Child sexual abuse
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:22): My question is for the Attorney-General. The recent High Court decision of Bird v. DP held that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ballarat could not be held vicariously liable for known historical child sexual abuse because Father Coffey was not an employee. For many survivors of historical child sexual abuse committed in the church or other non-employment settings like foster care and Scouts, this decision limits their ability to access justice. In their ruling the High Court noted that any reformulation of the law would be the responsibility of the legislator, so I ask: will you actively consider legislative reforms to address this step backwards for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse accessing justice?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:22): I thank Ms Payne for her question. The short and simple answer to your question is yes. To give you some context to where I am up to in that process, I want to acknowledge that for victims and survivors who have been impacted by this decision it is profound. They have long-existing trauma, and this decision, I know, has had an immense impact – in fact I was first alerted to this decision by a victim-survivor, who let me know what had happened and the impact on the community that he seeks to advocate for. Since the decision I have had a lot of people contact me across the legal profession to raise concerns about the decision. As you have indicated, the High Court has indicated that this is a legislative fix, not a legal fix. That is not as straightforward as it sounds. There is consideration of federal laws – whether they be employment laws or IR laws – and then obviously the Wrongs Act reforms, which were something that we brought in in 2017, and considerations of retrospectivity are not something that I can make commitments to now. I will have to undertake a lot of consultation.
I can confirm to the house that we had the standing committee of Attorneys-General on Friday, where I raised this matter – because it is not just confined to Victoria, it is a matter for all jurisdictions. I have been tasked with leading the work on bringing some material back to that committee; we meet in February. I will be taking the opportunity to hear from the legal sector in particular, because they will give me lots of different views, and they will all disagree with one another about potentially what the best fix is. I want to have an open discussion about how we can address this, but I want to do that in a way that involves a lot of consultation as well. I am conscious of the impact and I am conscious of the need, but unintended consequences in this space are something that we cannot rush into, unfortunately. I wish there was a quick fix, I really do, but we are going to take some time. I want to consult broadly, and that is the commitment that I gave SCAG to do. There are even mixed views from different Attorneys across the board on what to do when and how, so hopefully that gives you a bit of a snapshot of where I am up to.
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:25): I thank the Attorney for her response, and it actually answered my supplementary question as well.