With a focus on the case of 'CEO, Department for Child Protection v. John Citizen' (2007) WASC 312, this article examines the legal issues that the case presents for child-care workers and child welfare organisations when acting in the best interests of a child. This complex case raises a number of issues regarding the issuing of assessment notices (working with children cards), what constitutes the "best interests of the child" and the interplay between potentially conflicting pieces of child welfare and child protection legislation. The first part of the article provides an introduction to the working with children legislation in Western Australia and an overview of the history and facts of the 'Citizen' case. The second part reviews the court's decision, and is followed by a discussion of the consequences of competing legislation that, on the one hand, deemed John Citizen a suitable child carer and, on the other, denied him an assessment notice that would allow him to care for children.

On 12 November 2012 the then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced she was recommending to the Governor General the establishment of a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Following inquiries in Australia and elsewhere much is already known about institutional and inter-institutional child protection failures and what is required to address them. That Australia's national government has pursued another abuse inquiry with terms of reference limited to institution-based (excluding the family) sexual abuse is of interest given the lack of political will to enact previous findings and recommendations. This article examines the background to the Government's announcement, the Commission's terms of reference and some of its settings, and literature on the nature of royal commissions across time and place. After the lack of success in implementing the recommendations of previous inquiries into how to better protect Australia's children, the question is: how will this Royal Commission contribute to Australian child protection and safety? Will the overwhelming public support generated by "truth speaking to power" in calling for this inquiry translate into action?

In 2006 Western Australia passed legislation that introduced a system to check criminal records and issue permits to those who wish to work with children. In 2007, the legislation was described by the minister responsible as a "powerful system that would prevent harm to children". This paper explores that system and identifies limits to its effectiveness. The paper concluded that unless the system's limits are fully appreciated there is a possibility of a paradoxical outcome, whereby children's lives will be less safe. It also raises the question of whether in the area of record checking a national approach is not preferable to each state and territory developing its own system.

The Council of Australian Governments' 'Protecting children in everyone's business: National framework for protecting Australia's children 2009-2020' (2009) (the Framework) declares a need for a shared agenda for change; suggests a public health model applied to child protection will deliver better outcomes for children; and, sets a target for a substantial reduction in child abuse. The Framework provides interested parties with an opportunity to observe Australian federalism and child welfare administration at a critical juncture. This article identifies three threads to be teased out from the Framework by social work educators and students for critical examination: the Framework itself; a nationally consistent approach to working with children checks; and, the child protection data upon which the Framework relies. Addressing these threads goes some way to meeting the Australian Association of Social Workers' education and accreditation standards while engaging future practitioners with the on-going task of making child protection happen.