Law change for victim-survivors of institutional child abuse

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025 passed the Legislative Council with unanimous support.

It means victim-survivors of child sex abuse can take their claim to court for compensation from the institution which employed their abuser.

This addresses a November 2026 decision by the High Court which found the Catholic Church could not be sued for the conduct of a priest. 

‘The bill ensures that victim-survivors of historical child abuse will no longer be denied justice simply because the church or any other organisation is able to argue that the abuser was not formally employed, and it will also help victim-survivors who were forced into accepting unfair outcomes following the High Court decision,’ Western Victoria MP Jacinta Ermacora said.

‘This bill restores the law to what it was before the High Court decision by retrospectively allowing victim-survivors of historic child abuse to pursue claims of vicarious liability where their abuser was in a relationship akin to employment.’

Despite holding concerns about the bill, the Opposition voted in favour of the reforms.

‘Institutions that place people in positions of trust and authority should be accountable when those placed in these positions abuse that trust and abuse children,’ Eastern Victoria MP Renee Heath said.

‘Retrospectivity matters, the rule of law matters and clarity in legislation matters. The impact on community organisations matters.’

‘We need to think about supporting organisations that will face significant costs. We need to consider working with other states on consistent language across child abuse laws and keep the Parliament regularly informed about how this will be working in practice.’

Southern Metropolitan MP Katherine Copsey said the passage of the legislation is a breakthrough for victim-survivors.

‘Many victim-survivors have had to carry not just the trauma of the abuse itself but the additional burden of institutions denying responsibility, lawyers and insurers exploiting technical defences and legal rules that can feel like they were designed to protect powerful organisations rather than to protect children,’ Ms Copsey said.

‘It is simply wrong that a survivor’s access to civil redress should depend on whether the perpetrator was a formal employee on paper, in a situation where the institution was one that selected, authorised, benefited from and elevated that person into a position of power, trust and intimacy with children.’

Both the Greens and Legalise Cannabis parties put forward changes, but the bill passed the Upper House without amendment.

You can read the full debate from Tuesday 17 February 2026 in Hansard.