Vicarious Liability

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (15:04): Supplementary: stemming from conversations had at the Standing Council of Attorneys-General meeting, is the government here exploring legislative reform?

The PRESIDENT: Are you going to ask a supplementary question—

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: I just asked it.

The PRESIDENT: 'Stemming from'. That is not a—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:04): To help with the proceedings of question time, sir, I gather the question is: is the government considering any legislative change? If that is the question, then we are considering.

This isn't a simple area, and that is why the Standing Council of Attorneys-General have taken it up. There was a recommendation in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that recommended changes be made so that the akin-to-employment relationship is captured and organisations are held liable for that. I think it was recommendation 93 that specifically recommended that that be a prospective measure and not a retrospective measure. I think it was 2022.

South Australia is one of a number of jurisdictions that have made that change as recommended by the royal commission to make sure people who are in akin-to-employment relationships are captured and that institution is held legally responsible. But as I said, recommendation 93 of the royal commission contemplated whether that should be made retrospective, and the royal commission recommended it not be made retrospective.

The Bird v DP matter has thrown complexities in and caused a consideration about whether it ought to be made retrospective. There are significant consequences in doing so, and the consequences of that are what the standing council is looking at.