QLD Institutions Can Be Held Liable for Child Abuse by Contractors and Volunteers, Even in Past Cases

Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026

Opposition Bill

28 Aug 2026: The chamber is going through this bill clause by clause, and can make amendments (consideration in detail).

Share this bill

Email Facebook X Bluesky

Topics

child abuse child safety institutional liability legal settlements victim compensation

Introduced by: Meaghan Scanlon MP (ALP)

Links to official parliament websites

Official page: progress through parliament

Effects of this bill

If this bill passes, it means that:

Institutions can be held liable for child abuse committed by people not employed by them.
The abuser must have a relationship with the institution similar to employment.
The child must have been under the care or control of the institution.
This liability applies to past abuse.
Courts can set aside old settlements.
Courts can reconsider these claims under the new rules.
The set-aside rule only applies to settlements made before specific High Court decisions.

News articles and press releases

Why This Bill Exists: The Bird v DP High Court Ruling

Claude (PIPE background note) — 2026-09-11

In November 2024, the High Court ruled in Bird v DP that the Catholic Church could not be held vicariously liable for a priest's sexual abuse of a child because he was not formally an employee -- there was no employment relationship, so the Church's appeal succeeded. This bill is Queensland's direct legislative response: it lets institutions be held liable for abuse by people who weren't technically employees (clergy, volunteers, foster carers) if the relationship was 'akin to employment', and it applies retrospectively -- including to cases already affected by the Bird v DP outcome.