Establishment of an Accreditation Scheme for Children’s Contact Services

Between 15 July and 15 September 2025 we sought views on possible approaches to creating an accreditation framework for Children’s Contact Services (CCS). CCS provide a critical service to assist children of separated parents maintain contact with the parent that they do not live with, where assistance is required to achieve this safely.

Using the Australian Government’s regulatory Impact Assessment framework, we proposed 4 possible approaches:

• No change.
• A light touch model, focussing on self-assessment at an organisational level.
• A moderate touch model, requiring an external review of organisational policies and a requirement for workers to have qualifications.
• A high impact model with very stringent organisational and individual accreditation requirements.

Views on the preferred model, and how each approach would support, or hinder, the sector, were requested to support further analysis to identify a preferred option.

We received 46 submissions from a range of stakeholders. Many of the submissions were from current CCS providers. The majority of these were from organisations currently funded by the government to provide CCS. A smaller number were from private providers of CCS.

We also received submissions from peak bodies and individual users of CCS.

There was clear support for pursuing accreditation of CCS based on a desire for greater consistency, safety and professionalism of CCS. There was strongest support for the light touch and moderate touch model, with many proposing a hybrid of these options.

Key benefits include:

• increased safety (both physical and psychological)
• increased trust in CCS
• greater consistency of service
• better assurances that staff are appropriately trained to operate in these high-risk environments.

While the high impact model was generally noted to provide very high levels of assurance, very few submissions preferred this option based on cost.

There was little suggestion that a regulatory response (i.e. accreditation) was not required or would offer little or no benefit.

We have published submissions from authors who gave their permission.

Following consultation, we will complete the impact analysis. The final sections of the impact analysis will be directly informed by this consultation process, specifically sections on ‘who was consulted and how was their feedback incorporated’ and ‘what is the best option from those you have considered and how will it be implemented’.

Thank you to everyone involved in the consultation process for your time and engagement and for sharing your views, information and ideas.