Families across Australia entrust aged care providers with the safety and wellbeing of their elderly loved ones, expecting a system that prioritises dignity and protection. This trust hinges upon the screening processes designed to ensure only suitable individuals work with vulnerable populations, such as elderly residents or people with disabilities.
However, a horrific child care sex abuse scandal in Victoria has thrust the suitability of background checks for those working with vulnerable people into the public spotlight. With calls growing louder for a complete overhaul of background checking and personnel vetting in childcare, a close close look at aged care’s background check systems reveals a number of blindspots and plenty of room for improvement.
Systems under scrutiny
The recent charges against two men in Victoria’s childcare sector have sparked public outrage and renewed focus on screening processes.
Joshua Brown, a childcare worker, faces over 70 charges of alleged child sexual abuse, while Michael Simon Wilson – who was known to Brown – has been charged with serious child sex offences, linked to the same investigation. Both held valid Working with Children Checks (WWCCs).
While this scandal has prompted calls for reform in childcare, it also casts a spotlight on aged care, where similar vulnerabilities exist but attract less attention.
In aged care, the stakes are equally high. Elderly residents, often with dementia or mobility issues, rely on workers for their safety and care. Yet, cases of abuse and neglect are more common than they are in child care.
The 2017 Oakden scandal in South Australia, where residents with severe dementia faced appalling mistreatment, shocked the nation. A 2018 ABC investigation, Who Cares?, exposed widespread abuse and neglect across Australian aged care facilities, prompting then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison to preemptively announce the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety a day before the report aired.
The Royal Commission uncovered numerous cases, from physical assaults to chronic understaffing, highlighting systemic failures. These incidents revealed that background checks were falling short.
Flaws in current screening processes
Australia’s screening processes for aged care workers rely primarily on the National Police Check, mandated every three years under the Aged Care Act 1997.
In some jurisdictions, such as Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the Working with Vulnerable People (WWVP) check is also required, covering vulnerable adults as well as children.
Victoria’s WWCC, while focused on children, is under reform following the childcare scandal, with changes from August 2025 allowing consideration of Department of Education prohibition notices.
The time-limited validity of background checks is a major issue. National Police Checks and WWVP registrations, valid for three years, and Victoria’s WWCC, valid for five years, do not provide real-time updates.
Employers are not automatically notified of new criminal charges or convictions unless self-reported or flagged during a renewal, allowing risky individuals to continue working undetected. The childcare cases, where valid WWCCs failed to prevent alleged offending, illustrate this gap, a concern equally relevant in aged care where residents may be unable to report abuse.
Inconsistencies across jurisdictions further undermine the system. Each state and territory operates its own framework, creating variations in scope and rigour. Tasmania’s WWVP check is broader, covering vulnerable adults, but lacks real-time monitoring.
Victoria’s WWCC, criticised as weak, lags behind other states that consider child protection reports or police intelligence. The absence of a national database means workers can move between states or sectors, such as from aged care to disability care, potentially evading scrutiny.
This fragmentation was highlighted by Age Discrimination Commissioner Robert Fitzgerald, who called the lack of a national system “shameful” a decade after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended one.
The scope of checks is another limitation. Background checks focus on criminal history and professional conduct but do not assess ongoing behaviour, psychological suitability, or skills for high-pressure environments like aged care.
The Code of Conduct for Aged Care, introduced to ensure respectful and safe care, outlines expected behaviours but relies on compliance monitoring, which is often inadequate due to under-resourced oversight by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
Employers, particularly in for-profit facilities, face challenges with understaffing and high turnover, leading to reliance on casual workers who may receive minimal vetting. The allowance for workers to be employed while “actively working towards” qualifications risks untrained staff lacking skills in abuse prevention or dementia care.
The Aged Care Banning Orders Register, introduced in 2022, allows the Commission to ban unsuitable workers, but providers must proactively check it, and it only addresses severe cases after the fact.
In disability care, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) worker screening faces similar issues, with state-based checks creating inconsistencies. Both sectors serve highly vulnerable populations, yet the lack of a unified approach leaves gaps in protection.
Towards a national solution
The childcare scandal has reignited calls for a national screening system, a recommendation from the 2015 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that remains unimplemented.
A national system covering aged care, disability care, and childcare could address current flaws. Uniform federal background check standards would eliminate jurisdictional inconsistencies, ensuring all states consider a broad range of information, such as criminal history, professional bans, and child protection reports.
A nationwide database with real-time alerts, as advocated by Fitzgerald, would notify providers instantly of any indiscretions, rather than waiting for check renewals. This would mirror the United Kingdom’s Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), which provides continuous monitoring and a barred list, preventing unsuitable individuals from working with vulnerable groups.
Mandatory training, as proposed by the Australian Childhood Foundation, could further strengthen the system. Embedding abuse prevention education in screening processes, tailored to aged care and disability care needs, would equip workers to recognise and respond to risks.
Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has indicated support for exploring such training within national frameworks. Canada’s Vulnerable Sector Check in Ontario, which requires immediate reporting of charges and uses a centralised database, and New Zealand’s Children’s Act 2014, with holistic vetting including reference checks, offer models for a comprehensive approach.
Additional reforms are needed to address systemic issues. Enhanced oversight by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, with proactive inspections, would ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct.
Addressing understaffing and reducing reliance on casual workers would allow for more thorough vetting and training. A national inquiry into aged care and disability care safety could drive these changes, ensuring the same urgency seen in childcare reforms.
Restoring trust
While the childcare scandal has highlighted screening flaws, aged care and disability care deserve equal attention. A national screening system with uniform standards, real-time alerts, and mandatory training offers a path to restore confidence.
By learning from international best practices and acting on long-overdue recommendations, Australia can ensure background checks are robust enough to protect those who rely on care the most. The time for reform is now, before another vulnerable person suffers.
I work in the aged care industry in a management role and have never seen any issues with the national certificate. Please don’t treat us the same as child safety. Has anyone ever considered that offenders might have a clean record, so nothing shows up when you do a check? Stop blaming people and blame the offender.