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 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 historic – 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:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

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:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

There is a real risk that current leaders and institutions may not be held responsible for actions they had no knowledge or 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, and 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.

[NAME/S AWAITING VERIFICATION]

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 DP case, 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 endpoint 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 historic 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 bill’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 and 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,

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

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:

[QUOTE AWAITING VERIFICATION]

The importance of this bill to children of historic and future child sexual abuse cannot be understated. It responds to the High Court judgement in Bird v DP in November 2024, a case led by the Ballarat diocese. It is a gesture towards 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 child 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 to be overwhelming. The bill, and the promise of this 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 historic 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 Limitations of Actions Act 1958. This bill will provide courts with the option to set aside judgements and previously settled causes of action.

[The Legislative Assembly report is being published progressively.]