Wednesday, 30 July 2025

Child sexual abuse

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (19:01): (1778) My adjournment matter is for the Attorney-General, and the action I seek is clarity on how changes to vicarious liability laws will impact those whose cases are decided before these laws are passed.

I would like to begin by thanking the Attorney-General for her commitment to introducing retrospective vicarious liability laws to the Victorian Parliament by the end of 2025. While I appreciate that she is taking the time to consult further and get these changes right, I will say that the bill I tabled earlier this year has been endorsed by survivors and members of the legal community alike. This bill could be passed tomorrow. It would allow victim-survivors access to justice, as it ensures that the law applies equally and retrospectively, regardless of whether a perpetrator held the title of employee. The recent High Court decision in Bird v DP means that victim-survivors of institutional child abuse cannot rely on the law of vicarious liability to sue an institution where their perpetrator was not an employee. This created a second class of victim-survivors and gave institutions like the church yet another loophole to avoid accountability for past wrongdoings.

While I commend the Victorian government on their commitment to reform vicarious liability laws, by the time these laws are planned to be introduced a year will have passed since the High Court’s decision. Unfortunately, courts will not adjourn cases because of a promise of a change to the law. Many victim-survivors are being left to face having their case thrown out, even though they may have been successful after changes to the law are made later this year. Understandably this creates uncertainty and fear for many victim-survivors and compounds the trauma they are already experiencing when coming into contact with the criminal justice system. The harsh reality is that continued delays risk lives. I urge this government to bring forward reforms to vicarious liability as a matter of urgency so court dates are not unnecessarily jeopardised. At a minimum, victim-survivors need an assurance from government about what will happen to them. So I ask: will the Attorney-General clarify how changes to vicarious liability laws will impact those whose cases are decided before these laws are passed?