Most schools will be aware that land used for school purposes generally qualifies for an exemption from land tax in Victoria.
However, there are a number of nuances which can impact on this general position. In this article we highlight some of the potential traps which schools and other education providers should be aware of.
Land tax
Vacant residential land tax (VRLT)
There are three specific areas where we have noticed some of our education clients getting caught out with regard to land tax and VRLT.
Trap 1 – Not applying for an exemption
The charitable land tax exemption is only available upon application to the SRO. Certain evidence must be presented in support of the application, including evidence of specific non-profit provisions in the school’s constitution and evidence demonstrating the use of the land in question.
Once an exemption is granted, it is ongoing so long as the use of the land continues to satisfy the criteria for exemption.
If the use of the land changes so that it no longer qualifies for exemption, the SRO must be notified. If not, then penalty tax may be applied on top of normal land tax once the issue is detected.
Trap 2 – Sharing use of school facilities
Sharing use of school facilities can impact on your exemption status. In brief:
A more detailed exploration of the issue of shared use can be found in our previous article ‘Hiring out the hall in 2025 – Land tax and facility hire for charities‘.
If you are unsure about whether your particular shared use arrangements could impact on your land tax exemption, guidance can be sought from the SRO in the form of a private ruling application.
Trap 3 – Overlooking VRLT reporting
It is common for schools to have residential landholdings – these properties may be used as a principal’s or caretaker’s residence, be rented out to third parties, or held for future school development.
These properties will be subject to land tax, but they may also be subject to VRLT if they are not occupied by a person as their PPR for more than 6 months of the year. If such a vacancy does occur, then a VRLT notification needs to be made to the SRO by 15 February of the following year, otherwise penalty tax may be imposed on top of VRLT.
The Commercial Real Estate team at Moores has extensive experience assisting schools and other education providers in navigating the land tax and VRLT rules, and we would be glad to help you with any questions, exemption applications, private ruling applications or reporting in this space.
Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to you or your organisation.
The Australian Government has announced reforms aimed at addressing its broader objective of doubling philanthropic giving in Australia by 2030.
The reforms focus on two key areas:
These reforms come as a response to recommendations made in the Future Foundations for Giving inquiry conducted by the Productivity Commission, as well as proposals contained in the sector-led Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint.
To better reflect the role of public and private ancillary funds in facilitating charitable giving, the reforms propose to rename public ancillary funds and private ancillary funds to ‘public giving funds’ and ‘private giving funds’ respectively.
Under the proposed reforms, the Government will set a minimum annual distribution rate of 6% of net assets for both public and private ‘giving funds’ (the current rate is 4% for public ancillary funds and 5% for private ancillary funds).
Giving funds must distribute a minimum share of their assets each year to qualify for tax concessions. Raising the distribution rate aims to direct more philanthropic capital to operating charities in the short term while still allowing funds to maintain capital and earn investment returns.
Treasury analysis indicates that a fund earning market returns and distributing 6% of net assets annually could operate for decades even without new contributions. In practice, many funds already exceed this level, with about two-thirds of public funds and half of private funds distributing more than 6% in recent years. The average distribution rate for private ancillary funds in the period from 2000 to 2021 was 8% and for public ancillary funds in the period from 2011 to 2021 was 15.3%.
The reforms will also allow giving funds to smooth distributions over a three-year period. This change is intended to provide greater flexibility for funds supporting larger or multi-year charitable initiatives. This will enable giving funds to make large distributions in a single year and then distribute less than the minimum distribution rate in the subsequent two years. This may be particularly beneficial where funds are supporting major projects or responding to short term needs.
The new minimum distribution rate will apply from the first financial year following amendments to the giving fund guidelines. Existing giving funds will also benefit from a two-year transition period before the new distribution rate must be met.
This initiative is similar in concept to changes made to the ancillary fund guidelines in 2020 that permitted ancillary funds that exceeded the minimum distribution rate in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 financial years to distribute lower amounts in subsequent years. Those changes were intended to promote philanthropic giving during the COVID-19 economic downturn.
The Government has recently endorsed 34 new community charities as deductible gift recipients.
Community charities are locally focused charitable trusts or incorporated bodies that support community initiatives by distributing funds, property or benefits to organisations endorsed as DGRs. For instance, they may support a wide range of initiatives, including:
Importantly, previously DGR endorsement was only available for discrete categories (e.g. only environment, or only cultural activities), requiring organisations pursuing broad purposes to establish and operate more than one DGR endorsed entity. Community charities are more flexible, as they can incur expenditure in support of all DGR purposes and are not confined to one category, allowing them to direct tax-deductible donations to a wide range of charitable causes.
The measures aim to strengthen the philanthropic ecosystem by encouraging more timely distributions from giving funds while expanding the number of organisations able to access DGR status and attract tax-deductible donations. For charities, foundations and philanthropic donors, the reforms may have implications for fund governance, distribution strategies and eligibility for tax-deductible giving structures.
Our Charity and Not-for-profit team advises charities, philanthropic foundations and donors on the legal and regulatory framework governing tax-deductible giving in Australia.
We can assist with:
If your organisation operates, or is considering establishing, a giving fund or seeking DGR endorsement, our team can help you understand the implications of these reforms and ensure your structure remains compliant.
Have you considered benefitting a charity in your Will and are not sure how to start?
There are various ways to benefit charities after you have died and the estate planning lawyers at Moores are available to assist. We can help with choosing the most appropriate way to do this, to suit your circumstances and objectives.
Residuary Gift
The simplest way to support your chosen charities is via a gift of a portion of your estate. This portion is calculated once all other specific gifts, expenses and liabilities have been deducted (called your ‘residuary estate’). You may gift your whole residuary estate, or a part or percentage of your residuary estate. This can be split between multiple charities and beneficiaries in your desired proportions.
A residuary gift is an effective way to ensure that the gifts you are leaving to charities flex with the potential increases and decreases of the value of your estate.
Monetary gift
You may nominate a specific sum of money to be distributed to your chosen charity. However, it is important to note that a monetary gift will not change over time according to inflation unless you specifically allow for that in your Will.
There is also a risk that if your estate’s value has reduced over time, the charity’s monetary gift will take priority over any gifts of residual estate you may being providing to other beneficiaries, resulting in your other beneficiaries receiving a lot less of your estate than intended.
Specific gift
A less common, but still valid option is where you gift a specific asset that you own to a charity.
Examples include:
You must own this asset when you die for this gift to be valid. If you do not own the asset and do not update your Will, there is a possibility that your chosen charity will not receive any benefit from your estate, unless your Will specifically substitutes the gift for, as an example, a monetary gift.
There can also be tax consequences that also need to be considered and should be addressed in your Will, before making a gift of specific assets.
Other options
In some cases, you can nominate a charity as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy however you will need to contact your life insurance fund and/or your financial planner to arrange this. Note that this option is not available for life insurance policies held within superannuation.
If you want to direct any of your superannuation to benefit a chosen charity, this would first require consideration of having a binding death benefit nomination (a separate document) in place to direct your superannuation into your estate, so that the gift in your Will can take effect. There are generally tax consequences that need to be considered and should be addressed in your Will before making such a gift.
If you would like to consider your options for making charitable gifts in your Will, our experienced lawyers in the Moores Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team can assist you with ensuring that your chosen charities benefit in accordance with your wishes.
On 17 February 2026, the Victorian government passed the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. This bill amends the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) so that organisations can now be held liable for sexual abuse carried out in relationships akin to employment. In practice, this could cover abuse perpetrated by priests and potentially other volunteers. This legislation overturns and significantly reshapes the legal landscape created by the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 (Bird), which found that the Catholic Church could not be held vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of a priest because the priest was not considered to be an employee.
The Bill also provides that a claim may now be brought on previously barred cause of action or settled cause of action resolved before 1 July 2018 or between 13 November 2024 and the date the amendments come into effect to address the consequences of effectively reversing the Bird ruling.
The Bill sets the circumstances in which organisations can be held vicariously liable for child abuse, including historic child abuse. An institution will now be vicariously liable for the abuse of a child where:
This extends vicarious liability beyond traditional employment relationships to people who have authority, trust, and influence over children. Factors to determine whether someone is akin to an employee include:
The Bill clarifies that independent contractors are not considered akin to employees. However, this leaves open the possibility that members of religious ministry and volunteers may now fall within the category of individuals for whom institutions can be vicariously liable.
Our child safety team are available to support you to ensure your organisation has appropriate processes and safeguards in place to meet your duty of care and mitigate risk of liability. Our disputes team are also able to assist with any advising on or responding to potential claims or liability arising from this reform.
The Commonwealth Government has established the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, reflecting heightened national concern about antisemitism and its impact on community safety, education and social cohesion.
The Royal Commission will hold its first public hearing on 24 February 2026.
For schools, understanding how a royal commission operates and how institutions may become involved, is important.
The Royal Commission has been established with a relatively compressed timetable:
During this period, the Commission will gather evidence through submissions, hearings and compulsory information-gathering powers.
Royal commissions have broad coercive powers under federal legislation. Relevantly, the Commission may:
Failure to comply with a notice to produce, without reasonable excuse, can constitute a criminal offence. Timeframes for compliance are often short.
Schools may come to the attention of the Commission in two primary ways:
1. Notices to produce
Schools may be required to produce documents such as:
Early legal advice is important, particularly where privilege, confidentiality or sensitive material is involved.
2. Case Study Examination
As with other royal commissions, the inquiry may examine particular institutions as case studies, involving closer scrutiny of policies, responses and decision-making. While no case studies have yet been announced, schools with diverse communities or prior incidents may wish to prepare for this possibility.
Royal commissions are powerful and highly public processes. For non-government schools, early preparation and informed engagement can significantly reduce legal, operational and reputational risk, and ensure the institution is well placed should the Commission seek information or evidence.
Moores will provide updates to the sector as the legislation progresses. Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Moores is pleased to announce the appointment of Alexandra Gronow as Special Counsel in the Workplace Relations Team.
Alexandra brings extensive expertise in general employment and discrimination law, advising organisations at every stage of the employment lifecycle. Her practice includes strategic guidance on contracting, performance management and disciplinary processes, workplace compliance and investigations, as well as termination of employment. Alexandra also has significant experience representing clients in employment, discrimination and human rights litigation across State and Federal jurisdictions.
Alexandra’s background in not-for-profit and government sectors gives her a strong appreciation for the importance of tailored and practical legal advice. She is known for her thorough and detail-oriented approach and is committed to assisting organisations to understand and respond to their multifaceted and evolving workplace obligations with clarity and confidence.
“Moores’ commitment to human centric and principled decision making resonates deeply with how I practise law,” says Alexandra. “I wanted to work with like-minded people and clients that prioritise integrity and service. Joining Moores allows me to do this while continuing to deliver exceptional outcomes.”
We’re delighted to welcome Alexandra to her new role at Moores.
To find out more, please do not hesitate to contact us.
From 23 February 2026, responsibility for overseeing Victoria’s Reportable Conduct Scheme (Scheme) and Child Safe Standards (Standards) will shift from the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) to the Social Services Regulator. This significant reform reshapes how child safety risks are reported, managed and monitored across the state.
Under the current model, organisations covered by the Scheme typically report allegations of reportable conduct to the CCYP, which then shares information with other agencies, including Working with Children Check Victoria.
However, the Social Services Regulation Amendment (Child Safety, Complaints and Worker Regulation) Act 2025 (Vic) is transforming this landscape. These reforms respond directly to the findings of the Rapid Child Safety Review, which highlighted critical gaps in information sharing, particularly when allegations were unsubstantiated but still raised safety concerns.
To close these gaps and strengthen state‑wide consistency, Victoria is consolidating key safeguarding functions – Working with Children Checks, the Reportable Conduct Scheme, and the Child Safe Standards – within a single regulator. Other sector-specific regulators of the Child Safe Standards currently remain unchanged.
From Monday 23 February 2026:
This new regulatory model is designed to achieve better coordination, more consistent oversight, and stronger protections for children.
For most organisations working with children in Victoria, the immediate practical impact is relatively small, yet it is crucial to be prepared.
1. New reporting pathwaysFor all organisations covered by the Scheme, you must now report:
to the Social Services Regulator, rather than the CCYP.Your core obligations to notify, investigate, and provide a final outcome report remain unchanged.
2. Update your systemsNow is the time to:
This regulatory shift provides a timely opportunity to review broader child safety settings and strengthen your organisation’s continuous improvement efforts.
3. Expect a different compliance approachEach regulator brings its own style. Organisations may notice:
Being proactive will help ensure your organisation remains compliant and confident during the transition.
4. Watch for further changes
As functions consolidate under the Social Services Regulator, additional refinements to the Scheme and Standards are likely. We anticipate future steps to streamline reporting, align processes with other regulatory requirements, and enhance information sharing.
You can read CCYP’s guidance here.
5. Implications outside Victoria
Interstate organisations should also stay alert. Other jurisdictions may introduce similar reforms, particularly in light of heightened scrutiny of child safety within early childhood education and other vulnerable sectors.
How Moores can help?
Moores is already working with organisations across education, disability, faith‑based services and community sectors to prepare for this shift. We can assist with:
Disclaimer: This article contains details about sexual assault/abuse which may be upsetting for some readers. Reader discretion is advised.
On 11 February 2026, the High Court of Australia delivered a landmark judgment in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2 (AA). The Court held that organisations that exercise care of children can be held liable for breaches of a non-delegable duty of care which includes intentional criminal acts, such as sexual abuse, committed by a “delegate”. In doing so, the Court has overturned the long-standing authority of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4.
This decision removes key defences previously relied upon by institutions facing historic abuse claims, specifically those involving non-employees like volunteers. In doing so, it significantly expands the circumstances in which organisations can be held liable for the actions of volunteers, and requires a higher standard of monitoring and supervision to keep children and young people safe.
The High Court held, by majority, that the Diocese was liable to AA for breach of a non-delegable duty of care that it owed at the time of the abuse. Specifically, the majority held that:
To understand the impact of this decision, it is important to understand the difference between the two forms of liability that the High Court addressed:
Vicarious Liability (The “Employee” Test):
Non-Delegable Duty of Care (The “Delegate” Test):
For over two decades, the decision in Lepore generally protected institutions from non-delegable duty claims involving intentional criminal acts. The High Court have overturned that decision, establishing that:
The High Court’s ruling widens the scope of potential liability for organisations, in particular for organisations that rely on volunteers, such as scouting groups, schools and sporting clubs.
Under Lepore, an organisation may have been able to argue that it was not liable for harm if the harm was committed by eg, a volunteer parent or scout leader. Under the High Court’s ruling, if an organisation assigns a volunteer to perform a function, the organisation is responsible for that volunteer’s actions where a non-delegable duty of care is owed. As such, the institution assumes responsibility for the child’s safety while they are in the volunteer’s care.
Our child safety team can support organisations to understand the extent to which they owe a duty of care to children, and steps to take to remain compliant with the non-delegable duty of care and embed child safety at all levels of the organisation.
Our disputes team can assist with resolving claims or potential claims
Moores has released Navigating Charity and Not-for-Profit Mergers, a new practical guide designed to support charities and not-for-profits considering merger opportunities.
The guide brings clarity to merger pathways, risk assessment and governance considerations, supporting informed decisions that protect purpose while strengthening sustainability.
Developed by Moores’ Charity and Not for Profit Law team, the guide draws on extensive experience advising charities and not for profits on governance, restructures and mergers. The team was recognised in the Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide 2026 for Charity and Not-for-Profit Law, reflecting its depth of sector knowledge and practical, considered approach to complex matters.
Learn more or request to download the guide here.
For more information or to speak with one of our experienced lawyers, please contact us.
We are firmly living in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Generative AI technologies are evolving at extraordinary speed, and their use is becoming increasingly embedded in everyday life. Children and young people, in particular, are at the forefront of this shift, using AI companions that simulate personal relationships and tools that can manipulate video, audio, or images to make it appear as though someone is saying or doing something they never did.
While these technologies can be creative, engaging, and exciting, they also present an entirely new category of risk for children and young people. Schools are increasingly encountering one of the most concerning manifestations of this risk: the creation and circulation of malicious and abusive deepfakes.
Across our work with school clients, we have seen leaders and Boards grappling with how to prevent these incidents and how to respond decisively when they occur. This is not a localised issue.
In December 2025, the Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner released a practical toolkit to support schools in preventing and responding to abusive deepfake incidents, highlighting the global scale and urgency of the problem.1
Drawing on that guidance alongside our direct experience advising schools, this article sets out:
Boards and school leaders have a responsibility to take reasonable, proactive steps to protect students from reasonably foreseeable online harms, including the creation of abusive and malicious deepfakes. By adopting a proactive approach, schools can minimise risks and ensure that their schools are prepared to respond quickly when an incident occurs.
1. Education and Awareness Campaigns
Education is the first and most critical line of defence. School leaders should invest in educating employees, volunteers, students, and parents about the risks associated with deepfakes and the importance of online privacy. Awareness programs can help students recognise the dangers of manipulated media and create space for them to engage in open conversations about their online activities. Student learning about online behaviour should explicitly address AI‑generated content, noting that many children and young people are unable to reliably identify manipulated or synthetic media, which significantly increases their vulnerability.
Schools should also communicate clearly with students about:
Equally important is empowering students to protect themselves online, including the use of privacy settings, blocking and reporting concerning behaviour, and seeking support from trusted adults.
2. Collaborate with Experts and Legal Advisors
Given the legal and technical complexity of deepfake incidents, schools should not attempt to navigate this landscape alone.
It is important for schools to understand when the creation and distribution of abusive deepfakes may amount to criminal behaviour. For example, under sections 53S and 53T of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Victorian Crimes Act), it is a criminal offence to intentionally distribute an intimate image of another person or threaten to do so, if the distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct.2 Consent is irrelevant if the victim is under 18 years old. The Victorian Crimes Act defines “image” to include images digitally created by generating the image or altering or manipulating another image3, which could include malicious and abusive deepfakes. The penalty is up 3 years imprisonment.
There are also relevant federal offences. For example, under s 75 of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), a person must not post or threaten to post an intimate image online of another person without their consent. Under that Act, “intimate image” includes material that has been digitally altered, such as deepfakes. Under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), it is an offence to use a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing, harassing or offensive. Under section 474.17A, there is also an offence which applies to those who use technologies to artificially generate or alter sexually explicit material (such as deepfakes) for the purposes of non-consensual sharing online. These offences are subject to serious criminal penalties of up to six years imprisonment.
Beyond legal advice, schools should also establish relationships with cybersecurity and technology experts who can assist with detection, evidence preservation, and risk mitigation.
3. De-risk Staff and Students’ Use of AI by Establishing Clear Policies and Student Codes of Conduct
Schools should develop (or update) and implement comprehensive policies that set clear boundaries regarding acceptable use of technology (including AI and deepfakes), expectations for online conduct, and the consequences of misuse.
School should also review their student code of conduct and acceptable use policy to ensure that specific AI image abuse matters are explicitly referenced, including consequences for distributing and sharing material created by others or of unknown origin.
These policies and codes of conduct should address the importance of safeguarding children’s privacy and set clear boundaries for the use and sharing of images, videos, and personal data as well as the creation of deepfakes using AI tools.
While schools cannot entirely prevent the creation of deepfakes, they can take steps to limit the risk of their students being targeted. The key lies in proactive privacy protection and data management strategies.
Despite proactive measures, it is possible for malicious and abusive deepfakes to be created and shared online. Schools must be prepared to respond quickly and decisively to protect their students and ensure accountability.
Schools have a duty of care which requires them to take proactive steps to protect their students’ privacy and personal data, prevent the creation of abusive deepfakes, and respond quickly and appropriately to any deepfake incidents that may occur.
By educating the school community, collaborating with legal and cybersecurity professionals, and adopting strong data protection policies, schools can significantly reduce the risks associated with malicious and abusive deepfakes. If an incident occurs, a clear and speedy response, combined with the provision of useful supports, will ensure that the wellbeing of affected children and young people are protected.
Our Child Safety, Safeguarding and Discrimination team are skilled in supporting schools to keep children safe. Our team can provide peace of mind in developing and implementing prevention strategies and navigating incidents if they occur.
If you would like to discuss how we can support your organisation, our team is here to help. Please contact Skye Rose or Tal Shmerling if you would like further support.