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.
