Civil Liability (Institutional Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2018
Plain English Summary
Overview
This Greens private member's bill sought to implement key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It would have created a legal duty for institutions — such as schools, churches, and care facilities — to prevent child abuse and made it easier for survivors to sue by reversing the burden of proof. 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, including access to institutional trust assets. Institutions providing services to children would have faced greater legal accountability for abuse by their officials, employees, volunteers, and contractors.
Key changes
- Creates a non-delegable duty of care requiring institutions to prevent child abuse by their officials
- Reverses the burden of proof — institutions must show they took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence
- Requires institutions that cannot be sued or lack assets to nominate a proper defendant with sufficient means
- Makes trustees of institutional property trusts liable for compensation claims, capped at the trust's value
- Broadens the definition of child abuse to include serious physical abuse and abuse connected to sexual or physical abuse
- Applies retrospectively to abuse that occurred before the law commenced, and removes limitation periods for the broader abuse definition
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
Referenced Entities
Sectors Affected
Classified using AGIFT/ANZSIC Australian government standards