Teacher Registration, NDIS Clearance or WWC Revoked?
Losing a job is one thing. Losing the clearance or professional registration that allows you to work in your chosen profession is another.
For many employees, dismissal may mean looking for another employer. But for workers in regulated industries, changing employers may not solve the problem. Teachers, childcare workers, disability support workers and aged care workers can all depend upon regulatory registrations, clearances or screening requirements to perform their work. If that regulatory approval is suspended, cancelled or revoked, the consequences can extend beyond one employment relationship and place an entire career at risk.
This becomes particularly significant where the regulatory process begins with allegations arising in the workplace. An employer cannot simply revoke a statutory clearance themselves. However, information arising from workplace allegations or investigations may be reported to a regulator and, depending on the regulatory scheme and circumstances, may contribute to reassessment, suspension or other regulatory action.
That creates two separate but potentially overlapping problems for an employee: what is happening in the workplace, and what is happening to the regulatory approval on which their career depends?
The distinction matters. Regulatory schemes exist for important protective purposes, particularly where workers have contact with children or vulnerable people. But where allegations arise, workers also need to understand what information can be considered, what consequences may follow, what opportunity they have to respond and whether the actions of their employer raise separate employment law issues.
When registration is the gateway to your profession: teachers
Teachers provide a clear example of the difference between losing a job and losing the ability to practise a profession.
In Victoria, registered teachers are generally exempt from holding a Working with Children Clearance while their Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) registration remains current. However, that does not mean their ability to continue working is immune from regulatory action. VIT registration is itself a condition of being able to undertake the duties of a teacher in Victoria.
VIT may take immediate action against a teacher’s registration in certain circumstances. For example, it may impose an interim suspension where it reasonably believes that the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children and that suspension is necessary to protect children. In other circumstances, VIT is required to suspend or cancel registration where particular Working with Children Check or criminal offence triggers arise. A teacher whose registration is cancelled may also be disqualified from reapplying for registration. Where registration is cancelled because the teacher has been convicted or found guilty of a Category A offence, they may be disqualified from reapplying indefinitely. Where cancellation results from a WWC Exclusion, the teacher may be disqualified from reapplying for five years from the date of the Exclusion, or until a subsequent decision is made, whichever occurs sooner.
These consequences demonstrate why professional registration is fundamentally different from an ordinary condition attached to one job. A teacher whose registration is suspended cannot simply solve the problem by applying to another Victorian school. Where registration is required to teach, regulatory action against that registration can place the teacher’s ability to continue practising their profession at risk.
But what about cases where regulatory action is taken because of allegations which are ultimately not proven? By the time a teacher successfully challenges the decision, significant damage to their career, reputation and livelihood may already have occurred.
Victoria Institute of Teaching, ‘Outcomes’ (13 May 2025) .
What if the allegation is ultimately not proven? The Kelaart case
This issue was considered in Kelaart v Victorian Institute of Teaching (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 254.
Mr Kelaart was a registered teacher who was accused of engaging in a sexualised conversation via Snapchat with a 16-year-old student in 2020. VIT accepted the allegation and, in July 2023, refused to renew his registration. In doing so, VIT concluded that his character was such that it would not be in the public interest to allow him to teach, that he had been found to have committed reportable conduct, and that he had not produced sufficient evidence of his suitability to teach.
Mr Kelaart denied the allegation and sought review of VIT’s decision in VCAT. Given the seriousness of the allegation and the consequences that would follow from an adverse finding, VCAT was required to reach a level of “comfortable satisfaction” commensurate with the gravity of the allegation before finding that the alleged conduct had occurred.
Significantly, VCAT was not satisfied to the required degree that the alleged conduct had occurred. Although there was evidence supporting the student’s account that she had received sexualised messages and photographs, the forensic records obtained from the phones did not establish whether Mr Kelaart was using Snapchat at the relevant time. VCAT also noted that VIT had not called expert evidence capable of properly explaining the forensic data. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis to find that Mr Kelaart had sent the messages and photographs.
VCAT therefore set aside VIT’s decision and directed that Mr Kelaart be re-registered as a teacher.
However, re-registration did not erase what came before it. The allegation arose in 2020, VIT refused to renew Mr Kelaart’s registration in 2023, and VCAT did not deliver its decision directing his re-registration until March 2025. The Tribunal itself recorded evidence of the serious negative emotional and financial effects that the allegations and investigation process had caused Mr Kelaart and his family.
The case demonstrates the potentially profound consequences of regulatory action against a teacher even where the underlying allegation is ultimately not proven. For a teacher, registration is not simply another workplace credential; it is the gateway to their profession.
What if your VIT registration is at risk?
If VIT receives a notification or complaint about a teacher, it undertakes a preliminary assessment and may seek information from the teacher, complainant and other relevant persons before determining what further regulatory action is required. Where VIT imposes an interim suspension, the teacher is notified and can make written submissions about whether the suspension should continue.
This makes responding to the regulatory process important. A teacher should carefully address the allegations and information relied upon, provide relevant supporting material and understand the particular rights available in relation to the decision affecting their registration. The process available will depend upon the particular regulatory action taken.
Child safety regulation serves an essential protective purpose, and employers must appropriately respond to genuine risks to children. However, that protective framework should not become an “easy way out” whereby the existence of allegations or a regulatory process is treated as a substitute for a fair and properly considered employment process.
Where an employer relies upon the loss or suspension of a clearance or professional registration to bring an employment relationship to an end, the consequences for the employee can extend far beyond the immediate loss of one job.
Childcare: when your WWCC determines whether you can work
For childcare workers, the critical regulatory approval is generally a Working with Children Clearance.
Under the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic), a person undertaking child-related work must hold the required clearance, subject to applicable exceptions. Obligations also apply to organisations engaging people in child-related work.
For a worker whose career depends upon performing that work, losing the clearance can therefore prevent them from simply moving to another childcare provider.
Victorian Institute of Teaching, ‘Preliminary Assessments’ (18 September 2024) . Victorian Institute of Teaching, ‘Immediate Action’ (28 May 2025) . Ibid.
Caught, but too late?
A striking illustration arose from the allegations concerning former Melbourne childcare worker Joshua Dale Brown. The Victorian Government has identified 23 childcare centres at which Brown worked between January 2017 and May 2025. Brown was arrested in May 2025 and subsequently charged with numerous offences arising from alleged conduct involving children at childcare centres.
By May 2026, he was facing 153 charges involving at least 12 alleged victims. Although he formally entered not guilty pleas at that stage, his barrister told the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court that Brown accepted a significant amount of the alleged offending and that discussions with prosecutors were continuing.
The case raised broader questions about how a worker could move between numerous childcare services while holding the regulatory clearances required to undertake the work. Significantly, G8 Education, one of the childcare providers for which Brown worked, stated that the required employment and background checks had been completed. The allegations subsequently prompted significant scrutiny of Victoria’s childcare safety and worker screening systems, including an urgent government review and the announcement of additional safeguards.
The concerns extended beyond individual childcare providers. Gaps between Australia’s separate State and Territory Working with Children Check systems had also raised concerns that unsuitable workers could move between jurisdictions. In response, governments committed to stronger information sharing and reforms designed to prevent a person excluded from child-related work in one jurisdiction from simply continuing such work in another.
The Brown allegations demonstrate why effective screening and information sharing are essential. But the strengthening of these systems also makes it increasingly important for workers to understand what can happen when information about them enters the regulatory system.
‘Investigation of Alleged Incidents in Childcare Centres’ (1 July 2026) . Kristian Silva, ‘Lawyer Says Joshua Brown Will Admit to Childcare Centre Sex Crimes’, ABC News (online, 28 May 2026) . Jake Evans, ‘Government Promises to “pull out All Stops” to Close Child Abuser Loophole This Year’, ABC News (online, 15 August 2025) .
What happens if your WWCC is revoked?
In Victoria, if a worker’s WWC Clearance is revoked, they will be issued with a WWC Exclusion and can no longer legally undertake child-related work. Where the Worker Screening Unit has the employer recorded, the employer will also be notified of the revocation, although they will not be told the reason for the Exclusion.
The worker must also notify their employer in writing within seven days. Depending on the circumstances, the worker may be able to seek an internal review of the Exclusion. If the Exclusion is upheld, they generally cannot apply for another WWCC for five years unless their circumstances change.
For a career childcare worker, that distinction is critical. The issue is no longer simply whether their current employer will continue employing them. If they cannot legally undertake child-related work, moving to another childcare provider may not solve the problem.
What if you work outside Victoria?
Victoria is only one example. Working with Children screening is regulated separately by each State and Territory, and the rules applying to a worker can differ depending on where they work. Those differences extend beyond the name of the clearance to the information regulators may consider and the consequences that can follow when concerns arise.
For example, in NSW, a worker can be reassessed after receiving a clearance if new police or workplace records are identified. Where the Office of the Children’s Guardian considers there is a likely risk to the safety of children, it can impose an Interim Bar while that assessment is underway. The worker must immediately stop child-related work, and a final bar can prevent them from working with children for five years.
Other States take different approaches. In Western Australia, an Interim Negative Notice can immediately prohibit a person from child-related work until a final assessment is made, while a Negative Notice prohibits child-related work and remains in force until cancelled. In South Australia, a person assessed as posing an unacceptable risk to children may be issued with a prohibition notice, which prevents them from undertaking child-related work and remains in force until revoked.
The information capable of triggering these processes can also extend beyond a criminal conviction. NSW, for example, can reassess an existing clearance where new workplace records are identified. This is important because regulatory consequences may therefore arise from information extending beyond whether the worker has ultimately been convicted of a criminal offence.
The way a worker can challenge an adverse decision also differs between jurisdictions. NSW provides internal review of certain decisions to refuse or cancel a clearance and, in some circumstances, an Interim Bar that has remained in place for more than six months. Other States and Territories have their own review mechanisms.
Moving interstate may not provide a fresh start either. Australia has implemented a national “banned in one, banned in all” approach, with legislation in place across all States and Territories providing for mutual recognition of negative Working with Children Check outcomes.
For someone whose livelihood depends upon maintaining a clearance, an adverse screening outcome can therefore have consequences extending beyond one employer and one State or Territory.
‘Working with Children Check – Organisations’ Legal Obligations’ (24 July 2026) . Office of the Children’s Guardian, ‘General Information | Risk Assessment’ (29 September 2025) . Government of Western Australia, ‘Working with Children Check - Screening Process and Outcomes’ (20 August 2026) .
What if the problem starts with allegations at work?
This is where the regulatory and employment processes can intersect.
Your employer cannot revoke your WWC Clearance themselves. However, allegations made in the workplace can place your clearance at risk. Organisations covered by the Reportable Conduct Scheme are required to notify the Social Services Regulator (SSR) of reportable allegations, investigate them and report their findings. That information is shared with the WWC Check and may be considered when determining whether you remain suitable to work with children.
Importantly, the SSR can now consider information even where it has not resulted in a criminal charge, conviction or substantiated finding, including allegations, police intelligence and other child safety risk information.
However, an allegation does not automatically mean that your clearance will be suspended or revoked. The SSR makes its own regulatory decision and may suspend a clearance while reassessing a worker where the relevant child safety requirements are satisfied.
If allegations against you are reported, you can provide information to the SSR during its decision making process. Where the SSR proposes to rely on child safety risk information, natural justice requirements generally require that information to be disclosed to you so that you have an opportunity to respond, subject to limited exceptions.
This is why an employee facing serious workplace allegations may need to consider two processes at the same time: responding to their employer and protecting their position before the regulator.
Government of South Australia, ‘Working with Children Check Guidelines’ (July 2024) . Office of the Children’s Guardian (n 9). Office of the Children’s Guardian, ‘General Information | Internal Review of Working with Children Check Decisions’ (25 September 2026) . The Hon Michelle Rowland MP, ‘“Banned in One, Banned in All”: Working with Children Check Laws Now in Place Nationally’ (20 August 2026) .
Could General Protections apply?
An employer raising allegations or commencing an investigation does not, by itself, mean that unlawful adverse action has occurred.
However, depending on the circumstances, a General Protections application not involving dismissal may potentially be available. Under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), an employer must not take adverse action against an employee because the employee has exercised a workplace right. A workplace right may include making a complaint or inquiry in relation to the employee’s employment: ss 340(1), 341(1). Adverse action by an employer includes altering an employee’s position to their prejudice: s 342(1).
Depending on the circumstances, adverse action may include suspending an employee from their duties or subjecting them to a disciplinary process that alters their position to their prejudice.
In Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] FCA 525, the Federal Court found that the employee’s suspension constituted adverse action and recognised that a workplace investigation may also constitute adverse action depending upon its effect on the employee’s position.
However, the existence of an allegation or workplace investigation does not itself establish a General Protections contravention. The employee must have exercised a relevant workplace right, adverse action must have been taken, and the action must have been taken for a prohibited reason.
In Hudston v Activ Foundation Inc [2017] FCCA 699, although the employee had made a complaint concerning her employment, the Court accepted that her subsequent dismissal resulted from established misconduct rather than the exercise of that workplace right.
Accordingly, where workplace allegations place an employee’s WWC Clearance, and therefore their ability to continue working in their profession, at risk, the circumstances surrounding both the allegations and the employer’s response should be considered carefully.
If adverse action has been taken because the employee exercised a workplace right, a General Protections claim may potentially arise. However, the fact that allegations are serious, untrue or ultimately affect a WWC Clearance does not, by itself, establish a contravention of the Fair Work Act.
‘Changes to the Working with Children Check That Came into Effect in July 2026’ (16 September 2026) . ‘Rapid Child Safety Review 2025’ (13 October 2026) . ‘Changes to the Working with Children Check That Came into Effect in July 2026’ (n 15).
Your WWCC has been revoked: what can you do?
If your WWC Clearance is revoked in Victoria, you will receive a WWC Exclusion and cannot legally undertake child-related work. But that does not necessarily mean the decision is beyond challenge. In most circumstances, a person whose clearance has been revoked following reassessment can apply to the SSR for an internal review of the decision.[1]
Time is critical. An application for internal review generally needs to be made in writing within 28 days of the decision. You can provide your account of what occurred, evidence showing that information relied upon is incorrect or incomplete, character references and other evidence relevant to your circumstances and suitability to work with children.[2]
There are important exceptions. Some Category A Exclusions have limited or no internal review rights, and temporary Suspensions, Interim Bars and Interim Exclusions cannot themselves be internally reviewed. Your decision notice should identify the review rights available to you.[3]
Where the regulatory approval itself is at risk, the consequences may extend beyond the employer that originally raised the allegations. Addressing the regulatory process may therefore be just as important as addressing the employment dispute.
It is not only workers dealing with children
The same basic problem appears in other regulated sectors.
Disability support workers
For disability support workers, the equivalent critical credential may be an NDIS Worker Screening Clearance.
The NDIS Worker Screening Check is a national check used to determine whether a person is cleared or excluded from certain roles involving people with disability. Although the clearance is nationally recognised, workers apply through the worker screening unit in their State or Territory.[1]
Not every disability support worker requires an NDIS Clearance. However, workers of registered NDIS providers in risk-assessed roles are generally required to be screened. These include roles involving the direct delivery of specified supports or services and roles involving more than incidental contact with people with disability.[2]
NDIS Worker Screening Clearances are recorded in a national database and recognised across Australia. This means a worker generally does not need a new clearance simply because they change employers or move interstate. But it also means an adverse screening status can follow them across employers and State borders.[3]
Victoria provides a useful example of how serious the consequences can be. Victoria operates a “no clearance, no start” approach, meaning a person generally cannot be employed or otherwise engaged by a registered NDIS provider in a risk-assessed role without the required clearance.[4]
An existing clearance is also subject to ongoing monitoring and may be reassessed where new information arises. Significantly, in Victoria, the screening process can take into account a worker’s criminal or disciplinary history, as well as allegations relating to the safety of people with disability.[5]
While a reassessment is underway, an Interim NDIS Exclusion may prevent the worker from undertaking relevant disability work before a final decision has been made. If an NDIS Exclusion is ultimately issued, the worker cannot work or volunteer in an NDIS risk-assessed role and, in Victoria, generally cannot apply for another NDIS Check for five years unless their circumstances change.[6]
‘Changes to the Working with Children Check That Came into Effect in July 2026’ (n 15). Ibid. NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, ‘Worker Screening’ (12 October 2026) . ‘NDIS Worker Screening Check’ (6 October 2026) .
Can you challenge an NDIS Exclusion?
In Victoria, an NDIS Exclusion or the revocation of an existing Clearance can generally be challenged through an internal review. A worker ordinarily has 28 days from the decision to apply and can respond to the concerns raised by the Social Services Regulator and provide additional information and evidence in support of their case.
Importantly, applying for an internal review does not pause the Exclusion, meaning the worker remains unable to undertake the relevant work while the review is determined.[1]
If the Exclusion remains in place, returning to the sector may not be straightforward. A person who receives an NDIS Exclusion generally cannot apply for another NDIS Check for five years unless their circumstances change. Further review through VCAT may also be available following an internal review decision.
Review rights and procedures differ between States and Territories, so workers outside Victoria should obtain advice about the process applying in their jurisdiction.
Aged care workers
Aged care workers provide another example, although the regulatory framework is different.
Unlike the WWCC or NDIS Worker Screening systems, there is currently no single national aged care worker clearance. Workers generally need either a police certificate less than three years old that does not record a relevant precluding offence, or an NDIS Worker Screening Clearance.[1]
For workers relying on a police certificate, certain convictions can prevent them from continuing to work in funded aged care. Where an aged care worker is convicted of a precluding offence, their provider must ensure that they do not continue working as an aged care worker.[2]
Workers who rely on an NDIS Worker Screening Clearance may face a different process. That clearance can be suspended or revoked where relevant criminal or misconduct circumstances change.[3]
Again, changing employers may not solve the underlying problem. Where a worker no longer satisfies the regulatory screening requirements necessary to undertake their work, the issue can extend beyond the employment relationship itself.
Losing a job should not be confused with losing a career
That distinction runs through each of these industries.
A teacher who loses a position at one school may ordinarily seek work at another. But a teacher whose registration is suspended or cancelled may be unable to teach.
A childcare worker may ordinarily move between childcare providers. But a worker subject to a WWC Exclusion may be legally prevented from undertaking child-related work.
An NDIS worker may ordinarily move between providers. But an adverse worker screening status may follow them through a nationally recognised screening system.
The regulatory systems are different, and their protective purposes are important. But for the individual worker, the common consequence is clear: when the credential required to perform the work is placed at risk, the issue may no longer be simply whether they keep their current job. Their ability to continue in the profession they have built may also be at stake.
That is why allegations capable of affecting professional registration or regulatory clearance should be approached with particular care. Workers need to understand both the employment process and the regulatory process, the information being relied upon, the opportunity available to respond and any applicable review rights.
Where an employer’s conduct may also engage protections under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), that is a separate question requiring consideration of the particular facts. An allegation, investigation or adverse regulatory outcome does not itself establish unlawful adverse action.
But where the consequences have the potential to follow a worker from employer to employer, or even State to State, waiting until the job is already gone may mean the real issue has become much bigger than the job itself.
Get expert Advice
Need help with a workplace investigation or regulatory issue?
If allegations at work are placing your employment, professional registration or regulatory clearance at risk, obtaining advice early can be critical. For free advice about your circumstances, or for general free workplace advice, contact A Whole New Approach.
