When a loved one has lost capacity and can no longer make medical decisions themselves and they have not prepared an Appointment of a Medical Treatment Decision Maker (often called a medical power of attorney), it can be hard to know who is able to make medical decisions for them when they are required.

The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) (the Act) regulates the making of medical treatment decisions for those who are incapable of making them for themselves and sets out who the default person is for making these decisions.

What are Medical Treatment Decisions?

Medical treatment decisions includes decisions to consent or refuse the following medical treatments by health practitioners:

  • physical therapy;
  • surgery;
  • treatment for mental illness;
  • dental treatment;
  • palliative care; and
  • treatment using prescription medications.

It involves making these decisions for the purpose of diagnosing physical or mental conditions, preventing illness and improving the quality of one’s life. These decisions can be complex.

How do I know if my loved one no longer has capacity to make Medical Treatment Decisions?

For a person to have decision making capacity for medical treatment decisions, they need to be able to understand the effect of the decision, understand and retain information relevant to the decision, be able to use that information and weigh the information up as part of the process to make the decision.

An individual also needs to be able to communicate the decision and express their view and needs about the decision.

Who is the person who can make these Medical Decisions?

If you believe someone in your life lacks decision making capacity to make medical decisions, Section 55 of the Act sets out who the default medical treatment decision maker is (if they have not appointed a Medical Treatment Decision Maker and they don’t have a Guardian empowered to make medical decisions).

The default medical decision maker will be the first of the following persons who are in a close and continuing relationship with the person, provided they are reasonably available, willing and able to make these decisions:

  1. A person’s spouse or domestic partner;
  2. If they do not have a spouse/partner, a person’s primary carer;
  3. If there is no primary carer, a person’s adult children and, if more than one, the eldest; or
  4. If a person does not have children, their eldest surviving parent;
  5. If a person has no surviving parents, their eldest adult siblings.

What if the default person under the Act is not making the right decisions?

If a person under the Act is making medical decisions for an individual which you don’t believe are appropriate or consistent with the person’s wishes, you can apply to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for the appointment of a Guardian with power to make medical decisions. A Guardian will be able to make medical decisions for an individual once appointed, and will have duties they have to uphold in taking on the role.

VCAT can appoint a family member, an independent person or the Office of the Public Advocate as someone’s Guardian. Guardianship applications can become disputed if there is a conflict between family members (or other relevant persons) about who is the most appropriate person to be the Guardian.

In any application made for the appointment of a Guardian, VCAT will always consider the person’s wishes before deciding whether to appoint a Guardian and who to appoint. VCAT cannot appoint a Guardian unless satisfied that the person is unable, because of their disability, to make the decision/s themselves.

How we can help

If you are concerned that medical decisions are being made for a loved one that are inappropriate or don’t accord with the person’s wishes, or if there is a dispute about who the proper medical treatment decision maker is, we can advise and assist you to make an application to VCAT for the appointment of a Guardian.

Contact us

Need assistance with Medical Treatment Decisions? Please don’t hesitate to contact our elder abuse and elder law team.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

The graphic artist M.C. Escher was famous for his lithographs, in which one object morphs into another, pathways turn back upon themselves and visual illusions create impossible objects. A poorly drafted not-for-profit constitution (sometimes referred to as “rules” or “articles of association”) is the written equivalent of an Escher drawing – interdependent clauses that contradict each other, terms that are not defined (or are defined improperly) and cross-references that lead nowhere. While even a small change to a model constitution can give rise to these issues, the more bespoke the document, the greater the risk of lack of clarity. Difficulty in interpreting and applying these “Escher Constitutions” leads to uncertainty in governance and can exacerbate not-for-profit disputes.

A constitution sets out matters such as an organisation’s purpose, how decisions are made, the composition and role of the board (which may also be known as the committee, council or trustees) and the role of any members. It is also the framework around which an organisation’s delegations and policies are built. Clarity matters. All not-for-profit boards should ensure they are satisfied that their constitution is clear, up to date and fit for purpose. We have highlighted some key considerations below.

Is your constitution clear?

As noted above, this is a fundamental consideration, both when the document is first prepared and when making amendments. A good constitution is clear, concise and written in plain English. Lack of clarity can result in unnecessary confusion and conflict over proper interpretation. It can even expose decisions made by the not-for-profit to legal challenge on the basis that the governing body was not properly constituted or the relevant decision was improperly made. Ensuring your constitution is clear includes making sure it is internally consistent, that key terms are properly defined and that cross referencing is correct.

Clarity isn’t everything – its possible to be clearly wrong! But it is an essential consideration.

Is your constitution past its prime?

We regularly see constitutions that were first prepared 20 or more years ago. Not-for-profit regulation and governance have changed a great deal over that time. So has plain English writing. Is it still appropriate to keep patching up your old document or do you need a fresh start? Your board agenda should provide for a regular ‘check-in’ (at least every three years) to consider whether the constitution is still up to date, taking into account any legislative change and changes within your organisation.

Does your constitution support good governance?

A good constitution will help rather than hinder, good governance. Consider matters such as term lengths for responsible persons, whether meetings via technology are supported (essential under recent COVID restrictions), how and when responsible persons or members can be removed and the ability for members to require the Board to convene a general meeting.

ACNC Governance Standards

All registered charities must comply with the ACNC Governance Standards. If your not-for-profit is a registered charity, does its constitution appropriately reference the standards? For example, can you remove responsible persons if they are disqualified by the ACNC or ASIC?

Considerations for companies

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was recently amended to provide for virtual meetings and the electronic signing of documents. It is appropriate to update constitutions to take these new provisions into account.

Companies should also consider the impact of constitutional provisions relating to payments to board members. If a not-for-profit’s constitution does not expressly prohibit payments to board members, there may be impacts on: the applicability of related party transactions provisions in the Corporations Act; fundraising licences in New South Wales; eligibility for certain grants; the use of the term “Ltd” in the company name and other matters.

Finally, those companies that are registered charities should be aware that many sections of the Corporations Act do not apply to charitable companies. This gives charity companies flexibility, but also creates some ‘gaps’ that are not filled by the Corporations Act and may mean some matters need to be explicitly addressed in the constitution. Careful drafting is required to navigate the application of the Corporations Act to charitable companies.

Incorporated associations

Incorporated associations are subject to the legislation that applies in the state in which they were incorporated. State and territory legislation typically mandates that specified matters be covered in association constitutions. If your constitution has not been changed and the applicable legislation has, you need to review your constitution for compliance. South Australia, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory have all significantly amended their associations legislation in the past five years (and Western Australia is currently under review). Looking further back, Victoria and New South Wales made significant changes in 2012 and 2016 respectively.

DGR winding up clauses

Not-for-profits that are endorsed as deductible gift recipients must have an appropriate winding up clause in their constitution. Failure to do so will affect your eligibility to receive tax deductible gifts.

Provision for DGR funds?

Does your organisation operate a tax-deductible fund? DGR funds include school building funds, scholarship funds, library funds, public funds (including funds listed on the Register of Environmental Organisations and Register of Cultural Organisations). It is important that you know where the rules for these funds are and ensure that the board has appropriate oversight of the fund operations. The board should consider embedding these rules in the constitution.

Sector specific considerations

Depending on the sector in which your not-for-profit operates there may be sector specific matters that must be provided for in the constitution. For example, a Victorian school that operates an Early Learning Centre (ELC) must expressly provide for the delivery of ELC services in its constitution.

Allowing time for the review process

Amending or replacing a constitution takes time. Many organisations will form a subcommittee for this purpose, but ultimately your entire board will need to review and approve the document. Once it is approved, you may need to allow time for a consultation period with members (if appropriate). Then you’ll need to formally adopt the constitution – unless your organisation is established as a trust or unincorporated association, this usually requires a special resolution, including convening a general meeting with a notice period of at least 21 days.

How we can help

Our For Purpose team regularly assists not-for-profits across the sector to ensure their constitution is compliant with relevant legislation, expressed in plain English and tailored to their unique governance requirements. We also support member consultation processes to help you communicate the proposed changes to members and get them on board.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

Resignation as a company director is not effective unless and until the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is notified.

Companies that are registered as charities with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) have streamlined reporting obligations. This means that charities are only required to notify the ACNC when directors are appointed or removed. However, amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) now mean that directors must also notify ASIC in order for the resignation to be legally effective.

Amendments to the Corporations Act

Companies that are registered as charities with the ACNC are exempt from the requirement to notify ASIC if a person stops being a director[1]. Instead, charitable companies are only required to notify the ACNC when a director resigns by updating their details on the Charity Portal.

Section 203AA of the Corporations Act has had an unintended impact on those charitable companies that do not notify ASIC of director resignations. Introduced in the context of combating illegal phoenixing activity, section 203AA of the Corporations Act was intended to prevent the inappropriate backdating of director resignations. Under subsection 203AA(1):

  • if ASIC is notified that a person has stopped being a director of a company within 28 days, the person’s resignation takes effect on the day they stopped being a director; and
  • in any other case, resignation takes effect on the day written notice is lodged with ASIC stating that the person has stopped being a director of the company.

Although charitable companies are exempt from the obligation to notify ASIC of director resignations, they are not exempt from subsection 203AA(1). This means that directors who have resigned and are no longer serving on a charity board but have not notified ASIC may still be legal directors of the company – with all of the associated duties and responsibilities.

Our recommendation

The charity and not-for-profit sector is advocating for legislative change in this area. However, unless and until this change is made, we recommend that charities consider notifying both ASIC and the ACNC of resignations. For the many charities that have had a longstanding practice of notifying only the ACNC, it would be prudent to restore the historical ASIC register to ensure all director appointments and resignations are noted.

Charitable companies can notify ASIC of appointments and resignations by undertaking the following steps on the Company Portal[2]:

  • Start a new form 484.
  • Select ‘appoint or cease officeholder’.
  • Submit details of the officeholders(s) you would like to appoint or remove.

ASIC may issue an invoice for late fees if changes are made more than 28 days after the appointment or removal occurred. Charitable companies are not required to pay late fees of this kind and should apply for a fee waiver through the Company Portal[3].

Charitable companies should also consider how they document the appointment and resignation of directors. A register of directors can be prepared and maintained for this purpose and reconstructed in the event that it becomes outdated. Our template register of directors can be used to record the details of current and former directors, including their appointment and resignation dates.

How we can help

Moores can assist charities in liaising with ASIC or seeking a fee waiver. We can also provide tailored advice to your board on director resignation and reporting obligations. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any assistance in this area.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.


[1] See section 205B of the Corporations Act.
[2] ASIC no longer accepts paper forms for changes to company details. Companies that are not registered for online access can do so by applying here.
[3] Alternatively, charitable companies can apply for a fee waiver here.

Expectations for staff and students to wear masks indoors at school

The Department of Education released an updated School Operations Guide on 18 July 2022 setting a non-mandatory expectation that staff and students over the age of 8 will wear masks indoors at school. Exceptions to the recommendation apply to teaching circumstances when clear communication or when a particular activity requires the removal of a mask.

This guidance does not impose a requirement, but requires schools to document their policy, and consider what means are at their disposal to require compliance and ensure they meet their duty of care and occupational health and safety obligations. Schools should have current risk assessments to support not only this expectation but also any firmer requirements which might exist due to vulnerabilities in their school community.

While the Department of Education has not issued separate guidance for specialist schools, it may be more reasonable for a mask requirement to be imposed in the unique context of specialist schools where a risk assessment has identified students as being more vulnerable to the transmission of COVID-19.

Recent changes to the Victorian Government’s Pandemic Orders

Following the decision in late June 2022 to wind back vaccination requirements for workplaces including schools, on 12 July 2022, the Victorian government released another update to its Pandemic Orders. Pandemic (Workplace) Order 2022 (No 10) (Order). The Order sets out requirements that educational facilities must meet in their approach to managing the transmission of COVID-19 in schools.

Those requirements include:

  • Preventing a worker from attending the school if they are waiting on the result of a PCR test and 7 days have not passed.
  • Wearing face masks if required by the Pandemic (Public Safety) Order 2022 (No 3) (Public Safety Order) and displaying signage to reflect this requirement. This requires schools to monitor any amendments to the Public Safety Order in addition to considering the operational guidance issued by the Department of Education discussed above.
  • Having a COVIDSafe Plan in place covering record keeping obligations, PPE, actions the school has taken to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission, processes to respond to confirmed cases and symptomatic persons. Schools must document and record relevant evidence regarding the implementation of the COVIDSafe Plan and direct managers to do same.
  • Notifying parents, guardians and carers of students enrolled at the school (during the relevant infectious period) if the school becomes aware that a diagnosed person or probable case attended the school.
  • Recording and storing information regarding:
    • the date/s on which the school was notified that a diagnosed person or probable case attended the school; and
    • the date/s on which the diagnosed person or probable case actually attended the school during their infectious period.
  • Taking specific steps to respond to a symptomatic person who attended school premises 48 hours prior to onset of symptoms, including:
    • Not requiring the symptomatic person to work on school premises.
    • Advising the symptomatic person to comply with testing requirements.
    • Maintaining appropriate records to support contact tracing if required (such as rosters and worker details).
    • Informing all workers to be vigilant about COVID-19 symptoms and remind them to comply with testing requirements.
  • Taking specific steps to respond to a diagnosed person who attended school premises, including:
    • Directing the diagnosed person not to attend school premises and advising them to self-isolate.
    • Directing any worker on school premises to travel home immediately and provide them with support to do so. If they are unable to travel home immediately, then schools are required to direct workers to self-isolate on school premises, wear a face covering and remain at least 1.5m from other persons until they can travel home.
    • Taking reasonable steps to notify other workers who attended school premises during the diagnosed person’s infectious period that a diagnosed person has attended the workplace.
    • Informing all workers to be vigilant about COVID-19 symptoms and remind them to comply with testing requirements.
    • Notifying the Department of Health if more than 5 confirmed cases attended the work premises within a 7 day period by completing an Outbreak Notification Form.

We note that additional requirements (including mandatory vaccination requirements) continue to apply to specialist schools and disability workers working in education.

Holding vaccination information

The Order also provides some relief to schools who intend to continue to hold vaccination information collected in compliance with previous Pandemic Orders. It confirms that, if a “regulated employer” captured under the Pandemic (Workplace) Order (No. 8) was required to collect, record or hold vaccination information under a revoked Pandemic (Workplace) Order, they are authorised to hold that information.

This means schools can continue to hold vaccination information, and do not need to reassess their obligations under privacy law – for now. The relevant privacy law obligation is the requirement to delete or de-identify personal (and health) information when it is no longer needed.

Under the new Order, government schools are no longer authorised to collect new vaccination information. What information independent and Catholic schools can collect about vaccination status will depend on their Privacy Policy and Vaccination Policy, and the privacy obligation to collect health information in a manner that is fair and not unreasonably intrusive.

Non-government schools can continue to impose mandatory vaccination requirements

Although government schools are unable to continue to impose a vaccination requirement for staff, non-government schools can decide to continue to impose a mandatory vaccination policy. There are a number of considerations required ahead of introducing such a requirement including an assessment if the requirement is reasonable, whether consultation obligations apply under the relevant industrial instrument ahead of introducing the requirement and the preparedness to deal with non-compliance and take disciplinary action.

Additional protections regarding the ongoing collection and storage of newly collected vaccination information for non-government schools are provided under the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (COVID-19 Vaccination Information) Regulations 2022 (Vic) (Regulations). The Regulations provide non-government schools with the power to continue to collect, record, hold, and use COVID-19 vaccination information from employees, contractors, or volunteers in their workplace for a period of 12 months from 12 July 2022 (noting this date may change).

How we can help

Please get in touch with the Moores team if your school requires further advice or assistance in relation to mask requirements, COVID-19 response plans or vaccination issues.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

In December 2021, the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Act 2021 (EOA Amendment Act) was passed.  The EOA Amendment Act amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (EOA) to significantly narrow the exceptions to discrimination that may be relied upon by religious organisations and religious educational institutions  in Victoria.

The majority of the amendments contained in the EOA Amendment Act came into effect on 14 June 2022.  In this alert, we summarise what your organisation needs to know in order to ensure compliance with the reforms.

Changes to the religious exceptions

The EOA Amendment Act has broadened the religious bodies’ and religious schools’ exceptions so that the exceptions can be relied upon by more organisations.  Religious organisations that receive Victorian government funding to provide goods and services are now subject to the religious bodies’ exception and the religious schools’ exception has been broadened to capture all religious educational institutions.

However, the EOA Amendment Act has significantly narrowed the circumstances in which the religious exceptions can be relied upon by religious bodies, religious educational institutions and individuals.  Broadly speaking, the key changes are as follows:

  • Introduction of new employment exceptions for religious bodies and religious educational institutions, the effect of which is that these organisations can no longer rely on the general religious bodies’ or religious educational institutions’ exceptions in the context of employment;
  • Narrowing of the religious bodies’ and religious educational institutions’ exceptions, the effect of which is that these exceptions can only be relied upon in very limited circumstances;
  • Removal of the exception for an individual to discriminate against a person on the basis of the person’s religious beliefs or activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity.

Click here for a more in-depth summary of the effect of the amendments.

What does this mean in practice?

The implications of these changes for faith-based organisations and religious educational institutions are significant and wide-ranging.  In particular, it will no longer be lawful:

  • for religious bodies and religious educational institutions to discriminate against a person in employment on any grounds except religious belief or activity (and only in limited circumstances);
  • for religious bodies and religious educational institutions that receive funding from the Victorian government to discriminate against persons in the provision of goods and services on any grounds except religious belief or activity (in limited circumstances);
  • for religious educational institutions to discriminate against current or prospective students on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, parental status or lawful sexual activity;
  • for individuals to make discriminatory statements against other persons for religious reasons.

What steps should religious bodies and religious educational institutions take to prepare for the reforms?

If your organisation would like to understand the impact of the reforms on its operations, we recommend that it:

  • Consider the extent to which a religious exception may apply to its operations;
  • Assess the inherent requirements of relevant positions;
  • Review their policies and procedures for recruitment and enrolment;
  • Consider implementing guidance on screening prospective staff and students, and the types of questions or statements that can and cannot be made during job or enrolment interviews;
  • Review their job and enrolment advertisements for discriminatory statements;
  • Seek legal advice before relying on the new religious exceptions.

How Moores can help

Moores has a wealth of experience navigating the complex landscape of anti-discrimination laws, and assisting faith-based clients to grapple with the intersection of law and faith.  If you’re not sure whether your employment practices, enrolment practices or service arrangements are consistent with the reforms, please contact us.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

Downsizing the family home may be a consideration for many older Australians as their children grow older and leave the nest, and the home suddenly becomes too large for their needs. Alternatively, downsizing to a more manageable home or moving to alternative accommodation may also be required due to health and other lifestyle factors.

If the family home is sold, what opportunities exist for investing all or surplus proceeds of sale? One option is to contribute the proceeds of sale to superannuation. Since 1 July 2018, the Government has allowed Australians to make a contribution of up to $300,000 from the proceeds of sale of their home provided the eligibility requirements are met.

In this article, we examine the eligibility requirements and other compliance and estate planning considerations relevant to downsizer contributions.

Eligibility Requirements

To make a downsizer contribution:

  • you must be aged 60 years or over (note that if the contribution is made prior to 1 July 2022, the age requirement is 65 years);
  • the property being sold must:
    • be located in Australia;
    • be a main residence (but not a caravan, houseboat or other mobile home); and
    • qualify for the CGT main residence exemption.
  • the home must have been held for the 10 years leading up to the sale. However, provided the property meets the CGT main residence exemption requirements, there is no requirement to have lived in the property for all of the last 10 years;
  • the contribution must be made within 90 days of settlement. There are limited circumstances in which the ATO may grant an extension; and
  • the contribution limit is up to $300,000 and is a once-off contribution.

In addition:

  • You do not necessarily have to make a subsequent home purchase as a precondition to making the contribution.
  • Downsizer contributions count towards your transfer balance cap (currently $1.7m) when benefits are moved to pension phase, but you can make a downsizer contribution even if you are over your total superannuation balance (also currently $1.7m).
  • You can make a downsizer contribution even though you are not the legal owner of the home. For example, if you own the home, you can make a contribution of $300,000 and your spouse (who is not on the title) can also make a contribution up to the same amount, provided all of the eligibility requirements are complied with. The total amount of the contribution, however, cannot exceed the sale price.
  • Before you make a downsizer contribution, you also need to consider any government benefits you are receiving and whether you remain eligible for those benefits after applying the assets and income tests. Expert advice should be sought.

Estate planning considerations

Unlike investing the proceeds or residual proceeds of the sale of your home in your personal name which will be dealt with via your Will on death, superannuation entitlements, which may include a downsizer contribution and the earnings on it, are not necessarily distributed as part of an estate.

Superannuation death benefits can generally be paid to:

  • a spouse;
  • a child of any age;
  • a financial dependent;
  • a person who was in an interdependent relationship with the deceased; and/or
  • the estate.

The trustee of the fund will determine the payment of the death benefits, at their discretion unless the member has made a binding death benefit nomination or other binding direction, directing who they want their benefits paid to.

It is recommended that you review your estate planning where significant contributions, including a downsizer contribution, are made to superannuation as the following may be relevant considerations for which specialised advice should be sought:

  • Is there a need to ensure superannuation death benefits do not form part of your estate because there is a risk of challenge to the estate? This may require:
    • the preparation of a binding death benefit nomination; or
    • in the context of a Self Managed Super Fund (SMSF), the appointment of independent or trusted executors who will have control of the fund following your death.
  • Can the superannuation death benefits be paid as a pension to an intended beneficiary, noting that this may impact on the recipient’s transfer balance cap.
  • What are the taxation implications of paying a death benefit to a particular dependant or dependents, or in to the estate?
  • Are special trusts required to be included in a Will for an estate which will receive superannuation death benefits, eg, for vulnerable beneficiaries or beneficiaries where access to capital is to be restricted?

Other Compliance Issues

In addition to satisfying the eligibility requirements for a downsizer contribution, it is also important that:

  • for SMSFs, prior to making the contribution, the governing deed of the fund is reviewed to ensure that the rules permit this type of contribution. As downsizer contributions are a fairly new method of contribution, older deeds may limit the types of contributions which can be made or impose other restrictions. The deed should be updated if the rules are limited;
  • there is appropriate documentation in place to evidence the contribution being made. In a SMSF context, it is prudent for the trustee to acknowledge the receipt of the contribution, including the member who made the contribution, the type of contribution and the relevant provision under the deed for making a downsizer contribution, and the amount. The record of the resolution should be retained with the fund’s records; and
  • prior to, or at the same time as making the contribution, you must provide the fund with a “Downsizer Contributions into Super” form. This form applies for both SMSFs and externally managed funds and can be found on the ATO website.

How we can help?

Financial planning advice is required to ensure that making a downsizer contribution to your superannuation fund meets your future financial and retirement goals and you should seek the advice of your financial adviser prior to making the contribution

Moores can assist by:

  • reviewing your trust deed to determine whether downsizer contributions are permitted under the terms of the deed, and updating the deed if necessary;
  • for contributions made to SMSFs, preparing trustee resolutions to note and accept the contribution on instructions; and
  • reviewing your estate planning in light of the contribution and your overall superannuation entitlements, and advising of death benefit strategies to achieve your objectives, including the preparation of binding death benefit nominations if appropriate.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

The recent High Court case of Fairbairn & Radecki [2022] HCA 18 highlights the difficulty in determining when a de facto relationship is considered to have broken down. Each case will ultimately turn on the unique circumstances of the relationship.

In Fairbairn & Radecki the Trustee and Guardian for the de facto wife sought special leave to appeal to the High Court against orders made by the Full Court of the Family Court.

Summary of the Facts

  1. Mrs Fairbairn and Mr Radecki commenced a relationship in late 2005 to early 2006.
  2. Throughout the relationship the parties agreed to keep their assets separate. This arrangement was reflected in the two cohabitation agreements they entered into during the relationship. The parties lived in a property owned by Mrs Fairbairn.
  3. In 2015, Mrs Fairbairn’s cognitive health began to decline and she was diagnosed with dementia in 2017 and placed in an aged care facility. Mr Radecki remained living in the property.
  4. The Trustee and Guardian for Mrs Fairbairn sought to sell the property in order to fund her ongoing care. Mr Radecki opposed the sale as he wanted to continue to live in the property.
  5. The Trustee and Guardian made an application to the Family Court seeking a property settlement on the basis that the relationship between Mrs Fairbairn and Mr Radecki had broken down. Mr Radecki opposed the application.
  6. The primary judge found that the relationship had broken down by at latest May 2018. On appeal to the Full Court, it was found that Mr Radecki’s conduct was not completely inconsistent with a continuing de facto relationship and more was needed to conclude that the relationship had in fact broken down.
  7. On 15 October 2021 the High Court granted special leave to the Trustee and Guardian for Mrs Fairbairn to appeal the decision of the Full Court. The High Court ultimately found that the relationship between the parties had broken down by the latest May 2018.

What did the High Court consider?

The High Court found the breakdown of the relationship was not caused by Mrs Fairbairn’s cognitive decline and physical separation from Mr Radecki when she was placed in an aged care facility.

An essential consideration was the parties’ decision to keep their assets separate during the relationship, however upon Mrs Fairbairn’s cognitive decline, Mr Radecki began to act contrary to this arrangement and did not make ‘necessary or desirable adjustments’ in favour of Mrs Fairbairn’s interests and care. His conduct included:

  • securing an enduring power of attorney giving him considerable control over Mrs Fairbairn’s assets;
  • obtaining a revised will while Mrs Fairbairn was hospitalised which was in his interests and led to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the NSW Trustee and Guardian intervening;
  • failing to cooperate with the Trustee and Guardian and Mrs Fairbairn’s adult children from a previous relationship concerning her ongoing care; and
  • refusing to agree to the sale of Mrs Fairbairn’s property to fund her ongoing care, when he owned two properties and contributed little to Mrs Fairbairn’s costs.

Mr Radecki’s conduct did not support a mutual commitment to a shared life with Mrs Fairbairn and therefore the existence of a de facto relationship.

This case highlights that a mutual commitment to a shared life does not necessarily require the couple to be living together or financial interdependence, and the importance of how the parties conducted themselves during the relationship which can be quite complex.

How we can help

Moores’ Family and Relationship Law team can assist in providing advice relating to the breakdown of de facto relationships. In the event you are not sure whether you are in a de facto relationship, please read our article linked here.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

This article provides a brief overview of the worker screening system, including who is required to undergo screening, and the consequences of failing to comply.

What is worker screening?

Worker screening involves the assessment of whether a person who works, or applies to work, with vulnerable people is suitable for working with vulnerable people. Screening helps to ensure that workers engaging with vulnerable people do not pose a risk to the health and safety of the people they work with.

Adequate worker screening is one of the key methods by which organisations can safeguard vulnerable people from harm. In a number of industries, worker screening is mandatory, and extends to the assessment of suitability of both paid workers and volunteers. The lack of appropriate screening has also been identified as a major risk factor in a number of public inquiries and Royal Commissions.

Worker screening requirements reflect the increased risk of abuse and harm faced by vulnerable populations – including children, people with disability, and people in aged care. The requirement to undergo a rigorous screening process reflects the right of all people to live free from abuse, violence, neglect or exploitation, and acknowledges that children, people with disability, and people in aged care are at greater risk of institutional harm. This can be a due to a broad range of reasons, including communication barriers, personal care needs, inadequate or inaccessible reporting mechanisms, and not being believed or supported to make a complaint. Appropriate worker screening is an important mechanism to mitigate these risks and ensure that suitable staff are employed to work with vulnerable people.

Workers in risk assessed roles in particular sectors are required to undergo worker screening. The specific worker screening schemes are operated by individual states and territories, and therefore there are key differences from state to state. For the purposes of this article, we consider the Victorian regulatory context.

In Victoria, worker screening is regulated by the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) (WS Act) which came into operation in February of 2021 to replace the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic). The WS Act provides a more streamlined worker screening scheme, setting out one framework for conducting checks on both NDIS workers and people who work with children.

Under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, workers considered “key personnel” within registered service providers, workers directly delivering NDIS supports or services, and workers who have ‘more than incidental contact’ with people with disability are required to undergo screening checks. For child connected work, all adult workers and volunteers engaged in child-related work are required to undergo screening checks (unless they have a valid exemption). This includes workers who are working for a prescribed service, place or body, whose work involves direct contact with children that is not occasional or incidental. Prescribed services include, but are not limited to, child care and children’s services, educational institutions, religious organisations, and clubs and associations.

Adequate screening helps organisations comply with a number of State and Federal guidelines and regulations, including the Aged Care Worker Screening Guidelines, the NDIS Practice Standards, the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations, and the Victorian Child Safe Standards. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability recently identified the inadequate screening of employees as a systemic issue.

Failure to comply with screening obligations in Victoria is a breach of the WS Act, and may attract significant penalties for individuals and organisations, as follows:

Offences – Working with Children Check Clearance Provisions

OffencePenalty for individualsPenalty for organisations
Knowingly or recklessly engaging or continuing to engage a person in child-related work who does not have a Check.Two years imprisonment, or a fine of 240 penalty units maximum* or both.A fine of 1200 penalty units*.
Knowingly or recklessly offering the services of any person without a Check to another person or organisation for child-related work.Two years imprisonment, or a fine of 240 penalty units maximum* or both.A fine of 1200 penalty units*.
Giving any person, directly or indirectly, any information acquired from a Check, including information obtained from the worker or from the Department of Justice and Community Safety. This applies to both individuals and organisations.A fine of 60 penalty units maximum*.A fine of 60 penalty units maximum*.
Knowingly or recklessly engaging or continuing to engage a person in child-related work for profit or gain if that person has a Volunteer Check.A fine of five penalty units maximum*.A fine of five penalty units maximum*.
Failing to provide information to the Department of Justice and Community Safety pursuant to s142(1) of the Act within 28 days or any longer period specified in the notice.A fine of 60 penalty units*.A fine of 60 penalty units*.
*In the 2021-22 financial year, one penalty unit = $181.74

Offences – NDIS Worker Screening Provisions

OffencePenalty
Failing to notify the department, in writing within 7 days of a relevant change in circumstances (i.e. being charged with an offence) whilst holding an NDIS Clearance or having applied for an NDIS Clearance.A fine of 60 penalty units*
Engaging in risk assessed role without NDIS clearance or interstate NDIS clearance.Penalty: Level 7 imprisonment (2 years maximum) or a level 7 fine (240 penalty units maximum) or both
Giving false or misleading information to the department in your application or when the department is reassessing your eligibility or conducting an internal review.2 years imprisonment, a fine of 240 penalty units*, or both
Applying for an NDIS Check when you are:
a registrable offender under section 3 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
subject to a supervision order, a detention order, or an emergency order.
2 years imprisonment, a fine of 240 penalty units*, or both
Failing to provide the information required under section 142(1) within 28 days or any longer period specified in the notice.A fine of 60 penalty units*.
*In the 2021-22 financial year, one penalty unit = $181.74

Failure to properly screen workers and volunteers may also result in broader consequences for organisations and the people they serve – including in relation to safety, wellbeing, potential litigation and insurance consequences for breaching its duty of care, and the reputation of the organisation. It is not enough for organisations to say that ‘it is too hard and therefore we don’t comply’, as the penalties are far too high, and the potential consequences can be horrific and life changing.

Importantly, compliance with screening requirements should not be the only mechanism an organisation undertakes to safeguard vulnerable people. The Final Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse describes it as one of a range of strategies required to make organisations safe. The report states that worker screening checks:

Will only contribute to keeping children safe if they are used in the context of broader child-safe strategies, such as appropriate leadership, governance and culture; quality recruitment, selection and screening; training; effective child protection policies and procedures; and child-friendly practices.

The report goes so far as to say that an over reliance on worker screening in the absence of other safeguarding strategies can provide communities with a false sense of security, and can cause organisations to become complacent.

Organisations that work with vulnerable people – including children, people with disability, and elderly people – should ensure that they implement appropriate procedures to comply with their worker screening obligations. In addition, compliance systems, like OHO, can ensure that screening is carried out automatically, regularly, and with ease.

How we can help

Moores can also assist organisations to understand the broader suite of tools necessary to safeguard children and vulnerable people from harm. Moores works with organisations to train staff and management, develop safeguarding strategies, implement policies and procedures, and respond to concerns and claims. Contact our safeguarding team for further information and support.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

The Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC) published a report on 8 June 2022 which found 89% of consumers surveyed had experienced being asked for more personal information than was needed to access the relevant product or service.

Why does this matter?

This report shows, overwhelmingly, that organisations are collecting more personal information than they need to – and this is very likely a breach of the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs).

In addition to being a compliance breach, privacy matters uphold strong relationships with your community and stakeholders. Because privacy is a human right which seeks to preserve individuality, identity, and autonomy, practices that breach privacy standards also often concern individuals and reduce trust in your organisation. The following statistics come from the CPRC Duped by Design report and Data and Technology Consumer Survey:

  • 33% of Australians felt they couldn’t trust how the business attempted “data-grabs”, such as by forcing someone to create a profile to browse for products or services.
  • 75% of Australians feel businesses have a high responsibility to provide protection against collection and sharing of personal information.
  • 80% of Australians are uncomfortable with unnecessary sharing of information.

Your privacy obligations online

If your organisation is governed by the APPs, you have an obligation to only collect personal information that is reasonably necessary for one or more of your functions and activities. If the personal information is of a sensitive nature, there are additional restrictions on collection such as consent.

Collecting more than you need to is a breach of APP 3, and could lead to privacy complaints or compliance action from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). Collecting more information than you need also means you need to handle, use, disclose and store more information in a manner compliant with the APPs. Last year, Moores recorded a free webinar about data breaches. You can watch it here.

Holding more information means more risk of a data breach.

In Victoria, there is an added obligation for health information, or personal information collected by a health service provider, to be collected:

  • fairly, and only by law; and
  • not in an unreasonably intrusive way (HPP 1.2).

A similar obligation of fair and reasonable handling is being considered as part of the Privacy Act Review. The OAIC considers an overarching obligation to handle personal information in a fair and reasonable way is particularly important due to the erosion of valid consent in the online environment.

Duped by Design and “dark patterns”

The CPRC Duped by Design report specifically considered “dark patterns”, where the design of user interfaces intends to confuse users, make it difficult for users to express their actual preferences, or manipulate users into taking certain actions. Many dark patterns aim to collect more personal information and some design features are built specifically for “data-grabs”.

Individuals were asked for more information than was needed by websites in the following instances:

  • having the option to receive marketing communications pre-ticked;
  • being forced to create a profile to browse or purchase a product; and
  • treating the mere use of a website as ‘acceptable’ with regard to data terms and conditions.

In the online space, privacy and consumer law are the two main tools to combat these dark patterns and protect the rights of individuals. More information about dark patterns from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is available here.

How we can help

Our Privacy Team can help your organisation understand its information handling processes through a privacy and compliance audit. By building a detailed picture of how and when you collect information, we can support you to identify areas of risk and non-compliance, and propose practical solutions to improve how you collect, use and store information.

For more information about privacy for your organisation, check out our Privacy and Online Safety webinar recording and newly released Privacy Toolkit.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

Victoria and New South Wales have today committed to fully funding 30 hours – or five school days – a week of ‘pre-prep’ by 2030 for all four-year-old children.

In an unprecedented announcement, today (16 June 2022) the Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet jointly announced this ‘gamechanger’ in early childhood education.

What does this entail?

The exact model is still being developed. From now until 2025, Victoria will engage in a period of consultation and trials with interested parties, before beginning the roll-out. To support the increased accessibility of early childhood education, the Victorian Government has committed to opening 50 new childcare centres in areas of greatest demand, also known as ‘child care deserts’ where demand for child care outweighs availability by 3:1.

What will the new childcare centres look like?

The program will commence in 2025 in Victoria, with a year of new schooling before what is known as prep. The new centres will have an average capacity for 100 children and be located at schools or with other public services such as TAFEs or hospitals where possible. The program will consist of 30 hours a week of play-based learning for all four-year-olds and will be known as “pre-prep” in Victoria, and “pre-kindergarten” in NSW.

Children will attend 30 hours (the same as five school length days) a week and it will be free of charge. It will not be mandatory for four-year-olds to attend the pre-prep program prior to entering school.

What does it mean for current early learning centres and schools?

In addition to greater funding for pre-prep and pre-kindergarten, the Victorian government has a planned expansion of three-year-old kinder on the horizon as well. Three-year-old children across Victoria can currently access five hours of a funded kindergarten program each week. These program hours will increase to 15 hours a week by 2029 – coinciding with the delivery of today’s promises for the new pre-prep program.

Consideration will need to be given to whether current early learning centres (ELC) and school facilities will allow concurrent running of three-year-old kindergarten and four-year-old pre-prep programs and how any proposed renovations will be funded. Services will no doubt want to ensure that learning for younger students is not cut to make way for 4 year olds, and many will need to consider staffing needs.

In our opinion, the place of ELCs inside schools remains an important element in the mix, giving parents choice while being positioned to be able to access the new record funding. Demand will undoubtedly remain for ELCs and schools with ELCs, which should – as far as we know to date – be able to offer the fully funded pre-prep program as well.

How can we help?

Once more information is provided by the State Government, we can discuss how this will impact your organisation’s funding and assist with submissions to the government.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.