Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:26): (2152) My adjournment matter is for the Attorney-General, and the action I seek is for information on how reforms to vicarious liability will be protected against tactics used by institutions to avoid accountability. Yesterday, 18 November, we celebrated the World Day for the Prevention of and Healing from Child Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Violence, recognising that every child deserves a safe and happy childhood. This day was created to raise awareness about the prevalence of child sexual violence and to mobilise action for prevention and healing, including by holding perpetrators to account. In 2022, when the United Nations formally declared this world day, survivors of child sexual abuse, including several who experienced abuse by clergy, joined with representatives in the General Assembly to urge action.

Holding perpetrators of institutional child sexual abuse to account is something I have called for many times in this place. That is why I welcome today’s introduction of legislation to reform vicarious liability laws by the Victorian government. These reforms will address the consequences of the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP and ensure the law of vicarious liability applies equally in cases of historic institutional child abuse, regardless of whether the perpetrator was technically an employee.

While it is disappointing that it has taken the government several months from when I introduced my private members bill on this issue, it was great to see the government provide for the consequences of this delay. Importantly, these reforms will allow victim-survivors to have a settlement or judgement that occurred between the High Court decision and the commencement of legislation set aside. For those affected by the Bird v DP decision, this gives them the chance to try again. While it was great to see this legislation finally introduced, we know that institutions have a history of using loopholes, like the scrapped Ellis defence, and intentionally drawing out legal processes in the hopes victim-survivors will give up or die. Understandably, victim-survivors are concerned that institutions may still try to evade accountability even after these long-awaited reforms to vicarious liability take effect. I ask: will the Attorney-General advise how reforms to vicarious liability will be protected against tactics by institutions to avoid accountability?