We are proud to share that Practice Leader, James Dimond, has been included in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in Australia™ for Trusts and Estates, marking his third consecutive inclusion.
The Best Lawyers in Australia™ awards recognises lawyers across Australia based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation.
James has been instructed in a number of high-value private trust disputes and has extensive experience across all aspects of Wills and Estates practice, with a particular focus on resolving complex disputes regarding trusts, deceased estates, superannuation and Guardianship and Administration.
James is an Accredited Specialist Wills and Estates Lawyer and heads up Moores’ Elder Financial Abuse Team. He also accepts private and Court appointments as Administrator from time to time and assists clients and family groups with succession planning and structuring, including complex wills, testamentary trusts, asset protection and pro-active measures to avoid family disputes.
Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. More than 116,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and they have received more than 17 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world.
For more information or to speak with one of our experienced lawyers, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Many self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) will have properties which were purchased using borrowed funds secured by a mortgage over the property. The funds may have been provided by a traditional bank, or by a related entity.
This scenario is known as a limited recourse borrowing arrangement, or LRBA.
Under the SMSF laws, properties subject to an LRBA must be kept separate from the other assets of the SMSF. In a practical sense, this means that the title to the property is registered in the name of a single-purpose “custodian trustee” which holds the property on bare trust for the SMSF trustee.
The property title is mortgaged to the lender, and held by the lender as security until such time as the LRBA loan is repaid.
When the LRBA loan has been repaid, the property should be transferred back to the SMSF trustee, where it can be dealt with as an asset of the fund. At that point, the custodian trustee (unless it is a professional trustee company affiliated with a bank) can then be deregistered.
However, the reality is that many LRBA properties are left in the name of the custodian trustee long after the original borrowing has been repaid, often due to confusion over the processes involved in formally ending the LRBA. This causes unnecessary costs in the ongoing administration of the custodian trustee, and can also complicate matters if the SMSF wishes to sell the property.
Here we demystify the process of ending an LRBA with a simple overview of the steps involved, and some tips to avoid common traps.
Step 1 – Discharge the mortgage
Once the LRBA loan has been repaid, the lender should register a discharge of mortgage on the property title.
Key tip: Be aware that commercial lenders often won’t bother with this step unless a discharge of mortgage is specifically requested by the customer.
Step 2 – Transfer the property title
Once the mortgage has been discharged, the property title can then be transferred to the SMSF trustee.
If the LRBA has been set up correctly, this transfer should be exempt from duty – to obtain an exemption, an application for exemption under the relevant section of the Duties Act 2000 will need to be lodged with the State Revenue Office. The first step in the transfer process should always be to check entitlement for the duty exemption, which usually involves reviewing the documentation from the original LRBA and financial statements for the SMSF.
The land tax assessments for the property should also be reviewed to ensure that the property is being assessed correctly in the ownership of the SMSF, and avoid setting off any unexpected landmines in that regard when the transfer is completed.
Key tip: Engage an experienced lawyer who is familiar with the particular conveyancing steps involved in an LRBA transfer, including familiarity with the specific duty exemption application process which applies to these transfers.
Step 3 – Notify rating authorities of the change of ownership
The local council, water authority and SRO Land Tax Department must be notified once the property has been transferred, so as to ensure that it is assessed in the SMSF trustee’s name going forward. This will be handled by the lawyer managing the transaction.
The SMSF will also need to consider whether it is necessary to notify its insurer, utility suppliers, and any tenant of the property.
Key tip: Notifying relevant authorities and stakeholders of the change of registered ownership minimises the chances of future complications.
Step 4 – Deregistration of the custodian trustee
Sometimes, the property title will have been registered in the name of a professional custodian trustee operated by the lending bank. In those cases, Step 4 is not necessary.
However, in most cases a special purpose company will have been established to hold the property, and the title will be registered in that company’s name. Once the property is transferred to the SMSF trustee, that special purpose company should then be deregistered, unless it is intended to be repurposed. The deregistration process can usually be handled by a lawyer or an accountant.
Key tip: Save ongoing registration fees and accounting costs by deregistering the custodian trustee once the property is transferred out of that company.
If your SMSF has recently paid out a loan on a property and you need assistance navigating the process for formally ending the LRBA, the team at Moores would be delighted to help – please get in touch with us using the details below.
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.
Significant changes are underway in the Early Childhood Education and Care sector, with new reforms impacting how organisations operate and keep children safe. Our Safe & Sound series explains these updates in clear, practical terms so providers can understand what’s changing and what they need to do.
In this episode, hosted by Moores Special Counsel Tal Shmerling and featuring Education and Privacy Lawyer, Cassandra Minett, we explore the complex considerations surrounding childcare workers having personal devices on them for emergency contact purposes in early learning settings.
The goal is simple: to give you the information you need to stay informed, manage risks, and prepare for change.
If you would like to discuss how we can support your organisation, our education and safeguarding teams are here to help. Please contact Tal Shmerling or Cecelia Irvine-So if you would like further support.
View our dedicated page on the Childcare and Early Education Reforms and subscribe to receive updates directly in your inbox.
On 31 March 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) released an Exposure Draft of the Children’s Online Privacy Code (the Code) for public consultation, alongside an Explanatory Statement. The Code represents a targeted shift in the Australian privacy landscape. It outlines how certain online services likely to be accessed by children, or primarily concerned with the activities of children, must comply with the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) and additional legislative requirements.
The Code, which will be in place by 10 December 2026, will complement other initiatives to protect our children online, including the Social Media Minimum Age obligation.
The Code primarily targets online services directly accessed by children such as apps, games, online tools, and websites. These online services expose children and young people to the highest privacy risks.
Notwithstanding this statutory focus, the Code also applies to schools in certain ways. In a school setting, the code may impact school’s usage of online learning platforms, other apps on school devices, messaging services used for notifying parents, and may even extend to schools’ social media posts involving students.
Below is a high-level summary of the key draft provisions that schools should pay most attention to.
1. Children’s best interests must come first
Online services must place children’s best interests first when handling personal data.
Schools will be expected to clarify with their online providers exactly how the software design contemplates children’s best interests as a top priority when handling personal data. Schools should also require vendor evidence that the Code’s requirements are not ignored for the pursuit of a commercial or financial objective. Schools should confirm with vendors that “high privacy” settings are the default. Children are also to be provided with a clear option to “opt out” regarding personal information, unless strictly necessary for a software’s service provision, a narrow test which excludes marketing purposes.
2. Data minimisation is required, not optional
The Code imposes data retention requirements on online services required to comply with the Code. To this effect, schools should ensure that providers:
3. No secondary use of children’s data
Schools should ensure that their online service providers are not using children’s data for targeted advertising, profiling, product marketing, or unrelated analytics. It follows that children’s data should not be sold, shared or monetised. These requirements are crucial as by the time a child turns 13, there is an estimated 72 million data points that may have been gathered about them.
4. Clear limits on consent and parental authority
Schools should test with their online service providers that:
The Code further proposes novel mandates to alert children where parents consent on their behalf. This is drafted to enhance transparency and respects children’s rights to their agency.
5. Age-appropriate transparency is required
The OAIC has determined that verbose, legalistic privacy policies are not suitable for children’s services. Instead, schools should look for vendors to provide clear, age-appropriate language in policies, including understandable explanations and visuals for children where necessary. Vendors should also supply transparent declarations on their handling of personal data, why it is collected, and for how long.
Schools will need to ensure that their general privacy policy is clear, simple, and concise enough for the children to understand. Alternatively, schools will need to introduce an additional version of their privacy policy, that is in a form and language understandable by the children. Such a policy must be easily accessible.
A clear complaints procedure for privacy complaints must also be established, with an option to make complaints of a general nature anonymously. The complaints procedure should also make clear how a complaint can be made to the OAIC. Schools need to respond to complaints within 30 days.
6. Children’s rights to access and delete data must be supported
Significantly, the Code introduces a statutory right for children (and parents, where appropriate), to request deletion of their personal information. A provider must respect this right and respond to such requests within 30 days. Schools should also support requests to access children’s personal information, as long as this is conducted in accordance with the school’s privacy policy.
7. Geolocation and tracking requires heightened caution
The Code has made it clear that geolocation tracking is a high-risk area, and should be considered unnecessary, unless absolutely essential for the functioning of the service. Therefore, schools should ensure that tracking via their online service providers is transparent and minimised. Children have the right to be notified when this tracking occurs, irrespective of parental consent. The legislative intent is to safeguard children’s rights and provide them with agency when it comes to their personal data.
8. Schools are not the privacy “shield”
In order to protect their legal position, schools should be clear with online service providers that under the Code:
9. Security and breach readiness are essential
In addition to maintaining their internal systems, schools should seek confirmation from providers that their technical and organisational measures are secure and suitable to handle children’s personal information. Schools should also consider the ability for staff to access personal data and acquaint themselves with data breach response procedures in accordance with the Australian law. All school staff interacting with children’s data must be provided education and training to understand their obligations under the new provisions. Record of this training should be kept and provided to the OAIC upon request.
10. Contractual commitments are expected
It is expected that schools will implement their privacy commitments into their respective privacy policies. However, it is also vital that these obligations and expectations are written and enforceable in contracts, in a transparent manner. When the Code is finalised, privacy policies, procedures and contracts should be updated to reflect compliance with the Code. Privacy practices and procedures are also expected to be updated annually, and records of such updates and reviews must be kept and provided to the OAIC upon request.
Additionally, the Code recognises that children’s personal information may be handled by services that are not directly accessed by children but are nonetheless primarily concerned with children’s activities and that such services may present similar privacy risks. This includes, for examples, online apps and systems that track childhood development, facilitate photo sharing of students to parents and otherwise support schools to monitor student performance.
Moores supports non-government schools, and other education bodies and not-for-profits with privacy compliance, data breach response and cyber incident management. Additionally, Moores will release our Privacy Toolkit for Organisations during Privacy Awareness Week 2026. Our team regularly advises not-for-profits, schools and education providers on privacy compliance, data breach response plans and proactive redesign of processes to implement privacy-by-design.
Across the education sector, increased fuel costs and transport disruption are already creating operational pressure. Despite temporary fuel‑related relief measures announced by government, rising input costs, scheduling disruptions and reduced service capacity look to place strain on service providers that schools rely on day‑to‑day.
In this environment, schools may face delayed performance of contracts, requests for increased payments, or declines in service levels or quality. These pressures can present legal and governance risk if not managed carefully.
The starting point is always the contract.
When it comes to fuel‑related cost increases or service disruption, many school service agreements contain limited flexibility and some contain none at all.
Bus and transport contracts often include specific fuel adjustment mechanisms, such as agreed fuel levies triggered only when diesel prices rise beyond defined thresholds. Where these provisions exist, schools should ensure any surcharge strictly complies with the contract terms. Unilateral “emergency fuel levies” imposed outside the contract are not automatically payable.
By contrast, cleaning, maintenance, gardening and canteen contracts are frequently fixed‑price arrangements. Unless the contract expressly allows cost variation for fuel or transport increases, suppliers may have no contractual right to seek higher fees, even where their costs have increased significantly.
Force majeure clauses, where they exist, are narrowly construed. Fuel shortages may not fall within their scope. In some cases, parties refer to “frustration” of contract, but this is a high legal threshold and rarely applies simply because performance has become more difficult or expensive.
A key emerging issue for schools is service‑level slippage, where services continue, but at a reduced frequency, quality or reliability. Examples include:
While short‑term flexibility may be appropriate, school executives should be cautious about allowing slippage to become normalised. Where services no longer meet contractual standards, schools should:
Failure to address service slippage can weaken the school’s contractual position if disputes later arise.
We expect contractual disputes to increase in coming months, particularly in relation to:
In each case, early legal review can help schools preserve rights while maintaining constructive relationships.
Schools should:
Fuel disruption may be temporary, but decisions made under pressure can have lasting implications. Careful contract management discipline now can reduce risk later.
With a deep understanding of school operations, contracts and typical school agreements, we can assist with clarifying the school’s rights and acting on these via notice, negotiation or appropriate risk-based escalation in your context.
What was once viewed as a contingency risk is fast becoming a live operational risk for businesses which may manifest as contractual management issues. With fuel supply pressures remaining unpredictable, organisations should be turning their minds to how disruption may affect contractual performance, trigger risk allocation clauses, and increase the likelihood of disputes.
Businesses are already facing impacts and uncertainty as a result of fuel shortages and fuel supply disruption. The education sector and its services providers are impacted by increased fuel prices and there are reports of school camps being cancelled as prices spiral. Cost pressure and delays caused by fuel issues or transport constraints have the potential to impact the construction sector. We are seeing an uptick in enquiries where delivery of contractual obligations is delayed or service levels are slipping. Despite temporary fuel support relief measures introduced by the ATO and the federal government, and business lender support, financial stress and operational challenges are impacting small to medium enterprise.
It is important for all businesses to consider how current and ongoing volatility in fuel supply may impact on their operations and to be prepared to respond accordingly. In particular – delay in performance of contracts, requests for a higher amount to be paid or a need to preserve your rights if a contract may be headed for dispute.
The starting point always is to consider a contract and its terms.
Some contracts allow specific flexibility based on fuel costs. We have seen examples of school agreements with bus companies that specifically enables a fuel levy to be imposed by agreement, where the cost of diesel increased by a specific amount. Suppliers may seek to add a so called “emergency fuel levy” but unless specifically provided for by the contract, it may not be payable by the counterparty.
Other contracts do not allow any flexibility on price – fixed price building contacts and services agreements. Where there are delays in performance of contracts purportedly as a result of supply chain issues (caused by fuel scarcity for instance), it is not always possible – let alone desirable – for counterparties to a contract to vary its terms.
Force majeure contractual clauses are often but not always contained in commercial agreements. If they are, they may not extend to suspending or delaying contractual obligations when events beyond the parties control prevent performance. The current fuel crisis may not constitute a force majeure – it may fall into the category of “frustration” of contract.
We expect to continue to see an increase in contractual disputes in the coming months – whether because the contractual arrangements themselves are in breach or where counterparties seek to end a contract due to business uncertainty generally or a reduction in revenue. We see contractual risks arise in some of the following situations:
Perhaps less obvious are insolvency related risks, particularly for SMEs operating on tight margins or with limited cash reserves. Cash flow pressure may follow where fuel price spikes or potential shortages in future delay projects or increase operating costs – particularly if contracts remain bound to fixed prices or strict completion timeframes. Where contractual arrangements are disrupted, payments withheld or termination and/or claims for damages can compound financial strain.
Directors must remain alert to the risks arising from unprofitable or disrupted contracts and continue to monitor cash flow, contractual exposure to avoid trading while insolvent if fuel related disruption materially impacts operations. Where solvency concerns arise, Boards should seek immediate advice and consider the safe harbour provisions. The recent Federal Court decision in the Star Entertainment case has significant implications for directors and officers, including requiring proactive Board oversight in active risk management and governance.
Whether you operate in the education sector, construction sector, you are a not for profit or a small business, any correspondence relating to contractual rights or alleging breach of contract or frustration need to be taken seriously. Even where performance of contracts remains possible, delay or cost pressure can expose businesses to unexpected claims or contractual disputes.
For organisations where fuel disruption causes a supply chain risk, in addition to reviewing your operational risks you will benefit from also reviewing your legal risks and key contractual arrangements.
The Disputes Team at Moores can support in reviewing legal risks and key contractual arrangements to ensure your organisation understands contractual risks. We can advise on contractual rights and obligations if any issues arise. We also assist where contractual disputes can’t be resolved – from notice of default to conduct of litigation.
Australia’s emerging oil and petrol constraints are no longer simply a supply‑chain issue. While the situation remains fluid, organisations should now be considering the potential implications for workforce availability, continuity of service delivery and legal compliance if fuel disruption escalates.
This is familiar territory. During COVID‑19, employers were required to identify critical operations, respond to transport and workforce disruption, and make rapid decisions while remaining compliant with workplace laws. Fuel scarcity raises similar challenges, but in a different legal and operational context. Importantly, many of the lessons around early planning, flexibility and communication remain highly relevant.
For employers, the task is to balance operational continuity with obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act), industrial instruments and anti‑discrimination law. Organisations that respond best will be those that plan early, consider impacts across their whole workforce (including contractors and labour hire arrangements), and respond lawfully, consistently and in a way that aligns with their values.
There is currently no broad “essential services” regime of the kind implemented during COVID‑19 lockdowns. However, the distinction remains important from a workforce planning and risk perspective.
Fuel constraints are likely to affect sectors unevenly. Organisations delivering critical services, including healthcare, disability support, education, transport, logistics, utilities and food supply, may face heightened expectations to continue operating even in constrained conditions. Other services may have greater scope to scale back, modify delivery models, or temporarily defer non‑critical activities.
The critical question for employers is not whether they are “essential”, but how fuel scarcity affects their ability to operate safely and lawfully. Employers should start thinking now about where their exposure lies, including:
Working through these issues early will support defensible and consistent decision‑making if disruption intensifies.
Industrial instruments such as Awards, Enterprise Agreements and employment contracts may contain stand down mechanisms. These instruments should be checked at first instance to determine the rules that apply to an employee where they can no longer be usefully employed. If there are no relevant provisions in these instruments, then the Fair Work Act permits employers to stand down employees without pay where they cannot be usefully employed due to a stoppage of work for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible.
A petrol shortage may, in limited circumstances, enliven a lawful stand down. However, the threshold is high and the assessment is highly fact‑specific.
In practice, stand down may only be arguable where the organisation has closed or reduced operations because of an enforceable government direction, or when fuel disruption causes a genuine stoppage of work, for example because critical inputs cannot be delivered, essential on‑site staff cannot attend and no alternatives exist, or fuel‑dependent processes cannot be performed safely or legally.
By contrast, stand down is not available merely because conditions become more difficult. Increased costs, reduced demand, partial disruption or individual transport difficulties are unlikely to meet the statutory test. A clear causal connection between fuel constraints and a stoppage of work is required.
Before considering stand down, employers should carefully document impacts, explore alternatives (such as redeployment or flexible work), review applicable awards, agreements and contracts, and communicate early with affected employees.
Fuel scarcity will inevitably affect some employees’ ability to attend the workplace. As many employers experienced during COVID‑19, rigid or inconsistent responses in this space can quickly give rise to disputes and legal risk.
An employee’s inability to attend work due to fuel access is not, of itself, a lawful basis for stand down. Instead, employers should adopt a structured and reasonable approach that balances operational requirements with legal obligations.
Depending on the circumstances, this may involve exploring alternative arrangements such as remote work, accessing accrued leave, or unpaid leave by agreement. What employers should avoid is unilateral action that is not legally supported, including imposing unpaid leave, disciplining employees where non‑attendance is genuinely outside their control, or applying inconsistent rules across the workforce.
Fuel shortages rarely affect only one part of an organisation. Disruption to freight, suppliers or service partners can quickly flow through to workforce issues, affecting rosters, hours of work and service delivery models.
From an employment perspective, this may require changes to how work is organised, including adjustments to hours, consultation under awards or enterprise agreements, redeployment or cross‑skilling, and reconsideration of contractor or labour hire arrangements.
Legal risk most often arises where changes are rushed, poorly documented or implemented without required consultation. Employers who identify likely supply chain pressure points now will be better placed to align workforce planning with operational reality.
Rising fuel costs and scarcity can also create immediate financial pressure, including higher freight costs, increased fleet expenses and renewed scrutiny of travel allowances and reimbursements.
Employers should proactively review employment contracts, policies and industrial instruments that govern travel and expense obligations, as well as supplier arrangements that allow for fuel surcharges or price variation. Experience from COVID‑19 suggests that temporary, well‑communicated adjustments developed through consultation are significantly lower risk than reactive changes made under pressure.
Operational disruption does not displace legal obligations. Employees with disability, caring responsibilities or other protected attributes may be disproportionately affected by fuel shortages, and employers continue to have obligations to make reasonable adjustments unless doing so would cause unjustifiable hardship.
Eligible employees may also make flexible work requests under the Fair Work Act, which must be genuinely considered and responded to within statutory timeframes. Blanket refusals or inflexible positions are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
As COVID‑19 demonstrated, uncertainty itself creates risk, including psychosocial risk. Employees may be anxious about cost pressures, job security and expectations around attendance or availability.
Employers should undertake a risk assessment in this context and consider controls to mitigate the workplace risks arising from the current uncertainty. This process should be documented and reviewed.
Clear, early and empathetic communication will significantly reduce the likelihood of grievances, disputes and disengagement. Employers should consider preparing messaging now that explains how decisions will be made if disruption escalates, what flexibility may be available, and where employees can seek support. Even a legally sound response can fail if it is poorly communicated.
Fuel constraints may ultimately resolve with limited disruption. However, organisations that wait until impacts are acute will have fewer lawful and practical options available and increased exposure to risk.
Prudent organisations are already stress‑testing operations and supply chains, identifying fuel‑dependent roles, reviewing contracts and policies, planning consistent responses and preparing communication strategies in advance. These steps are valuable regardless of whether formal fuel limits or government mandates are introduced. Even in the absence of regulation, fuel scarcity can disrupt workforce availability, service delivery and organisational culture.
Moores advises employers on navigating workforce disruption, operational risk and compliance during periods of uncertainty. We can assist with scenario planning, reviewing stand down and flexible work options, advising on consultation obligations, and supporting lawful and practical responses aligned with organisational values. Contact us on (03) 9843 0418.
The recent decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Fair Work Ombudsman v Jats Joint Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 25 (Decision) has clarified that homecare, disability and social workers should not be paid night shift penalty rates for shifts immediately before or after sleepovers. This is contrary to the Fair Work Ombudsman’s (FWO) longstanding position that Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award), sleepovers cannot count as a break between rostered work periods or as a break in a broken shift.1 The situation is fluid, and employers should closely monitor future changes to the SCHADS Award to ensure they are meeting their pay obligations for employees performing sleepovers.
Jats Joint Pty Ltd (Jats Joint) is a national disability support provider covered by the SCHADS Award
Following a complaint from an employee, Ms Richards, the FWO investigated and issued a compliance notice in January 2024 alleging that Jats Joint had failed to pay a 15% night shift loading for work performed immediately before and after Ms Richards’ sleepover shifts.
Jats Joint successfully challenged the notice at first instance in July 2025. The FWO appealed.
The question raised by the appeal was whether an employee who works on shifts before and/or after a “sleepover” at a client’s premises is entitled to be paid a “night shift” loading in respect of those shifts of 15% of their ordinary rate of pay under cl 29.3(b) of the SCHADS Award.
Jats Joint argued a period of sleepover is not a period of work and should be regarded as a break, as expressly contemplated in cl 25.4 and 25.7(f). The FWO disagreed, arguing that on its proper construction, cl 29.3(b) of the SCHADS Award requires the night shift loading to be paid in respect of the ordinary hours worked by an employee in a night shift where that shift inclusive of any sleepover finishes after midnight or commences before 6am on Monday to Friday.
The Full Court (Wigney, Shariff and McDonald JJ) dismissed the appeal finding that:
In making its decision, the Court acknowledged that the relevant terms of the SCHADS Award lack clarity and precision, but nonetheless preferred the construction advanced by Jats Joint.
For employers covered by the SCHADS Award, the decision has a number of practical consequences worth noting. In particular:
While this decision provides welcome clarity for employers covered by the SCHADS Award, the position may not remain settled for long. Three applications are currently before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking to vary the sleepover provisions in the SCHADS Award. In its initial decision, the FWC found that the SCHADS Award should be varied so that a sleepover is not treated as a break from work. If finalised in their current form, those variations would effectively reverse the outcome in Jats Joint.
Employers covered by the SCHADS Award should review their current sleepover rostering and payroll arrangements in light of this decision and monitor further developments. Our Workplace Relations team are available to support you to understand the decision and what this may mean for your workforce.
Contact us
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.
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.