Thursday, 4 December 2025

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (14:53): I rise to make a contribution on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. The need for the bill arises, as members have canvassed, out of a peculiar High Court decision in Bird v DP, which was a 5–2 majority decision and one that would cause most people, I suspect, to at a minimum scratch their heads and perhaps at a maximum go, ‘What on earth is going on up there in Canberra?’ There are elements of this decision that on the face of it seem absurd. In this particular decision there was a lengthy consideration of whether a particular priest – a particular criminal priest – was considered to be an employee of the diocese of Ballarat. The relevant passage states that:

Coffey’s livelihood was provided for by the Diocese. He had no other vocation and the Diocese provided him with accommodation.

In this case the diocese provided the relevant criminal priest with accommodation; provided him with a livelihood; provided him with clerical garb and vestments; was the one who appointed him to Port Fairy where the crimes occurred; had ultimate control over the duration, location and duties of his posting; could remove or reassign him at will; provided his livelihood, accommodation and clerical garb, as I have foreshadowed; and exercised authority over him through canon law. How that does not form an employment relationship is a matter for their honourable justices and not for me, but boy oh boy, on the face of it, it seems absurd. And on the face of that absurdity of course government needs to act. Of course government needs to provide a statutory remedy to a very deeply flawed piece of common law. But it staggered me to discover that, notwithstanding the absurdity of the decision and most particularly the unfairness of the outcome of that decision, there have been some people in our community who nonetheless do not want to see any retroactivity of this bill, any retrospective effect.

I include in that analysis brothers Darren Burge and Gerard Brady, who have sent me a letter marked confidential – oh, well – which says, amongst other things:

… we … openly acknowledge that some in our institutions have committed shameful criminal acts against children in our care.

Correct.

We accept that and have been working for many decades to respond to the damage …

Perhaps correct.

However, we believe the current bill goes too far and we endorse the Royal Commission’s view … that such legislation should not be introduced.

That amounts to a tacit endorsement of this farcical decision which said that a priest that was posted by the diocese of Ballarat to Port Fairy, that was fed, housed and clothed, and they had a relationship of effective control or were able to exercise authority over him, that that somehow was not an employment relationship. And most disturbingly from brothers Burge and Brady was this:

There is a general presumption against legislation being introduced with retrospective effect as it offends the rule of law.

That bit is correct. But they go on to say:

The retrospective effect of the Bill –

this bill before the chamber –

puts into doubt hundreds of matters that have been genuinely resolved in good faith since the High Court’s decision.

Rubbish.

The single consequence is that there will be a rush of plaintiff law firms reopening matters on the expectation of earning fees twice for the same piece of work. And of course, the impact of retraumatising individuals as a consequence of relitigating these matters, is obvious.

That is the most shameful distortion of the intent of this bill, I think, imaginable. I cannot believe that men who purport to be of faith can say with even a hint of truthfulness that that analysis holds. That is just an absurdity – this notion that it would suddenly result in relitigating matters or a rush of plaintiff law firms reopening matters on the expectation of ‘earning fees twice for the same piece of work’ is just obscene. It exposes a stark ideological bias, which is not the role of these organisations, against the fine work of many plaintiff law firms around the place. And it just does not hold up to plain, simple logical analysis, because it is not about relitigating; it is about making sure that those plaintiffs like DP are able to in fact access the very compensation they are entitled to. Because clearly Father Coffey, that criminal, was engaged in criminal activity whilst an appointee of the diocese, whilst being paid by the diocese, whilst being accommodated by the diocese, whilst even being clothed by the diocese. That is exactly the sort of relationship that Parliament ought to ensure as a matter of policy is treated as a relationship of employment.

There are lots of other ways that statutes from this Parliament go to characterise employment relationships, and I think, frankly, these circumstances are consistent with almost every definition of ‘employment relationship’ I have read in the seven years I have been in this place, so it should come as a surprise to no-one what the government is seeking to do with this bill. But it comes as a surprise and a profound disappointment to me that brothers Burge and Brady would seek to mischaracterise this legislation in such a profound way and would seek to undermine its intent by pretending it is going to create a raft of relitigation and ‘retraumatising’ of individuals – an absolutely shameful suggestion from those men and clearly a suggestion that runs to the protection of their respective patches inside the Catholic Church and has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of victims. I say that is just absolutely shameful, and I cannot believe that they have been so bold as to write to me in those terms.

In contemplating this piece of legislation I cast my mind back to visiting the Vatican a number of years ago, not in any official capacity. I was walking down one of the corridors in the Vatican on the way to two of the museum rooms. At the end of the corridor you chuck a left and there is the Sistine Chapel. I know that many members in this place will be familiar with that layout. I turned to the guide – we had already been in one of the museum rooms – and I said that was amazing, and then we were off to the next museum room. The focus was on those museum areas, not on the corridor itself. Down the corridor there were a number of Roman statues amongst other antiquities and artworks and paintings, but no real attention was being paid to them; they were sort of the corridor decoration. I turned to the guide and said there was a lot of other stuff out there and could he tell us a bit about it, and I got a bit of a precis of it. I asked what a Roman statue was worth, and he said it was very hard to value because they do not really go to the open market very often, but it was probably between $100 million and $200 million. That is a pretty big number. I asked if it was similar for all the other ones down the rest of the corridor and was told that was about right. There was $2.5 billion worth of artwork in just that one corridor – not in the museum itself, not in the display cases, just corridor decoration.

It speaks to the outrageous obscenity and concentration of wealth that has been the pattern of the Catholic Church over the last two millennia – all about glorification not of God but of themselves, all about pomp and circumstance and not about the poor, all about their own gratification, and perhaps sexual gratification, and not about serving the needs of the communities that they in fact purport to serve. So, yes, I am offended. I am offended by the gross wealth, the obscene wealth of the Vatican. I am offended by Brothers Burge and Brady writing to me and saying that this bill will retraumatise victims when in fact all it will do is hold open the door for those victims who would otherwise be excluded by a pretty seriously strange bit of jurisprudence from the High Court.

It is extraordinary that we have to make this intervention, but I commend the government for doing it. I commend the work of the Attorney-General, and I commend all the preceding work of a great many members of the Labor government, going back to some of the early institutional instances of child sex abuse work that was done by committees in the first term of the Labor government through until work more recently. This has been very, very important work. I commend Rachel Payne in the other place, who has added her voice to the very urgent need to make sure that the door is not closed to victims by what can only be described as thoroughly arbitrary legal technicalities.

There has been criticism, and perhaps some of it is valid, of elements of the bill and the way in which it operates, the consistency of the language and how it deals with structural accountability. These are all matters I think that, while they might have some validity, can be dealt with in time. But what I would say to victims and what I say to the chamber is that we always, always, always will do every single thing we can – and we ought to do every single thing we can – to protect those who have been victims of these outrageous and disgusting crimes.

 Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (15:03): I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. There have been some pretty powerful contributions on this bill here today, and I do have to commend the member for Wendouree for making a very special contribution on behalf of people living in her electorate and the trauma and the suffering that they have experienced at the hands of what can only be described as monsters.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that victim-survivors of historical child abuse – some of the worst things to imagine to happen to children – will have the justice they are rightly entitled to and close what can only be described as a loophole that has enabled organisations to evade accountability. Most members in this place will know that the High Court recently overturned some of the operations of Victoria’s civil remedy scheme that we established for victim-survivors of this historical child abuse to seek this remediation. In this case, Bird v DP made it clear that legislative changes are needed in order to give the legislation the intended effect that people who are not formally employed by an organisation but who operate in such a way that they are akin to an employee or resemble an employment structure can be covered by this legislation so that those organisations they are part of can remain liable for their actions.

Whilst this bill is quite narrow, it is incredibly necessary, and I am so pleased that it is before the house today. I am proud to be part of a government that has a really strong record of addressing historical institutional abuse. We have been a leader in implementing some of the reforms from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We lifted the limitation period for civil claims found on child abuse way back in 2015, in 2017 we introduced a statutory duty of care on organised organisations to take all reasonable steps to prevent child abuse, in 2018 we followed this up by removing the Ellis defence and in 2019 we passed legislation here that allowed for unfair settlements to be set aside. That was really important, as at the time it restricted survivors from seeking real justice, the justice they deserved.

I remember being in the chamber when we debated this legislation. The same legislation also removed barriers that exempted religious ministers from being mandatory reporters of child sex abuse, including for confessions. I quite clearly remember that debate, and I remember at the time how we had some of those opposite calling these changes virtue signalling, of all things. But I am very pleased to say that the person who made those comments, at long last, is no longer a member of Parliament here today, but these are all steps that we should be so proud of championing.

We will always stand up for victims of child abuse, whether it is historical or current, and ensure that, where possible, those who perpetrate it or the organisations that failed to stop it – and unfortunately there were many – are held accountable. I think that everyone here in this place would like to think that they do stand with victim-survivors. The trauma and the suffering that children have suffered at the hands of some of these people is truly, truly appalling. I am not going to go into the types of details that others have in relation to this kind of suffering, but the decision of the High Court case that has prevented victim-survivors of these horrendous abuses from pursuing their claims against these organisations, and the way our legislation has intended for them to do so, is what we are here to change today. That decision held that vicarious liability cannot be found beyond a strict employment relationship, which meant that those grey employment areas were excluded from having actions brought against them, quite unfairly. However, what the courts did tell us is that we need to tighten these laws to be more specific. That is exactly what this bill is doing here today.

What this bill does is actually restore the law to what it was before this decision, can you believe it, by allowing victim-survivors to retrospectively pursue claims of vicarious liability where the person that abused them was in a relationship with the organisation that is akin to employment. This means that where a person who belongs to an organisation – like, yes, even a church – but is not technically an employee, where they might not have all the features that make up an employment relationship like a contract, remuneration and regular duties but the actual service and duties carried out very closely resemble a job or employment, that organisation may be found vicariously liable in instances of abuse.

To help clarify these relationships the bill has made a simple codification of the existing common-law test, and that is found in Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC, which looked at a number of different factors to determine whether a person is an employee for the purposes of civil suits, including whether the individual in question carries out activities that are an integral part of the organisation or done for its benefit. Other factors include the extent of the organisation’s control over the individual in carrying out these activities and any other relevant factors. As a result, an organisation will be vicariously liable for the abuse of a child if the individual takes advantage of or uses an occasion where the institution supplies that occasion to carry out the abuse of a child. What this actually means is that an employment-type relationship – like we are all thinking, priests – can and will be captured by this test, like any employment-related test.

This approach is very similar to what other jurisdictions are doing, such as the ACT, which also passed similar legislation to ours, and of course WA, which has created a specialist test targeting religious practitioners and whether they are determined to be employees. The outcome is essentially the same: retrospective access to these civil remedy schemes. What we know is that having retrospectivity is just so important, because this decision impacts victim-survivors of abuse, which in many cases – many cases – go back decades. These clauses will mean that those instances are covered by this legislation. Finally, they can seek just a piece of the justice they so very much deserve. This also works with the reverse onus test we have had in place since 2017 – it puts it back on the organisation to prove they had taken reasonable steps to protect children in their care. For abuse that has occurred since then, it allows victims an easier pathway to take action and seek justice.

In addition to this, what we are going to do for those victim-survivors who have had judgements made in line with the High Court decision in the past year, from 13 November 2024 to the commencement of this legislation, is enable them to apply to the court to have their judgement or their settlement set aside and commence another action – and that is really important. It is not the fault of these applicants that this decision disrupted how this scheme was intended to operate, and these charges will mean that they get the full benefit of this legislation.

This bill makes a very simple but incredibly necessary change to ensure that victim-survivors of historical and even recent child abuse can seek the claims that they are entitled to against the individuals and organisations that, let us face it, failed to protect them from that abuse. Victorians know that when it comes to seeking justice for historical child abuse and ensuring that organisations that have witnessed this carried out by those in their service, even with a quasi-employment relationship, we will hold them accountable. Our government has their back. This will remedy the changes brought on by that High Court ruling, allow the legislation that we passed to function as intended and create more opportunities for those who have been impacted by these decisions to have those judgements set aside and recommence their actions as intended. The result here is a much simpler pathway to justice for those victim-survivors, which is just so incredibly important to do. I very much commend the minister for bringing this legislation before the house. It is so incredibly important, and it makes a change to ensure that legislation we enacted is actually working the way we intended it to. That is why I very much commend this bill to the house.

 Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (15:13): I also rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. Before I turn to the legal framework, I do want to begin, like so many before me today, where this Parliament rightly should, and that is with survivors. This bill is here today because survivors refused to stay silent, because they stood up again and again, often at enormous personal cost, to tell their stories and to tell the stories of their loved ones, to challenge institutions and to push a system that too often preferred comfort over accountability. Many of them have carried their trauma for decades. Some have fought the legal system for years and generations, and this reform is the result of the extraordinary courage, persistence and strength that survivors have shown, many of whom joined that fight but did not survive the battle. Today we acknowledge that contribution with enormous respect.

I want to acknowledge the compassionate and sensitive work of our Shadow Attorney-General and member for Brighton. His contribution earlier today to this debate consistently reflected the gravity of what survivors have endured and the responsibility this Parliament carries today. It matters; it deserves to be placed on the record. The Parliament has a moral responsibility to ensure that survivors of child abuse are not locked out of justice by technical legal manoeuvres, shifting definitions or institutional structures designed to shield and prevent accountability. No survivor should ever hear the words, ‘You were abused, but no-one is legally responsible.’ That is not justice. That is betrayal layered upon trauma.

The bill arises today from the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP, which overturned decades of Victorian legal understanding by ruling that institutions could not be held vicariously liable for abuse committed by people who were not technically employees, even where they exercised power, authority and trust over children. Put simply, the ruling stripped away responsibility from institutions that placed perpetrators in positions over children simply because paperwork said those perpetrators were not employees. The consequences have been so deeply distressing. Survivors have been told their cases might collapse. Some were pushed into accepting materially lower settlements out of fear of adverse cost orders, and others saw their claims dismissed entirely. This Parliament could not and should not look away from such injustice.

This bill does two fundamentally important things. It restores accountability by creating a statutory vicarious liability regime that captures both employees and those who are akin to employees. It also allows survivors who were caught in the short legal window created by Bird to seek to reopen their cases where it is just and reasonable to do so. The second reform matters enormously. If Parliament accepts the legal rug was pulled out from under survivors through no fault of their own, then Parliament must also accept responsibility for repairing that damage, and the bill does that. It says to survivors that if the law changed in a way that unfairly extinguished your rights, you deserve the chance to be heard.

In my electorate of Euroa I have met survivors who have waited decades to speak up – not years; decades – people who carried shame that was never theirs, people who were dismissed, disbelieved or silenced by authority figures who should have protected them. Many did not seek wealth; they just wanted the truth. They sought just acknowledgement, they sought accountability and above all they just wanted safety for the next generation, and this bill aims to do that – not money, not politics and not institutional reputation. This is about whether power over children comes with a responsibility that can never be contracted away.

The new statutory test rightly focuses on whether the institution placed a person in a role that supplied the occasion for abuse and whether the perpetrator took advantage of that role. Authority, power, trust, control and the ability to achieve intimacy: these are conditions that have enabled abuse, and these are the realities the law must recognise. If an institution placed a person in a role where they could abuse, then that institution must wear responsibility for what followed. They should not be able to hide. They cannot hide behind contracting arrangements, and they cannot hide behind legal technicalities. The bill ensures that the state itself can be held directly accountable where government bodies are involved. Governments and institutions must never sit above the law when it comes to child safety.

The Liberals and Nationals throughout today have made it very, very clear we support the core intent of this bill, we support restoring justice to survivors, and we absolutely support closing the gap that was created by Bird. We support ensuring institutions cannot structure their way out of accountability. We owe it to the community to speak honestly about the legal weight of what we are doing here. The bill operates retrospectively. It allows settled cases to be reopened, and it allows judgements to be set aside. As a general principle, retrospective legislation raises serious rule-of-law concerns. However, child abuse is not ordinary, and the Bird decision did not just clarify the law, it upended it overnight, to the detriment of so many survivors. Survivors did not fail the legal system; the legal system failed them. And when the law itself inflicts harm through an abrupt reinterpretation, Parliament has both the authority and the obligation to intervene. The coalition ultimately supports this reform because the injustice of doing nothing is far greater. This bill expressly excludes independent contractors, and that raises a question about whether future arguments may arise around roles that operate in grey contractual space. Institutions must never be allowed to restructure their workforce to avoid responsibility, and this is something that will need to be monitored.

I want to address concerns raised by some stakeholders about the bill placing an unfair burden on organisations. This burden was created at the moment the abuse occurred, not by the Parliament. The heaviest burden has always been carried by the survivor – we cannot ever question that. If an institution benefited from placing someone in a position of authority over a child, then it must also accept the responsibility that flows from that decision. That is not punishment, that is accountability. In communities like mine, trust is everything. We rely on schools, churches, sporting clubs, youth groups and community organisations to keep our children safe. When trust is broken, the damage does not end with one victim; it ripples throughout our communities, families and friendships for generations. This bill strengthens trust again. It sends a message that responsibility for child safety cannot be outsourced, contracted away or buried in legal fine print.

I hope that the survivors who may be watching the debate today feel seen today, tomorrow and every day into the future. We believe you. We will not allow the law to be used as a shield against the truth of what you endured. I think there have been times that we have tried to raise different sides of the argument, as uncomfortable as it seems today, and there are elements that I think might not be perfect about the bill, but no legislation ever is. But its purpose and its motivation is sound. It does restore justice where it was wrongly stripped away. It restores accountability where it was wrongly denied. It restores a principle this Parliament should never need reminding of: that the safety of children will always matter more than the legal comfort of institutions. For those reasons, the coalition supports this bill and I commend it to the house.

 Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (15:23): I rise to speak today in strong support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025, a narrow but vital step and a measure to protect and to right justice for victim-survivors of historical child abuse. I will start by acknowledging the victim-survivors. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the courage of all victim-survivors of child abuse. Through your voices, your stories and your resilience you have brought to light some of the darkest chapters of our history and reminded us of the urgent need for justice, accountability and systematic reforms. We honour your experience, and it is because of your bravery we are able to take meaningful steps to ensure that no child suffers in silence again.

I would like to acknowledge the work that the minister and the Attorney-General have done to come to this point and the thoughtful contributions that I have heard today in this place, particularly the member for Frankston for his very clear contribution on this bill. We all have shared and acknowledged the devastating impacts of child abuse and that lifelong trauma that it leaves, the loss of opportunities and that deep betrayal of trust.

Over the past decade, even though I have not been in this place for that amount of time, I have seen and want to at least acknowledge that Victoria has taken steps in this space in the way of supporting survivors, including the removal of barriers preventing victims from pursuing civil claims no matter how long ago the abuse occurred and reforms that have been inspired by and come from both the Victorian Betrayal of Trust inquiry and also the federal Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It has given survivors a path to justice where previously there was none. Yet in 2024 we did see the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP expose a gap – a loophole that left victims vulnerable once again. The case involved historical sexual abuse by a priest seen as, I suppose, a ‘volunteer’ but not officially employed by the church. The Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal had found the church vicariously liable, recognising the abuser was akin to an employee, but the High Court overturned that, holding that vicarious liability could only be found in strict employment relationships. That decision has devastated the survivor community around Australia and thrown into doubt hundreds of cases against institutions by victims of abuse. The court at the time acknowledged that the consequences of its decision were harsh and explicitly stated that it sat ‘squarely in the hands of the legislatures’. That is where this bill today comes in.

Why then do we need this bill? Well, we must ensure that victim-survivors of historical abuse are no longer denied justice by a technicality. It allows survivors who were forced to accept an unfair outcome after the case of Bird v DP to have their matter reopened, and importantly, it restores the law to what it was before the High Court’s decision, recognising that people who act in a role akin to employment can, in the eyes of the law, attract vicarious liability for their organisation. This bill is deliberately narrow and focused on addressing the problem identified in the High Court without creating those other unnecessary, new obligations. It allows the court to examine the specifics of each matter and determine whether an abuser’s relationship with the organisation is sufficiently similar to an employment relationship. It does not automatically deem volunteers, carers or coaches as employees. It simply restores the ability of courts to consider a common-law test of akin to employment in a context, and it provides a path for those survivors who were forced to settle their claims after the High Court decision to reopen their matters. So why now? Well, we cannot allow survivors to be denied justice just because of this technicality. Institutions must be held accountable for the people that they put in positions of power over children. This is about fairness. This is about ensuring that anyone who suffers abuse at the hands of someone acting on behalf of an organisation, whether formerly employed or not, has the opportunity to pursue a civil remedy.

I just want to take a moment and the opportunity to acknowledge and also to share and thank the Care Leavers Australia Network – CLAN, as they are affectionately known – and acknowledge the work that they do in our Geelong region. We have the Australian Orphanage Museum in Geelong, and Leonie Sheedy, who is a Clannie, has had an immeasurable impact on me. I admit that I did not know of the atrocities that happened in my own town of Geelong until recently. After meeting Leonie and many other Clannies and visiting the museum, I have learned a lot about our dark history in Geelong. I learned that Geelong was home to more orphanages than any other city outside of a capital. The museum in Geelong – it is open, and I would like to encourage people to go there; it is confronting and it is emotional, but it is an opportunity to learn and listen – is dedicated to documenting and exhibiting authentic social histories about the experience of growing up in an orphanage, in a children’s home or maybe in a mission or other institution. The museum has been created and established by care leavers for care leavers so that this history is visible to all Australians. The collection contains hundreds of items from Australian children’s homes, and every object there has a story to tell. In summarising I would just like to acknowledge and thank Leonie for educating me and helping me understand why reforms like this are so important. Our Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles once said that Leonie Sheedy was a national treasure, and I could not agree more.

At the time of calling the national Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse the Prime Minister at the time Julia Gillard stated that:

These are insidious, evil acts to which no child should be subject.

…

… Australians know … that too many children have suffered child abuse.

They have also seen other adults let them down.

They’ve not only had their trust betrayed by the abuser, but other adults that could have acted to assist them have failed to do so.

There have been too many revelations of adults who have averted their eyes from this evil.

In terms of the bill today, the Attorney-General also stated in her second-reading speech that the reason for drafting this bill is that:

We have heard from victim-survivors, members of the public, advocacy groups and peak legal bodies of the damaging impacts of the High Court decision on this group, who have called for legislative reform. It takes great courage for victim-survivors to report abuse, often at great personal expense, and some cannot now seek to hold organisations to account through the courts.

That is why we must do this bill and have this bill go through this house and the other house today and be enacted.

At the heart of this bill is a simple truth: adults hold a profound responsibility to protect children, and when that responsibility is betrayed the consequences are lifelong. When those who are entrusted with care, guidance and authority instead use that power to harm, that betrayal is one of the deepest wounds a child can suffer. Our laws must recognise the gravity of that failure and ensure that institutions and individuals who enable or ignore such abuse are held to account. No child should ever have to bear the burden of an adult’s abuse of power, and no survivor should ever be denied justice because of the actions or inactions of those who were meant to keep them safe.

This is about restoring fairness and giving victim-survivors the opportunity to seek that justice which was denied by a technical loophole. It ensures that no survivor is left without recourse simply because a law failed to recognise the reality of their experience. By passing this bill we are sending a very clear message that survivors’ voices matter and the pursuit of justice cannot be denied. This is the right thing to do, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (15:33): Almost every time I am on my feet in this place I bring in notes, expecting to stick to the script and never do, but today I plan to because this is a very important bill: the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. It is important and necessary in restoring justice and certainty for survivors of child abuse in Victoria, and at the heart of this bill lies a simple truth: that no child should ever be abused and no institution should ever escape accountability because of a legal technicality.

When abuse occurs within the authority, power or trust placed in an adult by an institution, that institution must be answerable morally and legally. This bill exists because the High Court’s decision, as we have heard from many members in this place today, in Bird v DP last year fundamentally disrupted what had been up until then an accepted approach to institutional liability for child abuse. Bird v DP held that a Catholic diocese was not vicariously liable for the criminal acts of an assistant priest because he was not technically an employee, and I think I have heard just about every member who has spoken on this bill talk about that case today. The High Court rejected the ‘akin to employment’ doctrine previously applied by Victorian courts and stated very clearly that any reform to this area must come from the legislature, and here we are. That moment, in practical terms, closed the doors of justice to many survivors. Many matters stalled and many are ongoing. I was talking to someone yesterday who has been involved in a case that has been caught up in the High Court for six years now. Others have been settled prematurely for far less than was fair, out of fear that their claims would be dismissed with costs. Institutions that until then operated on the understanding that they were accountable suddenly found themselves sheltered by a very narrow technical interpretation of employment status.

This Parliament should not and cannot allow accountability for child abuse to turn on whether a person was an employee or an office-holder or a contractor or a subbie. Survivors deserve better than that. They deserve consistency, fairness and a pathway to justice that cannot be derailed by organisational structures designed decades ago.

This bill does two things. It amends the Wrongs Act 1958 to create a clear statutory framework for vicarious liability for child abuse, which it applies to all child abuse past and future, and it ensures that liability extends not only to employees but also to people who are akin to employees. This reflects the reality of how many institutions operate, particularly religious organisations, community groups and schools where authority, trust and control are not limited to those within the formal employment contracts. Second, it amends the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to allow survivors impacted by the Bird window, which is that period between the High Court’s decision in November of last year and the commencement of this legislation, to have their settlements reopened or judgements set aside. This gives survivors whose cases were unfairly weakened a chance to come back, start again and seek proper redress. In doing so the bill restores the legal position that most survivors reasonably believed existed prior to Bird. Frankly it restores faith – faith that the Parliament will not stand by while a sudden change deprives survivors of the justice that they have fought for for years, if not decades.

There were some areas of concern, though, throughout stakeholder engagement with this bill. One of those was the retrospective aspect of the bill. As the member for Euroa said, the bill does contain retrospective elements. In most circumstances retrospective legislation probably is not most desirable as it offends the rule of law, but these are not your ordinary retrospective elements. This Parliament has for many years recognised that child abuse is an exceptional class of wrongdoing, and it absolutely is. There have already been moves to remove limitation periods. There have been past settlements that have been reopened where injustice was evident, and this is because of the nature of the abuse and the trauma that it inflicts. It demands that we centre justice for survivors above administrative convenience. As I said yesterday in this place, some things just transcend politics, and this is one of them. The retrospective element here is narrow, it is time limited and necessary.

There were concerns about the ‘akin to employment’ test. It is true this area has been difficult and evolving, but that is precisely why statutory guidance is required. This bill gives courts a framework that preserves their discretion, so it does not freeze the law – it offers guidance and it reflects the lived reality of institutional abuse, quite frankly, where perpetrators often operate with authority, with trust as I said earlier and with access regardless of what their contract says. Independent contractors were another area that raised some red flags and also concerns from religious or community organisations. As I heard the member for Euroa speak about earlier, some have suggested that this bill is going to create unreasonable burdens on churches and charities. As my good friend and colleague the member for Euroa stated, the real burden here is on survivors. It is a lifelong burden and it is one they live with every day, so please do not come at this with concerns over burdensome admin. What an absolute joke. Accountability is not an attack on faith or community. It is an affirmation or reaffirmation of our shared moral responsibility, especially in this place, as legislators to protect children. So we are not opposed to this bill. The Liberals and Nationals have supported reforms that empower survivors and ensure institutions cannot evade responsibility, so this bill will restore justice disrupted by Bird. It codifies an area of law marked by uncertainty and the ability of the role to create situations of intimacy or vulnerability.

There are obviously a number of aspects to this bill, but as I have said and as I have heard many people talk about in very considered contributions on this bill today, this has come about because of a really unfortunate legal loophole that has been found and has traumatised survivors of institutional child abuse, and that is not fair. We have an obligation to consider this at its core. It is not a partisan issue, it is a moral one. Children were abused, we know that; institutions failed them, we know that. And when the law creates that loophole, then it is our responsibility to close that gap, and this bill will do exactly that.

Survivors of child sexual abuse show extraordinary strength. Despite the challenges, many spend decades trying to come forward. Many stay silent because talking about that trauma is too hard. Oftentimes talking about trauma is just too hard. I get it. When they finally seek justice, the last thing they should encounter is that legal loophole that tells them their abuser was technically not an employee, so the institution cannot be held responsible. Can you imagine? Every member in this place knows, or at least should know, how deeply wrong that would be. Institutions hold great power, and with great power comes great responsibility. And when institutions enable environments where abuse can occur, or place adults in positions of trust, intimacy or authority over children, they must be answerable for that.

The High Court made it clear that it is now up to us, and we are doing that today. This legislation is what will decide what accountability looks like, and the bill articulates that responsibility clearly, consistently and justly. It is necessary and it is justified, and most importantly, it will help to restore fairness to those who have already suffered far too much. Ultimately, this is about delivering justice – real justice – for those who deserved it decades ago.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:43): I certainly will echo the fundamental principle of the reforms that are being brought before the Parliament today, and that is the pursuit of justice. We know that these reforms cannot undo the abuse that has been committed. They cannot erase the traumatic memories and experiences, but nevertheless they can deliver a much fairer outcome that is certainly richly deserved. One might say, arguably, the law is always seeking the pursuit of justice. But in order to achieve that, that requires us to continually review and improve the law as best we can. Certainly this is, I think, what has driven in part the decisions that are before us today because of the result of the wicked betrayal of trust of so many children and young people who have been put through what can only be described as torture – I can only imagine the extreme disappointment, to say the least; I do not want to be overly descriptive because I was not there personally to experience those horrific experiences – that nevertheless go some way to reflect the seriousness with which those matters are being addressed, certainly experiences that were not in any way deserved by any of the victims, and it is indeed almost impossible to rationalise the cruelty. I do not think that we can. Nevertheless I do want to pay respect to the trauma of so many – too many. One is too many in our state. I also want to do a little shout-out to David ‘Macca’ McCarthy from JOY Media – he has been a very strong local advocate – and to all victim-survivors and also to reflect on those who have not survived to be able to see these changes. I also acknowledge the work of the Attorney-General and the member for Frankston, and I know that the Parliament here today is certainly united in seeing these changes through.

We know fundamentally what the reforms will do. They will restore the law to what it was before the High Court decision in Bird v DP by retrospectively allowing victim-survivors of historical child abuse to pursue claims of vicarious liability where their abuser is ‘akin to employment’. The bill will allow the court to examine the specifics of each matter to determine whether the abuser’s relationship with an organisation is sufficiently similar to an employment relationship so as to potentially attract vicarious liability. Importantly, it will also allow any victim-survivors who were forced to accept unfair resolutions to their matters following the High Court decision to apply to the court to have their matter reopened. This makes sure that anyone who was pushed into settling or withdrawing their matters due to the High Court decision will not be missing out, hence the important thread today in the pursuit of justice.

The bill, it is also very important to note, does not exclude volunteers, carers or coaches. In each case it will be for the courts applying the well-established common-law ‘akin to employment’ test to the facts to determine whether it is appropriate for vicarious liability to attach in each given matter. I note that, yes, there is complexity whenever the element of retrospectivity is applied, but when we are talking about the safety of children and we are talking about the critical nature of the matters before us it is hence determined that retrospectivity is appropriate to be applied within the specific limbs of the tests and so forth that frame the reforms that we are bringing today. I should say, when we are talking about that frame – because it is important to be precise, and no-one is suggesting otherwise – to determine if an individual is an employee, the court is able to consider whether the individual carries out activities as an integral part of the activities carried out by the organisation and does so for the benefit of the organisation, the extent of the organisation’s control over the individual in the carrying-out of their activities, and anything else the court considers relevant.

An important caveat, though: independent contractors are excluded from the test and cannot be considered akin to an employee. An example might be an electrical contractor who comes in to rewire a particular building and therefore is not fitting within the realm of the tests that are in front of the court that the court has to consider. I think that is certainly a practical caveat when it comes to the very delicate nature of the matters being considered. An organisation will be vicariously liable for the abuse of a child by an employee or an individual akin to an employee if the apparent performance by the employee or individual akin to an employee of a role in which the institution has placed that employee or individual supplies the occasion for the abuse of the child by that employee or individual and the employee or individual akin to an employee takes advantage of or uses that occasion to abuse the child. You can see the necessary precision around the framing of this reform, but I think that makes sense and is appropriate within the terms of this bill.

Further, at the risk of slight repetition, I want to say the bill will allow affected victim-survivors whose vicarious liability claims were resolved in the period between 13 November 2024 – the High Court’s decision on the act – and the commencement of these reforms to apply to the court to have a judgement or settlement set aside and commence another action. The Bird decision rendered some vicarious liability claims for historical child abuse unviable or significantly weakened, so this will ensure that these victim-survivors may benefit from the reforms, including plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed by the court. Seeking to in some way walk in the shoes of those victim-survivors, on the one hand to be desperately let down by a betrayal of trust in the early years of their life and for that to be followed up with a further injustice in terms of a loophole that prevented them from seeking justice before the courts, we can only imagine how that must have impacted up until this day in fact those victim-survivors and the advocates who have worked hard on their behalf. These are certainly extremely emotional matters, very personal matters and I would have to say extremely difficult to talk about. It has been already discussed in the chamber about having to speak to such personal matters; I could only imagine how difficult it must be. But nevertheless they had that courage, that resilience and that inner knowing that the wrongs have to be righted, not only for their benefit but also into the future.

I think the other matter when we are talking about the purpose of legislative reform is it is also sending a very strong signal that what the community expects is that those in a position of authority – and I am not going to revisit the particular limb of the tests of this bill, but bearing in mind the frame and the context within which we are discussing this bill – must treat children with respect. This is also about curbing decades and decades of abuse. I think there are many positive outcomes that can result from the passing of this reform. It is a very strong statement on the one hand, yes, about justice, but also to say how we expect all human beings to be treated at each and every point of their lives, not least when they are young and vulnerable, and so I hope that through the Parliament in a truly united way we can make a difference. I thank again all the victim-survivors who have so courageously pursued these reforms. We could never have been where we are today without you. Now I am getting emotional, so I just want to thank them for their courage, because I cannot imagine doing it myself. I am sorry I have got emotional. I commend the bill to the house.

 Katie HALL (Footscray) (15:53): There have been many powerful contributions today, and we just heard one. I would like to echo the sentiments of the member for Albert Park, who very powerfully articulated the courage of victim-survivors to advocate when the burden that they carry must be so overwhelming. I believe that, although it is frustrating that this reform has had to take place to restore some semblance of justice to victims, today has shown Parliament at its best. From Ballarat to Frankston – the member has just stepped out – to my community of Footscray and across Victoria, we have seen how the horrific trauma of these unspeakable crimes has reverberated through time. It breaks my heart that victims would ever feel an emotion like shame, when the shame is truly on the organisations that were entrusted with their care.

From the outset of this contribution I say to victim-survivors of child sexual abuse: I hope that today, after being failed by the justice system, you feel seen at the very least. I hope that you feel that justice is being restored, in part, in response to the unspeakable crimes of which you have been victims. Any organisation, any institution that is entrusted with the care of a child ever must be accountable and held to account. They must not hide behind a protection racket, a faith or a legal loophole, because the burden carried by the victim should be held by those institutions and the criminals within and with them only.

Today we restore some fairness to victims, although nothing will ever be fair for victims. We restore some space for justice, but for the victims nothing will ever be just. We cannot undo the horrendous crimes, but we can look them in the eye, and we must always. As many of my colleagues around the chamber have noted today, this bill is necessary to address the impacts of the court case Bird v DP. I had not heard about the impacts of this loophole until the member for Frankston spoke to me about it. It is really such a shameful situation that we as a community, as Victorians, predominantly would not be aware of this shameful situation.

This bill will ensure that victim-survivors of historical child abuse will no longer be denied justice by a loophole allowing organisations to evade accountability because their abuser was not formally employed. There has been a high-profile case in my electorate, which resonated very deeply with me, involving our much-loved local football club. When I was reading about this situation, I thought about the victim in that case and the horrific crimes that victim was subjected to by a volunteer. This bill will help victim-survivors who were forced into accepting unfair outcomes. The bill is narrow, and a number of people have spoken to that. It only goes so far as it needs to in order to address the situation identified by the High Court.

The bill will restore effectively into law what it was prior to the High Court decision. Victim-survivors will once again be able to pursue civil remedies against organisations for abuse suffered at the hands of a person who might not be formally employed but who is akin to an employee. It will also allow any victim-survivor whose matter was resolved following the Bird v DP case but prior to the commencement of this legislation to apply to the court to reopen their matter.

The member for Albert Park spoke about the courage of these victims. I am so sad that these victims might be retraumatised by pursuing another civil matter. I am so sorry that this circumstance ever occurred. I would like to acknowledge the people in the gallery, the people who have been advocates and the people who have spoken up for victims who can no longer speak for themselves. Your work is incredibly powerful – what you have done for people who could not speak for themselves, to speak out and to speak up against institutions that are extremely powerful restores some sense of justice. How lucky we are to have people like you in our great state.

I know that these reforms will be welcomed by many in this community, and I know that the majority of legal stakeholders as well would never have wanted this unintended loophole to occur. I do not really want to reflect on some of the religious organisations that are opposed to the reforms. I do not want to elevate those opinions at all. But the member for Narre Warren South spoke very powerfully about his mother’s faith and how, as a woman of God, she would never hide behind her faith. I thought that was really powerful. It is unspeakable – indefensible, in my opinion – that anyone would ever oppose reforms to avoid their financial liability for historical child abuse. It is unspeakable. Community organisations, such as the Scouts, that we entrust our children to, who are, by and large, good volunteer organisations, I know have also raised some concerns about the application of these reforms. But there is nothing more important. There is no responsibility more important than being entrusted with the care of a child, and that is something that we should look in the eye always – always.

I would like to conclude by thanking and acknowledging the victim-survivors, the ones who have shown such courage and such strength. I wish them all the very best, and I hope that this restores some much-needed justice in their lives. I commend the bill to the house.

 Martha HAYLETT (Ripon) (16:03): I rise today to speak in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. I really thank every other member in this house who has spoken about this bill today, especially the very moving contributions from the member for Wendouree, the member for Frankston and the member for Brighton. This is a very emotive topic. It is so heartening to see support from both sides of the chamber for these critical changes here today.

This bill is about justice. It is about accountability and compassion. It makes sure that our laws reflect the lived reality of victims-survivors of child abuse and that institutions cannot hide behind technicalities to avoid responsibility. At the heart of this bill is the principle of vicarious liability. As we have heard from many other members today, vicarious liability is a form of strict liability whereby a defendant organisation can be held liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of another person, even when the organisation itself was not directly at fault. In Victoria, claims for child abuse under vicarious liability are currently brought under the common law. Importantly, the common law applies retrospectively, meaning that organisations can be held liable for historical child abuse perpetrated by their employees. This principle recognises that institutions benefit from the roles and the authority that they give to individuals and therefore must bear responsibility when those roles are abused to harm children.

The need for this bill arises directly from the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP in 2024. In that case we saw the High Court overturn a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court, upheld by the Court of Appeal, that had extended liability to relationships akin to employment. The High Court’s ruling narrowed the scope of liability, leaving victim-survivors who were abused by individuals in positions of trust but not technically employees without a clear path to justice. The High Court itself acknowledged the impacts of this decision as harsh and noted that addressing it sits squarely in the hands of legislators, inviting us as legislators to make the changes needed to address that harshness. This is exactly what this bill does today. It legislates both retrospectively and prospectively that vicarious liability for child abuse extends to relationships akin to employment. No child should ever be abused and no perpetrator should get away with it just because they were not employed by an institution and not taking a pay cheque at the time of the abuse. This is deeply unfair and has meant that some victim-survivors of child abuse have seen justice if their perpetrator was employed and others who were abused by volunteers have not seen that same justice.

This bill makes two critical reforms. It amends the Wrongs Act 1958 to expand vicarious liability for child abuse to include relationships akin to employment, ensuring institutions are liable where they placed individuals in roles of authority, trust or intimacy with children. It amends the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 to allow victim-survivors who received a settlement or civil judgement between the Bird v DP decision on 13 November 2024 and the commencement of this bill to apply to the court to set aside that settlement or judgement and commence new proceedings. This makes sure that those directly affected by the High Court’s decision are not denied the benefit of these reforms. This bill ensures that claims can be brought regardless of when the abuse occurred. We know that it can take over 20 years for victim-survivors to disclose their abuse. In my own community of Creswick and the broader Ballarat region there are devastatingly high numbers of child abuse victim-survivors, many of whom have taken decades to disclose their trauma, if they have at all. The retrospective operation of the bill recognises the lifelong effects of child abuse and it gives, hopefully, some comfort to many victim-survivors that they will finally receive some justice.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that survivors have faced substantial barriers to accessing justice, including the imbalance of power and resources between survivors and organisations and complex legal procedures. This bill helps dismantle those barriers and is carefully confined. It applies only to child abuse and only to organisations exercising care and authority over children and it only extends existing vicarious liability to relationships akin to employment. This limited expansion is required to alleviate the impacts of Bird v DP on victim-survivors of historical child abuse.

The ACT government has now passed retrospective legislation which operates very similarly to this bill. We have seen the Western Australian government introduce retrospective legislation which takes a different approach, deeming religious practitioners as employees, but that achieves a similar outcome. Even older examples exist in Canada and the UK, where the approach that we are proposing has been the status quo for over 20 years. This bill will put us in line with other states, territories and countries who have progressed their laws to better support victim-survivors and right the wrongs of the past. Where religious, community and volunteer organisations continue to operate, it does not stop them from operating – that is a very important point – but it makes sure that they are better and that there will, hopefully, be much more accountability going forward if there is ever abuse experienced in those settings.

I acknowledge that some religious and community organisations, as the member for Footscray outlined, have expressed some concern about financial impacts, but the financial interests of institutions cannot outweigh the rights of victim-survivors to seek justice. This bill is not about punishing faith communities or charities, it is about ensuring accountability where children were harmed under their care. This bill restores faith in our justice system. It says to survivors that we hear you, we believe you and we stand with you. It complements the government’s past efforts to remove barriers to civil litigation for victim-survivors of historical child abuse, and it delivers on our ongoing commitment to supporting victim-survivors.

I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this legislation forward. I commend all of the work of the member for Frankston, and I thank him so wholeheartedly for doing so much hard work with this legislation. Thank you so much, Paul. I thank all of those who were involved in the journey to get here, including plaintiff and defendant law firms; legal professional associations, including the Victorian Bar Association, the Criminal Bar Association and the Australian Lawyers Alliance; Sexual Assault Services Victoria; and religious organisations, including the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat, Christian Brothers and Anglicare Victoria. I really want to thank so many members of the community in Ballarat especially. As a representative of the outskirts of Ballarat and many of the surrounding communities, I know how hard fought so many community members in Ballarat have been with this legislation and to get us to today, so I sincerely thank every single person involved within the Ballarat region.

These reforms have been informed by an independent committee as well, chaired by the Department of Justice and Community Safety, with members from other departments. I thank every person and every public servant who was a part of the committee and a part of drafting this important bill. It will help so many victim-survivors who were forced into accepting unfair outcomes following the Bird v DP decision, and it will ensure victim-survivors of child abuse will no longer be denied justice by a loophole allowing organisations to evade accountability because their abuser was not formally employed.

I am so proud to speak on this bill and to see it become law. This is truly an example of the best of Parliament, when we come together and unify over such important reform and important legislation in this place. Thank you again to every person who has been involved in this chamber and outside of it, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (16:12): I rise to support and speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. I start by thanking the Premier and the Attorney-General and her team for all their efforts to bring this bill to this Parliament. In particular I want to thank my colleague Paul Edbrooke, the member for Frankston. He has provided enormous leadership in this space across the Parliament, and I quote him on his thanks to victim-survivors, when he rightly said ‘they have turned their pain into purpose’. I will come to that in a moment. I want to say thank you to the caucus colleagues who have stood up for victim-survivors and thank you to the victim-survivors, their advocates and their lawyers and to Trades Hall for keeping up the fight on this matter. For those who shared their story in Parliament and stated the case to bring the law back to where it had been, I was deeply moved. I thank you, member for Frankston, for arranging it. For everybody who was there and shared their story in such an open and vulnerable way, it was really appreciated. It brought to us, as the member for Mordialloc said, the real urgency in getting this done. I am so pleased that it is in this chamber this year.

This legislation is important because it sets things right, to the way they were prior to the intervention of the High Court of Australia in Bird v DP, and we take up the question here posed to us by the High Court. Importantly it allows any victim-survivor whose matter was resolved following Bird v DP but prior to the commencement of this legislation, should it be approved by these houses, to apply to the court to reopen their matter. It is important to put these things right – to as they were – not because this will provide justice for victim-survivors but it will give them a semblance of justice and some hope, because justice simply cannot be achieved for people who have been abused in such a horrific way.

This legislation is equally important to me because it says to all organisations across this state that this is the priority that we have, that this Parliament has: the protection of children going forward, because this is the just and the right thing to do. Organisations should naturally know this. They should know that the prioritisation of the protection of children is of paramount importance. But if they do not, and if they are unable to do that and unable to expand their minds to that, then the people who lead their organisations know that their organisations are at risk if they do not protect children.

I want to acknowledge also, just on this day, that there is a lot of community hurt and suffering in the community that I represent, with further charges being laid in relation to child care. I just want to acknowledge that hurt and suffering and say there is support available; there is information online for that, for people in the community that I represent.

Today I am going to talk about an organisation that did not support the children under its care. My family were parishioners at the Our Lady Help of Christians Catholic Church in Eltham. I say ‘There but for the grace of God go I’, because Father Baker was at that church at that time, a priest that was a paedophile and abuser. He was imprisoned – not for long enough, by the way. There but for the grace go I, because I was not abused, but others around me were. He was a priest until 2012. Criminal complaints were raised about him from 1978 onwards, well before he was at Eltham. Mr Baker was a Catholic priest. He was a case study in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. He was at Gladstone Park and was moved from there after abuse acknowledged by the church at that time. He was shifted to Eltham because of the abuse at Gladstone Park, and he abused there. He was shifted to Dandenong. He was shifted to North Richmond in 1992, to another parish with a school, in the knowledge he was a criminal abuser – the church knew this.

In 1997, after more allegations, he was placed on administrative leave. In 1999 he was sentenced – the day before his trial he pleaded guilty. It was another 13 years before the church removed his status as a priest. By the time of the royal commission 21 people had made either claims or substantiated complaints of child sexual abuse against Mr Baker. The incidents alleged occurred in the period between 1960 and 1985, and that was at the time of the royal commission. I do acknowledge the important words of the member for Ripon in explaining just how long it takes for people who have been abused – victim-survivors – to come forward. Three civil claims had been resolved by that point in time: $158,000 compensation on average was received. Eighteen complainants went through the Melbourne Response and received an average of $31,000 as a result of their complaints.

I want to describe some of the reasons we have got a bill like this in this Parliament. Mr BTO – a pseudonym – gave evidence at the royal commission. His parents were devoted Catholics. He said:

… I was raised to believe that the Parish Priest was next to God, and therefore was to be respected.

…

My family attended the Good Shepherd Catholic Church in Gladstone Park … The Parish Priest at the time was Father Bill Baker …

At the age of 12, the abuse started at Maryborough, in Mr Baker’s parents’ house. The abuse happened there repeatedly.

There were … occasions when I was lucky enough to go to bed early before Father Baker. If I pretended to be asleep when he came into the room, he left me alone.

Eventually BTO told his mother of the abuse and then his dad. He said:

I did not want to tell my dad because he was a man’s man, a tough man, and I was too ashamed and embarrassed to tell him. However, after I disclosed to mum, she of course told dad. Dad was good about it and he didn’t react negatively or blame me …

Imagine that. The abuse was disclosed to another priest at the parish and Archbishop Little at the time. Father Baker was moved out of Gladstone Park parish. BTO said:

I struggled to concentrate at school. I just wanted to be one of the boys, to play football, be normal, and feel like I fit in. The abuse definitely affected my education and continues to affect me today.

He said later in life:

… I disclosed the abuse to my wife. We were talking about having children and I felt I needed to tell her … Before this I never discussed it with anyone.

Around 1998 BTO was contacted by police to assist with prosecutions as a result of other victims coming forward. Initially Father Baker pleaded not guilty, but on the day of the trial he changed his plea to guilty. BTO regretted not being able to tell his story. BTO went through the Melbourne Response and was offered $35,000 by the church.

I discussed the offer with my lawyer. He gave me some options but inferred that if I didn’t take the offer the church would fight hard against any legal action I took. I decided to accept the compensation. I was also required to sign a Deed of Release.

The money certainly helped my wife and I at the time, but it just made me feel dirty, like I was a prostitute and being bought off. It felt like hush money.

He was provided counselling services, but not the ones that he felt would support him. He was provided with medication until the church stopped paying. BTO says he struggles as a parent. He finds he has massive self-doubt. He finds it very difficult to trust people – fair enough too. BTO has a supportive wife, and he finished his statement by saying:

If I can stop one other child from being abused, then it is worth it.

After 40 years someone asked BTO for the first time what he wanted. He just wanted people who are fair and just to make decisions for people that could not make decisions for themselves. I hope we can be those people. BTO said:

My job, that I don’t want other people to know, is a job that saves people. I couldn’t save myself, I couldn’t save the people that, if I’d said something after me, it might have stopped; so I’m asking you, please, please save me and please save all the other people that have been abused. Thank you.

BTO, you are an extraordinary person. You have done good things by the evidence you gave. I commend this bill to the house because it is important. I commend this bill to the house.

 Steve McGHIE (Melton) (16:21): I rise to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. I just want to acknowledge and commend the member for Point Cook’s contribution. There have been many great contributions today from all sides of the chamber, and I think that is a credit to what Parliament is all about. There should be no politics played on legislation like this, so I commend every member that has spoken on this bill and the others that wanted to speak on the bill but have not been able to.

Survivors deserve more than just recognition; they deserve justice, protection and a system that truly listens and learns from their experiences. That is exactly what this bill is delivering for them. I want to acknowledge all the victim-survivors for all of their courage and for their persistence in making sure we get this bill up – it is amazing. All the support from all the agencies that have supported and pushed this particular issue has been amazing. Being involved in the meeting that we had in the party room only a few months ago, as other members have said, really brought it home. That is why it is important that we carry this bill.

It is rare in this place that we get such a literal description of what we are doing, but today we are righting some wrongs, specifically the Wrongs Act 1958. I want to thank the Attorney-General and all of her team for doing amazing hard work to ensure that no Victorian falls through what I personally think is an egregious loophole. I am incredibly pleased just to stand up here and be able to contribute to close that loophole by passing this bill. I also want to acknowledge the member for Frankston and his great efforts. I know many members have acknowledged the member for Frankston, but his tireless efforts and work on this has been absolutely amazing and his leadership on it has been just incredible. It just goes to show what a special person he is. Well done to the member for Frankston, so thank you. I also want to acknowledge the member for Brighton and his contribution – his passionate and emotional contribution. I think it was fantastic. It certainly led the way from the opposition. All of the opposition contributions have been very good and everyone that has contributed has been excellent.

It was just over a year ago that we saw the High Court of Australia in its ruling in Bird v DP removing vicarious liability from responsible institutions. In doing this they provided the opportunity for institutions and organisations to avoid responsibility to claimants seeking to hold accountable offending volunteers or contractors. Vicarious liability is a concept that we see deployed in our daily lives. If a volunteer injures themselves while volunteering for an organisation, they are rightly covered by that organisation’s duty of care to seek compensation for an associated injury or damages. If you fall over and break your leg, you will be covered, and rightly so. But it stands to reason that if a volunteer injures or does harm to someone else while undertaking those same responsibilities, that organisation has a duty of care to compensate for that harm under their auspice. Clearly the Catholic Church in the diocese did not see this.

Organisations have a vicarious liability to ensure that a person working on behalf of that organisation is of sufficient character to safely do so and does not present a risk or danger to those that they interact with. Again, clearly the Archdiocese of Ballarat did not view it that way. I would certainly like to note that in Bird v DP and the chain of events as it played out in the Victorian courts, DP, a pseudonym, commenced civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the current bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ballarat Paul Bird. Bishop Bird was the nominated defendant pursuant to the Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018. In 1971 at the age of five, DP was sexually abused at his parents’ home in Port Fairy on two separate occasions by Father Bryan Coffey – he is now deceased – an assistant priest from St Patrick’s local parish church. In December 2021 the Supreme Court found the diocese vicariously liable for the sexual abuse perpetrated by Father Coffey, notwithstanding a finding that Coffey was not an employee of the diocese. As Coffey was akin to an employee, this was held to be sufficient to establish limb 1 of vicarious liability. Then in 2023, on appeal, the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld the Supreme Court’s decision that found the diocese vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of DP by an assistant priest. That decision was later appealed by the diocese and overturned by the High Court in November 2024. That just looks like an institution so desperate not to accept responsibility for the crimes committed by their volunteers and litigious enough to pursue victim-survivors through every level of justice, to deny them justice.

Institutions such as these have the privilege of thinking in the linear and waiting it out – and that is what they do. They go to every level to pursue what they might believe are their rights and their innocence in regard to the actions that have been caused. Of course there are the devastating effects of organisations enabling and hiding perpetrators – they just hid them; they just moved them around knowing that they were perpetrators. As I said, when they are caught, they take it through every level of the judicial process. It is okay to have deep pockets. An agency like the Ballarat diocese did have deep pockets, and they just wore people down. It is just disgraceful. We have heard some of those examples, and we heard the example from the member for Point Cook in regard to the victim-survivor that he spoke about.

Importantly, in making their ruling, the High Court clearly carved out a position for the states and territories to urgently legislate a remedy for the gap identified with their interpretation, essentially inviting each jurisdiction in Australia to do just that. Survivors need governments across Australia to step up and legislate vicarious responsibility laws for sexual abuse committed and to assign responsibility to the organisation that housed the offender. That is exactly what our Attorney-General is doing here today, by bringing this legislation forward and by everyone contributing today. Victoria continues to lead the states in survivor protections, and this amendment resolves the issue identified by the High Court and ensures that the loophole that we have already seen exploited around the country is slammed shut. That is a great thing, because the ACT recently passed retrospective legislation which operates very similarly to how this bill will. This legislation ensures that the responsible institutions – not the taxpayer – are ultimately responsible for compensating survivors.

Of course there are people on the public record suggesting that this sort of legislation would put too great a burden on local clubs, schools and the like. This is an entirely disingenuous argument, and it ignores the fact that organisations have a basic responsibility to ensure that the people partaking in their services are safe from the individuals employed by the organisation, its volunteers or otherwise, who carry out these services. If a community or clerical organisation cannot responsibly guarantee safe services for our children in regard to the volunteers/contractors they oversee, they have absolutely no business providing those services. But they did and they continued to hide it and continued to move them around.

Last week we saw an ABC News article in which the Anglican Diocese of Ballarat outlined its financial challenges and the need to sell properties due to abuse-related civil and redress claims. I say to the Anglican Diocese of Ballarat: go right ahead, sell your properties, but do justice to the victim-survivors. This is the problem that the diocese has put up for many, many years. Again, they just hide it. They have deep pockets, they wear people down, they throw a lot of money at legal cases that should never, ever have happened, and they will go to every avenue to cause trauma and torment to victim-survivors. So I say: sell all your properties in Ballarat. I live in Ballarat. Sell your properties – we do not need them – but look after victim-survivors. This is an amazing bill. I commend the Attorney-General. I am so pleased to be talking about this bill, and I commend it to the house.

 Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (16:31): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. I do want to begin by acknowledging the victim-survivors who have shared their experience, the harm that has been caused and the impact of Bird v DP. I thank them for their bravery. I said I did not need tissues, but hang on. I want to thank them for their bravery and their contribution to this bill. I also thank my parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the house for their emotional and heartfelt support for this bill and in particular the member for Frankston, who has just provided me with some tissues. I thank him for his hard work and contribution to getting this bill in this place today. I commend the work that you have done, member for Frankston. I also want to thank the Attorney-General for her hard work and all of those that have been involved in getting where we are today.

These perpetrators were in a position of trust. The harm they have caused is a life sentence for victim-survivors. They have a right to be heard and to be treated with the respect that they deserve. I have had the privilege of hearing from many victim-survivors about the unimaginable abuse that they have suffered, including many in the Aboriginal community, who are still waiting for justice. I listened to the harrowing stories of abuse and the significant impact of this abuse. It is unacceptable that victim-survivors have had to endure this additional burden of the Bird v DP decision.

Geelong has one of the highest numbers of orphanages run by religious organisations and is now home to the Australian Orphanage Museum, thanks to the Care Leavers Australasia Network, headed up by Leonie Sheedy. I want to acknowledge and thank Leonie and CLAN for the important work that they do and the strong advocacy role they have played to achieve some level of justice but also for being there for the many victim-survivors. To hear many of those stories has been harrowing for those of us that have been hearing them, but I can only imagine what it must be like for those victim-survivors, and then to have that decision made that so severely impacted them was just another level of trauma that they should not have had to experience.

This bill is necessary to address the impacts of Bird v DP. The bill ensures victim-survivors of historical child abuse will no longer be denied justice by loophole, allowing organisations to evade accountability because their abuser was not formally employed. It will also help victim-survivors who were forced into accepting unfair outcomes following the Bird v DP decision. This bill is why many of us stand in this place today, to right the wrongs and to ensure justice in this state. I very much support the member for Melton’s comments about selling off assets to look after those people, the victim-survivors that have had to endure so much. For them, this is not just about the money, it is about justice. It is about being believed and having their stories heard by people like us standing in this place today. The Victorian government has always had a strong record in addressing institutional abuse head-on. We have seen that through the CLAN group that we did the apology to and the establishment of the redress scheme here in Victoria.

There obviously is a lot more work to be done in this space, but I think as a government the Allan Labor government has taken on board righting the wrongs that happen in this state, particularly for these historical abuse victim-survivors who have had to endure so much. To get to a point where they thought they were going to be heard and to have that decision made, the Bird v DP decision, has almost tipped some people over the edge. I know that because I have spoken to many people in my community, and as I said, in Geelong we have many victim-survivors living in our community or who regularly visit to go to CLAN or the orphanage museum. Hearing those stories makes you feel like you need to be working on their side every single day, which is why we are all standing here debating this bill today.

We have taken significant steps to support victim-survivors of historical sexual abuse to seek compensation from organisations associated with the abuse. Victoria has been the leader in implementing reforms from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Victoria has lifted limitation periods, introduced a statutory duty of care, removed the Ellis defence and allowed unfair settlement agreements to be set aside. The Victorian Attorney-General has been leading discussions with her colleagues in all Australian jurisdictions at the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, known as SCAG, about how to address the impacts of Bird v DP. Just last month the Attorney presented reform options to SCAG for consideration and she will be continuing to advocate for a nationally harmonised approach to these important reforms. I do commend the Attorney-General for the work that she has done, particularly through SCAG but also in helping get this bill where it is today.

The bill is very narrow and goes only as far as it needs to in order to address the situation identified by the High Court in Bird v DP. The bill will effectively restore the law to what it was prior to the High Court decision – victim-survivors will once again be able to pursue civil remedies against organisations for abuse suffered at the hands of a person who might not have been formally employed but who was akin to an employee. It will also allow any victim-survivor whose matter was resolved following Bird v DP but prior to the commencement of this legislation to apply to the court to reopen their matter.

The reforms are very strongly supported by victim-survivors as well as advocates and organisations representing them. The reforms are comprehensive and substantially meet all the requests made by victim-survivors. The majority of legal stakeholders support the reforms, including the Victorian Bar, the Criminal Bar Association, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Sexual Assault Services Victoria and the plaintiff lawyers. Some religious organisations, particularly Catholic organisations and the Australian Christian Lobby, are opposed to the reforms due to potential increases in their financial liability for historical child abuse. Other than the Catholic Church, most religious organisations formally employ their religious personnel, in which case these reforms will not impact them. Community organisations such as Scouts and Anglicare have raised concerns about the potential application of the reforms to volunteers and carers. Just going back to the member for Melton’s comments about them having to sell up assets, I think we should all be saying we will do that. You owe those people that justice, and if you need to sell your assets, then do it. I also read that article about them complaining about how they are going to run out of money, and they are going to have to sell assets. Well, there are not many people using their assets anymore anyway, from what I can see. A lot of them are just sitting there empty or a handful of people are going in there on a Sunday morning. I think they can afford to lose those assets and use those funds to compensate victim-survivors, who deserve to be treated with the greatest amount of respect. I commend this bill to the house.

 Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (16:41): I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025 and even more grateful to follow the member for Geelong on this bill. I had many opportunities with the member for Geelong, as part of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, to understand the history of our state and the history of our country. I came to greatly appreciate the deep commitment by the member for Geelong, as a member of this place but also as a committee member who understands the effects on the stolen generations, which we heard were the First Nations people of this country. So I came to appreciate the work of the committee, and here today is another very important bill – one that will address the impact of the High Court of Australia’s decision in Bird v DP last year. For someone who came from across the sea, who did not have much understanding of the deep history of this country and who has had the opportunity and the honour to represent our multicultural community, I really appreciate this opportunity. I commend the efforts of the member for Frankston and all those involved, and also the Attorney-General, for making it possible for the bill to find its way here today.

Child abuse has a lifelong and devastating impact on the life of survivors, as well as families and the wider community. It is a devastating breach of the trust that children place in adults. For many victim-survivors of child abuse that occurs in organisational settings, it is essential to have the option to pursue civil litigation. However, we have heard from many wonderful contributors from all sides of this chamber about the extent of vicarious liability in relationships that are akin to employment. The decision in Bird v DP has had a significant impact on victim-survivors of historical child abuse who do not have viable negligence claims – for example, due to the passage of time, the loss of records or the death of key witnesses – and who were abused by a non-employee who nevertheless resembled an employee. The decision essentially reaffirmed a legal barrier to civil litigation for victim-survivors of historical child abuse. It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that we have a framework that is leading to inequitable outcomes for victim-survivors with vicarious liability claims based on an abuser’s employment status. It is unacceptable that it can enable organisations that have not traditionally employed their personnel to evade accountability for historical child abuse, even though their relationships with these personnel in essence possess the same fundamental qualities as a formal employment relationship. It leaves Victoria and Australia at odds with other common-law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Canada, which extended vicarious liability to include relationships that are akin to employment over 20 years ago. That was over 20 years ago.

Further, we even had the situation where some victim-survivors who had vicarious liability claims on foot at the time of the High Court’s decision could have their claims significantly weakened or struck out and could find themselves at risk of a court order without any possible avenue for civil litigation. This is unacceptable. We cannot have a framework that denies access to justice for these victim-survivors, one that enables some organisations to evade accountability for historical child abuse, leading to inequitable outcomes for victim-survivors based on abusers’ employment status, or as I mentioned, having pending and future cases being weakened or struck out, putting some victim-survivors at risk of cost awards. That is why it is important that we bring forward this reform to overcome the impact of the Bird v DP decision for some victim-survivors of historical child abuse.

Those who were abused by a non-employee who resembled an employee do not have a viable negligence claim. I take this opportunity to apologise in my contribution here by way of using the words ‘victim-survivors of historical child abuse’, because these people were not supposed to have this abuse. I recall as part of the Legal and Social Issues Committee how difficult it was for the survivors to come out, to be witnesses, to tell their stories again and again and again and again. It was difficult for the survivors, but it was also immeasurably difficult for the committee members and the staff at the time. For me, I find it very difficult to comprehend that this occurred in a country such as Australia, that country of all countries, which looks for human rights protections and all the protections that we all ought to have as part of the human rights aspect.

So here we act again today on this reform to address the impact of the decision, and it will also complement this government’s previous reforms to remove barriers to civil litigation for victim-survivors of child abuse. The bill includes an amendment to the Wrongs Act 1958 to retrospectively expand vicarious liability for child abuse to include relationships that are akin to employment by inserting a new part, ‘Statutory vicarious liability for child abuse’.

I have more to say, but I would like to join previous speakers on this side and the other side in saying that this important change will remove the barrier to civil litigation for victim-survivors for child abuse, a change that I am proud to support here today. I would like to conclude by saying that the bill will include amendments to the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 to enable victim-survivors affected by the decision to apply to the court to have their settlement or judgement that occurred between 13 ‍November 2024 and the commencement of this legislation set aside so that they benefit from this reform. I commend the bill to the house.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (16:50): I am pleased to rise today in support of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025, and I thank the Attorney-General for her tireless work in bringing this legislation to the Parliament and to the brink of becoming Victorian law. I also thank the member for Frankston for his strong and passionate advocacy in this area. Much of my working life has revolved around the welfare and safety of children. As a trained psychologist I know what it looks like for a child to be safe and to be loved and protected and what they can achieve and become, especially in this country and in this state when they are protected and loved. However, I also know all too well, unfortunately, what the opposite looks like. I have seen it and I have supported people through it. It is stress, withdrawal, social anxiety, avoidance, the inability to communicate feelings and fears and, crucially, an inability to say what is happening to them or by whose hands it is occurring. In the worst-case scenario it is life threatening.

Child abuse is a horrific crime which constitutes one of the most critical violations of the social contract possible, which inflicts profound and enduring harm not only on those who experience it directly but also on their families, their support networks and the broader community. It represents a fundamental betrayal of the trust children place in adults and the institutions meant to protect them. For many people who suffered abuse in institutional environments, the ability to pursue civil action is not just a legal avenue but an essential part of recognition, accountability and healing. As a Catholic myself, it pains me that the faith that I belong to has for far too long not only committed these atrocities but covered them up and continues to avoid accountability even to this day.

Victoria has long been a national leader in ensuring that these avenues exist. Over the past two decades our Parliament has systematically reviewed barriers preventing victim-survivors from seeking justice. In 2015 we abolished limitation periods for actions arising from child abuse. In 2017 we introduced a statutory duty of care requiring organisations to take reasonable steps to prevent child abuse. In 2018 we closed the longstanding loophole that had allowed unincorporated organisations to avoid liability, and then in 2019 we enabled courts to set aside unjust historical settlements that had been forced upon survivors. Each of these reforms has strengthened the path to justice. But the High Court’s 2024 decision in Bird v DP has undone part of that progress and now demands a clear legislative response.

As the Attorney-General explained to this house, the Bird case centred on whether a Catholic diocese could be held vicariously liable for the actions of an assistant priest who sexually abused a five-year-old child in 1971. The Supreme Court of Victoria, followed by the Court of Appeal, had previously found that the diocese was liable despite the absence of a formal employment relationship, because the priest functioned in a role that in practice was akin to employment. The High Court rejected this reasoning. It held that unless a relationship is one of strict employment, vicarious liability cannot apply, even if all practical features of employment were present. In doing so, the court overturned the Victorian rulings. Without impugning the sovereignty and fair judgement of our independent judiciary, I think it is fair to say that this decision simply did not meet the pub test. Despite being correct as an application of the law of the land, the average Victorian and many in this place would likely say that if it looks, moves and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. But that is not what the court decided.

Vicarious liability is a strict liability doctrine that allows an organisation to be held responsible for the wrongful act of someone under its control, even if the organisation itself was not at fault. It differs from negligence, which requires proving the organisation failed to take reasonable care to prevent abuse. A crucial feature of vicarious liability is that because it arises under common law, it applies retrospectively. This makes it essential for survivor claims relating to historical abuse where evidence needed for negligence may no longer exist.

The High Court’s reasoning in Bird v DP shrinks vicarious liability to a narrow test. Only formal employment relationships now qualify. This has left a cohort of survivors whose abusers held positions identical in substance to employment but not in contractual form. Without a viable legal pathway, this disproportionately affects survivors abused in environments such as religious institutions where personnel were not technically employees. Their claims, often already fragile due to the age of the incidents, have been further weakened or in far too many cases rendered completely hopeless. Many now face the possibility of adverse costs despite having pursued their claims in good faith under previously accepted legal principles.

Importantly, the High Court itself acknowledged the harsh nature of this outcome and expressively signalled that reform in this area belongs to the legislatures – us here. We have heard this call echoed by survivors, legal advocates, community members and support groups. They report that people who bravely came forward, sometimes after decades of silent suffering, now feel retraumatised by being told the law offers them no remedy purely because of the technical employment structure of their abuser. Two survivors of equally egregious abuse now face starkly different legal prospects based solely on whether their abuser had an employment contract. How does this further the cause of justice in our state? Why should decades-old contract language define a victim’s pursuit of long-delayed vindication?

Unreformed, the status quo sets us decades behind other common-law jurisdictions. The United Kingdom and Canada expanded vicarious liability to include ‘akin to employment’ relationships more than two decades ago. Our laws should not lag behind international standards, particularly where justice for children and the vulnerable is at stake. Under the proposed amendments the first limb of vicarious liability, requiring a relationship capable of attracting such liability, will explicitly include relationships akin to employment. Courts will be guided by factors such as the extent to which the individual performed tasks integral to the organisation’s functions, whether those tasks were performed for the organisation’s benefit and the degree of control exercised by the organisation. This ensures that priests, religious leaders and others functioning in roles virtually indistinguishable from employment can no longer be shielded behind these technicalities.

The bill also preserves the existing common-law principles for the second limb of vicarious liability. The wrongdoing must have occurred in the course or scope of the assigned role. The bill clarifies that liability arises when the organisation placed the individual in a position that supplied the occasion for abuse and the individual exploited that position of trust, authority or access to commit the abuse. This reflects long-established legal doctrine and distinguishes between a mere opportunity and an occasion created by the role itself. In short, this bill restores justice where a narrow legal interpretation took it away.

This reaffirms our state’s commitment to standing with survivors, ensuring accountability for organisations regardless of the formalities of employment structures and bringing Victoria back into line with international best practice and, really, what is right. It is both a principled and compassionate response, one that honours the courage of survivors and ensures that technicalities cannot again override the pursuit of truth and accountability. This might not be much for those that have passed on, but this is a lot for those that still survive and push through every day with trauma, and I commend this bill to the house.

The SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.