Thursday, 4 December 2025

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:11): Today is a significant day as I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. I say at the outset that the coalition will not be opposing this bill. It is a significant day, a momentous day, a day that so many have waited for. It is a significant day for this country, not just Victoria, because the impact of this bill will have repercussions in other jurisdictions across this country. It is a momentous day most of all for victims, for victims who have waited for this bill, for an extension of law in a way that we have hoped for for over a decade as the courts have considered a difficult area of law. Again I want to say that the coalition will not be opposing this significant bill, this momentous bill. We will be not opposing its passage through both chambers.

What this bill does, in brief, is amend the Wrongs Act 1958 to create a statutory vicarious liability regime for employees and those akin to employees, which I will go through a little bit later in my speech and explain the importance of, especially in relation to the ‘akin to employment’ relationship. But it also amends the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to allow survivors – both retrospectively for matters settled since a recent High Court case and historical – retrospective standing. Though retrospectivity, it would be fair to say, is something that the rule of law often frankly detests, I think that there are exceptions, and this is certainly a case where retrospectivity should stand.

Although there has been a difficult history at the common law in relation to the concept of vicarious liability and there have been many cases, and I will refer to a number of them, that have shown that difficulty in relation to interpretation of vicarious liability, this proposed piece of law that is before the house today came about as a result of a High Court matter where a respondent was sexually abused twice by an assistant priest. Before we talk about the bill in detail, it is important for us to understand why at its core we have had a need to legislate in this space: because of a victim, a victim of a horrific crime – in fact more than one crime. In that case the High Court found that because, bluntly speaking, the perpetrator was not an employee, they did not have standing. The law should provide justice. More than anything else it should provide justice. It is not always perfect. The system is difficult. It is expensive. But at its heart, we as legislators should always aim to ensure that our laws provide justice, and for that victim there was no justice. This piece of legislation provides a clear statutory framework that says for victims, including the victim in that case, no longer will we allow this area of law to be unsettled. We as legislators will lean in to provide certainty, to provide clarity and to provide justice retrospectively, which is absolutely deserved.

Vicarious liability – for background – is, as the High Court has put it, where one person in a broad sense is the agent of another. As the High Court said specifically, it is a form of primary liability where the acts of another person are attributed to the defendant on the basis that the acts were done for the defendant with the defendant’s express, implied or apparent authorisation of the acts. They are an agent of the person, so their behaviour can be attributed and liability should exist. There are secondary instances of behaviour where liability should be attributed but has not been attributed, because that agency may not be as clear or the behaviour may be such that no good person would have allowed or authorised that to occur, so there has been a question at law in relation to secondary liability, because good people would not allow that behaviour to occur. As the High Court said in relation to secondary liability:

This is vicarious liability in its true or proper, sense – liability based on the attribution of the liability of another. As is self-evident, vicarious liability is a form of strict liability, whereby a defendant is held liable for the wrongs of another, despite the defendant being free of fault.

That is why the law in this space has been uncertain, because in cases of secondary liability there is almost always an understanding that the first party is free of fault from the behaviour that has occurred. But I think the court, as it has grappled with the most difficult cases, has understood over time, which I will speak to shortly, a need to not allow that loophole to remove justice from people, especially where it relates to child abuse, the most heinous form of crime to slip through a loophole. The courts have found that concept difficult because the first party is, as I said, free of fault, but the person, their agent, has acted in the most heinous way.

So the common law has through many cases been quite strict with the rule that an employment relationship needs to exist, and a person who does wrongdoing as an agent does need to be in an employment relationship. You can understand why the court has been hesitant to move away from that strictness of employment. This is, I should say, an issue that is not just one that has been grappled with within our jurisdictions; this is in like countries an issue that has been dealt with – moving away from that strict employment relationship, because it is hard to see where these crimes have occurred and a strict employment relationship has not existed. For example, a person may be an agent of the organisation or person but not strictly be paid, so therefore they are not necessarily an employee but all other features of employment may be there. While the courts have grappled with those cases, it is fair to say it has been a difficult area for the courts, and they have been historically strict, but the High Court has recognised more recently that:

Vicarious liability has had a tortured history not only in this Court –

the High Court –

but also in other jurisdictions.

And has described vicarious liability further:

as, among other things, an “unstable principle”, for which a “coherent basis” and “fully satisfactory rationale” for its imposition have been “slow to appear in the case law”.

It is a difficult area of law because, as the court said:

… this Court has not accepted an overarching theory based on “enterprise risk” beyond any employment relationship.

And further:

… a relationship of employment has always been a necessary precursor in this country to a finding of vicarious liability and it has always been necessary that the wrongful acts must be committed in the course or scope of the employment.

And we have seen that in the case law if you look at the historical judgements and the court’s reliance on those judgements in the way vicarious liability has been interpreted, like Deatons, which is a 1949 case where a waitress threw a glass at a patron, and the bar was not found liable. There have been some other cases more recently in relation to behaviour of one employee against another, where two employees were living at an accommodation of the employer and that employer was not found liable, or a security guard who pointed their gun, which of course would be outside the role with which they were connected. In those cases, even where an employment relationship existed, vicarious liability was not held. But there are others, and I do note that that is where the court has found difficulty, especially in relation to circumstances where an employment relationship has not existed. I do note the Footscray Football Club case where a long-term volunteer was found to have been liable. As the court has said, it has been difficult to extend the issue of vicarious liability beyond that of an employment relationship, but we have seen a movement in the development, and I would argue the courts are softly making clear a need to find justice or deliver justice to victims of the most heinous crimes.

You saw that, I think it would be fair to say, in cases like Christian Brothers. In that particular matter, which was a Supreme Court matter, the court adopted a test of ‘akin to employment’ and they set out a policy rationale for a need for fairness and justice. It was a bit over 10 years ago an example of the court saying we need a system of fairness and justice, that we need principles of fairness and justice to underpin vicarious liability and to do so in circumstances where there may not be direct clear employment or ‘akin to employment’. If I can refer to – and this is a few sentences – those principles that the Supreme Court set out at that time, the reasoning was:

i)   The employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the employee and can be expected to have insured against that liability;

ii)   The tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer;

iii)   The employee’s activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer;

iv)   The employer, by employing the employee to carry on the activity will have created the risk of the tort committed by the employee;

v)   The employee will, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer.

You can understand, when thinking those concepts through, why the court was setting out the need for a policy framework in relation to justice being provided to victims through ‘akin to employment’ and vicarious liability. That was further developed in Prince Alfred College a few years later, where it identified the particular features and noted authority, power, trust, control and the ability to achieve intimacy. You can see the court has been speaking to a need to develop a case in these matters. However, that does not mean that the High Court was of the same view, and that is why the High Court matter that has caused this, frankly, is the cause of this bill. You must understand that the High Court has come in over the top of the development of the lower courts and ruled against the development of that extension of the law. As the High Court said in this particular matter that is at the core of this law, the Bird case:

Abandoning the threshold requirement of a relationship of employment for the purposes of vicarious liability does not fit within the body of accepted rules and principles. The difficulties that have existed and presently exist with vicarious liability in Australia, and overseas … do not provide a proper basis for the development of the common law …

Further, and this is perhaps the most important thing, they said:

Reformulation of the law of vicarious liability is properly the province of the legislature.

We have heard, as this bill has been developed – and we will hear many, many people set out their views, and I will briefly touch upon them – concerns about the law that we are potentially considering today. But that sentence is the one that we as legislators must keep at the foremost of our minds – that is, though this has been a difficult area of law, the High Court has made it clear that reformulation of the law of vicarious liability is properly the province of the legislature, which is why we are here today.

I am sure there have been many organisations, experts and practising lawyers who have been consulted but have also provided feedback on the proposed legislation. This is frankly the kind of legislation that comes up in parliamentary sessions only sporadically. There are some small moments in time across the term of a Parliament where a piece of legislation comes in where a broad base of the community and experts in the community have very differing views. It is worth noting them because although we as legislators I hope disagree with some of their views and agree with other parts of their views, their views are worth noting. It is worth talking through where we do not agree and setting out why that is the case. In terms of agreement, I should note people like the Australian Lawyers Alliance and the Federation of Community Legal Centres are strong supporters of the need for the state to legislate. They are not the only ones, but they certainly are supporters.

There are a number of other religious congregations who have contacted me and asked that their specific identities not be set out. I take their request; however, I will note their concerns. They are, in general terms, about retrospectivity and consultation and also the state leaning into developing the law in this space. There are legal experts who are concerned about the legislature developing further the law here where, in their view, the common law is the appropriate place to consider vicarious liability, especially as it relates to circumstances akin to employment and there being no need for this. I do in both those circumstances note that the High Court said otherwise.

There is one organisation – and I am going to try to be constructive in the way that I frame it – who have noted strong concerns and will have contacted most members of the chamber about their concerns: the Australian Christian Lobby. I think it is worth noting their concerns because I think they speak quite clearly to their purpose. They raise concerns about retrospective liability and note specifically:

Holding individuals or institutions accountable under laws that did not exist at the time of the alleged conduct undermines foundational legal principles …

Respectfully, holding institutions accountable for child sex abuse is the right thing to do. They also noted that the bill creates legal uncertainty. I have just explained quite clearly why that is not the case. In fact I think what this bill does is the exact opposite. Thirdly, they have a concern about the volume and scope of claims and specifically that a broad retrospective window could generate an unmanageable number of claims. They say:

There is real risk that current leaders and institutions may be held responsible for actions they had no knowledge of and no ability to prevent.

I circle back to the initial point that a broad retrospective window could generate an unmanageable number of claims. That is why we are here – because every claim is a child, and if there are an unmanageable number of claims, every Parliament in Australia has an obligation to protect what happened to them.

This is a very difficult piece of legislation for some people, and I understand why. A number of institutions have made this clear, and they are not the only ones; there have been a number of institutions that have contacted me and put this into volume. One described it as ‘unmanageable’, as I just read; another described it as ‘hundreds’, in relation to just simply their organisation. I would say to those organisations: think through those sentences and those words and think through when you talk about these issues that there are hundreds of people that many organisations are aware of who have not found justice but who have lived a full life in many cases, although in others they have ended their life because of the crimes that were perpetrated against them. What this bill does is create absolute clarity. Of course it allows the court to consider the circumstances of the case, as it rightly should. It does push back to the court where a circumstance has occurred or is before it that each case should be considered on its merits and the test, especially as it relates to ‘akin to an employee’, should be considered by the court. But it puts into the statute book a set of clear laws that include the victims of perpetrators for whom, now and historically, organisations have tried to use a loophole in the law to say they should not be held liable because they were employees but not by one factor – in most cases, being paid. I cannot see how any good person could argue that they were their employee but by one factor – that they were not being paid – so they should not be liable for their actions.

So I say, and circle back to where I started, this is a significant day with this piece of legislation, because this legislation leans into a space of law that has been difficult and makes clear that employers of perpetrators of behaviour that no good person could abide cannot find a loophole out because of one factor of their circumstance with their employee. This law will have an impact across other jurisdictions, as it should, and it will provide something to victims that they should have had and should have received. Firstly, the crimes should not have occurred in the first place, but it provides them with legal clarity where it has not been since the High Court judgement where the High Court ruled quite strictly, frankly, a level of distress to victims that they have had to live with since that judgement.

As I said, though we have a government and the government drafted this legislation, there are a few moments in Parliament where pieces of legislation come before it that rise above politics and, frankly, are hopefully the good work of legislators, and this is one of those. The High Court pointed to the state jurisdictions having a responsibility to legislate over this area of law. That is what this bill does. The coalition will not be opposing it in either chamber. Again, I finish by saying, this is a significant day.

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (10:40): Can I first acknowledge the Shadow Attorney-General for that thoughtful, well-considered and accurate reflection and contribution. I rise today to speak in strong support of the vicarious liability reforms that this Parliament has now placed on the table, reforms that matter deeply to victim-survivors, to advocates and I think to every Victorian who believes in justice. First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the courage and resilience of the victim-survivors who have fought for decades to be heard. Many of them have carried the trauma that no child, no person, should ever have to experience, yet they have turned their pain into purpose. This legislation exists because of them. They faced institutions that were supposed to protect them, and they have changed laws, they have changed expectations and they have changed this state.

Thank you to the legal firms and the survivors who I invited into our Parliament brief who shared their lived experience, including Patricia and Bernadette, but also those who understandably could not come in but wrote or called. Thank you to the Premier and the Attorney-General for their prompt action and also the strong unified Labor government caucus who rallied behind this issue, along with the Victorian Trades Hall Council, Thanks also to Rachel Payne, who bravely introduced a private members bill earlier this year, and also thank you to Judy Courtin, who has provided educated, fearless and very frank advice to me at times on this bill.

One of the greatest injustices exposed in recent years came through the Bishop of Ballarat versus DP decision. The Bird v DP decision left Australia at odds with other common-law jurisdictions like the UK and Canada, who had actually extended vicarious liability to relationships that are akin to employment around 20 years ago. This ruling left thousands of people devastated – suicidal even – and I note that some of us have probably seen that firsthand. This decision created an absurd legal fiction, giving us two categories of victim-survivors – those who were abused by people who were technically employees, on one hand, and those who were abused by people who were not employees or who were volunteers. The first group could seek justice. The second group, through no fault of their own, could not.

I ask you to imagine standing in a court beside another survivor from the same institution subjected to the same abuse by the same systemic failures but being told your case would be dismissed because your perpetrator was labelled a volunteer. Imagine being told that the organisation that provided that abuser with a platform, with the authority, with the opportunity, could wash its hands of responsibility because a payslip did not exist. That is not justice. That is not accountability. That is an absolute insult to survivors.

We know what these relationships looked like. They were not hobbyists. They were not casual helpers popping in once a month. In cases such as the DPcase, they were individuals entrusted with authority, wearing uniforms, living on church property, gaining stipends, using vehicles supplied by the organisation and holding positions of trust that gave them unfettered access to children and vulnerable people. To pretend that they were not in an employment-like relationship is not just absurd, it is absolutely dangerous. To use this argument to absolve your organisation from responsibility is pathetic.

And with respect to those of faith, who I do respect – this is not about faith, but regardless of that – I ask you a simple question, and you have heard this question many times, but in this context: what would Jesus do? If Jesus was faced with adults who were victims of child abuse, I very much doubt Jesus would be trying to find the legal technicality to avoid responsibility and justice and would provide compassion. Institutions knew exactly what they were doing when they delegated responsibility. They knew the power these individuals held, they knew the risks, but when survivors came forward, suddenly the same institutions claimed that these people were just volunteers. It is a legal technicality that has shielded organisations from accountability while survivors have constantly been left holding the cost. This legislation closes that loophole. It broadcasts the message that perpetrators can no longer be hidden by any organisation in Victoria. It makes clear that vicarious liability must reflect the real nature of the relationship, not the label that an institution gives retrospectively. If an organisation entrusts someone with the authority, the responsibility or the access ‍– if they give them the keys, the clothes, the car, the status and the opportunity – then that organisation must be accountable for the harm that that person causes.

I also want to make something abundantly clear: this legislation is not about punishing faith communities or volunteer organisations or institutions unfairly. At its heart it is about justice and protecting children. Do not get confused about that. It is about acknowledging that power and opportunity, not payroll classifications, determine the risk, and it is about making sure that the next survivor who comes forward is not told that they are in the wrong category. But while this bill is about justice for survivors, I think there is also a cultural and a preventative effect going forward. The message in this legislation that this government is passing should always be simple: put child safety first. Do not allow any place, any space or any person to operate without appropriate oversight. There are no excuses. Every MP in this place who recently went through and told us their opinion about the issue we just witnessed in the childcare sector now has the chance to prevent abuse by supporting this bill. I ask members of this house not to just not oppose this bill but to support this bill. Support this bill to encourage a culture where institutions do not just denounce or avoid poor behaviour. Support this bill so institutions actively use child safe standards. Support this bill to send the message that if you do not allow this behaviour under your watch, you will not have to pay a barrister to find a legal technicality under appeal.

There will always be those people who say that these reforms go too far, and to them I say: it is pretty clear that the only people who should fear accountability are those who have failed in their duty to protect the vulnerable. Let me also dispel a myth that will no doubt be raised in this debate about volunteer groups. Volunteer groups being damaged by this bill is a fundamentally flawed argument. The bill before us takes us back to the law before October 2023, when no volunteer organisations were falling over because of this law, and they will not be now. The courts are also left to decide via an appropriate test what is akin to employment. Anyway, it will never be financially viable for a plaintiff law firm to take on cases with organisations that are not insured or are not financially capable. If you are up to speak next and that is the tenor of your argument, I think you should actually read the bill. For those who may get up and say the bill is going too far, I would say to you: until there is a time where we have zero children being abused, we are not going far enough. Furthermore, if this bill concerns some organisations, then I would say that often those are the organisations that need to be concerned. They are the organisations that have turned a blind eye to potential abuse by allowing a sliding culture of behaviour – things like not completing adequate background checks, things like letting that one person be alone in a room with a child, things like moving problematic workers all around the state. When these failures happen, we see the consequences.

This bill embodies a simple but powerful truth: institutions that benefit from the labour, trust and vulnerability of individuals must also bear the responsibility when that trust is violated. Today we are affirming that harm is not an unfortunate accident of bureaucracy, it is the foreseeable consequence of systems that fail to safeguard those in their care. And when those systems fail, the system, not just the individual, must answer for that. This bill does more than protect victims – it incentivises organisations to build cultures of prevention, transparency and also integrity. It ensures that no institution, no matter how large, respected or influential, can shield itself from accountability behind individual wrongdoing or harbour perpetrators. This bill draws a line in the sand. Supporting this bill is supporting a safer Victoria, a more just Victoria and a Victoria where power comes from responsibility, not immunity. It draws a line in the sand for those who are entrusted with authority: they must be answerable for the actions carried out under that authority. That is the essence of justice. To survivors watching today or reading this in Hansard, the message from this place should be clear: you were right to speak up, you were right to demand change, and this time the law is not leaving you behind. I commend this bill to the house, and I wish it a safe and speedy passage.

 Emma KEALY (Lowan) (10:50): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the children in care who were abused, those that have been able to summon the courage to continue to function with varying levels of success throughout their lives. I have spoken to and know quite well some of the children who were sexually abused many decades ago in various care. I know people who have been able to put that behind them and not hold themselves to the level that their assailants held them to. They have been able to put it behind them and get on with their lives. There are others who carry that burden throughout their lives and have found it incredibly difficult to move on. As has been noted by previous speakers, sadly, when child abuse happens, it has an impact and creates a scar that can never be healed. For some that scar is too much of a burden to carry.

The fact that children can blame themselves for sexual assault by child predators is incredibly damaging and can never be underestimated. I acknowledge those that are not with us today to hear about this legislation. As has been said in the very generous contributions that have been made by members on both sides so far, they cannot listen because they are not here with us. I acknowledge their family members and their friends and those who would have enjoyed their company. The world would be a better place if those younger people had been given the opportunity to grow into adulthood without the harm that occurred at the hands of adults that should have known better and institutions that should have kept a better eye on things, that should have acted on reports at an earlier point and that should have ensured that somebody who had wrong intent and was working with children one on one at times or had an ability to influence or do not just the wrong thing but heinously horrific things was held to account. This legislation is a step forward in that.

There would not be a member of this place who, like I suspect the vast majority of Victorians, would not always do what they could to ensure that child predation around sexual abuse and physical abuse does not occur. But unfortunately it does occur. It is important to note that this does not occur just within religious organisations. I think it is unfair to paint religion as being a precursor to child predation. That is not the case, and we misrepresent the risk to children across our society by singling out one particular entity. Child predators and sexual assailants, we know, will find victims wherever they can to achieve their own end point of sexual gratification. As was mentioned by the member for Frankston, recently we have seen that within childcare centres, but we know it has also occurred in other areas, including within the child protection system – kids who we already knew were at risk that were then exposed to predators, that were sexually assaulted during that time and whose lives have been so deeply harmed that their pathway has deviated from what they could have achieved in life.

Government has a role and a responsibility to play in that, no matter whether it is something that occurs within a religious organisation, a school or a healthcare setting, whether it is in foster care or the child protective care system or whether it is in sporting or community clubs. It does not matter what scenario this is in, the government has a responsibility to be part of that. While this legislation today steps up in some way towards that, we know that, sadly, there are children across Victoria who will be sexually assaulted today. As a parliamentarian, that is something that weighs heavily on me. I know that it weighs heavily on other members as well. There is always more we can do, but we can never undo the harm that was done in the past, which is why we must continue to have these conversations.

While it is a very difficult conversation to have, having the opportunity to listen to child victims of sexual assault is one of the heaviest duties we have as parliamentarians. On the other side, to be trusted enough that a constituent will come forward to you and share for sometimes the first time that they were sexually assaulted as a child, I am glad that somebody feels like they can come forward and share their story. I would not necessarily think that going into an MP’s office would be my first port of call to share that story, but when people do trust us enough to share those stories we have an obligation to do more and to make sure that people feel heard, that their harm is understood and that they have our support. Their survival means that they can continue to be advocates through their courage to speak out, whether it is a private one-on-one conversation with a friend, with a family member, with a counsellor who has expertise in the area or perhaps with a member of Parliament – whoever it is that they feel they can trust – and I encourage them to do so.

Unlocking the heaviness of guilt and shame that is associated with being a victim of child sexual assault can help to heal as much as you can the harm that was caused by others. It is a simple message for anybody who is listening or reflecting back on Hansard who has been a victim of child sex abuse, no matter where that occurred: do what you can to look after yourself, and above all else, know that the actions of an adult that should have known better, that knew that it was wrong to use your position of vulnerability, of not knowing right from wrong, of having an undeveloped and immature brain, of having experiences in life of perhaps not feeling like you had an option to say no or feeling like you would get into more trouble, lose access to loved ones, be expelled from school or be homeless and out of care – that intimidatory behaviour – and the fact that at the time you could not speak up does not mean that you have failed. That is not a guilt or shame that any victims of sexual assault should ever carry.

That is why as parliamentarians bringing through legislation like this shows that when people share their story we can take action. We can ensure that the voices that are out there today who are speaking out against child sexual assault in the past or which is occurring today can be actioned so that in the future we have fewer child sex offences, that the predators are locked up and kept away from children and kept away from the community and that they are the ones who carry the guilt and shame of their own actions and not the victims of child sexual abuse. I hope that this is a step forward for some of the victims of sexual assault who have not been captured and have not been able to access all of the penalties that should have been afforded to them because there was not the legislation to support the positions which were akin to employment. I will note that this was covered in the Betrayal of Trust report over a decade ago, but obviously with the High Court decision and the recommendation that each state should establish legislation in this part does mean that a wrong will be set right in terms of a legislative framework.

I thank all of those who have had the courage to speak up and to be the voice of others who are not with us today. You have ensured that, in the future, there will be fewer child sex offenders. You have ensured there will be accountability and responsibility for those who have caused harm in our community.

 Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (11:00): I am proud to be speaking in strong support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. This is a critically important bill which improves the legal avenues available to survivors of historical child abuse in my community of Ballarat, across the Ballarat diocese and the whole of Victoria. Firstly, and crucially, I wish to recognise the strong leadership of the Attorney-General and her commitment to addressing the impact of the High Court Bird v DP decision and restoring fairness for victims in Victoria.

This bill will ensure that institutions can be held liable for child abuse committed by individuals who are akin to employees, not just direct employees. I strongly support that the bill will be able to provide the ability to retrospectively set aside settlements or judgements made between the decision on the 13 ‍November 2024 and the act’s commencement. I want to thank the Attorney-General’s office and the department for their efforts in bringing this bill before us before the end of the year. I would also like to acknowledge and deeply thank all those who contributed to this bill, and those who have advocated and spoken out to underline its importance, including Loud Fence members from Ballarat, Dr Judy Courtin, the former member for Oakleigh Ann Barker and loved ones of victim-survivors. Some of these people are here today and others are tuning in from Ballarat.

This legislation is significant for members of my communities whose lives have been irrevocably impacted by clerical sexual abuse and injustice for victim-survivors. Following the High Court decision in November 2024, on 22 February I attended a Loud Fence event in Ballarat to hear from lawyer Dr Judy Courtin about the impact of the Bird v DP decision on victim-survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and the need for a campaign for retrospective legislation to reverse the judgement. It was at this event that I committed to advocating to the Attorney-General for legislation. As a part of this commitment, in March I organised for representatives from the Loud Fence advocacy group to meet with the Attorney-General in my electorate office and to hear directly from them about how the High Court decision was impacting victim-survivors, and the actions they were seeking. In the strongest terms, the Loud Fence advocacy group expressed that the High Court decision ended hope: a hope for justice, a hope for recourse and a hope for a better future. Thank you to Gary Sculley, Maureen Hatcher, Marg Camilleri, Katrina Bevelander and Caity Cox for your powerful advocacy.

In May I was contacted by the father of a victim, a constituent who had never contacted his MP before. He described the ramifications of the High Court decision as catastrophic. He shared with me that his son was frequently abused by a parish priest in the Ballarat diocese, and the abuse had started when his son was in early primary school. He explained to me that his son’s life had been irreversibly changed, and he continues to suffer from PTSD from the abuse. The impact on the family has been devastating. The father explained that when his son learned of the High Court decision, he did not know if he could see his path for justice through. The father told me that the life had gone out of his son and that he was very concerned about him. The father could not be clearer in his views on the consequences of the High Court decision, telling me:

It will directly lead to the deaths and self-harm of people who have been abused by an institution that should be held accountable for actions of its so-called “representatives”.

That is why this legislation is so important, because of what it means to survivors and their loved ones. By introducing the bill we not only do not allow their hope to be taken away but we do not allow their access to justice to be taken away and we do not allow their voices to be silenced. Our government’s commitment to victim-survivors of sexual abuse includes our $500,000 contribution towards a sexual assault memorial in Ballarat, in partnership with the federal Labor government and the City of Ballarat. The memorial will be constructed in Victoria Park and is intended to recognise the impacts of sexual abuse in our community, reflect the continuing lived experience of trauma and elevate the voices of victims. Once established, the memorial will create a place for deep reflection and remembrance. It will also be a physical reminder that there is still so much more we need to do to end violence that continues to inflict significant harm in the Ballarat community.

The legislation before us today is one further part of our efforts to better support survivors. I asked associate professor of criminology and criminal justice Marg Camilleri if she would provide me with some words to share about the legislation during my contribution to this debate, which I will read now:

The importance of this Bill to children of historic and future child sexual abuse, cannot be overstated. It responds to the High Court judgement in Bird vs DP (Nov. 2024), a case led by the Ballarat Diocese. A gesture toward survivors of clergy abuse which was simultaneously appalling as it was hypocritical and seen as yet another attempt to silence survivors and disrupt their attempts to seek justice.

Survivors have spent decades dealing with the devastating consequences of the abuse, being silenced and repeatedly betrayed by systems which purported to care for their welfare. Make no mistake, the effects of childhood sexual abuse are lifelong. The ripple effects of which are felt by families, communities and subsequent generations. Lives shattered will never ever be the same. For those who ended their lives, the struggle proved overwhelming.

This Bill and the promise of legislation it will become, ensures that:

• survivors are not left behind, not ignored and not denied justice yet again.

• the safety of children is prioritised, not at the expense of organisations who work directly with children, but ahead of predators who deliberately seek positions granting them access to children.

We now have an opportunity to put children’s safety first and to provide survivors with a pathway to justice and a Just response.

I thank Associate Professor Marg Camilleri for sharing these words with me.

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025 addresses the issue of vicarious liability and, by amending two current acts, will remove a key legal barrier faced by some victim-survivors of historical child abuse. Proposed amendments to the Wrongs Act 1958 will provide the basis for vicarious liability claims for actions by individuals akin to an employee in addition to formal employees. In the Bird v DP case, which was a civil case against the diocese for historical child abuse committed by an assistant priest, it was the technicalities of employment that impeded the finding of vicarious liability. The court found that the abuse occurred and that it occurred during the broader course of the assistant priest’s duties. But while the first judgement and the first appeal were both satisfied that the assistant priest represented the diocese akin to an employee, the High Court found that it was not sufficient. He was not an employee in the strictest of senses, so the opportunity for justice was lost. Amending the Wrongs Act 1958 will set this right.

Improving the test for vicarious liability will reform the basis of court decisions going forward, but that still does not account for cases decided over the last year since the precedent set by the High Court decision. That is why we also propose amendments to the Limitation of Actions Act 1958. This bill will provide courts with the option to set aside judgements and previously settled causes of action. Claimants will also be able to bring actions in cases where judgements and settlements have already been made. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Brighton and the member for Frankston and thank the opposition for their strong support for this important legislation. I support this legislation because it will restore justice for victims and provide retrospective application. I support victim-survivors today and every day, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (11:10): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. The opposition will not oppose this legislation, though we do so with carefully considered reservations about both process and legal principle. This bill addresses a profound failure in our legal system: the inability of survivors of institutional child abuse to achieve justice when technical employment structures shield institutions from accountability. The opposition’s position reflects a difficult balancing exercise. We have a genuine concern about retrospective legislation and about codifying legal tests in what has been described as an unstable area of law. However, we do recognise the moral imperative to provide pathways to justice for survivors and the urgent need to address the injustice created by the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP.

This bill responds directly to that decision handed down on 13 November 2024. The ruling left survivors facing an impossible burden: proving their abuser was an employee in the traditional sense, even when that person was placed in a position of power and trust by an institution and exploited that institutional role to perpetrate abuse. Survivors who had been pursuing justice for decades suddenly found their cases in jeopardy and some were forced to accept materially lower settlements. Others saw years of courage simply evaporate because of a technicality about employment status. The High Court itself stated explicitly that any reformation of the vicarious liability principle is properly the provenance of the legislature. Today this Parliament accepts that responsibility.

Victoria is not alone in recognising this need. Following the Bird decision, jurisdictions across Australia moved swiftly to address this gap. This national response demonstrates the consensus across Australian jurisdictions and across different political parties that the Bird decision created an untenable situation requiring immediate legislative correction.

This bill does two critical things. First, it establishes a statutory vicarious liability regime, ensuring institutions can be held accountable for child abuse committed by those placed in positions of trust. Second, it provides justice for survivors whose cases were resolved during the Bird window, allowing inadequate settlements to be reopened where just and reasonable. Before addressing these provisions, I must place on record the opposition’s significant concerns. Vicarious liability has been described by legal experts as an unstable area of law. The case law demonstrates this. Bars have not been held liable when employees throw glasses at patrons, yet employers have been found liable for conduct in employer-provided accommodation. These precedents remind us that we are legislating where even experienced judges must carefully weigh competing factors.

The opposition also has serious concerns about retrospectivity and the reopening of settled matters. These are not abstract concerns. They go to the foundations of our legal system. Retrospective legislation, particularly legislation that allows settled matters to be disturbed, creates uncertainty and it can absolutely undermine confidence in legal finality. However, the opposition have concluded that we will not oppose this bill and our reasoning is clear: both elements of the bill, the codification of vicarious liability and the retrospective provisions, align with our moral and value bases. Context absolutely matters. The area of vicarious liability has been characterised by judicial evolution. Institutions are already operating on the assumption that vicarious liability could extend to non-employees. The Bird decision disrupted established expectations; it did not affirm them. We are dealing with serious criminal conduct where survivors face enormous barriers to achieving justice. When technical legal barriers prevent accountability for serious harm the moral case for legislative intervention becomes compelling. The bill includes safeguards in this space. Reopening settlement requires Supreme Court approval on a just and reasonable basis. Nevertheless the opposition want to be clear that our decision not to oppose this bill does not mean that we regard retrospectivity lightly. We have determined not to oppose because of specific circumstances: the nature of the conduct at issue and the alignment with our fundamental values about justice for survivors provide sufficient justification in this particular case.

The need for this legislation arose because for decades many institutions operated with structures that created difficulties for establishing traditional employment relationships. Survivors were abused by people who wore the uniforms, bore the titles, exercised the authority and acted with the apparent endorsement of their institutions. Yet when survivors sought justice they encountered arguments that the perpetrator was not technically an employee. We cannot accept that technical employment structures should shield institutions from accountability for abuse committed by those they placed in positions of power and trust. The bill’s statutory vicarious liability test provides that an institution will be vicariously liable where the apparent performance of a role in which the institution placed the perpetrator supplied the occasion for the abuse and the perpetrator took advantage of that occasion. This draws on principles discussed in earlier cases, including Prince Alfred College, recognising that institutions create opportunities for abuse when they place individuals in roles with authority, power, trust, control and the ability to achieve, sadly, intimacy with children. Some stakeholders have argued the bill should use broader language than ‘akin to an employee’. However, the bill provides courts with flexibility to consider whether activities were integral to the institution, whether they were for the institution’s benefit and the extent of the institutional control. This list of factors is deliberately non-exhaustive, preserving judicial discretion.

The amendments to the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 address the urgent injustice suffered by survivors during the Bird window. The Supreme Court will have the power to determine whether it is just and reasonable to allow settlements to reopen or new actions to commence, and this balances the interests of survivors with the need for legal certainty, while recognising that certainty must never come at the cost of justice. We must be clear about what the Bird window meant in human terms. For survivors this was not an abstract legal development, it was a period of profound uncertainty and distress. Many had spent years, even decades, building the courage to pursue justice. They had relived the trauma through legal process, they had fought against institutions with vastly greater resources and then suddenly the legal ground shifted beneath them. Some accepted settlements that they knew were inadequate because they feared basically losing everything. Others simply gave up, unable to face starting again. This bill gives them certainty. It gives them a second chance at justice, and rightly so. We know from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that institutional child abuse was enabled by systemic failures. Survivors seek acknowledgement and accountability. This bill sends a clear message: institutions cannot hide behind technical legal structure to avoid responsibility for abuse committed by those acting under their authority.

The failure to hold institutions accountable has profound consequences beyond individual cases. When institutions escape liability through technical legal argument it sends a message that clever structuring of employment arrangements can shield organisations from the consequences of abuse that occurs under their watch. This undermines public confidence in our justice system and in the institutions themselves, but more importantly it denies survivors the validation they deserve and the closure that comes from holding the responsible parties to account. This bill addresses that failure directly. I acknowledge the concerns about uncertainty for organisations. However, institutions were already operating on the assumption of vicarious liability prior to the Bird decision. This bill does not create new and unexpected liability. It restores the legal landscape that existed before the judgement disrupted it.

 Vicki WARD (Eltham – Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Natural Disaster Recovery, Minister for Equality) (11:20): Thank you, Acting Speaker Addison, for your earlier contribution. I support this bill. The trauma, damage and harm of abuse have a long tail. It can take years to learn how to live with this experience – or experiences – and it comes at a cost: drug and alcohol abuse; staying in education; keeping a job; paying for psychological support; maintaining relationships; and self-harm. The list of consequences is very long. Some take their lives, unable to any longer live with the hurt and the pain. We also know through research that a disproportionate amount of prisoners have experienced sexual or physical abuse in childhood. Abuse changes the courses of lives and often limits the full potential of a person being realised – this is a further injustice. The costs mount: this is a financial, mental and social charge; an expense for which those responsible or those who, through their own actions, created an environment of permission need to and should pay. Sometimes those who have experienced abuse do not want to have anything further to do with their perpetrators or those associated with permissiveness, and that is absolutely understandable. But many want and need perpetrators and the organisations who did not stop this behaviour, or who were too slow, or who did not have the safety of children and vulnerable people at the heart of their decision-making, to be accountable and to support them in rebuilding their lives so that they do not carry this cost on their own.

We know childhood abuse, including in institutional or organisational settings, often remains hidden for decades, and that justice and redress cannot be dependent on the technicalities of when an offence occurred or what legal structure the institution had, including definitions of ‘employment’. In 2024 the Bird v DP decision by the High Court of Australia ruled that an organisation could not be held vicariously liable for abuse committed by a person who was not formally employed even when their role was functionally equivalent to employment. We are going to fix this legal limbo with this bill. This is a ruling that left many historical abuse survivors unable to access justice and unable to hold institutions to account despite experiencing profound harm. Institutions and organisations should not evade any responsibility that they hold simply because a perpetrator under their watch was a volunteer, a member of clergy or otherwise was not formally employed. For many victim-survivors the consequences of what they have experienced – the harm and hurt that they have experienced – are lifelong. They span physical and mental health, relationships, education, employment and even life expectancy. Research from Macquarie University has shown clearly that people who experience child abuse are significantly more likely as adults to suffer from both physical and mental health conditions and to incur higher ongoing healthcare costs.

The effects are deeply personal and persistent. The flashbacks that interrupt life can take days, hours or weeks to recover from and can put your life on hold and reduce your social and economic life. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse gathered extensive evidence from survivors detailing trauma that spans a lifetime. Some survivors described immediate and lasting psychological damage: depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, sleep disturbances, self-harm, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, difficulties with trust and intimacy and challenges forming relationships. The commission found that this abuse affects relationships, employment, economic stability and family dynamics and can ripple through future generations. Many survivors found life hard – challenges with schooling, work, parenting, intimate relationships and social isolation.

Abuse is very expensive. It has so many diverse costs. A 2024 study by researchers at the University of Sydney estimated that childhood abuse, including sexual abuse and neglect, is responsible for approximately 40 per cent of common lifelong mental health conditions in Australia. This includes depression, anxiety, harmful alcohol and drug use, self-harm and suicide attempts. The study also found elimination of childhood abuse in Australia would in 2023, for example, have prevented 66,143 ‍years of life lost and 118,493 years of life lived with disability, totalling 184,636 years of healthy life lost through mental health conditions experienced by childhood maltreatment and abuse. Those who have experienced abuse need to have custody over their lives and choices, which includes choosing to access justice, compensation, counselling and support. It is about fairness and an acknowledgement of their suffering, helping them build a new life, for the past one cannot be rebuilt, and holding institutions accountable for past failures.

I am going to talk about David. Firstly, he acknowledges and commends the government for this legislation and work. He believes the closure of this loophole delivers the right to justice for all victim-survivors and the pathway to justice and that including volunteers as well as employees will ensure that institutions are held accountable. He said:

… as a survivor and advocate I recognise the journey to justice is long and hard – for too long the ‘system’ has not been structured to support redress and justice – not everyone can be an advocate – I acknowledge that most cannot be public advocates and I am honoured that I am able to be an advocate – these changes whilst they mean so much to me they will change the lives of many folk for the better – it will not just make their recovery journey a bit easier but it will deliver justice and closure … when governments address real disadvantage for marginalised communities that is the measure of a true reforming government that has a social conscience and is not afraid to act despite powerful forces pitted against them. I am proud of this legislation and that my government has acted. I want to publicly congratulate the previous AG, current AG and –

me and their local member –

… for hearing me and the survivor community – too often we are not heard. This is landmark legislation – thank you …

I thank David for coming to me with his words and for the courage and commitment that he has shown over many decades in his advocacy.

Organisations and institutions and the people who lead them, who set the culture, who make the policies and processes and who are there to manage people and their behaviour hold a unique and profound responsibility when they accept care for children in any form. Once adults accept positions of authority, supervision or trust over children, they become custodians of their safety. They become a part of the village that has the responsibility to raise strong and healthy children. Leadership and trust come with consequences for failure. There is a responsibility to protect children, one we as adults all hold, and once you have responsibility in any form for children there is also the responsibility for protecting them. This legislation is legal reform, and it is also a statement of our values as a government and as a Parliament. Children’s trust must always be honoured. Those who have been abused deserve acknowledgement, pathways to justice and support. They deserve our respect, they deserve our care and they deserve our love. By expanding vicarious liability to those akin to employment and allowing retrospective claims, our government is demonstrating that no institutional child abuse can be sidelined because of a technical legal definition. Accountability is vital, as is ensuring that we as a community, as a state and as legislators do all we can to prevent abuse, to ensure that these decisions – these choices ‍– to abuse are never made. I support the bill.

 Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (11:29): I rise to join my colleagues in discussing the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. Speaker after speaker this morning have spoken of the true dastardly nature of child abuse, its insidiousness and what all evidence tells us is a lifelong impact on people’s lives. I guess today I want to not so much discuss the intricacies of the bill and its history – that has been well covered by many of those in the chamber today – but I want to talk about child abuse and the way the Parliament’s and society’s discussion generally frames around it. The facts are very, very clear: the bulk of child abuse occurs in the home amongst people that we know and family. I am a white, middle-aged man, and I am considered as privileged as you get on the planet, and I feel that at times, because I have been lucky. I grew up in a large, loving family, but I had a friend around my age next door in a home with well-respected country people who were just horrible. That poor fellow is a couple of years older than me. My parents fought desperately to keep him safe, and it was a push uphill.

Legislation today, and legislation that we often talk about, never looks after those people. In the last 18 months two completely different families, different circumstances, have been torn apart with the revelations of 40- and 50- and 60-year-old children who have opened up about what their father did to them. It devastated the families. It has caused fight and war. One family has opted to go to court; another family deals with it themselves. As a society and as a community we do not disproportionately focus on institutions but we all too often – and I sense we are doing it again today – think it is the only abuse that happens. While it is important that no-one who perpetrates abuse should ever be let off and we should not have legal loopholes and we should not allow that to happen, one of the concerns I have is that in the debate – and I hear it a bit again today – is we are not looking forward as to how society may need to deal with this issue going forward, because the sad reality is it is a failing of an individual that causes them to behave in this way and perpetrate these acts on vulnerable young people in their care who have their trust. Overwhelmingly, victims know their perpetrator.

I pose the question: how are we dealing with it going forward? Because the debate today again talks about how we will continue to expect financial recompense from organisations which are not traditional organisations in the sense that for many communities, and my community in particular, many important local social services are supplied by these institutions we are wanting to hold to account. It is not unreasonable that we hold them to account, but we have to have a plan for what is the next step. For many communities, if we do not have the food support service and if we do not have many of these other social services that have been provided to our communities for 150 years, will government stump up the extra money? Will government step in to take over those important community and family services that belong to many of the institutions that we are talking about today?

These are important questions, and I am not sensing that as a Parliament and as a state we are actually thinking through the logic of how we progress that. I challenge us, in having this debate today, to truly think about what it is that we are seeking to achieve. For some people I absolutely understand that there is a huge anger and a rage, and financial compensation will in fact be something that helps them heal; I understand that. I understand that there are people that are going through a process. We still have not come up with a better way other than having victims in particular have to go through a process that is incredibly traumatic and can take years. Again, I happen to have been involved in helping to mediate in this sense, as a local MP, a church-based abuse situation. It is incredibly traumatic for people having to go through that.

Even though this system has opened that door to make sure that there are fewer loopholes, this bill and this Parliament still have not come up with a way we can get to the bottom of it and get the victim what the victim needs. When talking to a good friend of mine, who is not church raised – he works for a non-profit organisation that deals with people over the age of 60 who have been in institutional care all their lives right across the state – he would say to me that money as a solution is an option for some people. But in his lived experience of working with many of these people on a daily basis, the money often causes more problems because it is often going to people without the necessary – they have had very tough and arduous lives – skill set sometimes to deal with it. It creates other family problems.

The recompense, the care and the support we need to offer victim-survivors are different for every single victim. Every single victim needs to have a system that understands where they are in their life and what it is that is best going to help them. Certainly money is one thing, but there are sometimes many, many other things. It can be the assistance to link up with their family again. It can be intense and extreme counselling, care and support that helps them understand that it was never their fault. It is different for everybody.

Often in this debate we seem to narrow it down to a large institutional problem and that that is going to be the solution. Hopefully as a society and as a Parliament we will begin to think more holistically about this debate going into the future. If any organisation starting up today does not have the practices and procedures in place, then regardless of vicarious liability they are negligent. But we have seen only this year horrendous stories of where people who want to perpetrate these wrongs against young people find their way into community groups, into organisations, into childcare centres. It is an ongoing problem. Recent reports tell us, for example, that the Anglican diocese of Ballarat is on the brink of bankruptcy. That might please many people, but I do not get pleasure out of that because the Ballarat diocese, for example, is not a single entity owned by a person. It is a community asset, and those assets being lost to that community are not a win for our community either.

One of the points made earlier by a speaker was that expanding this vicarious liability will not in fact be a terrible thing because it will not go to football clubs and volunteer groups and others because they do not have the financial assets. Therein lies the problem. The care and support that we offer and the recompense and the acknowledgement of the wrong to our people cannot be just based on whether an organisation has enough assets to support them. As a society we need a more complex, a more advanced and a more sustainable model of how we ensure we get to this.

Prevention is always going to be the best cure. Preventing these things from happening to start with is always the best option. The resources of the world – the FBI, ASIO – everybody is online now and they are working on these problems, but they are enormous. They are entrenched. For centuries, probably for the length of humanity, this inclination has plagued the lives of young people. As a society we need to get the structures and the thought around how it becomes sustainable and not have a system that says, ‘We’re doing the job here. No more to see because we’ve targeted institutions.’ We need to look at this as a broad problem that will, sadly, be with us for a very long time, as much as we try and defeat it. While I welcome the fact that we are trying to do our best as a Parliament, I think there is still much more that we can do.

 Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (11:39): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025, a really important piece of legislation that comes at a critical time for victim-survivors in our community. I want to place on record our sincere thoughts about and acknowledgement of those who have a lived experience – those that are, sadly, not with us anymore and those that might not have disclosed but carry that to this day. Our thoughts are with you.

One of the more powerful presentations of the advocacy on this piece of work was an opportunity in this Parliament. I want to acknowledge Ann Barker, and I want to acknowledge the amazing Chrissie Foster, an absolute superstar – thank you for everything you have done, Chrissie – and Kathleen Maltzahn, CEO of Sexual Assault Services Victoria. There are some powerful advocates who have done an incredible amount of work. Ann was in that meeting – and the member for Frankston facilitated this with a number of government members of Parliament – and the urgency in that room really stuck with me. It hit me in the sternum that the people that shared their lived experience had gone on such a journey to be validated and to share their lived experience and then faced the arbitrary structures of a case that came forward. The High Court were quite strong in their commentary around the harsh nature of their conclusions and the description of legislators needing to jump in and really intervene here. I am glad about the urgency that was brought to that by members of Parliament who were on that. There was another member of Parliament in the other place Rachel Payne, but I particularly acknowledge the urgency that the member for Frankston brought to this, and he did not miss any colleagues. When we think about impact in this place and we think about how we can really make a difference, everyone knew where this issue stood and everyone knew the urgency. There was another Frankston line colleague in the Attorney-General, who is the most magnificent leader – one of the most magnificent leaders; I have got to be careful what I say – in this place. I know for the member for Carrum, the Attorney-General, the urgency in getting this to this place in bill form would have taken every waking moment, so thank you to the Attorney-General.

It is such a perverse thing to have people who have come forward and shared their lived experience – have gone on that journey – to then be invalidated by a legal technicality, be retraumatised all over again and have to experience that suffering and that trauma and that grief. This is where legislation like this is really critical to square that balance and to find our way through. The narration around organisations and their impact I think was so well described by members of Parliament before my contribution. We need to realise in all elements that the protection of people, particularly children, is absolutely paramount. It shocks me to the soul the numbers of people who have a lived experience of sexual violence in our community. It needs so much more work in awareness. It needs so much more work in prevention. I do not think it is anywhere near mainstream Victorians in terms of just the scale and challenge of this epidemic. We need to do so much more. The impact then for children – and we see this in the men’s behaviour change space – and the impact that has on our communities is substantial. The work in prevention and the work in supporting victim-survivors in their mental health and wellbeing and their journey is so very critical.

The numbers and stats in organisations of people who might be a risk to children, having been part of some of those briefings and that engagement, really shock you to the core. There is a need for a positive duty to be always on guard and to be aware of organisations that have any interaction with kids, and we need to always have them at the forefront of our consideration and impact. I do not accept an argument that is put forward that suggests financial viability is the equivalent of an argument around protecting children and that impact. That will never be a standard that any parliamentarian should accept or any legislator should accept. If anything, it should be the inverse, because if the scale of the concern around vicarious liability is such a number that it would make your organisation not viable, then maybe we need to go back to how those kids are being protected and how people are being protected in your organisation. That should be the first and foremost consideration. This legislation is really important to supporting people in their journey and validating once again their courage in coming forward and sharing their lived experience, whether that is with compensation or whether that is with support but, importantly, validating where they have come to be today.

The urgency that has been brought to this issue shows what legislators in the Parliament can do in that environment and those circumstances as well. This is a unique set of circumstances where the High Court, in making that judgement, acknowledges that it squarely sits with legislators, acknowledges the harshness of that, then makes the decision. There are not too many opportunities where there is such a strong signal from the judiciary to bring that forward. Victoria has not wasted a moment in trying to make sure that this is fit for purpose, that this meets those requirements going forward as well and, importantly, that it is retrospective, because the gap and the huge impact in the discussion that we had in that room with government members of Parliament was that those who were having their matters heard or who were potentially having matters heard before the courts or who were in negotiation and who were then going to be locked out of not being able to be supported as well – I strongly support them. I hope that comes as comfort to those victim-survivors today, that we have heard their requests and the anxiety and turmoil that was described to us in many briefings. We have heard that loud and clear and have an understanding of that. That is a recognition directly of the advocacy that has been put forward as well in this bill.

The bill expands the relationship in which vicarious liability can be applied to include those that are akin to employment. I think there is a technical element to that description, but it was well and truly covered off in the second reading and in the contributions, particularly from the member for Frankston, and in all movements as well – the substantive nature of that relationship and that engagement. I come back to that fundamental point, on those organisations that have a hesitation. I have some concerns around some of the narration around impact, because I feel in everything that we do there is a positive and mandatory reporting requirement. In everything related to children, it should be the highest possible standard in protection and care. When we talk about the technical elements of how we might avoid liability, I always worry about that narration, because we need a positive and absolute duty in prevention in the work that we do. We see this across the sector in the prevention of sexual violence and the prevention of gendered and family violence in our communities. If we are to create a safer, more inclusive setting, primary prevention is everything, and it is important for organisations to change culture and outcomes, to see themselves as standard bearers in everything that they do and to have a constant and ever-present focus on their relationships with their people, who are part of their organisations, and particularly children.

As I said, the numbers of people that have a lived experience and the numbers of instances of sexual violence and child sexual violence in our community are horrifying – absolutely horrifying. We see then the trauma and litany of impact that that has into the future; that has an intergenerational impact on Victorians. We need to do everything we can from a prevention frame, and where we have kids that are impacted and adults sharing their experiences ensure that they are believed, that they are validated, that they are supported and that the systems they rely on to support them do not then lead to systems abuse in the future as well.

I think this is a really important moment for our Parliament and it shows how flexible and nimble our legislators can be. It is always important to be on guard where matters that we think have been dealt with might present a legislative challenge that comes from the judiciary or comes through, and that the advocacy to bring that to be is inclusive and supported here. To those who have shared their experiences: thank you. To those who have been part of the advocacy journey: thank you. And to colleagues like the member for Frankston: thank you for your leadership and work in this space.

 Tim READ (Brunswick) (11:49): I rise to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. The Greens will support this bill today, and we are glad to see the government has brought this to the Parliament after we raised this issue in correspondence with the then Attorney-General and also after Rachel Payne in the other place brought a similar private members bill, which we also supported earlier this year. This follows extended advocacy, which we have just heard about, from courageous victim-survivors and legal advocates who have led the charge in calling for this necessary legislative change. It is good to see some of those advocates in the gallery today.

This is an important piece of legislation that provides better options for victim-survivors of institutional abuse. It responds, as we have heard, to a 2024 High Court decision in the case of Bird v DP, in which the High Court said that a Catholic diocese could not be held responsible for abuse perpetrated against a five-year-old child by one of the diocese’s assistant priests because the priest was technically not an employee of the church. This decision had the effect of determining that in Victoria churches and similar institutions are not vicariously liable under common law if the perpetrator was not a formal employee, starkly reducing options for victim-survivors of child abuse to seek justice for what was done to them based on arbitrary distinctions of the nature of an abuser’s employment status.

The bill does not change how Victoria defines ‘vicarious liability’, which holds organisations vicariously liable for historical child abuse when there is an employment relationship between the organisation and the perpetrator and the abuse occurred in connection with the perpetrator’s employment. Instead it expands the scope of how vicarious liability can be applied. And with respect to religious organisations in particular – the special legal loopholes within which they exist in our society, like tax exemptions and a lack of employment contracts as we may know them – resulted in victim-survivors of child abuse having little or no legal recourse. I will note in passing that the special treatment of churches by governments and by legislation gives these institutions with diminishing social relevance extraordinary influence over the lives of so many. This is one of many examples which suggests a full review of the exemptions and privileges enjoyed by churches and other religious organisations is well overdue.

This legislation closes the aforementioned loophole and ensures that vicarious liability will also apply to perpetrators who were ‘akin to an employee’ of a given organisation. This includes not only churches but other organisations that have care, supervision or authority over a child, including schools, scouts, sporting clubs, charities and more. If an organisation chose or accredited an abuser for a role with authority over children, and put them in a position of trust, power or intimacy while the organisation benefited from or had influence over their work, even if their role was that of a volunteer or other person without a formal employment contract, then the organisation can now be held vicariously liable under this legislation. Importantly, the legislation has a retrospective effect, meaning both that it will apply to abuse that occurred before 2018, when the Wrongs Act 1958 was amended to impose a duty of care on agencies and institutions, and that courts can now set aside judgements or settlements reached after Bird v DP which were affected by that High Court decision. This latter point means that victim-survivors will have the ability to relitigate or renegotiate past decisions at their own cost.

The Greens do have a number of questions that legal and advocacy stakeholders have raised with us, which we have been bringing to our discussions with the minister’s office for their engagement with us so far. We thank both the minister’s office and the government more broadly for engaging in these discussions. But we are glad to see that the government has finally brought this necessary piece of legislation to the house, and we will support it.

 Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (11:54): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. At the outset I would like to say that I am very pleased that the opposition are supporting this bill, and I did want to thank the Shadow Attorney-General, who is in the chamber with us now, for his very thoughtful and considered contribution.

This bill sits very squarely in my patch and also of course, Acting Speaker Addison, yours. I know this is something that you have been very conscious of and very engaged with, and I join you in that support for our community. Sadly, during the royal commission Ballarat was really found to be ground zero for some of the most awful, awful behaviour. I really would like to acknowledge at this point all of the victim-survivors in Ballarat. We absolutely honour your courage and your pain. I know that the Acting Speaker and I will always stand with you.

I have a few other acknowledgements. I do really want to also acknowledge the member for Frankston. He has been tireless and deeply compassionate in this space, and he has certainly made me much more keenly aware of what was at stake with this legislation. So I do want to acknowledge the member for Frankston for his advocacy, and of course, importantly, the Attorney-General for the seriousness, care and urgency with which she has addressed this issue.

The High Court itself said that this rests squarely in the hands of the legislators, and that is us, and that is why we are bringing it now to Parliament. It is necessary of course because of the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP in 2024. That decision overturned a Victorian ruling that had held the Catholic Church vicariously liable for the abuse of a five-year-old child in Ballarat in the 1970s. The High Court’s decision, which in effect overturned that previous ruling on legislation, was heartbreaking for many, many people. It is only right and proper that we come now to amend that.

The High Court found that because the offending priest was not technically an employee the church could not be held liable, even though he displayed all the hallmarks of employment. The court did acknowledge that the consequences were ‘harsh’, and it invited the legislature, this Parliament, to fix it, so here we are today to answer that call. The Bird decision left many victim-survivors, particularly those who suffered historically, so decades ago, with no pathway to civil justice. With records lost, witnesses passed away, negligence claims no longer viable, suddenly the status of an abuser determined whether survivors could seek justice, and of course this is unacceptable.

The bill is very targeted. It goes only as far as it must to fix this problem, and that is what we needed to do. The bill reinstates the ability for victim-survivors to bring claims against organisations where the abuser was akin to an employee. Courts will also be able to consider whether the organisation exercised control, whether the person’s activities were integral to the organisation and other relevant matters. It allows survivors to reopen unfairly resolved cases, and I think this is a very important element. Any victim-survivor who was forced to settle or withdraw their matter following the Bird decision will be able to apply to have that judgement or settlement set aside. This covers the period from 13 November 2024 and the commencement of this legislation. I think that is an incredibly important element of it, because nobody should miss out on justice just due to unfortunate timing.

I am very proud that this government has been a national leader in responding to institutional child abuse. Over the last decade we have made some really important moves: removed limitation periods for child abuse claims, imposed a statutory duty on organisations to prevent abuse, removed the Ellis defence and allowed unfair past settlements to be set aside. This bill continues that commitment to the victim-survivors in our communities.

I would like to acknowledge a wonderful organisation that began in Ballarat but now spreads across the world, the Loud Fence movement, and a pretty extraordinary movement it is. Their message was so simple and such a strong, strong message: we will not accept silence anymore. Putting bright-coloured ribbons on the fences of those institutions acknowledged the voice of those survivors. I note that Maureen Hatcher, who commenced the Loud Fence movement, has been nominated for a Ballarat council citizen of the year award for 2026. I do hope that all that she has done will be acknowledged by council. As I say, the movement began in Ballarat but has spread I believe across the world, and I think that speaks to its importance, because what is at the heart of all of this is hearing those voices – voices that were taken away from young children in some of the most horrendous circumstances. To be able to say loudly that we need to be heard is so incredibly important.

I understand that there is some concern from some organisations about the impact that this legislation will have. I stand again with the member for Frankston in saying that the victim-survivors are absolutely the most important voice in this discussion, and it is their voices that I will listen to. It is their voices that need to be heard, and justice needs to, in some way, be done for those people.

Ballarat, as I say, was the centre of one of our darkest chapters, and the royal commission heard more evidence from Ballarat than almost anywhere else. Sadly, we see it still in our community. There are generational impacts from this dark, dark time in our history. The stories of survivors, men and women who were once children, simply trying to live their lives shocked everyone when they were spoken about in the royal commission. Some of those survivors still live amongst us. Some have become advocates, some have carried their trauma quietly and bravely. Tragically some are no longer here to see Parliament take this step. This bill honours their strength, their suffering and their decades-long fight for justice.

This bill is fair. It is necessary. It ensures that survivors are not punished twice. It is incredibly important that they can seek justice, and this bill allows that to happen. I do not believe that any organisation has the right to evade responsibility through technicalities. For Ballarat and for every survivor who has waited far, far too long, this Parliament stands with you. Again, I would like to thank the member for Frankston for his tireless work and the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to us. Most importantly, I want to thank the advocates and the victim-survivors that have shown such courage and strength to continue to fight, to continue to demand that their voices be heard and that their justice is in some way sought. We will never be able to repay that dreadful, dreadful trauma that they have experienced, so it is incredibly important that we stand with them now in front of the law so that they might seek some justice for those terrible crimes.

 Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (12:04): I rise today in a not-opposed position and a supportive position in relation to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill ‍2025. We sit in this Parliament. Sometimes we are against bills that come through and it is split one side versus the other. But we stand here today as one and united in the Parliament to bring in this justice legislation amendment which has been sought for a very long time. It has been a long row to hoe for victim-survivors, as we have heard in the chamber here today. This is our part in supporting their voice, where they have been so courageous to raise these matters to a point where we are actually changing the law in Victoria, changing our legislation to protect our future children. To those victim-survivors, thank you so much for having that powerful voice, for forcing us as legislators to make these amendments so that we can have better protection and laws here in Victoria.

I would like to also thank the member for Brighton for leading this. It was a very passionate display of I think what we are all feeling and how it does affect every single member in this Parliament. I thank the member for Brighton for that. Then to be followed up by the member for Frankston explaining how this has all come about – I think we are lucky in this chamber that we do get to sit down and hear, as I am sure every MP gets to hear about not only how these issues affect the individual MP that stands on their feet and talks in the chamber but how they affect our own communities. As MPs have said, there are groups that have written to us individually, I am sure, that are unhappy with the legislation that we are bringing in. I am probably not going to be as articulate as the member for Frankston was, but to those groups: bad luck. You have had it too easy for too long, and we need to make sure that we not only make changes to the law that protect the victim-survivors, who have had to deal with this for their entire life – the ones that are still with us, because there are ones that now do not have a voice because they have actually taken their life because of what has happened previously – but also put measures in place to make sure that it does not happen again. I am sure we will be back here at different stages to change things and make it harder, as we should do, for some of these perpetrators. To everybody that is standing up here today and telling their story and the story of their community, I do thank them for being able to do that.

I know that in the Latrobe Valley we are number two in family violence, and I know a lot of those call-outs that our police have to go to involve actions against children. For it to be so high in the Latrobe Valley – and East Gippsland is number one on that family violence list – we need to be seen to be being proactive and doing the right thing, because as has been proven over the years, if we do not make a stand, this will just continue on. It gives people, the perpetrators of years ago, an out – and that is wrong. If we are going to be standing in here, let us make decisions, sensible decisions, which we can all be in agreeance on – that we are here, and we are going to protect our children into the future.

As has been spoken about by members on their feet, the bill has two primary purposes. Number one is to amend the Wrongs Act 1958 to create a statutory vicarious liability regime for child abuse, including historical abuse, extending liability to employees and persons akin to employees. That is super important. This is where we are getting emails and being engaged by certain groups because they are not happy with that particular amendment coming in. And as I said before, bad luck. We need to be able to protect our children, and we will do everything in our power to make this come through. And this is not an easy journey. As the member for Wendouree said, these are historical events that happened in her electorate down there. This bill is an outcome of people having the courage and feeling safe to be able to talk about what happened all those years ago so they can protect future generations moving forward. To be able to have that in this bill is a very significant step forward.

The bill amends the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to allow survivors whose cases were dismissed – those who had the courage to stand up and talk about it and had their case dismissed or settled in the period between the Bird v DP decision and this legislation – to have those judgements or settlements set aside and recommence proceedings. It is positive reinforcement, and I hope that victim-survivors realise that this is their doing. For them to have that voice and then see it come to fruition with all of us standing up in Parliament and making these amendments – it was a powerful act of theirs to initiate it at the start. As I said before, in this place we need to be able to pivot sometimes when issues do pop up. As the member for Frankston said, this needed to be done, it needed to be done quickly, and it needed to be done in a certain way so that we are not leaving loopholes in the legislation and wriggle room for perpetrators to be able to manoeuvre their way through.

I look forward to hearing everybody else who is getting up to talk on this bill. We are so fortunate that the chamber is united as one, as we should be when we are talking about these issues. First and foremost, we need to look after our children. Secondly, we need to make sure that individuals and perpetrators are held to account, whether it is for events that have been going on recently or whether it is for historical issues that have gone on. We need to set laws up in this place, which we are doing today, to make sure the children of today and tomorrow are protected. I am very pleased that I could stand and put my voice and the voice of the people of the Latrobe Valley in place here in the chamber today.

 Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (12:13): It is with an enormous sense of pride today that I rise to make a contribution in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. In doing so, right at the beginning of my contribution I would like to acknowledge all victim-survivors of child abuse for their very strong and brave storytelling of their lived experience. That very, very strong advocacy has led to this moment in the Parliament of Victoria, so that we can right some wrongs. I also thank the Attorney-General for some really speedy footwork in enabling us to get to this point today.

I would also like to acknowledge the very, very strong advocacy of the member for Frankston within our Labor caucus in ensuring that we were all across the issue, that it was a matter of urgency and that it was a matter that spoke very, very strongly to our Labor values as a caucus to rewrite this wrong and to get it done and get it done now. To the member for Frankston, I say thank you for that.

The member for Frankston’s contribution also did something that does not happen too often in this place. We often will speak about the legislature, we speak a lot of the time about the executive and sometimes we stray into speaking of the judiciary and even what the media is up to. It is very, very rare that we stray into the lines of the church, but I guess given the outcome and indeed the subject matter of Bird v DP and the High Court decision it is appropriate to go there in this place. To ask the question to those of the Christian faith ‘What would Jesus do?’ is something very, very powerful. I do not say that as a particularly religious person, but I say that to people who have Christian values and try and live those Christian values each and every single day of their lives, because there is no greater injustice. As the son of someone who lived their Christian values all of their life I know there is nothing worse. My mum used to say there is nothing worse than hiding behind the cloak of God; there is nothing worse than that. You must be able to right a wrong no matter how hard telling that truth sometimes is. That is such an important issue for justice for victim-survivors and their families, and I am so happy that this government has made it clear time and time again that it stands with victim-survivors of child abuse and that it will support them, be that by apologies or be that by legislation that makes it easier to seek justice and compensation.

This bill introduces amendments that will allow victim-survivors of historical child abuse to seek compensation from institutions, whether those who inflicted the abuse were formal employees or functioned as an employee would. This includes organisations that traditionally rely heavily on volunteers to accomplish their work and organisations where those playing key roles may hold office but for whatever reason are not paid. The bill will also protect current and future generations of the children of Victoria.

This landmark legislation has two important components. First, this bill will amend the Wrongs Act ‍1958 to retrospectively and prospectively expand vicarious liability for child abuse from employment relationships to include relationships that are akin to employment. Relationships that are akin to employment include those relationships where a person carries out activities as an integral part of the activities of an institution and for the benefit of that institution and to the extent to which the institution directs the individual’s activities. Importantly, the bill will not exclude volunteers or certain types of organisations, and as a government we certainly will not shy away from state-based institutions being included in the bill. We know from past experience the pain caused when such institutions neglect and abuse. I think back to last year’s parliamentary apology to Victorians who experienced historical abuse and neglect as children in institutional care. We know that if we are to do a thorough job of protecting children, then we must allow state-based institutions to come under scrutiny. Legislation such as this bill, designed to protect children in the future and support victim-survivors of historical abuse, must be consistent and applied to all institutions that exercise care, supervision and authority over children.

Second, the bill will also amend the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to enable a person to apply to the court to set aside a settlement or judgment that occurred between 13 November 2024, which was the date of the Bird v DP decision, and the commencement of this bill. The second part of this amendment is designed to assist those who had legal determinations made during that time to pursue justice – people who, due to other difficulties such as the passage of time, the loss of records, the deaths of key witnesses or, crucially, being abused by a non-employee who nonetheless resembled an employee, would face difficulties pursuing justice through other avenues. In short this bill seeks to remove barriers to victim-survivors of historical child abuse in seeking recompense through civil litigation. The government has already made many inroads to remove barriers to civil litigation for victim-survivors of child abuse. We have had many reforms: in 2018 removing the Ellis defence, which had enabled unincorporated organisations to avoid civil liability, and in 2019 allowing courts to set aside unfair settlements in organisational child abuse cases. The bill builds upon that important work, and it helps victim-survivors to seek justice.

In a previous working life I used to listen to those who did face such injustice, and I worked with those who faced injustice. I came to understand just how important it is to those who have been wronged to be heard – to actually be heard – and have their pain validated and to then be able to seek justice and compensation. They found enormous strength in that to be able to continue. What happened to them may have marked them, but justice meant it no longer had to define them that way. It is only fitting that a reform such as this be made right here in Victoria, where this government has already shown such a strong commitment to ensuring that its citizens have the opportunity to seek and obtain justice.

We on this side of the house are committed to making this state the very, very best that it can be. The legislation brings Victoria into line with other jurisdictions such as the UK and Canada, which extended vicarious liability to include relationships that are akin to employment more than 20 years ago. As I said right at the outset, I am proud to be a part of this government, indeed this Parliament, that will extend this same opportunity to the people of Victoria. In closing, I will just say that this is a very good bill. It closes a legislative loophole – a really big one – and it keeps our institutions accountable into the future. To that end, I acknowledge this bill and wish it a very speedy passage through the house.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (12:23): It is a pleasure to rise and talk on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. We have heard a number of contributions from both sides of the chamber dealing with this very, very important piece of legislation. We talk always about the importance of putting children first and ensuring children are safe. There is an absolute focus, and there should be a focus, when it comes to child abuse that we need to ensure that children are protected. We know that there are many situations in which children find themselves vulnerable. Whether it be at school, whether it be in community organisations, whether it be in the home, wherever that may be, we need to ensure that children are safe and protected. It is the duty of this Parliament and all parliaments to provide the laws to be able to do that.

I wanted to particularly put on record the work that this Parliament has done for a long time in changing the laws to ensure that there is the protection leading up to what we are talking about today. I want to go back to when I was first elected in 2010. Our former Premier Ted Baillieu made this one of his key focal points, and he was instrumental in ensuring the Betrayal of Trust inquiry was put forward to look at protecting vulnerable children. Ms Georgie Crozier in the other place was chair of that committee, and they did a huge amount of work. I know that the work that Ted Baillieu has done since has been absolutely key. He is always there when survivors call him. He turns up at events. No matter where, no matter when, former Premier Ted Baillieu is there to lend support and a voice – a very, very important voice. Quite often survivors do not have that voice. Even when survivors have been through courts, been through the system, at that point communities still shun them, do not allow them to express their voice and do not provide the support that they need. Survivors should always be supported. I have made it a key point in my career in Parliament to ensure that we always put survivors first, we always put victims first and we always ensure that they are able to tell their story, provide them with support and ensure that these things do not happen again.

I want to take you through just a bit of a journey of the Malka Leifer case, because I think this was quite instrumental in the electorate of Caulfield, over which I preside, in terms of a lot of changes in the system leading to today. Before 2008 there were systemic vulnerabilities. Key issues were that religious schools, including ultra-Orthodox settings, were largely self-governing, with minimal external child safety oversight. Mandatory reporting requirements were inconsistent and poorly enforced. Governing bodies could dismiss staff members without notifying police. There was limited training for staff and boards on sexual abuse prevention and child safe responses. In 2008 Malka Leifer fled the school that she was principal of literally overnight before police were properly informed and before any of the community were properly notified. This was a failure of governance in a non-government school, but it kind of set up the situation that we are talking about today. It was an early catalyst for later reforms in mandatory reporting and improved school governance requirements. Then between 2012 and 2015 civil findings against Adass Israel School included more than $1 million awarded to one sister, establishing a benchmark for institutional liability. These outcomes fed into a wave of national advocacy that culminated in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. From 2013 to 2017 we had a series of royal commissions and we saw and we heard many reports of institutional cover-ups, failures to report abuse and insular communities protecting offenders.

Policy reforms influenced by the climate included, as I said before, stronger mandatory reporting, minimum standards for child safe organisations, tougher penalties for failing to report or protect a child and new offences for institutional concealment. The sisters’ – Dassi, Nicole and Elly – advocacy fed into the broader public understanding of all of these gaps. Again I want to put on record the tenacity, the strength, of Dassi Erlich, Nicole Meyer and Elly Sapper, who fought tirelessly to have these changes happen. There has been a recent film documentary made about this, which I would suggest people see. They are amazing women, strong women, and the work that they do each and every day is just amazing. They were recently awarded from the B’nai B’rith a special commendation for what they did leading to all of this. What we saw, which continued, was that there were extradition delays in this particular case. There was involvement of Victoria Police and federal police. There were judicial issues. The Australian government was involved. The Victorian government was involved.

As a result of a lot of this Victoria strengthened school governance standards, including mandatory compliance with child safety standards and greater obligations on school boards to ensure all abuse allegations are reported. Non-government schools face stricter registration and audit requirements from the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority. This all happened as a result of this. In 2021 to 2023 we saw the extradition and the trial in Victoria after the Bring Leifer Back campaign, and that showed very much support for survivors and more of a focus on survivors, despite the difficulties that were faced here. In April 2023 there was a guilty verdict. After the verdict, senior policymakers cited the case when pushing for further tightening of non-government school oversight, cultural competency requirements in schools that operate within insular or religious communities and clearer guidance for boards on dealing with allegations against principals. In August 2023 there was a sentencing aftermath, looking at how Victoria could have extended limitation periods for historical child abuse, and Victoria has since removed limitation periods and strengthened reporting for school leaders and board members.

Two things in terms of key policy themes that emerged from this case, leading to the kinds of things that we are talking about now, were mandatory reporting and institutional duty. This case became a major example cited by advocates for stronger criminal penalties for failure to report; reformers seeking clear obligations on school boards, principals and community leaders; those seeking governance oversight of religious schools; and survivors seeking access to justice.

The sisters’ experience demonstrated how trauma is compounded by delays. The longer these things take the more traumatic they are for survivors, and that is something we must address. Even with what we are talking about today regarding vicarious liability, it still does not address the timelines and the lag through the courts and the systems that ultimately allow survivors to have their voices heard and how essential survivor-centred procedures are. Everything should be centred around survivors. There is a need for clear and culturally safe pathways to make complaints. What this particular case did was put the issues around survivors on the world map: extradition frameworks, mental health assessments, requiring stronger integrity checks and the need for diplomatic pressure sometimes to be able to make these things happen.

What we have seen here is a model that has led to a lot of the changes that we are talking about today. Again, without the work of survivors, without the voices of Dassi Erlich, Nicole Meyer, Elly Sapper and other survivors, we would not be here today. We must never forget what survivors have gone through and the traumas that they have experienced. Every single day in this Parliament we need to be ensuring that their voices are heard, that we support them in their journeys and that we make sure that their abuse never happens again to other victims going forward. That is our obligation as policymakers and that is our duty.

 Ella GEORGE (Lara) (12:33): I rise today to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. I would like to initially acknowledge my colleagues who have also spoken on this bill today. It is clear from the contributions that have been made today that this is something that we all care deeply about. It is an incredibly important bill that is before the house today. Many were shocked by the Bird v DP ruling made by the High Court in 2024, which upheld the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat’s assertion that their priest was employed by God and not by the church. The diocese of Ballarat claimed that they were not responsible for the harm perpetrated by their priest and that they could not be sued for vicarious liability. Sadly, the High Court agreed with that argument, and that is why we are here today.

I can only imagine how heartbreaking this decision was for survivors of child sexual abuse. I know that this decision in 2024 has led to a year of uncertainty and unknowns about whether jurisdictions would seek to address this issue through new legislation like the bill before us today. This single decision paused and threw doubt onto many cases where victims of abuse were seeking compensation against institutions. I hope that this legislation can provide hope to survivors and a way forward. Can I thank the survivor community for their steadfast advocacy and their determination to see legal reform in this space. Can I thank them for their patience while this legislation was worked on. I know that it did not come as swiftly as some had hoped for.

This bill is a very important and necessary bill that will ensure that victim-survivors will no longer be denied justice. It will also ensure that victim-survivors who were forced into accepting unfair outcomes following the Bird v DP decision are now able to apply to the court to reopen their matter. This bill will broaden the scope of vicarious liability to cover relationships that are similar to employment. In assessing whether someone qualifies as an employee, the court will examine a few key factors, such as the degree to which an individual’s activities are an essential part of the organisation’s operations and are performed for its benefit, the level of control the organisation exerts over the individual while they carry out these activities and any other factors the court deems pertinent to the case. An organisation will be held vicariously liable for any abuse perpetrated by an employee or someone similar to an employee if it can show that the employee or individual in question was seemingly performing their designated role within the organisation, creating an opportunity for the abuse to occur, and they exploited that role or situation to commit the abuse.

As I stated earlier, the bill offers a significant opportunity for victim-survivors affected by vicarious liability claims that were settled or resolved following the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP and before the introduction of these reforms to approach the court to have a previous judgement or settlement annulled, enabling them to initiate a new claim. The Bird v DP ruling unfortunately rendered many historical child abuse claims either unviable or substantially diminished, leaving many survivors who have already endured so much without adequate recourse. With this new legislation these victim-survivors will be able to initiate a new claim, and this opportunity can also extend to those whose claims were outrightly dismissed by the court. Upon request the bill empowers the court to set aside previous judgements or orders, including dismissals and any settlements reached during the specified timeframe, provided that such actions are deemed just and reasonable. These reforms build on earlier changes made to legislation through the Children Legislation Amendment Act 2019, which already allow victim-survivors of child abuse who have previously accepted insufficient or unjust compensation to revisit and challenge their past judgements or settlement agreements. This is a vital step forward in ensuring that all survivors have the opportunity to seek fair compensation for their experiences.

As many of my colleagues have reflected over the course of debate today, in our duties as members of Parliament we have all met people who have experienced child sexual abuse. Again, I want to acknowledge the survivors of child sexual abuse who have so bravely spoken up, shared their experiences with us, shaped this legislation and driven change. I truly hope that today offers hope and a way forward. I have the honour of being a patron of the Care Leavers Australasia Network, a remarkable organisation that supports and advocates for people who grew up in orphanages, children’s homes, foster care and other institutions around Australia and New Zealand. They have a remarkable museum in Geelong, the Australian Orphanage Museum, and I encourage my colleagues to visit and take a tour through the museum if they have the opportunity to do so. Through CLAN I have met many survivors of abuse. I have learned more about the impact of abuse and the ongoing impacts that people feel many, many, many years after the abuse took place. I have learned about the impact of abuse on victim-survivors and on their families as they try to rebuild their lives and move beyond the traumatic experiences of their childhood. It is these survivors that I think of today when we are debating this bill. I met survivors early this year in Parliament when the member for Frankston arranged for survivors, advocates and lawyers to brief MPs about this important issue and the urgency of legislative reform. Once again I learned more about the devastating impacts of child sexual abuse, the importance of the reforms that we have introduced with this bill today and why they are so urgently needed to give survivors some hope after years of pain and suffering.

As my colleagues have stated in their contributions this morning, there is no place for child abuse in Victoria, and this bill is a clear signal to the community of what the government thinks of people who perpetrate child abuse and the institutions that shield them. In Victoria this government has demonstrated a strong commitment to tackling institutional abuse, taking significant measures to assist survivors of historical sexual abuse in seeking compensation from affiliated organisations. It was a Victorian inquiry and the Betrayal of Trust report, that led to the national Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

In 2015 Victoria became the first region in Australia to abolish the statute of limitations for civil claims regarding child abuse, enabling survivors to pursue justice regardless of when the abuse occurred. The introduction of the Wrongs Amendment (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2017 established a legal obligation for organisations to take reasonable steps to prevent child abuse, providing survivors with a clear avenue for legal action against organisations responsible for the abuse. The Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018 was passed to ensure that unincorporated organisations cannot evade civil claims, aligning with key recommendations from the royal commission and other significant inquiries. Changes made in 2019 to the Limitation of Actions Act ‍1958 allow courts to set aside past deeds of release or judgements related to child abuse. This was a crucial reform, as many survivors previously received inadequate compensation or insufficient legal advice when signing these agreements. Together these reforms aimed to reduce barriers for survivors and ensure they are not left at a disadvantage when they are pursuing justice. The bill that we have before the house today once again affirms our commitment to stamp out child sexual abuse and, when it sadly does occur, to do everything in our power to support survivors.

When making its decision on Bird v DP, the High Court noted that it was harsh. The High Court also noted that if this issue was to be addressed, the responsibility rests squarely in the hands of legislatures, just like this Parliament of Victoria. As legislators, today we are introducing reforms that will address this issue and lay it to rest – reforms that will give survivors hope and certainty. Today we are sending a clear message to victim-survivors of child abuse that we recognise your pain and suffering and we stand with you always in your endeavours to seek compensation. I am proud to be a member of the state Labor government that has developed and introduced this legislation, and I am proud to stand here in this place after listening to the contributions of so many this morning, hearing their thoughts on this legislation and standing together in support of this legislation.

I thank the Attorney-General for her work and her ongoing advocacy for a national approach to address this issue. It is not just a Victorian issue; this is a national issue, and I hope to see other jurisdictions follow suit and follow Victoria and the ACT’s lead on this. These reforms will reinstate the law as it was intended and as it was between 2021 and 2024. Survivors of child abuse have already endured so much, and we must do everything in our power to support them. That is why I commend this bill and wish it a speedy passage through the house.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (12:43): I rise to address the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. In doing so I acknowledge that joining us today in the gallery are advocates of victim-survivors. I thank them for their work, not only on my own behalf but, I am sure, on behalf of every member of this place. I acknowledge and say at the outset that the first priority, in my view, of any government is to do everything that they can to protect and keep safe our most vulnerable. The sad reality of the circumstance that we are faced with, historically and today, is that that has not always been and is currently not the case. I acknowledge the work of the former Shadow Attorney-General Mr O’Brien in this space. I acknowledge the work of the Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Brighton, who has prepared members of the opposition to contribute to this bill today. I thank the government for recognising the opportunity to do better.

Victim-survivors of child abuse within institutions deserve justice for the evils committed against them. These crimes were for too long ignored, covered up and even excused. I think it is right to say that the parliamentary inquiry here in Victoria, launched by the former Liberal and National government and chaired by my colleague in the other place Ms Crozier, was a first and important step in laying bare the scale of this abuse and the difficulty victim-survivors faced in seeking justice. That work and the leadership taken at that time led to the national royal commission that followed. This Parliament, on the back of those inquiries, has legislated several times in response to both the inquiry and the royal commission. Those reforms introduced new offences for failing to protect a child and for failing to disclose abuse and removed barriers to seeking justice, including the statute of limitations and the so-called Ellis defence by which non-incorporated entities could not be sued at common law.

In more recent times in my own community it has come to light that there are victim-survivors who feel – and not just feel but have been in a circumstance where they believe – their voices have not been heard. It has been perhaps the privilege of my contribution in this place to date to assist in some small way to give those victim-survivors a voice. I acknowledge the historical work of a former member of the other place Mr Grimley and his staff. I acknowledge the support that the National Survivors Foundation has provided. And I say to every member of this place: it is the right thing to do. I acknowledge the contribution that the government has made to this. I especially acknowledge the contribution of the Minister for Education Mr Carroll and his office for their acknowledgement that wrongs have been done in state institutions and in state schools and for his internal government advocacy to right this wrong.

In more recent times, as recently as today, we have heard of circumstances where child abuse continues in our community. As I was walking into the chamber today I was alerted to an article in the Age newspaper that says childcare worker Joshua Brown is now accused of abusing children at four day care centres across Melbourne after being hit with 83 new charges. To say that this is just a historical issue is wrong. It is not right; it is factually incorrect. I guess if there is a positive that can be taken from this circumstance, it is a stark reminder to everyone in this place of our obligation to have as our first priority the protection of some of Victoria’s most vulnerable. It was recognised by many, including former Attorney-General Martin Pakula in introducing some of the reforms that I have previously mentioned in 2016, that:

The courts have not indicated a clear willingness to establish vicarious liability in circumstances outside of a strict employee-employer relationship …

This issue has remained since that time unresolved. The High Court in its judgement in the matter of Bird v DP in November of last year made clear and articulated that in instances of vicarious liability there should be a matter of policy extended beyond a strict employment relationship and that that was properly a matter for the Parliament. That brings us here today.

The opposition, as my colleagues have indicated, does not oppose the principles at the heart of this reform. Institutions should be subjected to vicarious liability for child abuse for those akin to employees in the same way that they are for employees, and we will, as I said, not oppose this bill. At the same time it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that in pursuing justice for victim-survivors and by taking the somewhat unusual step, as the member for Brighton articulated in his own contribution, of legislating retrospectively, it does not inadvertently deprive the community of vital services provided by so many community-based organisations. The reality of this great evil of child abuse that has occurred in too many institutions for far too long, including state institutions, is that it is not the perpetrators themselves or even the people who have covered these crimes up who end up wearing the cost of compensating victim-survivors. It is ultimately those who have perhaps quietly contributed to the building up of many civic institutions whose generosity covers the costs – or indeed taxpayers, in the circumstance of state institutions. Most community groups have no other money but that which is given to them by their supporters or sometimes by government. In contrast, state institutions like government schools can rely on taxpayer funds to meet these costs of compensating victim-survivors of child abuse. So I think it is important in this debate to be clear where the money for this compensation comes from and what the consequences could be for the community where institutions can no longer meet these costs. In making this contribution I invite the government, as well as delivering justice for victim-survivors of child abuse, to also consider the community implications of these circumstances for sporting clubs, schools, churches, charities and social services often built up by the generations of Victorians who did not commit these evil crimes but who wanted to leave behind something positive for the future.

Front of mind for everyone in this place I believe remains the protection of children, not just in historical circumstances but in our present-day circumstance as well. I am grateful to the government for bringing this bill forward and for enabling the opportunity to have this important conversation. I say to every member of this house that the circumstances of debate on this particular bill should demonstrate to every Victorian this Parliament at its best and, further, do demonstrate to every Victorian the operation of this Parliament at its best. Every member who has contributed has had one goal in mind, and that is that those evil, evil sins, those evil, evil crimes committed against some of our most vulnerable, should never occur again, and that is our clear intent here today.

 Josh BULL (Sunbury) (12:54): I rise to make what will be a relatively short contribution to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025 and follow on from the previous member to make the observation that through the course of debate on this bill the nature and the references that have been made by members and the contributions that have been made do demonstrate indeed the Parliament working at its best to ensure that those that are the most vulnerable in our community are provided with the protections and the safeguards that they rightfully deserve.

I want to extend a thankyou, an acknowledgement and an appreciation to many, particularly my friend the member for Frankston who has done some considerable work in this space, those that were involved in the parliamentary inquiry that other members have referenced, and the work done at a national level. Most importantly, I want to thank the victim-survivors, those within our community that have taken it upon themselves – through, in so many instances, the most challenging, difficult and traumatic of circumstances – to bring these matters to light. Indeed, in doing so, I recognise the pain and the trauma that has been caused and make the further observation that the obligation and profound sense of responsibility we have in this place to be able to deal with these matters is our most important job.

As has been mentioned, the bill ensures victim-survivors of historical child abuse will no longer be denied justice by the loophole that allows for organisations to evade accountability because their abuser was not formally employed, with a further provision to help victim-survivors who were forced into accepting unfair outcomes following the Bird v DP decision. The bill, as has been mentioned, goes to a narrow and specific framework, understanding that those protections that are in place and the matters that have been canvassed by other members through the journey of this bill this morning make sure that these matters are dealt with. That the Parliament is of course taking the appropriate measures through the house through the course of this debate to be able to provide for those provisions is indeed extremely important.

What I have said previously – and other members have touched on this as well – is that we need to constantly ensure that we are working with our agencies, looking to where various loopholes are found to exist and taking the necessary steps, as we are through this piece of legislation today, to ensure that those who are most vulnerable in our community are protected. What is clear is that there are those within our community that wish to cause serious harm and make these decisions, so we need constantly to be vigilant, work with our agencies, as I mentioned, and make sure that we are doing every single thing possible to provide for those protections within our community to keep those that are vulnerable ‍– in particular our young people – safe. As has been mentioned by others and I am sure will be mentioned as the debate continues throughout the journey this afternoon, there is indeed the sense of the profound responsibility that we all have as legislators in this place to do this work and of course make sure that we are constantly and consistently providing for the framework that targets those that want to commit the most horrible of acts, knowing and understanding that those decisions evolve.

There is a contemporary nature to the way that these operations need to take place. Making sure that we are providing for those matters is a very important process and a very important action. This goes to what has been said by many others today: knowing and understanding those that bring these matters to light and the pain, trauma and suffering that this causes is something that we need to always be mindful of and always be respectful of. Most importantly, we need to do our job here in this place, and that is to keep those that are vulnerable in our community safe. We need to do that today and every day. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the gallery the Consul General of Lebanon Rami Hamidi.