Confidentiality agreements are commonly used by institutions to resolve complaints and manage risk. In many cases, they can serve a legitimate purpose.
But where harm involves misconduct, abuse of power or unsafe systems, confidentiality can also prevent accountability and silence people who have already experienced significant harm.
In late 2025, Victoria introduced proposed reforms to limit how non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are used in matters involving workplace misconduct. The changes reflect a broader shift in how the law views institutional responsibility, transparency and individual choice.
This article explains what NDAs are, why they have become a focus of reform, and what the proposed changes may mean for people affected by institutional harm.
What is a non-disclosure agreement?
A non-disclosure agreement is a legal contract that restricts what a person can say about certain matters. NDAs are often used by organisations and institutions in situations such as:
- Resolving internal complaints
- Ending employment or professional relationships
- Settling disputes without court proceedings
In institutional settings, NDAs can prevent an individual from speaking publicly about their experience or the circumstances surrounding a complaint. While confidentiality can sometimes offer privacy and protection, it can also operate unevenly where there is a significant power imbalance.
Why NDAs have raised concern in institutional misconduct matters
NDAs have increasingly been criticised for the role they can play in shielding institutions from scrutiny, particularly where harm arises from:
- Misuse of authority
- Unsafe organisational cultures
- Failures to respond appropriately to complaints
In these contexts, confidentiality may be presented as a condition of resolution, leaving individuals feeling pressured to choose silence in order to access closure or support. Over time, this can:
- Limit accountability
- Prevent systemic change
- Compound the impact of harm by isolating those affected
These concerns have driven calls for reform that prioritise choice and agency, rather than institutional convenience.
What Victoria’s proposed reforms aim to change
Victoria’s proposed reforms would significantly limit how NDAs can be used in matters involving workplace misconduct.
Under the changes:
- Confidentiality would no longer be imposed by default
- An NDA could only be used if the affected person requests it
- Individuals would retain the right to speak with lawyers, police, regulators and support services
Importantly, the reforms do not remove the option of confidentiality altogether. Instead, they shift control away from institutions and back to the individual, recognising that privacy should be a choice, not a condition.
What this means for people affected by institutional harm
For some people, confidentiality offers protection and space to heal. For others, the ability to speak openly or seek external support is essential. The proposed reforms acknowledge that there is no single right response to harm.
If you are dealing with an institution following misconduct or abuse of power:
- You may have greater say in whether confidentiality applies
- You should be given the opportunity to understand your options before signing any agreement
- Legal advice can help clarify what an NDA does and does not prevent you from doing
Every situation is different, and outcomes depend on individual circumstances.
A note for readers
Discussions about misconduct, abuse of power, and institutional harm can be distressing. If this topic brings up difficult feelings or memories, support is available.
You are not alone, and there are people who can help:
- Confidential legal advice: RCT/Stringer Clark can help you understand your options and rights in a safe and private way.
- Support services: Organisations such as 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732) or Lifeline (13 11 14) provide free, confidential support.
Reading this article does not mean you need to take any action. People respond to harm in different ways and at different times. Speaking with a lawyer or support service can help you understand what feels right for you.
Why these reforms reflect a broader shift
The proposed NDA reforms sit within a wider legal movement towards institutional accountability. Across Australia, lawmakers and courts are increasingly recognising that:
- Silence can enable repeated harm
- Transparency supports safer systems
- Legal processes should prioritise dignity, fairness and informed choice
Confidentiality should protect people, not protect institutions from responsibility.
Frequently asked questions
What is an NDA in an institutional setting?
An NDA is a legal agreement that limits what an individual can say about their experience. In institutional contexts, NDAs are often used during complaint resolutions or settlements.
Are NDAs always unlawful?
No. NDAs are lawful in many circumstances. The concern arises when confidentiality is imposed in situations involving misconduct or abuse of power, particularly where there is a significant imbalance between an institution and an individual.
Can an institution force me to sign an NDA?
You should not be pressured into signing any agreement without understanding its terms. Proposed Victorian reforms aim to prevent NDAs being imposed by default in certain misconduct matters.
Does an NDA stop me from speaking to a lawyer or support service?
Under the proposed reforms, individuals would still be allowed to speak with lawyers, police, regulators, and support services, even if confidentiality applies.
I signed an NDA years ago — do I still have options?
Possibly. The effect of an NDA depends on its wording, the circumstances in which it was signed, and changes in the law. Legal advice can help clarify what options may still be available.
How can a lawyer help in matters involving institutional harm?
A lawyer can explain your rights, assess whether an institution has met its legal obligations, and help you understand pathways for accountability or compensation in a confidential and supportive way.
