{"id":"BILL-QLD-5284","name":"Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026","slug":"civil-liability-holding-institutions-accountable-for-child-abuse-amendment-bill-2026","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"qld","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":"2026-01-01","administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":446067,"registerId":"BILL-QLD-5284:current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-01-01","status":"in_force","reasons":null,"registeredAt":"2026-05-06T12:45:08.377Z"},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"retrieval-0001","sectionType":"document_chunk","heading":"Document excerpt 1","content":"# Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026\n\nQueensland\nCivil Liability (Holding\nInstitutions Accountable for\nChild Abuse) Amendment Bill\n2026\n\nQueensland\nCivil Liability (Holding Institutions\nAccountable for Child Abuse) Amendment\nBill 2026\nContents\nPage\n1 Short title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n2 Act amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n3 Amendment of s 33A (Definitions for part) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n4 Insertion of new ch 2, pt 2A, div 3A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\nDivision 3A Liability of institutions for abuse by persons in\nrelationship akin to employment\n33IA Definition for division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n33IB Extension of class of person associated with an institution 5\n33IC Declarations about liability of institution for person akin to\nemployee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5\n33ID Application of Limitation of Actions Act 1974, section 11A 6\n33IE Bringing action on previously settled right of action . 6\n5 Amendment of s 72A (Application of pt 1A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7\n6 Amendment of sch 2 (Dictionary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7\n\n2026\nA Bill\nfor\nAn Act to amend the Civil Liability Act 2003 to allow institutions\nto potentially be held vicariously liable for claims for the abuse\nof children under their care, supervision, control or authority if\nthe abuse is perpetrated by persons not employed by the\ninstitutions but in relationships akin to employment by the\ninstitutions, and for other particular purposes\n\n[s 1]\nCivil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026\nPage 4\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\nThe Parliament of Queensland enacts—\n1 Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Civil Liability (Holding\nInstitutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Act\n2026.\n2 Act amended\nThis Act amends the Civil Liability Act 2003.\n3 Amendment of s 33A (Definitions for part)\nSection 33A, definition associated with, ‘section 33C’—\nomit, insert—\nsections 33C and 33IB\n4 Insertion of new ch 2, pt 2A, div 3A\nChapter 2, part 2A—\ninsert—\nDivision 3A Liability of institutions for\nabuse by persons in\nrelationship akin to\nemployment\n33IA Definition for division\nIn this division, other than section 33IC, a\nreference to an abuse claim includes a reference to\na purported abuse claim mentioned in section\n33IC(2).\n1\nClause 2\n3\n4\n5\nClause 6\n7\nClause 8\n9\n10\n11\nClause 12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n\n[s 4]\nCivil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026\nPage 5\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\n33IB Extension of class of person associated with\nan institution\nA person is taken to be, or to have been,\nassociated with an institution under this part if the\nperson is, or was, in a relationship with the\ninstitution akin to being employed by the\ninstitution.\n33IC Declarations about liability of institution for\nperson akin to employee\n(1) It is declared that an institution is not prevented\nfrom being held vicariously liable for an abuse\nclaim arising from the abuse of a child by a person\nassociated with the institution only because the\nperson—\n(a) is not employed by the institution; but\n(b) is, instead, in a relationship with the\ninstitution akin to being employed by the\ninstitution.\n(2) It is also declared that an institution has never\nbeen prevented from being held vicariously liable\nfor a purported abuse claim that arose from the\nabuse of a child by a person associated with the\ninstitution only because the person—\n(a) was not employed by the institution; but\n(b) was, instead, in a relationship with the\ninstitution akin to being employed by the\ninstitution.\n(3) To remove any doubt, it is further declared that a\npurported abuse claim mentioned in subsection\n(2) is taken to be, and always to have been, an\nabuse claim under this part.\n(4) Subsections (1) and (2) apply in relation to a cause\nof action to which an abuse claim or purported\nabuse claim relates whether the cause of action\naccrued before or after the commencement.\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n31\n32\n33\n34\n35\n\n[s 4]\nCivil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026\nPage 6\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\n(5) However, this section does not apply in relation to\na cause of action for an abuse claim or purported\nabuse claim that was settled before 13 November\n2024.\n33ID Application of Limitation of Actions Act 1974,\nsection 11A\nTo remove any doubt, it is declared the Limitation\nof Actions Act 1974, section 11A applies in\nrelation to an action for damages for an abuse\nclaim in relation to which section 33IC applies.\nNote—\nThe Limitation of Actions Act 1974, section 11A\nprovides for an action for damages relating to the\npersonal injury of a person resulting from the abuse of\nthe person when the person was a child to be brought at\nany time and not be subject to a limitation period under\nan Act or law or rule of law.\n33IE Bringing action on previously settled right of\naction\n(1) This section applies in relation to a right of action\nfor an abuse claim (a previously settled right of\naction) if—\n(a) section 33IC applies in relation to the abuse\nclaim; and\n(b) the right of action was settled before the\ncommencement but after 12 November\n2024.\n(2) An action may be brought on the previously\nsettled right of action if a court sets aside the\nagreement effecting the settlement under\nsubsection (3).\n(3) A court, by order on application, may set aside the\nagreement effecting the settlement if the court\nconsiders—\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n31\n32\n33\n34\n\n[s 5]\nCivil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026\nPage 7\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\n(a) a cause of action for the abuse claim would\nhave accrued when the agreement was\nentered into if section 33IC had been in\nforce at that time; and\n(b) it is just and reasonable to set aside the\nagreement.\n(4) If a court makes an order under subsection (3)—\n(a) the agreement effecting the settlement is\nvoid despite any Act, law or rule of law; and\n(b) a party to the agreement may not seek to\nrecover money paid by, or for, the party\nunder the agreement.\n5 Amendment of s 72A (Application of pt 1A)\nSection 72A(4), definition associated with, ‘section 33C’—\nomit, insert—\nsections 33C and 33IB\n6 Amendment of sch 2 (Dictionary)\nSchedule 2, definition associated with, ‘section 33C’—\nomit, insert—\nsections 33C and 33IB\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\nClause 13\n14\n15\n16\nClause 17\n18\n19\n20","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Yes. The Bill significantly broadens the Civil Liability Act’s reach compared with a scope limited to abuse by employees. It (a) extends institutional vicarious liability to non‑employees in relationships 'akin to employment' (s 33IB–33IC), (b) applies that extension retrospectively to past causes of action (s 33IC(2)–(4)), (c) removes ordinary limitation periods by applying Limitation of Actions Act s 11A to covered claims (s 33ID), and (d) permits courts to void certain recent settlements so claims can be re‑litigated (s 33IE). Those elements together expand both the range of persons and the time period over which institutions can be held liable, altering the original employer‑centred boundary of vicarious liability and affecting past settlements and insurance arrangements."},"complexity_factors":["Retrospective declarations (s 33IC(2)–(4)) that reach causes of action accrued before commencement","Limited temporal exceptions: settlements before 13 November 2024 preserved (s 33IC(5)) but settlements after 12 November 2024 and before commencement can be set aside (s 33IE)","Interplay with Limitation of Actions Act 1974, s 11A (s 33ID) — removes ordinary limitation periods for covered claims","Ambiguous key phrase: 'relationship akin to being employed' is not defined (s 33IB), requiring judicial development","Judicial discretion to set aside settlements governed by a two‑part test (cause of action accrual if s 33IC had existed + 'just and reasonable') (s 33IE(3))","Cross‑references and small amendments to multiple parts of the Act (s 33A, s 72A, sch 2) create dependency on existing definitions and doctrine","Effect on third‑party arrangements (insurance, indemnities, contracts) introduces indirect legal and commercial complexity not resolved in the text"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Bill changes (mechanically)\n\n- Inserts a new Division 3A into the Civil Liability Act 2003 that expands when an institution can be held vicariously liable (legally responsible for the acts of another) for child abuse. (see new sections 33IA–33IE).\n\n- Broadens the class of people who count as “associated with an institution” to include anyone in a relationship with the institution that is \"akin to being employed\" by it. This means non‑employees can be treated the same as employees for the purpose of institutional liability. (s 33IB)\n\n- Declares that an institution can be held vicariously liable for child abuse even if the perpetrator was not an employee but was in a relationship akin to employment. The Bill also declares that such liability always could have existed in the past. These declarations apply whether the legal cause of action arose before or after the Bill starts to operate, subject to a specific settlement cutoff. (s 33IC)\n\n- Confirms that the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, section 11A — which allows survivors of child abuse to bring claims at any time (no time limit) — applies to claims covered by the new provisions. In effect, those claims are not subject to ordinary limitation periods. (s 33ID)\n\n- Permits courts to set aside certain settlements made in a narrow past window (agreements entered into after 12 November 2024 but before the Bill commences) so claimants can bring actions again if, had the new rule been in force when the settlement was made, a cause of action would already have accrued and the court finds it just and reasonable to void the settlement. Agreements set aside are declared void and money paid under them cannot be recovered. (s 33IE)\n\n- The Bill does not disturb settlements made before 13 November 2024; those remain intact. (s 33IC(5))\n\nWho is affected\n\n- Institutions that have care, supervision, control or authority over children (for example: schools, religious organisations, sporting clubs, child care providers, health and disability services). The Bill affects those institutions’ exposure to civil claims.\n- People who interact with institutions in non‑employment arrangements (volunteers, contractors, clergy, carers, coach‑mentors, foster carers and others) because those relationships may now be treated as “akin to employment” for the purpose of institutional liability.\n- Survivors of child abuse: the Bill expands the circumstances in which they can sue institutions and confirms that limitation periods will not bar those suits (s 33ID).\n- Insurers, donors, guarantors and other third parties who underwrite or indemnify institutions, because their financial exposure may increase.\n\nWhy it matters (practical effects and trade‑offs)\n\n- Expands legal exposure of institutions beyond traditional employer–employee relationships (s 33IB–33IC). Institutions that relied on the fact a perpetrator was not on their payroll may face new or reopened claims.\n- Removes ordinary time limits for such claims (by reference to Limitation of Actions Act s 11A) so survivors may sue at any time (s 33ID). That increases potential liability pool and may prompt more historic claims.\n- Enables limited reopening of settlements made in a narrow window (after 12 Nov 2024 but before commencement) if a court finds it just and reasonable (s 33IE). This can unsettle recent settlements and creates litigation opportunities and uncertainty for both claimants and defendants.\n- Creates retrospective legal effects by declaring that institutions \"never were prevented\" from liability in these circumstances and applying the rule to causes of action accrued before or after commencement (s 33IC(2)–(4)). Retrospective declarations are likely to be litigated on scope and fairness grounds.\n\nCosts and incentives (who pays, who decides, behaviour changes)\n\n- Who pays: institutions ultimately bear judgment or settlement costs; insurers pay subject to policy terms; donors or governments could indirectly bear costs if they fund institutions or provide indemnities. Claimants (survivors) gain increased chances of recovery.\n- Who decides: courts will decide whether a particular person’s relationship was \"akin to employment,\" whether a past settlement should be set aside, and whether a claim accrues. Those judicial interpretations will define the practical boundary of the new law. (ss 33IB, 33IE)\n- Behaviour changes expected: institutions may change governance and contracting practices (more rigorous screening, supervision, or limitation of volunteer roles), seek broader insurance cover or pass costs to users, alter engagement models (limit use of informal helpers), or tighten indemnity clauses in contracts.\n\nImplementation and legal risks\n\n- The key phrase \"akin to being employed\" is not defined in the Bill. That invites litigation to establish tests and fact patterns that satisfy the phrase (s 33IB). Expect case law to develop slowly and unevenly.\n- Retrospective declarations and the power to set aside recent settlements create legal uncertainty, possible litigation surges, and administrative burdens for courts and defendants (ss 33IC, 33IE).\n- Insurers may respond by repricing cover, imposing exclusions, or withdrawing coverage for certain organisations or activities; this raises the risk of uninsured liabilities for some institutions.\n\nConcentrated benefits and diffuse costs\n\n- Concentrated benefits: surviving abuse victims receive an expanded path to hold institutions accountable, including for abuse by non‑employees. That benefit is concentrated among claimants.\n- Diffuse costs: a wide range of institutions, their insurers, and potentially service users face increased financial and compliance costs. The Bill shifts some historic risk onto current institutional balance sheets and insurers.\n\nKey statutory hooks (sections to consult)\n\n- s 33IB: extends who is ‘‘associated with’’ an institution to include relationships akin to employment.\n- s 33IC: declares institutions can be vicariously liable when the perpetrator was in a relationship akin to employment, and makes that declaration retrospective subject to a settlement cutoff.\n- s 33ID: confirms Limitation of Actions Act 1974, s 11A (no time limit for child abuse claims) applies.\n- s 33IE: allows courts to set aside certain settlements entered into after 12 November 2024 and before commencement.\n\nBottom line\n\nMechanically the Bill broadens institutional vicarious liability to include abuse committed by non‑employees in relationships \"akin to employment,\" removes ordinary limitation periods for such claims, and permits courts to set aside a narrowly defined class of recent settlements. The main practical effects are expanded legal exposure for institutions, possible reopening of recent settlements, and increased litigation and insurance consequences, while survivors gain broader opportunities to recover damages.\n"},"summary":{"status_summary":"The Bill has been introduced in the Queensland Legislative Assembly and referred to a committee for inquiry and report.","complexity_score":5,"likely_questions":["What types of relationships count as 'akin to employment'? Does a volunteer who runs a weekend program qualify?","Does the Bill apply to claims against government institutions such as schools or foster care agencies?","Can an institution still argue that it was not negligent or that the abuse was outside the scope of the relationship?","What happens if an institution settled a claim after 13 November 2024? Can the plaintiff ask the court to reopen it?","How does this Bill interact with insurance policies and the potential for increased premiums for organisations?"],"complexity_factors":["Retrospective declaration of liability which unsettles previously settled claims after a specific date","Court discretion to set aside settlements introduces uncertainty for both plaintiffs and institutions","The phrase 'relationship akin to employment' is not defined and will require judicial interpretation","Interaction with existing limitation provisions and the removal of limitation periods for child abuse claims"],"plain_english_summary":"The Bill amends the Civil Liability Act 2003 so institutions can be held vicariously liable for child abuse committed not only by employees but also by people in a “relationship akin to employment” (e.g., volunteers or contractors). It declares that this has always been possible, is retrospective for causes of action before or after commencement (except settlements completed before 13 Nov 2024), and does not create a new statutory cause of action.\n\nCourts may set aside certain settlements entered 13 Nov 2024–commencement if it’s just and a cause would have accrued; Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s11A applies."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/civil-liability-holding-institutions-accountable-for-child-abuse-amendment-bill-2026","history":"/api/acts/civil-liability-holding-institutions-accountable-for-child-abuse-amendment-bill-2026/history","analysis":"/api/acts/civil-liability-holding-institutions-accountable-for-child-abuse-amendment-bill-2026/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/civil-liability-holding-institutions-accountable-for-child-abuse-amendment-bill-2026/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/civil-liability-holding-institutions-accountable-for-child-abuse-amendment-bill-2026/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/civil-liability-holding-institutions-accountable-for-child-abuse-amendment-bill-2026/documents"}}