it took "its commitment to scam prevention extremely seriously" and had made multiple attempts to help Williams. "[We] are disappointed that the matter has progressed to the Supreme Court. As this issue is now subject to legal proceedings, we are unable to provide further comment," NAB said. NAB has applied to have the matter struck off, with a hearing scheduled for later in the year.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
What is the biggest Aussie sports scandal of the 21st century?
From best mates falling out to the 'blackest day'. Booing to 'don't blush, baby'. Ben Cousins to Cameron Bancroft. For every Sir Donald Bradman, Cathy Freeman, Oarsome Foursome or Phar Lap, sadly there are also a number of athletes, teams or moments that have tarnished the green and gold's generally strong international sporting reputation. Our 25@25 series will finally put to bed the debates you've been having at the pub and around dinner tables for years – and some that are just too much fun not to include. Racism, infidelity, quitting on your teammates or perhaps the sporting issue many Aussies struggle to reconcile with more than any other – performance enhancing drugs – are just some of the inescapable scourges we've been forced to face. Australian sport has had some horror blights since the turn of the century, but what is the worst? We'll let you decide the order, but these are our biggest sports scandals of the past 25 years. Laydown Sally In a gold-laden 2004 Athens Olympics for Australia, one of the biggest stories involved a team that effectively failed to finish. Sally Robbins famously quit rowing with about 400m remaining in the women's eights final when the Aussie team was in medal contention. They ultimately finished last, about 10 seconds behind second-last Germany, and Robbins' name was etched in history. Melbourne Storm salary cap Emerging from the Super League wars of the late 1990s, the Storm quickly became one of Australia's most successful clubs. That all came crashing down on April 22, 2010, when massive salary cap breaches over a five-year period were made public. It led to the stripping of two premierships and a huge fine, among other penalties. Adam Goodes racism This is a difficult incident to summarise in a couple of sentences. One of the key events came in 2013 when a young girl called Goodes an 'ape' during an AFL game. While Goodes repeatedly said the young girl should not be blamed for the incident, he began to get booed at games across the country and the Swans legend eventually retired and subsequently largely withdrew himself from the footy public. Shane Warne drugs On the eve of the 2003 One-Day Cricket World Cup, a bombshell report swept Australia that Shane Warne had tested positive to an illegal drug. Warne had taken a diuretic that can be used as a masking agent for steroids, claiming it had been given to him by his mother to help hide a double chin. He was handed a one-year ban from the sport and Ricky Ponting's team still managed to win the tournament. Wayne Carey cheating In another where-were-you moment, the North Melbourne captain fronted a media conference in 2002 to admit to an affair with Kelli Stevens, the wife of teammate Anthony Stevens, after she was seen following Carey into a bathroom at Glenn Archer's house. Soap opera writers would be proud if they came up with that one. Sandpaper This one might take some beating and involves, of course, the use of sandpaper to attempt to manipulate the cricket ball during Australia's 2018 tour of South Africa. Steve Smith, David Warner and Cam Bancroft all copped bans and, in some ways, Aussie cricket is still trying to live it all down. Essendon supplements saga On February 7, 2013, the 'blackest day' in Australian sport dropped when the Australian Crime Commission released a report called 'Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport'. The scandal involved the use of 'peptides', the Cronulla Sharks were also implicated and sports scientist Stephen Dank became a household name. Raygun Similar to the Lay Down Sally affair, the performance of Rachael Gunn when breakdancing made its Games debut in Paris last year sadly overshadowed many of Australia's brilliant Olympic efforts. Legendary memes, court battles over stage shows, Halloween costumes, an Australian Story episode – this saga had it all and stayed in the news for months. West Coast Eagles drugs Roughly 20 years ago, West Coast and the Sydney Swans fought out one of the great rivalries in modern AFL history. Sadly around the same time, the Eagles began getting implicated in a series of off-field dramas. Ben Cousins was the sad poster boy of the club's issues with illicit drugs, facing repeated sanctions before he was sacked in late 2007. Don't blush baby In early January 2016, sports presenter Mel McLaughlin interviewed West Indies superstar Chris Gayle live in a Big Bash match in Hobart. What transpired shocked everyone looking on. The batsman did his best to proposition the reporter, complimenting her eyes, stating 'we can have a drink later' and then adding 'don't blush baby'. It was a horrendous incident made even worse by Channel 10 somehow deciding to tweet the interview with the hashtag 'smooth' before it was deleted. Apologies soon flew but it was too little, too late in a black eye for Gayle, the sport and the broadcaster.
