Civil Liability (Institutional Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2018
Plain English Summary
Overview
This Greens private member's bill sought to implement recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse by making it easier for survivors to sue institutions. It would have created a legal duty for schools, churches, and other organisations to prevent child abuse and reversed the burden of proof so institutions had to show they took reasonable steps. This bill was discharged and did not become law.
Who it affects
Survivors of institutional child abuse would have had clearer legal pathways to compensation. Institutions including churches, schools, and sporting clubs would have faced greater legal liability.
Key changes
- Creates a non-delegable duty of care for institutions to prevent child abuse
- Reverses the burden of proof so institutions must show they took reasonable steps to prevent abuse
- Requires institutions to nominate a defendant with sufficient assets to pay compensation
- Makes trustees of institutional property trusts liable for breach of duty claims
- Extends the definition of child abuse to include serious physical abuse, not just sexual abuse
- Applies retrospectively to abuse that occurred before the law commenced
Bill Journey
▸Committee31 Oct 2018View Hansard
Referred to Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee
The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee examined this private member's bill, which sought to implement recommendations 89 to 94 of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The committee recommended the bill not be passed, raising concerns about the breadth of key definitions, the retrospective application of the proposed duty of institutions, and fundamental legislative principle issues including that an individual could be nominated as a defendant without their consent. A parallel government bill (Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018) was addressing several of the same Royal Commission recommendations at the time.
Key findings (5)
- The majority of stakeholders supported the bill's objectives, including survivor advocacy groups such as Bravehearts, knowmore, and the Australian Lawyers Alliance, who emphasised the importance of extending civil liability beyond sexual abuse to include serious physical and connected abuse.
- The Queensland Law Society raised concerns that the definitions of 'institution', 'official', and 'related entity' were too broad and could capture unintended parties such as facility owners with no direct relationship to the abuse.
- The committee found the nominated defendant provisions could allow an individual to be named as defendant without their consent and held responsible for liability, which it considered an undue impact on individual rights.
- The Queensland Law Society opposed the retrospective application of the proposed duty of institutions, arguing it created an unfair hurdle for institutions defending claims about past events.
- The committee noted that the government had introduced its own bill (the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018) addressing overlapping Royal Commission recommendations 91 to 94.
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Civil Liability (Institutional Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2018 not be passed.
Committee report tabled
Assent date: 30 October 2019