Probably not a wise choice, but they are still kids & a FC can't insist they express their views & wishes or even communicate. It probably will be noted in the report though they were given the opportunity but declined.
That said, the ICL does appear to be in conflict with a number of the guidelines for ICL's endorsed by the courts. Here's a few I found without even looking hard
SOURCE >>>
https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/FCFCOA ICL Guidelines 0921.pdf
- The ICL does not take instructions from the child but is required to ensure the court is fully informed of the child's views, in an admissible form where possible.
- The child has a right to establish a professional relationship with the ICL
- The ICL should seek to provide the child with the opportunity to express his or her views in circumstances that are free from the influence of others
- The ICL should ensure that there are opportunities for the child to be advised about significant developments in his or her matter if the child so wishes, and should ensure that the child has the opportunity to express any further view or any refinement or change to previously expressed views.
- It is expected that the ICL will meet the child unless: .... the child is under school age;..... there are exceptional circumstances, for example where there is an ongoing investigation of sexual abuse allegations and in the particular circumstances there is a risk of systems abuse for the child ...... there are significant practical limitations, for example geographic remoteness.
But then there is this >>>>
- The assessment about whether to meet with the child and the nature of that meeting is a matter for the ICL. An assessment may be made in consultation with any Family Consultant or other expert involved in the case.
So I guess It's *possible* the ICL has spoken to the FC about the interview & report & has drawn some conclusions, who knows.
.. That said, if you have a lawyer, I would be expressing your concern that the kids views are at risk of not being presented, & your concern that the ICL may be negligent in refusing to meet them if they have made a formal request to do so.