A major change has taken effect in the way Working with Children (WWC) Check decisions are reviewed in Victoria, reshaping the rights of applicants who are refused a Clearance, excluded from child-related work, or have an existing Clearance revoked.
From 28 July 2026, the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) (‘the Act’) no longer allows a person to seek review of a WWC Exclusion through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Instead, review rights are now confined to an internal process conducted by the Social Services Regulator (the Regulator), the same body responsible for making the original decision.
How the WWC Clearance scheme works
The Working with Children Check scheme exists to protect children by screening people seeking to work or volunteer in child-related roles. An applicant goes through a screening process administered by the SSR, which results in one of two outcomes:
- A WWC Clearance, permitting the person to work or volunteer with children; or
- A WWC Exclusion, which prohibits the person from working or volunteering with children.
A Clearance is not a one-off approval. It remains current for a set period and is monitored on an ongoing basis, meaning the Regulator can reassess a person’s eligibility at any time if new information comes to light, for example, a new criminal charge, a disciplinary finding, or an allegation reported by a third party. A reassessment can result in an existing Clearance being suspended, revoked, or affirmed.
The legislative change
The change was introduced by the Social Services Regulation Amendment (Child Safety, Complaints and Worker Regulation) Act 2025 and is confined to the WWC scheme. The equivalent VCAT review provisions for NDIS Worker Screening decisions, remain in force and were not repealed. This creates a jurisdictional divergence between the two regulatory regimes, which previously shared a common review pathway through VCAT.
The new internal review process
An applicant who receives a WWC Exclusion must now apply to the Regulator’s Internal Review Branch within 28 days of the decision being made. The application must:
- be in writing;
- attach a copy of the decision notice and statement of reasons; and
- set out the grounds for review in detail, along with any supporting evidence.
Once an application is accepted as eligible, the applicant is issued an invoice for a $345.40 review fee. The Regulator will not consider the substance of the application until the fee is paid, and failure to pay within the specified timeframe results in the application being automatically discontinued, regardless of its merits.
There is a fee waiver or discount that is available in cases of genuine financial hardship. Late applications for review are still possible (although an appropriate explanation for an extension of time will be required).
The categorisation system: Category A, B and C
Perhaps the most consequential feature of the new regime is the depth of review available.
Category A applies to the most serious offences, specified in Schedule 2 to the Act. A person falling within this category is automatically excluded, and internal review rights are almost non-existent. The only ground available is a dispute as to identity.
Category A assessments do not consider the person’s current risk, rehabilitation, or circumstances.
Category B applies to serious offences that fall short of automatic exclusion. Here, a genuine merits review is available, but the reviewer must refuse to grant a Clearance unless satisfied of two things:
- that a reasonable person would allow their own child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant while engaged in child-related work; and
- that the applicant’s engagement in any child-related work would not pose an unjustifiable risk to children.
Both limbs must be satisfied before the reviewer also considers an additional consideration of whether it is in the public interest to grant the Clearance.
Category C is broader and covers less serious offences, and a range of other outcomes that may result from criminal charges, as well as disciplinary findings and third-party reports of “child safety risk information”, which can include unproven or unsubstantiated allegations. The starting position is more favourable to the applicant and only one of the two tests set out above needs to be satisfied (rather than both).
As with Category B, a favourable outcome on the substantive test does not guarantee reinstatement of a Clearance as the reviewer must still be satisfied it is in the public interest to grant the Clearance.
The independent expert advisory panel
In appropriate cases, the Regulator may seek advice from an independent expert advisory panel appointed by the Minister for Children, typically where the evidence raises complex psychological, medical or psychosocial questions. This decision is at the sole discretion of the reviewer.
Loss of independent oversight and remaining review rights
The most significant practical consequence of this reform is the loss of independent oversight by VCAT. While the Internal Review Branch is structurally separate from the original decision-maker, it remains part of the same regulator, which is a marked departure from the previous model, in which VCAT provided a genuinely independent check on decisions with respect to Clearances.
Once an internal review is complete, the only remaining avenue of challenge is judicial review in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This is a materially narrower form of scrutiny than the merits review previously available through VCAT, as the Court considers only whether the Regulator made a legal error in its decision-making process, not whether the decision was correct or preferable on the merits.
The Bill’s Statement of Compatibility, tabled under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, acknowledged that removing VCAT review interferes with the right to a fair hearing under section 24(1) of the Charter, a right concerned with a person’s ability to know the matters relevant to a decision and to respond to adverse information. However, the Attorney-General considered this limitation justified under section 7(2) of the Charter, on the basis that the internal review model promotes more consistent, child-safety-focused decision-making, incorporates structural safeguards (an independently appointed expert panel and convenor, seniority-equivalent reviewers, and written reasons), and preserves judicial review in the Supreme Court as a residual check.
Transitional arrangements
A transitional pathway preserves some existing rights. WWC Exclusion decisions made by the SSR on or before 27 July 2026 remain reviewable by VCAT, provided an application is lodged within 28 days of the decision (or an extension of time is separately sought and granted by VCAT).
Importantly, decisions made by the SSR on or after 28 July 2026 must proceed exclusively through the new internal review pathway.
Practical implications
It is important for anyone facing an adverse decision with respect to a WWC Clearance, or advising a person who is, that the following factors are understood:
- The 28-day time limit for lodging an application from the date of the Regulator’s decision;
- The fee payment deadline; and
- The categorisation of the underlying conduct and the new tests that apply to the review of a WWC Clearance that has been revoked, refused or whether a person has been excluded from child-related work.
Given the removal of independent tribunal oversight, early and careful attention to how a matter has been categorised, and strict compliance with the new procedural deadlines will be essential to protecting a client’s position under this reformed scheme.
The provision of written submissions and additional materials such as expert evidence from a psychologist or other suitably qualified medical practitioner addressing the level of risk an individual poses to children may be a useful way in which to satisfy the new tests that will apply.
Final message
There is increasing concern in the community that action is taken to ensure only appropriate individuals are permitted to engage in child related work. The changes to the WWC Clearance scheme reflect mounting public pressure on parliamentarians and community leaders to act in response to allegations of serious criminal misconduct by individuals employed in child-related roles nationwide. However, given the breadth of the scheme, the limited appeal pathways, and the rigid tests to be applied upon review, it is imperative that legal advice is obtained at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure the best prospects of securing and retaining a WWC Clearance.
