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.