The Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) held four disciplinary hearings this year, all subject to non-publication orders temporarily or permanently preventing publication of details of allegations, the school or a teacher’s name. Legal and education experts said the issues raised questions about when a teacher should be identified as a public safety measure and when publication could unfairly jeopardise their career.
Formal hearings are held in front of a three-person panel that probes allegations of serious misconduct, incompetence or lack of fitness to teach. Internal data obtained by this masthead shows that in two hearings this year the VIT's own lawyers argued against the secrecy orders, but the panels comprising fellow educators overruled them. Since 2015 there have been 19 formal hearings, but no permanent suppression orders were issued before 2023.
University of Melbourne’s Jason Bosland said there should be public scrutiny of regulatory proceedings, and naming a teacher accused of misconduct would give “the opportunity to other survivors or victims to come forward with their experiences”. Swinburne education academic Janine Forbes-Rolfe said a teacher’s name should not be published until a determination is reached. “In terms of reputational damage, that would be quite immense,” she said.
VIT chief executive Martin Fletcher acknowledged reforms were needed and were under way, including a modern conduct framework. “Community confidence in professional regulation depends not only on the decisions that are made, but on the clarity and integrity of the processes used to make them,” he said, adding it was a balancing act between transparency and protecting victims or witnesses.
Changes being considered include legal practitioners sitting on panels, enhanced training for those selected for panels, better case management, and clearer guidance on non-publication orders. Last year, the only case heard, that of former Carey Grammar teacher Eleanor Yorke, was not subject to secrecy orders. The VIT suspended 29 teachers on an interim basis in the 2025-26 financial year.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The trend towards secrecy in teacher misconduct hearings directly affects public confidence in the regulator and the safety of schoolchildren.
- Panels composed of fellow educators are depicted as more sympathetic to colleagues' reputations than to public transparency, overruling the watchdog's own lawyers.
- Survivors of misconduct may be discouraged from reporting if they believe the process lacks transparency and accountability.
Background
The Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) is the professional regulator for teachers in Victoria. Its disciplinary panels, historically composed of registered teachers, adjudicate serious misconduct allegations. Non-publication orders can suppress teacher names, school details, and allegations. The issue gained prominence after the single disciplinary case in 2025, involving former Carey Grammar teacher Eleanor Yorke, was conducted openly, contrasting with the current trend.
Key Perspectives
Jason Bosland (University of Melbourne): Argues for public scrutiny of proceedings and that naming accused teachers allows other survivors to come forward.
Janine Forbes-Rolfe (Swinburne University): Contends a teacher’s name should not be published until a determination is made, citing the risk of immense reputational damage.
Martin Fletcher (VIT chief executive): Acknowledges the need for reform to balance transparency with protecting victims and witnesses, and says changes are under way.
VIT lawyers: Have argued in at least two hearings this year against the issuance of non-publication orders, advocating for transparency in the public interest.
What to Watch
- The specific reforms proposed by the VIT, particularly the inclusion of legal practitioners on disciplinary panels.
- Whether the Victorian government steps in with legislation to mandate greater transparency in the disciplinary process.
- Future disciplinary hearings to observe if the new guidance on non-publication orders changes the rate of secrecy orders.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe headline says Victorian teaching panels issue secrecy orders in misconduct hearings.WA Today - Latest News: “The Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) held four disciplinary hearings this year, and all were subject to a non-publication order”
- SupportedThe summary says all four disciplinary hearings this year were subject to orders.WA Today - Latest News: “The Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) held four disciplinary hearings this year, and all were subject to a non-publication order”
- SupportedThe summary says the orders raised questions about transparency and public safety.WA Today - Latest News: “legal and education experts said the issues raised questions of when a teacher should be identified as a public safety measure and when it could unfairly jeopardise their career.”
- SupportedThe story quotes Jason Bosland as saying naming an accused teacher would give other survivors or victims “the opportunity to other survivors or victims to come forward with their experiences”.WA Today - Latest News: ““It would also give the opportunity to other survivors or victims to come forward with their experiences,” he said.”
- SupportedThe story quotes Janine Forbes-Rolfe as saying, “In terms of reputational damage, that would be quite immense”.WA Today - Latest News: ““In terms of reputational damage, that would be quite immense,” Forbes-Rolfe said.”
- SupportedThe story quotes Martin Fletcher saying, “Community confidence in professional regulation depends not only on the decisions that are made, but on the clarity and integrity of the processes used to make them”.WA Today - Latest News: ““Community confidence in professional regulation depends not only on the decisions that are made, but on the clarity and integrity of the processes used to make them.””
- SupportedThe orders could temporarily or permanently prevent publication of details of allegations, a school or a teacher’s name.WA Today - Latest News: “all were subject to a non-publication order that temporarily or permanently prevented details of allegations, the school or a teacher’s name from publication.”
- SupportedIn two hearings this year, VIT lawyers argued against secrecy orders, but panels comprising fellow educators issued the orders anyway.WA Today - Latest News: “in two disciplinary hearings held this year lawyers representing the VIT argued against non-publication orders that keep details from the public but the panel, comprising registered teachers, issued the order anyway.”
- SupportedThere have been 19 formal hearings since 2015, and no permanent suppression orders were issued before 2023.WA Today - Latest News: “since 2015 there have been 19 formal disciplinary hearings, but no permanent suppression orders were issued before 2023.”
- SupportedFletcher acknowledged reforms were needed and under way, including a modern conduct framework.WA Today - Latest News: “The teaching watchdog’s chief executive, Martin Fletcher, acknowledged reforms to how serious disciplinary matters were carried out was needed, and the process was under way. This included a modern conduct framework”
- SupportedChanges being considered include legal practitioners sitting on panels, enhanced panel training, better case management and clearer guidance on non-publication orders.WA Today - Latest News: “Changes being considered include legal practitioners sitting on panels, enhanced training for those selected for panels, better case management and clearer decision-making structures. Improving guidance for procedural matters including non-publication orders are also on the agenda”
- SupportedThe only case heard last year, involving former Carey Grammar teacher Eleanor Yorke, was not subject to secrecy orders.WA Today - Latest News: “It was the only disciplinary case heard that year and not subject to any secrecy orders.”