Convicted rapists would no longer be able to hide their identity through suppression orders designed to protect victims if Labor is re-elected in November, a move welcomed by open justice advocates who nonetheless say broader reforms are required.

The state government’s change – to be legislated after the election – represents a first step towards addressing concerns with suppression orders raised by media groups and highlighted by multiple high-profile cases in which alleged abusers have succeeded in remaining unnamed on mental health grounds.

Premier Ben Carroll and Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny announced the commitment on Tuesday as they introduced legislation aimed at protecting victims of abuse, including restrictions on character references and a new standalone offence for coercive control.

Carroll said Labor would amend the Open Courts Act to limit the use of suppression orders in the next term of parliament. As well as barring convicted rapists from using legal manoeuvres to hide their identities, the government also flagged it could wind back the use of suppression orders for those facing criminal trials, amid an ongoing review into the use of suppression orders.

The Age revealed in June that Kilkenny had tasked the Department of Justice and Community Safety with this review work and to consult the courts, lawyers and the media.

Limiting suppression orders for convicted rapists represents a fraction of the problem. Many of the high-profile cases that have shown flaws in the system – including Ralph Carr and Tom Silvagni – have used secrecy provisions to protect the identity of those on trial.

Justin Quill, partner at top-tier law firm Thomsons, said the system was broken and reforms were a “no-brainer”.

“The devil will be in the detail, and until we see that detail, it’s hard to know whether the government’s announced commitment is a real one or just one that’s being said for political purposes ahead of an election in November,” he said.

Quill said convicted offenders were not the key issue, and the biggest problem with the current system was the secrecy orders that could last for years while court proceedings were under way.

“We’ve got to have openness and transparency in our judicial system from start to finish, not just after someone is convicted,” he said.

Lawyers regularly rely on a clause in the Open Courts Act which allows suppression orders to be considered “to protect the safety of any person”, and the government is under pressure to address this element of the legislation.

The use of mental health grounds under this clause to secure suppression orders has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, particularly after being used in the 2025 rape trial of Silvagni, a member of a famous footballing family.

Silvagni’s name was suppressed during criminal proceedings after a judge accepted publicity about his case would risk harming his mental health.

Major media groups, including The Age, campaigned in March alongside victims of crime to change current legislation to make it harder to obtain suppression orders on mental health grounds.

Kilkenny on Tuesday said the review would aim to close any loopholes being exploited.

“Justice must be open, and there must be a balance with the right to a fair trial,” she said. “But we have seen most recently that we need to look at this. We need to listen.”

The Coalition, if elected, has already vowed to restrict suppression orders to genuine physical safety reasons.

Melbourne Press Club president Michael Bachelard, who is also a journalist for The Age, said the government’s announcement was welcomed but limited and light on detail.

“The government and opposition should commit before the election to a much broader review into the law governing cases in Victoria, including the test that must be met before a suppression order is granted,” he said.

“As they stand, these laws make it far too difficult in this state to keep the public informed.”

For three years, Carr, 66, was on bail while he fought allegations that he raped a young woman at his Melbourne home. But the music producer did so under the cloak of anonymity. This was thanks to a wide-ranging suppression order that banned media from reporting his name, age and the industry he worked in, and from publishing pixelated photographs.

Even after a jury found him guilty of rape and sexual assault, he persisted with his suppression fight, arguing his psychological safety would be at significant risk if “public identification” occurred, before abandoning it last week.

In June, this masthead revealed almost 500 suppression orders in various forms were issued in Victorian courts last year, with the highest number being issued on safety grounds – including for mental health reasons. Of those granted, 247 were made in the County Court.

Last week, this masthead unmasked the identity of a doctor accused of filming women and children using showers at Melbourne public pools after fighting a suppression order sought on psychological safety grounds for the accused man’s son.

He was granted a three-month interim suppression order to give lawyers time to gather evidence, despite the legislation stating these types of applications must be brought back before the court for determination as a “matter of urgency”.

Melbourne University academic and lawyer Jason Bosland said: “Suppression orders that are made in circumstances that do not meet community expectations have a corrosive effect on such confidence and ultimately undermine the rule of law.”

The Carroll government also introduced a bill to parliament on Tuesday with a range of protections for victims of abuse.

It included the introduction of coercive control as a standalone criminal offence, delivering on a commitment from 2025, and the removal of “good character” references which can be used to argue for lighter sentences.

Harrison James, a survivor of child sexual abuse and co-founder of the “Your Reference Ain’t Relevant” advocacy group, said character references had already been abolished in the ACT and NSW.

“Good character is the very tool perpetrators use to ingratiate themselves into the lives of their victims, their families and their communities,” he said.

“When we allow them to use that to reduce their sentence, we risk giving an offender a discount for the very thing that helped facilitate the crime.”

The standalone offence of coercive control will take effect in March 2028 to provide time for an advisory group to consult on how it will be implemented.

Katie Alexander, a member of the state’s Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council, said the area was so complex that a one-size-fits-all approach would not work.

She said coercive control devastated her life and destroyed her family.

“It messed with my mind. It broke my body and it shattered my relationships,” Alexander said. “Repeated acts of abuse over many years have deep psychological, emotional, social and financial scars.”

Opposition Leader Jess Wilson said her first act as Coalition leader had been to move legislation on coercive control, which was not supported by Labor at the time.

“Coercive control is an insidious form of abuse and can affect anyone, but we know women are overwhelmingly the victims of intimate partner violence,” she said.

“Protecting women and victim-survivors from abuse should never be political. We will always stand on the side of victim-survivors.”

Other protections to be introduced include amendments to family violence intervention orders that reduce the need for victims to return to court for extensions and requiring courts to consider their views when making decisions on these extensions.

Personal safety intervention orders will also recognise grooming for the first time and fine exemptions will be extended to stop fees and charges being weaponised against victims of abuse.

Get alerts on breaking news as it happens. Sign up for our Breaking News Alert.