Every teacher, aged-care worker, taxi driver, volunteer footy coach and childcare educator in Victoria has to pass a background check before they're allowed near the people they serve. The person who sets the laws those checks operate under doesn't.
01 / The double standard
A Working with Children Check, a Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check, an NDIS Worker Screening Check — these are ordinary conditions of ordinary jobs. We accept them because the public deserves to know that the people in positions of trust have been checked. Elected office is the highest position of public trust there is, and it's the one where we don't ask.
Figure 01 · Who has to be checked
| Role | Check required before starting? |
|---|---|
| Kindergarten teacher | Yes — Working with Children Check |
| Aged-care worker | Yes — NDIS / aged care screening |
| Rideshare driver | Yes — police check & driver accreditation |
| Junior sport volunteer | Yes — Working with Children Check |
| Council contractor on a school site | Yes — as a condition of the contract |
| Councillor, MP, Premier | No — a declaration on the nomination form |
Candidates self-declare eligibility. Nobody independently verifies it, and nothing short of a disqualifying conviction is disclosed. The voter is left to find out through the media, usually years later.
02 / What's happening now
When the Premier's past surfaced this year, the debate that followed wasn't really about the details. It was about the fact that voters were learning them after the ballot rather than before it. Whatever your view of the individual, the structural problem is the same: information a reasonable voter would want to weigh was never put in front of them, because nothing required it to be.
That's not a partisan point. It applies equally to every party, every independent, and every council candidate — including me.
03 / The proposal
Figure 02 · Four things, before nominations close
None of this requires new agencies. Every element already exists for other roles. It requires only the electoral rules to ask for it.
04 / What it isn't
Information, before the vote
- A verified summary published with every nomination
- The same standard applied to everyone equally
- Voters deciding for themselves what matters
A ban on anyone with a past
- Not automatic disqualification — that's a separate legal question
- Not publication of spent or irrelevant matters
- Not a substitute for the voter's own judgement
Plenty of people with something in their past have gone on to serve well. The point isn't to exclude them. It's that the voter, not the candidate, gets to decide whether it matters — and can only do that if they know.
05 / Mine
It's easy to call for a standard you don't meet yourself. So I've had the check done — identity verification and a Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check through an accredited provider, completed this month. Below is the certificate with every personal identifier redacted: name variations, date of birth, address, email, document numbers and case references. What remains is what a voter actually needs — that the check was done, by whom, when, and what it returned.
Figure 03 · Background check certificate, redacted
Background check for
David Greenwood
Accredited provider · AustraliaGenerated 9 Sep 2026
The full unredacted report — including the detailed result pages — is held on file and can be shown to any accredited journalist or electoral official on request. The redactions protect identity data — not the result.
06 / The ask
To every candidate for the 2028 Greater Geelong election, and every sitting member who wants to be taken seriously on integrity: do the same. It takes ten days and costs less than a campaign corflute. If we can require it of the person coaching under-10s on a Saturday morning, we can require it of the people writing the rules.
Every voter should be able to cast their ballot with confidence. Not hope. Confidence.— David Greenwood OAM