The changes to the vacant residential land tax (VRLT) laws flagged in our recent article have now passed into law, with the new bill receiving Royal Assent on 12 December 2023.
After updates made during Parliamentary debate, these changes now address one of the major concerns affecting people with holiday homes located in Victoria raised in our previous article, but still leaves major uncertainty for the owners of holiday homes which are owned in trusts or company structures.
The ‘holiday home’ exemption from VRLT will now apply where the owner or the owner’s relatives use and occupy the holiday home for four weeks each year (whether continuous or in aggregate). Previously, the exemption only applied to use by the owners themselves.
‘Relatives’ include the owner’s spouse/domestic partner, lineal ancestors and descendants, siblings, and includes the owner’s spouses siblings, as well as spouses of the owner’s children and siblings.
This is welcome news for families who share use of a holiday home held in personal names.
While the changes made by Parliament go some way in providing a common-sense approach to the exemption in the context of the VRLT catchment area being expanded State-wide, what remains outstanding is the application of VRLT to holiday homes owned within a company or trust structure.
This issue was considered in Parliament, but was not addressed in the final bill. Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes has stated that the government is “committed” to extending the exemption to holiday homes owned this way, but indicated that due to a “complexity” in incorporating such changes, this issue will be reconsidered in the first half of 2024.
Therefore at this stage, there is no legislated exemption from VRLT for holiday homes owned in trusts or company structures, and unless the Government follows through on the comments above, holiday homes held under such structures will be liable for VRLT from 2025.
Because there is no guarantee that changes will be made in this regard, owners of such properties would be wise to consider whether they wish to lease those properties out for at least 6 months of the 2024 year so as to ensure they won’t receive a VRLT assessment for 2025.
The team at Moores is across the complex issues raised by the VRLT changes, and would be glad to help you or your clients to navigate the new rules.
We can assist with:
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.
School record keeping obligations are multifaceted and data retention remains an ongoing and complicated issue. Retaining data for too long raises the risk of data breaches being more damaging and significant for schools. However, we acknowledge schools are also grappling with retention requirements, particularly regarding child safety information.
But how long is too long? Schools are not at liberty to simply dispose of all information relevant to a student once they have ceased being educated by that school. For example, Victorian schools are obliged under the Ministerial Order 1359 (MO1359) to create, maintain and dispose of records relevant to child safety and wellbeing in accordance with the Public Records Office Victoria (PROV) Recordkeeping Standards, including minimum retention periods (clause 6.2(f)).
School recordkeeping obligations require schools to define their maximum retention periods for different categories of records and ensure these are applied across physical and digital information assets.
The reference to ‘child safety and wellbeing’ in MO1359 is broader than the PROV standard, PROS 19/08, introduced in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. This standard requires organisations, in relation to records about organisational responses to child sexual abuse, to:
What about documents that are not ‘records about organisational responses to child sexual abuse’? This is where schools need to balance competing obligations, such as contractual and legal requirements, including under privacy law, which requires organisations to destroy records when they are no longer required. Student data may involve sensitive and health information and other detailed personal information which carry specific privacy obligations.
There are several matters to consider when balancing privacy and the MO1359 requirement to retain records relevant to ‘child safety and wellbeing’. We recommend all schools create a Data Retention Policy that outlines those considerations and identifies the retention periods for different categories of student data to have a clear understanding of their framework for data management and retention.
There is no ‘one size fits all’ document that will serve the school’s purpose in this regard. Each school will have to make decisions itself and develop its own policy.
The shift to digitised and digital records also means that Schools need to consider privacy and data retention in their systems and applications. Privacy and data security risks can be managed by undertaking a privacy impact assessment to consider how school requirements translate into new systems and processes.
Moores has helped a number of schools and other education providers with the creation of Data Retention Policy’s since MO1359 was enacted in July 2022.
We have also facilitated privacy risk assessments for new systems and processes that impact student data and records management.
We are more than happy to guide you through the steps required to ensure you are creating adequate retention periods, implementing new systems in alignment with your privacy requirements, and also advising how best to avoid a data breach in respect of such personal and sensitive information.
Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.
This article was originally published October 2022. Updated December 2023.
Uniform and dress codes have commonly found themselves in the media, often when found to be at odds with changing societal expectations and values. Since 2017, female students at Victorian government schools have been allowed to wear shorts and trousers.1 Independent schools have a choice. Here we discuss what factors may influence your school’s choice over uniforms and dress codes.
There is mounting pressure on schools to ensure that their uniform policies promote equal participation and are tailored to the needs of different students, including on the basis of their sex, religion, culture, disability and gender identity.
Students must not be discriminated against on the grounds of personal characteristics such as gender identity, religious beliefs or sexual orientation (among others). These characteristics may impact how a student responds to a uniform requirement, and this could result in indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination is when treating everybody the same way disadvantages someone because of a personal characteristic.
Example: Arora v Melton Christian College2
VCAT found the College had contravened the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) because:
The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (the Act) contains an exception that permits schools to set and enforce reasonable standards of dress, appearance and behaviour for students (the Exception).3 A standard of dress will be ‘reasonable’ if the school has taken into account the views of the school community in setting the standard. This means, if community views are changing, your standards may also need to change. The more extensive, engaging and collaborative the consultation process, the more likely it is to be considered reasonable. When did your school last review its uniform policy?
Could elements of the school uniform put students at risk? Consider the risks of:
Ministerial Order 1359 requires schools to pay particular attention to the needs of students with a disability, students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and LGBTQIA+ students – who may be disproportionately impacted by uniform policies.
You can find broader information about transitioning to a more gender inclusive school environment here. We also talk about associated topics of bathrooms and events regarding gender inclusion here.
Setting a dress code can promote a shared sense of identity and pride, allow students to feel equal and enhance the profile of the school in the wider community. Whilst there can be many benefits associated with a dress code, they should be sensitive to the needs of different students and sufficiently flexible to promote equal participation. Schools must achieve a balance between imposing standards of dress and behaviour with their obligation not to discriminate against students on the basis of a protected attribute; one being sex where the questions of trousers for girls arises again.
Pants and trousers are less common options for girls under the dress codes in non-government schools. However, advocates for uniform reform argue that forcing girls to wear dresses and skirts reinforces rigid gender stereotypes, limits physical movement and makes girls less inclined to exercise or participate in sporting activities.
Moores can help your school with:
1 http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/girls-win-right-to-wear-shorts-and-trousers-to-all-victorian-state-schools-20170912-gyfwf9.html
2Arora v Melton Christian College (19 September 2017 – VCAT)
3 Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) s 42.
The school year is coming to a close. Many students are already on summer holidays. We are certain teachers are looking forward to the holidays as well. Before you depart, we have some recommendations for our school clients to consider in your planning for priorities in 2024.
Our Education team can help with any of the above recommendations to help your prepare for the summer holidays and the 2024 school year.
If you are unable to make a decision on your medical treatment, a health practitioner may need the consent of your Medical Treatment Decision Maker (MTDM) before they provide treatment.
Appointing a person to make medical decisions for you can be just as important as appointing an attorney to act for financial and personal matters. In Victoria, unlike some other Australian States, a MTDM is appointed under a separate document to that of a financial or personal attorney. The relevant legislation is the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) (Act).
As part of an estate planning matter, we talk to our clients about the importance of having the right people making decisions for them if they were to lose capacity – this includes consenting to or refusing medical treatment. Here are the 5 most commonly asked questions on matters relating to medical decisions.
You can appoint an adult person to make medical decisions for you provided you have decision making capacity at the time of the appointment. You may decide to appoint one of your family members, another close relative or a friend. Your MTDM should be someone who you trust, can communicate effectively, and who is willing to accept the responsibilities of the role. Your MDTM does not need to be the same person you appoint as your financial and personal attorney.
Only one person can act as your MTDM at any time. If you want to appoint more than one person to act, the decision-maker is the first person listed who is available, willing, and able to make the decision at the relevant time.
The appointment of a MTDM must be made in writing in the prescribed form. It must be executed and witnessed in accordance with the requirements of the Act. A person appointed as your MTDM must also accept their appointment.
If you do not appoint a MTDM, or your appointee is not available and willing and able to make a decision for you, then a guardian appointed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) with the power to make medical decisions can act for you.
If there is no VCAT appointed guardian, your MTDM will be the first of the following who is in a close and continuing relationship with you:
A MTDM must make the medical treatment decision that they believe is the decision you would make if you had decision-making capacity, subject to any conditions or limitations specified in a MTDM document. This includes consenting to treatment on your behalf, or refusing treatment. Your MTDM must consider:
There are some exceptions to consent. Consent is not required from a health practitioner in the event of an emergency to save your life, prevent serious damage to your health or prevent you from suffering significant pain or distress.
A MTDM also cannot:
If you have capacity and you decide that one or more of the people you have appointed as your decision maker is no longer appropriate, you can revoke the appointment of your MTDM. You can do this by:
VCAT also has the power to revoke an appointment of a MTDM.
If you revoke your MTDM, you should inform your MTDM and any people who know of the appointment, such as your health practitioner or hospital.
In Victoria, you can make an advance care directive. This is a document where you can set out your binding instructions or preferences and values in relation to your medical treatment.
You can give an advance care directive if:
An advance care directive must comply with certain formal requirements. To be binding, the directive must be in writing, contain certain particulars, be signed by the person giving it and witnessed by two adults, one of whom must be a medical practitioner.
Some of the matters which you can address in an advance care directive are:
Any statement about palliative care in an advance care directive is regarded as a values directive. You cannot provide directions on voluntary assisted dying in an advance care directive.
You can amend or revoke an existing advance care directive, or make a new advance care directive should you change your mind or wish to record further directions.
Appointing a MTDM allows you to control who will make medical decisions for you if you are not able to make them yourself. Your estate planning should incorporate a discussion on medical treatment decisions and the preparation of documentation to appoint a decision-maker. We can advise on, and prepare a MTDM as part of attending your estate planning.
Children are particularly vulnerable to online harms. The increasing profile and powers of the eSafety Commissioner under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) is partly designed to address this vulnerability, as are some of the possible amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act). Children increasingly rely on online platforms, social media, mobile applications and other internet connected devices in their everyday lives. While acknowledging the many benefits these services provide to children and young people, there is equally a concern that thousands of data points are being collected, including information about their activities, location, gender, interests, hobbies, moods, mental health and relationship status.
The 2023 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy survey results showed:
The Government Response to the Privacy Act Review has provided more clarity on the likely changes to the Privacy Act to better protect children’s privacy.
Amendments we are likely to see include:
Whereas the Government Response adopts only 38 of the 116 recommendations from the Attorney-General’s Department’s February Report, the area of children’s privacy is one space where many of the recommendations are agreed to.
Being committed to working with organisations on child safety and the safeguarding of other vulnerable Australians, Moores is well positioned to empower your organisation to implement these privacy changes for organisations who work with children and vulnerable Australians. It is most commonly individuals who are already vulnerable who face greater risks of harm from interference with their privacy. More details about how we can help with privacy and data security is here.
The Privacy Act Review has been a work in progress since 12 December 2019, initially in response to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platforms Inquiry. Throughout this journey we have endeavoured to keep our community up-to-date, through our article series:
Now we have the next step in the process: the Government Response to the Privacy Act Review which responds to the Attorney-General’s Department Report published in February 2023 and adopts 38 of the 116 recommendations. Other recommendations are agreed to “in principle”. The Government Response has narrowed proposed amendments into five categories:
We explain these categories in more detail below.
This means changing the scope and application of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) to apply to a broader range of information and entities. For example:
The Government agrees in-principle that the small business exemption should be removed in light of the privacy risks applicable in the digital environment.1
However, the small business exemption will not be removed from the Privacy Act until further consultation has been undertaken and supports are afforded to small businesses to assist compliance.
We’ve written previously about how privacy-by-design can help future-proof your operations for subsequent privacy breaches or data breaches. Now we have an official statement that:
The Government agrees in-principle that privacy settings for online services should reflect the ‘privacy-by-default’ framework of the Privacy Act.2
This is part of the possible amendments that collection, use and disclosure must be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, distinct from other requirements to collect or disclose such as consent. A fair and reasonable threshold for collection, use and disclosure is said to partly address “dark patterns” which are designs in systems and processes to nudge users towards consenting to more privacy intrusive practices.
An uplift in protections will likely also see more detail included in the Privacy Act as to what reasonable steps to secure personal information entail; that is, it entails both technical and organisational measures. Retention is another feature:
The Government agrees in-principle that entities should be required to establish their own maximum and minimum retention periods for personal information they hold and specify these retention periods in privacy policies.3
Some organisations will already have strict retention policies, such as schools in Victoria who are required to adhere to the Public Records Office Victoria Recordkeeping standards under Ministerial Order 1359. Another major possible change is the reduction in the notification period under the Notifiable Data Breach Scheme to 72 hours. Again, this is only agreed to “in principle” and further consultation is flagged as the next step.
This includes introducing definitions of key terms, such as collection, disclosure and consent. Another key change would be the introduction of a distinction between controllers and processors of personal information. These are terms found in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); generally considered the global gold standard in privacy protections for individuals. Aligning with the GDPR is acknowledged to “reflect the operational reality of modern business relationships, and reduce the compliance burden for entities acting as processors”.4
To further support international trade and business, the Government agrees a mechanism should be introduced to prescribe countries with substantially similar privacy laws. This replicates the function of adequacy decisions under the GDPR.
Australians overwhelmingly (84%) want more control over their data. While privacy policies and collection notices are intended to provide individuals with transparency, consultation revealed concerns that privacy policies and collection notices are often complex, lengthy, legalistic and vague. To address this, the Government agrees in-principle that:
We may also see the introduction of individual rights in addition to the existing rights of access and correction. These could include the right to an explanation of how information is used and the right to require deletion (i.e., similar to the GDPR’s right to erasure). Individuals could also be given the ability to bring legal action under a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, which would be based on a model proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2014.5
While we saw increased penalties for serious interference with privacy introduced in 2022, there is a possibility for:
There are a lot of proposed reforms, but no Bill before Parliament as yet. At this stage, we recommend organisations focus on getting their house in order to prepare for changes to the law. One place you can start is to reflect on what data you collect and where you store it. We can help with this first stage through a Privacy Audit, designed to map your information handling practices and identify areas for improvement. We can work with you to address any more specific concerns your may have to design a tailored product for your organisation. More details about how we can help with privacy and data security is here.
1 Australian Government, Government Response Privacy Act Review Report, (28 September 2023) page 7.
2 Australian Government, Government Response Privacy Act Review Report, (28 September 2023) page 9.
3 Australian Government, Government Response Privacy Act Review Report, (28 September 2023) page 10.
4 Australian Government, Government Response Privacy Act Review Report, (28 September 2023) page 17.
5 Australian Government, Government Response Privacy Act Review Report, (28 September 2023) page 21; Australian Law Reform Commission, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era (ALRC Report 123) 3 September 2014.
The statistics are in. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) conducted a survey of Australians this year and the results show privacy is a growing concern and priority for Australians.
Privacy is inherently about trust and identity. By sharing personal information about themselves with your organisation, individuals are placing trust in your organisation that you will respect their identity – our information or data is an extension of self-expression and identity.
To grow this trust, we recommend organisations:
As a starting point to take steps in making privacy a priority, you can:
We know you are busy. We know many of our clients include the role of Privacy Officer in a broader risk and compliance role. We can support you with directions of how to start through our online publications – such as our Privacy Toolkit – or we can take on these projects for you. This can be a full privacy audit that will start with mapping your data assets, reviewing your information handling practices and processes, and proposing changes to systems and policies. Alternatively, we can discuss what other projects may look like for your organisation and design a tailored offering to your needs. More details about how we can help with privacy and data security is here.
1 The 2023 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey
2 For example, the Health Records Act 2001 (Vic).
Update: December 2023 – The changes to the vacant residential land tax (VRLT) laws have now passed into law, with the new bill receiving Royal Assent on 12 November 2023. Read more in our article here.
The Victorian government has this week announced significant changes to the vacant residential land tax (VRLT), which could have major impact on owners of holiday homes.
To avoid incurring an unexpected land tax liability, anyone owning a holiday home in Victoria will need to give careful consideration to the new rules and plan accordingly.
VRLT is an annual tax collected by the State Revenue Office. It is separate and additional to standard land tax.
VRLT is calculated as 1% of the capital improved value of the property – this means a property with a capital improved value of $1.5m would incur a VRLT bill of $15,000 annually.
It is important to note that this is different to standard land tax, which is calculated on ‘site value’ (unimproved value).
Currently, only properties in the inner and middle suburbs of Melbourne are caught by the VRLT net.
Properties in those areas are liable for VRLT in any calendar year where the property ticks all of these boxes:
The exemptions from VRLT include the following scenarios:
Importantly, residential properties owned by companies, organisations and trusts are generally not eligible for the first two exemptions.
The Government is proposing to extend the current VRLT rules to the whole of Victoria with effect from 1 January 2025.
Further amendments will also be made to expand the type of land which will be subject to VRLT.
Some additional VRLT exemptions have been proposed, including:
These further amendments and additional exemptions are scheduled to come into force on 1 January 2026.
If the proposed changes are passed by the Parliament, there are a lot of people who could potentially receive a hefty and unexpected VRLT bill in 2025.
To reduce the chances of being one of those people, follow these tips:
In the ever-evolving landscape of legal practice, establishing meaningful connections with clients, particularly elderly ones, is paramount. Online communication with elderly clients demands patience, empathy and active engagement. For good reason, lawyers are often hesitant to obtain instructions from elderly clients online. 1 in 6 elderly Australians are subject to some form of abuse – financial abuse being the most common.
Below are five strategies for lawyers to foster strong relationships with elderly and other vulnerable clients in the digital age, whilst effectively managing the inherent risk of taking instructions and signing documents online.
In the digital age, the essence of human connection should never be lost. By integrating these strategies into online interactions and your practice generally, lawyers can establish genuine, respectful, and trusting relationships with elderly and other vulnerable clients. Through active engagement, legal professionals can ensure that engaging with elderly clients in an online environment, whilst not risk-free, is an avenue that should be embraced.
The content above was part of a seminar hosted by Leo Cussen where Max Ezerins and James Dimond of Moores presented on the topic: “Tips on how to detect capacity issues in an online environment vs in person”.
For expert advice or guidance regarding Elder Financial Abuse, please do not hesitate to contact us.