Vicarious Liability

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (15:10): Thank you, Mr President. My questions are to the Attorney-General:

1. Can you please provide an update on the Standing Council of Attorneys-General meeting held in February of this year regarding vicarious liability, stemming from the Bird v DP High Court decision?

2. Could you please advise if the government is drafting any legislation in light of these discussions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (15:11): I thank the honourable member for her question. There was a discussion at the last Standing Council of Attorneys-General meeting about the matter that is known as Bird and the implications it has, particularly for the employment-like relationships and therefore the liability of various institutions. A number of jurisdictions, including South Australia, have made changes to their law, to have those employment-like relationships come in under, so there is that liability for institutions that have people in employment-like relationships

All of the jurisdictions that have made changes have made it prospective, not retrospective, which it would need to be to influence things like what happened in the case of Bird. The royal commission into institutional sexual abuse made recommendations that jurisdictions should introduce such laws to make that law change. It also was very clear that it ought not be retrospective, but that is something that was discussed and further work is to be done and reported back at further meetings of the Standing Council of Attorneys-General.