Scouts ACT and the Draft Child Abuse Liability Bill: Questions & Answers
What the ACT Bill proposes after Bird v DP, why survivors’ groups support reform, why Scouts ACT is concerned, and what it could mean in practice.
What is the ACT Government’s new child abuse liability Bill?
The Civil Law (Wrongs) (Organisational Child Abuse Liability) Amendment Bill 2025 would make organisations liable for child abuse committed not only by employees, but also by people “akin to employees” or “associated with the organisation.”
See the Explanatory Statement.
Why was this Bill introduced after Bird v DP?
In Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41, the High Court confined common-law vicarious liability to true employment relationships. That left gaps where abusers were volunteers or similar roles. The ACT proposal aims to close those gaps.
(Overview: MinterEllison summary.)
Who supports the proposed bill?
- Australian Lawyers Alliance:
argues Bird v DP created “real legal barriers for victim survivors” and supports broad, non-exhaustive definitions and retrospective effect.
(ALA submission) - Individual survivor families (e.g., “Leanne”):
“This Bill is a critical step toward ensuring institutions are held legally accountable… Survivors deserve recognition, justice, and closure.”
(Submission)
Why is Scouts ACT concerned?
Scouts ACT says it supports child safety and accountability, but is concerned the Bill’s breadth could unintentionally capture parents helping at one-off events, casual volunteers, visiting facilitators, or tradespeople—people over whom it has limited control.
It warns of a “chilling effect” on volunteerism—“many people will simply choose not to help.”
(Reporting: Canberra Times.)
Their concerns include legal uncertainty, insurance costs, and administrative burdens for volunteer-led community organisations. (See also their submission to the ACT Standing Committee on Legal Affairs.)
What are the main tensions in this debate?
| Survivors & advocates | Community organisations (e.g., Scouts ACT) |
|---|---|
| Justice should not depend on whether the abuser was an “employee.” Broad coverage and retrospective effect are important. | Over-broad definitions could deter volunteers and impose unmanageable costs and uncertainty on small, volunteer-run groups. |
| Non-exhaustive definitions prevent technicalities from blocking claims. | Clear boundaries are needed so occasional helpers are not unfairly captured. |
| Retrospectivity is needed for historical abuse to ensure equal access to justice. | Retrospective liability raises uncertainty about past activities and insurance coverage. |
What might happen next?
- The Bill is before the ACT Standing Committee on Legal Affairs for consultation and potential refinement.
- Definitions of “associated” and “akin to employee” may be clarified to align accountability with an organisation’s ability to supervise or control.
- The ACT could become a national reference point for post-Bird v DP reforms.
How could this affect survivors?
If enacted, the Bill would make it easier for survivors to pursue civil claims against institutions even where the perpetrator was not a formal employee.
Many see this as restoring confidence that institutions benefiting from volunteers and associated roles bear corresponding responsibilities.
Talk to us confidentially.
If you are a survivor of institutional abuse and want to discuss your options in a safe, confidential way, please call us on +612 9283 5599 or complete our free and confidential call-back form below.
