News Archives | Page 3 of 63

Home >> News >> Page 3

Have you considered benefitting a charity in your Will and are not sure how to start?

There are various ways to benefit charities after you have died and the estate planning lawyers at Moores are available to assist. We can help with choosing the most appropriate way to do this, to suit your circumstances and objectives.

Types of charitable giving

Residuary Gift

The simplest way to support your chosen charities is via a gift of a portion of your estate. This portion is calculated once all other specific gifts, expenses and liabilities have been deducted (called your ‘residuary estate’). You may gift your whole residuary estate, or a part or percentage of your residuary estate. This can be split between multiple charities and beneficiaries in your desired proportions.

A residuary gift is an effective way to ensure that the gifts you are leaving to charities flex with the potential increases and decreases of the value of your estate.

Monetary gift

You may nominate a specific sum of money to be distributed to your chosen charity. However, it is important to note that a monetary gift will not change over time according to inflation unless you specifically allow for that in your Will.

There is also a risk that if your estate’s value has reduced over time, the charity’s monetary gift will take priority over any gifts of residual estate you may being providing to other beneficiaries, resulting in your other beneficiaries receiving a lot less of your estate than intended.

Specific gift

A less common, but still valid option is where you gift a specific asset that you own to a charity.

Examples include:

real estate, like your home or an investment property;
financial investments, like shareholdings; or
a gift of personal chattels, like jewellery or artwork.

You must own this asset when you die for this gift to be valid. If you do not own the asset and do not update your Will, there is a possibility that your chosen charity will not receive any benefit from your estate, unless your Will specifically substitutes the gift for, as an example, a monetary gift.

There can also be tax consequences that also need to be considered and should be addressed in your Will, before making a gift of specific assets.

Other options

In some cases, you can nominate a charity as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy however you will need to contact your life insurance fund and/or your financial planner to arrange this. Note that this option is not available for life insurance policies held within superannuation.

If you want to direct any of your superannuation to benefit a chosen charity, this would first require consideration of having a binding death benefit nomination (a separate document) in place to direct your superannuation into your estate, so that the gift in your Will can take effect. There are generally tax consequences that need to be considered and should be addressed in your Will before making such a gift.

How we can help

If you would like to consider your options for making charitable gifts in your Will, our experienced lawyers in the Moores Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team can assist you with ensuring that your chosen charities benefit in accordance with your wishes.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

^{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.}

Home >> News >> Page 3

On 17 February 2026, the Victorian government passed the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. This bill amends the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) so that organisations can now be held liable for sexual abuse carried out in relationships akin to employment. In practice, this could cover abuse perpetrated by priests and potentially other volunteers. This legislation overturns and significantly reshapes the legal landscape created by the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 (Bird), which found that the Catholic Church could not be held vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of a priest because the priest was not considered to be an employee.

The Bill also provides that a claim may now be brought on previously barred cause of action or settled cause of action resolved before 1 July 2018 or between 13 November 2024 and the date the amendments come into effect to address the consequences of effectively reversing the Bird ruling.

What does the legislation do?

The Bill sets the circumstances in which organisations can be held vicariously liable for child abuse, including historic child abuse. An institution will now be vicariously liable for the abuse of a child where:

it places an individual (employee or someone akin to an employee) in a role that enables abuse; and
that person commits the abuse.

This extends vicarious liability beyond traditional employment relationships to people who have authority, trust, and influence over children. Factors to determine whether someone is akin to an employee include:

whether the individual’s activities are integral to the institution’s work and benefit the institution;
the level of institutional control over how they perform those activities; and
whether the individual has authority, power or control over the child, the trust of the child, or the ability to achieve intimacy with the child.

The Bill clarifies that independent contractors are not considered akin to employees. However, this leaves open the possibility that members of religious ministry and volunteers may now fall within the category of individuals for whom institutions can be vicariously liable.

What does this mean in practice?

Victim survivors now have greater opportunity to seek compensation for abuse perpetrated by priests and religious ministers. This may lead to an increase in civil claims that were previously barred as a result of the decision in Bird.
Organisations exercising power, authority or control over children should ensure they have appropriate safeguards in place to mitigate abuse, even where there is no employment relationship.
It remains crucial to ensure that all individuals engaged in your organisation are appropriately screened and participate in regular child safety training.

How we can help

Our child safety team are available to support you to ensure your organisation has appropriate processes and safeguards in place to meet your duty of care and mitigate risk of liability. Our disputes team are also able to assist with any advising on or responding to potential claims or liability arising from this reform.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Home >> News >> Page 3

The Commonwealth Government has established the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, reflecting heightened national concern about antisemitism and its impact on community safety, education and social cohesion.

The Royal Commission will hold its first public hearing on 24 February 2026.

For schools, understanding how a royal commission operates and how institutions may become involved, is important.

Key Royal Commission Timeframes

The Royal Commission has been established with a relatively compressed timetable:

An interim report is due by 30 April 2026
A final report is due by December 2026

During this period, the Commission will gather evidence through submissions, hearings and compulsory information-gathering powers.

Royal Commission Powers

Royal commissions have broad coercive powers under federal legislation. Relevantly, the Commission may:

Call for written submissions
Hold public or private hearings
Issue notices to produce documents or information
Summon witnesses to give evidence under oath

Failure to comply with a notice to produce, without reasonable excuse, can constitute a criminal offence. Timeframes for compliance are often short.

How Schools May Become Involved

Schools may come to the attention of the Commission in two primary ways:

1. Notices to produce

Schools may be required to produce documents such as:

Anti-discrimination or inclusion policies
Records of reported incidents
Training materials or internal communications
Governance or complaints-handling frameworks

Early legal advice is important, particularly where privilege, confidentiality or sensitive material is involved.

2. Case Study Examination

As with other royal commissions, the inquiry may examine particular institutions as case studies, involving closer scrutiny of policies, responses and decision-making. While no case studies have yet been announced, schools with diverse communities or prior incidents may wish to prepare for this possibility.

What Schools Should Do Now

Review document retention and retrieval processes – particularly if schools are aware of any incidents of antisemitism within its communities that may be the subject of submissions
Ensure policies and procedures are current and consistently applied
Identify key stakeholders and decision-makers
Consider whether a voluntary submission would be appropriate – the Royal Commission has not yet started receiving submissions
Seek early legal advice if contacted by the Commission

Conclusion

Royal commissions are powerful and highly public processes. For non-government schools, early preparation and informed engagement can significantly reduce legal, operational and reputational risk, and ensure the institution is well placed should the Commission seek information or evidence.

How we can help

Moores will provide updates to the sector as the legislation progresses. Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Home >> News >> Page 3

Moores is pleased to announce the appointment of Alexandra Gronow as Special Counsel in the Workplace Relations Team.

Alexandra brings extensive expertise in general employment and discrimination law, advising organisations at every stage of the employment lifecycle. Her practice includes strategic guidance on contracting, performance management and disciplinary processes, workplace compliance and investigations, as well as termination of employment. Alexandra also has significant experience representing clients in employment, discrimination and human rights litigation across State and Federal jurisdictions.

Alexandra’s background in not-for-profit and government sectors gives her a strong appreciation for the importance of tailored and practical legal advice. She is known for her thorough and detail-oriented approach and is committed to assisting organisations to understand and respond to their multifaceted and evolving workplace obligations with clarity and confidence.

“Moores’ commitment to human centric and principled decision making resonates deeply with how I practise law,” says Alexandra. “I wanted to work with like-minded people and clients that prioritise integrity and service. Joining Moores allows me to do this while continuing to deliver exceptional outcomes.”

We’re delighted to welcome Alexandra to her new role at Moores.

To find out more, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Home >> News >> Page 3

From 23 February 2026, responsibility for overseeing Victoria’s Reportable Conduct Scheme (Scheme) and Child Safe Standards (Standards) will shift from the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) to the Social Services Regulator. This significant reform reshapes how child safety risks are reported, managed and monitored across the state.

What’s changing and why does it matter?

Under the current model, organisations covered by the Scheme typically report allegations of reportable conduct to the CCYP, which then shares information with other agencies, including Working with Children Check Victoria.

However, the Social Services Regulation Amendment (Child Safety, Complaints and Worker Regulation) Act 2025 (Vic) is transforming this landscape. These reforms respond directly to the findings of the Rapid Child Safety Review, which highlighted critical gaps in information sharing, particularly when allegations were unsubstantiated but still raised safety concerns.

To close these gaps and strengthen state‑wide consistency, Victoria is consolidating key safeguarding functions – Working with Children Checks, the Reportable Conduct Scheme, and the Child Safe Standards – within a single regulator. Other sector-specific regulators of the Child Safe Standards currently remain unchanged.

From Monday 23 February 2026:

The Social Services Regulator becomes the central body responsible for the day‑to‑day operation of the Scheme and Standards.
The CCYP will continue to play an important oversight and advocacy role, monitoring children’s rights, safety and wellbeing across the broader service system (including child protection, out-of-home care, and youth justice).

This new regulatory model is designed to achieve better coordination, more consistent oversight, and stronger protections for children.

What does this mean for your organisation?

For most organisations working with children in Victoria, the immediate practical impact is relatively small, yet it is crucial to be prepared.

1. New reporting pathways
For all organisations covered by the Scheme, you must now report:

allegations of reportable conduct,
child abuse or harm, and
other child safety concerns,

to the Social Services Regulator, rather than the CCYP.
Your core obligations to notify, investigate, and provide a final outcome report remain unchanged.

2. Update your systems
Now is the time to:

update policies, procedures and reporting pathways,
refresh internal guidance,
adjust any staff training materials, and
ensure all relevant teams understand the new regulator and their obligations.

This regulatory shift provides a timely opportunity to review broader child safety settings and strengthen your organisation’s continuous improvement efforts.

3. Expect a different compliance approach
Each regulator brings its own style. Organisations may notice:

changes in how information is requested,
different expectations around the level of detail required, or
adjusted timelines for reporting and follow‑up.

Being proactive will help ensure your organisation remains compliant and confident during the transition.

4. Watch for further changes

As functions consolidate under the Social Services Regulator, additional refinements to the Scheme and Standards are likely. We anticipate future steps to streamline reporting, align processes with other regulatory requirements, and enhance information sharing.

You can read CCYP’s guidance here.

5. Implications outside Victoria

Interstate organisations should also stay alert. Other jurisdictions may introduce similar reforms, particularly in light of heightened scrutiny of child safety within early childhood education and other vulnerable sectors.

How Moores can help?

Moores is already working with organisations across education, disability, faith‑based services and community sectors to prepare for this shift. We can assist with:

Policy and Procedure updates: Ensuring your documentation reflects new reporting requirements and best‑practice safeguarding.
Tailored training for staff, board members and volunteers: From foundational sessions to advanced training for leaders and HR teams, we help embed a high‑trust, safety‑first culture.
Guidance on the new reporting process: We are monitoring updates from the Social Services Regulator, including how reports will be made (phone, email, webform, or a new digital system).

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

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

Home >> News >> Page 3

_{Disclaimer: This article contains details about sexual assault/abuse which may be upsetting for some readers. Reader discretion is advised.}

On 11 February 2026, the High Court of Australia delivered a landmark judgment in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2 (AA). The Court held that organisations that exercise care of children can be held liable for breaches of a non-delegable duty of care which includes intentional criminal acts, such as sexual abuse, committed by a “delegate”. In doing so, the Court has overturned the long-standing authority of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4.

This decision removes key defences previously relied upon by institutions facing historic abuse claims, specifically those involving non-employees like volunteers. In doing so, it significantly expands the circumstances in which organisations can be held liable for the actions of volunteers, and requires a higher standard of monitoring and supervision to keep children and young people safe.

What are the facts?

The plaintiff, AA, was a 13-year-old student in 1969 when he was sexually abused on multiple occasions by Fr Ronald Pickin, a Catholic priest.
As a member of clergy, Fr Pickin was not an employee of the Diocese.
AA commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW, where the primary judge found that Fr Picken had sexually assaulted AA, and the Diocese was vicariously liable as it owed AA a common law duty of care which it breached.
That decision was appealed and overturned, with the Court of Appeal finding that the Diocese did not owe AA a common law duty of care where there was no employment relationship.

What was the decision?

The High Court held, by majority, that the Diocese was liable to AA for breach of a non-delegable duty of care that it owed at the time of the abuse. Specifically, the majority held that:

A non-delegable common law duty of care requires that the duty-holder, in this case the Diocese, had undertaken the care, supervision or control of a child, or was so placed to assume responsibility over their safety.
The Diocese owed AA a non-delegable duty of care to AA to ensure reasonable care was taken to keep AA safe – even where that duty was delegated to (in this case) a member of clergy.
The non-delegable duty may be breached by intentional criminal conduct of the duty-holder or their delegate.

The Difference: Vicarious Liability vs. Non-Delegable Duty

To understand the impact of this decision, it is important to understand the difference between the two forms of liability that the High Court addressed:

Vicarious Liability (The “Employee” Test):

Historically, this has been the primary route for holding institutions liable. It holds an employer strictly liable for the wrongful acts of an employee committed in the “course of employment.” The test requires the wrongdoer to be an employee; if they are a volunteer or priest the claim will fail as there is not an employer-employee relationship.

Non-Delegable Duty of Care (The “Delegate” Test):

A non-delegable duty of care is a ‘special’ form of the common law duty of care that is owed by an institution to a vulnerable person such as a pupil, patient or parishioner, in circumstances where they have assumed the care, supervision or control of that person. As the name suggests, the duty of care cannot be delegated to someone else. If the delegate entrusted fails to take reasonable care, the organisation is liable where the harm was foreseeable, regardless of whether that delegate is an employee or volunteer.

How the High Court Has Changed the Obligations

For over two decades, the decision in Lepore generally protected institutions from non-delegable duty claims involving intentional criminal acts. The High Court have overturned that decision, establishing that:

Intentional Acts are Covered: A criminal act on the part of a delegate, is, by definition, a failure to take reasonable care of the child. Because of this, the institution can be found to have breached its duty to ensure care was taken, even if the act was criminal and unauthorised.
No “Course of Employment” Defence: The liability flows from a direct duty owed by the institution. Therefore, it does not matter if the perpetrator was acting outside the normal scope of employment. The relevant test is if the delegate was entrusted with the care of a child by the institution.
Applies to Non-Employees: The duty applies to any “delegate” or anyone the institution assigns to perform its functions. In the present case, the perpetrator was a priest, not an employee. The Court confirmed that the duty covers delegates, including priests and, by extension, volunteers.

Impact on Volunteers and Historic Claims

The High Court’s ruling widens the scope of potential liability for organisations, in particular for organisations that rely on volunteers, such as scouting groups, schools and sporting clubs.

Under Lepore, an organisation may have been able to argue that it was not liable for harm if the harm was committed by eg, a volunteer parent or scout leader. Under the High Court’s ruling, if an organisation assigns a volunteer to perform a function, the organisation is responsible for that volunteer’s actions where a non-delegable duty of care is owed. As such, the institution assumes responsibility for the child’s safety while they are in the volunteer’s care.

Key takeaways for organisations

Organisations can no longer rely on the distinction between employees and volunteers to protect themselves from liability for historic abuse. If an individual was placed in a position of authority to care for a child on behalf of the organisation, the High Court has effectively ruled that the organisation had a duty to ensure that reasonable care would be taken.
Organisations may need to consider additional steps to monitor and supervise the activities of volunteers, in circumstances where they are exercising care, supervision or control over children.
Organisations should ensure that screening and monitoring of volunteers who have contact with children, is embedded in the recruitment process and continues throughout their engagement with an organisation. This goes beyond Working with Children Checks, and includes asking the right screening questions to identify potential risks, ongoing child safety training and supervision.
Certain organisations, such as schools, are still required to comply with their duty of care set out under statutory guidelines in order to meet registration requirements. For example, under the Victorian Registration and Qualification Authority’s Guidelines to the Minimum Standards and Requirements for School Registration, schools in Victoria must, among other things, take reasonable precautions to prevent the abuse of a child by an individual associated with the organisation while the child is under the care, supervision or authority of the organisation.
With the shift away from vicarious liability and the employment relationship, this case broadens the scope of institutional liability, as organisations may be held liable for the actions of a greater number of people associated with their organisations, including volunteers and religious personnel.

How we can help

Our child safety team can support organisations to understand the extent to which they owe a duty of care to children, and steps to take to remain compliant with the non-delegable duty of care and embed child safety at all levels of the organisation.

Our disputes team can assist with resolving claims or potential claims

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

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

Home >> News >> Page 3

Moores has released Navigating Charity and Not-for-Profit Mergers, a new practical guide designed to support charities and not-for-profits considering merger opportunities.

The guide brings clarity to merger pathways, risk assessment and governance considerations, supporting informed decisions that protect purpose while strengthening sustainability.

Developed by Moores’ Charity and Not for Profit Law team, the guide draws on extensive experience advising charities and not for profits on governance, restructures and mergers. The team was recognised in the Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide 2026 for Charity and Not-for-Profit Law, reflecting its depth of sector knowledge and practical, considered approach to complex matters.

Learn more or request to download the guide here.

For more information or to speak with one of our experienced lawyers, please contact us.

Home >> News >> Page 3

We are firmly living in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Generative AI technologies are evolving at extraordinary speed, and their use is becoming increasingly embedded in everyday life. Children and young people, in particular, are at the forefront of this shift, using AI companions that simulate personal relationships and tools that can manipulate video, audio, or images to make it appear as though someone is saying or doing something they never did.

While these technologies can be creative, engaging, and exciting, they also present an entirely new category of risk for children and young people. Schools are increasingly encountering one of the most concerning manifestations of this risk: the creation and circulation of malicious and abusive deepfakes.

Across our work with school clients, we have seen leaders and Boards grappling with how to prevent these incidents and how to respond decisively when they occur. This is not a localised issue.

In December 2025, the Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner released a practical toolkit to support schools in preventing and responding to abusive deepfake incidents, highlighting the global scale and urgency of the problem.¹

Drawing on that guidance alongside our direct experience advising schools, this article sets out:

Actionable steps for Boards and school leaders;
Practical steps schools can take to prevent the creation of abusive deepfakes; and
Strategies for responding effectively when incidents occur.

Actionable steps for boards and school leaders in responding and preventing deepfakes

Boards and school leaders have a responsibility to take reasonable, proactive steps to protect students from reasonably foreseeable online harms, including the creation of abusive and malicious deepfakes. By adopting a proactive approach, schools can minimise risks and ensure that their schools are prepared to respond quickly when an incident occurs.

1. Education and Awareness Campaigns

Education is the first and most critical line of defence. School leaders should invest in educating employees, volunteers, students, and parents about the risks associated with deepfakes and the importance of online privacy. Awareness programs can help students recognise the dangers of manipulated media and create space for them to engage in open conversations about their online activities. Student learning about online behaviour should explicitly address AI‑generated content, noting that many children and young people are unable to reliably identify manipulated or synthetic media, which significantly increases their vulnerability.

Schools should also communicate clearly with students about:

Their responsibilities when using digital tools;
The legal and disciplinary consequences of creating or sharing harmful content; and
The importance of reporting abusive or malicious deepfakes early.

Equally important is empowering students to protect themselves online, including the use of privacy settings, blocking and reporting concerning behaviour, and seeking support from trusted adults.

2. Collaborate with Experts and Legal Advisors

Given the legal and technical complexity of deepfake incidents, schools should not attempt to navigate this landscape alone.

It is important for schools to understand when the creation and distribution of abusive deepfakes may amount to criminal behaviour. For example, under sections 53S and 53T of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Victorian Crimes Act), it is a criminal offence to intentionally distribute an intimate image of another person or threaten to do so, if the distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct.² Consent is irrelevant if the victim is under 18 years old. The Victorian Crimes Act defines “image” to include images digitally created by generating the image or altering or manipulating another image³, which could include malicious and abusive deepfakes. The penalty is up 3 years imprisonment.

There are also relevant federal offences. For example, under s 75 of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), a person must not post or threaten to post an intimate image online of another person without their consent. Under that Act, “intimate image” includes material that has been digitally altered, such as deepfakes. Under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), it is an offence to use a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing, harassing or offensive. Under section 474.17A, there is also an offence which applies to those who use technologies to artificially generate or alter sexually explicit material (such as deepfakes) for the purposes of non-consensual sharing online. These offences are subject to serious criminal penalties of up to six years imprisonment.

Beyond legal advice, schools should also establish relationships with cybersecurity and technology experts who can assist with detection, evidence preservation, and risk mitigation.

3. De-risk Staff and Students’ Use of AI by Establishing Clear Policies and Student Codes of Conduct

Schools should develop (or update) and implement comprehensive policies that set clear boundaries regarding acceptable use of technology (including AI and deepfakes), expectations for online conduct, and the consequences of misuse.

School should also review their student code of conduct and acceptable use policy to ensure that specific AI image abuse matters are explicitly referenced, including consequences for distributing and sharing material created by others or of unknown origin.

These policies and codes of conduct should address the importance of safeguarding children’s privacy and set clear boundaries for the use and sharing of images, videos, and personal data as well as the creation of deepfakes using AI tools.

Tips to Prevent the Creation of Abusive Deepfakes

While schools cannot entirely prevent the creation of deepfakes, they can take steps to limit the risk of their students being targeted. The key lies in proactive privacy protection and data management strategies.

Limit the Use of Personal Data and Digital Footprints
Encourage employees, volunteers, students, and parents to limit the amount of personal information shared online. This includes photos, videos, and other identifying data that could be misused in creating deepfakes. Schools should work with parents to support their children to adjust privacy settings on social media platforms and ensure that images and videos of students are only shared by the school with explicit consent.
Adopt Strong Data Protection Practices
Schools should implement robust data protection measures to ensure that sensitive student information is secure. This includes encrypting data, using secure file-sharing platforms, and conducting regular audits to ensure compliance with data protection regulations. Using secure methods for online teaching, such as password-protected video conferencing, will help protect students from being filmed or recorded without consent.
Encourage Use of Watermarking and Digital Signatures on Images and Videos Shared by the School
Watermarking photos and videos with identifying information, such as the school’s name or logos, can make it more difficult for individuals to use these images in deepfakes. Similarly, digital signatures can help verify the authenticity of images or videos, reducing the likelihood of misuse.
Limit the Use of AI-Generated Content
Schools should be cautious when using AI-generated content for teaching purposes or school events. If students or staff create digital content, it should be made clear that they must not manipulate, edit, or alter others’ images or likenesses or use AI tools to create deepfakes, whether they are intended to be abusive or harmless.

How Schools Should Handle Abusive Deepfake Incidents

Despite proactive measures, it is possible for malicious and abusive deepfakes to be created and shared online. Schools must be prepared to respond quickly and decisively to protect their students and ensure accountability.

Respond Immediately
Schools must act quickly upon discovering a deepfake involving a student. This includes identifying the source of the abusive content, removing the content from all platforms to the extent this can be done and notifying or encouraging the subject of the deepfake to contact appropriate authorities such as the eSafety Commissioner.

Care should be taken when gathering information and evidence of probative value when evidence may be deleted or may be illegal to possess. Whilst it may be necessary and appropriate in some circumstances to take a screenshot of the abusive deepfake image, schools must very carefully consider how any images could be securely stored to minimise the risk of inadvertently breaching child abuse image laws and ensure images cannot be accessed by somebody who should not have access to it. Consider whether and when the eSafety Commissioner, with its greater powers, may be needed to intervene.
Engage with Legal and Regulators, As Required
Schools should consider whether there is a requirement to notify relevant authorities when an abusive deepfake is identified, including police. School must understand that the creation and distribution of abusive deepfakes could be unlawful or even criminal behaviour, depending on the circumstances. Schools should consult legal experts to navigate and reduce the risk of potential legal claims.
Provide Emotional and Psychological Support for Victims
The psychological impact of being the victim of a deepfake can be significant. Schools should provide access to appropriate services and supports and ensure the child feels supported and protected from further harm. Open communication with the student’s family is important, and schools should work with families to ensure that the student’s privacy is respected, to the greatest extent possible.
Public Communication and Rebuilding Trust
If the deepfake becomes publicly known, schools may need to communicate with a broader audience, such as the school community. Great care should be taken when doing this. Transparency and clear messaging may help rebuild trust among students, employees, volunteers, and parents. A public statement should reassure the community that the school is taking all necessary steps to address the situation, including implementing further safeguards.
Long-Term Prevention and Follow-Up
After an incident, schools should review and revise their policies to ensure they are equipped to prevent future occurrences and learn from any gaps identified. This may include updating data protection policies, enhancing awareness campaigns, and providing additional training for employees and volunteers on identifying deepfake content. Long-term prevention also involves working with parents to educate them about online safety and deepfake risks, ensuring that both school and home environments are aligned in protecting children from digital harm.

To ensure proper discharge of duty of care, train those conducting investigations into student conduct about how they can obtain evidence of probative value when evidence may be deleted or may be illegal to possess – and to know when the eSafety Commissioner, with its greater powers, may be needed to intervene.

Schools have a duty of care which requires them to take proactive steps to protect their students’ privacy and personal data, prevent the creation of abusive deepfakes, and respond quickly and appropriately to any deepfake incidents that may occur.

By educating the school community, collaborating with legal and cybersecurity professionals, and adopting strong data protection policies, schools can significantly reduce the risks associated with malicious and abusive deepfakes. If an incident occurs, a clear and speedy response, combined with the provision of useful supports, will ensure that the wellbeing of affected children and young people are protected.

How we can help

Our Child Safety, Safeguarding and Discrimination team are skilled in supporting schools to keep children safe. Our team can provide peace of mind in developing and implementing prevention strategies and navigating incidents if they occur.

Contact us

If you would like to discuss how we can support your organisation, our team is here to help. Please contact Skye Rose or Tal Shmerling if you would like further support.

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

Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong, ” Abuse of AI Deepfakes: Toolkit for Schools and Parents”, December 2025. Can be accessed here: https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/resources_centre/publications/files/ai_deepfake.pdf. ↩︎
In summary, under section 53S of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), if a person (A):
– intentionally distributes an intimate image of another person (B) to another person (C); and
– the distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct; and
– person (B) did not consent the distribution of the image or the manner in which the image was distributed;
that person (A) is guilty of an offence.
In summary, under section 53T of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), if a person (A):
– threatens another person (B) to distribute an intimate image of (B) or another person (C); and
– the distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct; and
– (A) intends that (B) will believe they will carry out that threat;
that person (A) is guilty of an offence. ↩︎
Section 53O of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). ↩︎

Home >> News >> Page 3

On 9 January 2026, the Albanese Government announced the establishment of a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion following the 14 December 2025 terrorist attack at Bondi Beach. Former High Court Justice the Hon Virginia Bell AC has been appointed to serve as Commissioner.

This Royal Commission will replace the previously announced review of federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies (to be undertaken by Dennis Richardson AO AC)¹ and will also supersede the anticipated NSW Royal Commission. Instead, the Commonwealth Commission will operate with full cooperation from the NSW Government and all states and territories, ensuring it is truly national in scope.

To supplement the Royal Commission, on 20 January 2026, Parliament also passed legislation which enacted changes to key areas to target and prevent hate speech, radicalisation and extremism activity.

Proposed Scope of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion

In summary, based on the Letters Patent dated 9 January 2026,² the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion (Royal Commission) will examine:

The nature, prevalence, and drivers of antisemitism, opportunities to de-radicalise and strengthen social cohesion, and impacts on Jewish Australians.
Recommendations for government agencies, including improvements to guidance and training, protective security for Jewish places and leaders, and whether agencies have sufficient powers and resources to respond effectively.
The circumstances and emergency response to the Bondi terrorist attack, including security arrangements, agency communication and effectiveness, and any legislative gaps or restrictions that affected the response.

The Royal Commission also has a broad mandate to make any other recommendations that strengthen social cohesion, counter ideologically or religiously motivated extremism, and address related matters.

An interim report on the Bondi attack and urgent actions is expected by 30 April 2026, with the final report due by 14 December 2026.

Broader Government Response to Antisemitism

The Royal Commission is the latest in a series of measures since 2023, including the appointment of Ms Jillian Segal AO as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in July 2024. Her plan, delivered in July 2025, contained 13 recommendations and 49 key actions,³ to which the Government responded formally on 18 December 2025.⁴

Further legislative reforms were flagged in December 2025 and announced on 12 January 2026⁵ — a landmark proposal aimed at strengthening Australia’s response to hate-fuelled conduct and violent extremism by way of:

Aggravated hate speech offences for preachers and leaders promoting violence;
Increased penalties for hate speech inciting violence;
Making hate an aggravating factor in sentencing for online threats and harassment;
A regime for listing organisations whose leaders engage in hate speech promoting violence or racial hatred; and
A federal offence for serious vilification based on race or advocating racial supremacy.

On 20 January 2026, Commonwealth Parliament convened an emergency sitting and passed two bills⁶ reflecting the announced changes. These bills collectively amend legislation to address the following key areas to address and prevent hate speech, violence and extremism:

Criminal Law Reforms: Tougher laws on hate speech, racial hatred, radicalisation, and stricter controls on firearms and explosives;
Migration Amendments: Enhanced powers for visa refusals and cancellations linked to extremist activity;
Customs Controls: Stronger restrictions on importing and exporting extremist material, weapons, and firearms;
Firearms Legislation: Introduction of a national gun buy-back scheme and tighter background checks; and
Transitional Provisions: Ensuring smooth implementation of these sweeping changes.

These new laws will commence after the day they receive Royal Assent.

How we can help

Moores will provide updates to the sector as the legislation progresses. Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

Previously referred to as the ‘Richardson Review’. ↩︎
Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion | Attorney-General’s Department ↩︎
Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism | aseca ↩︎
Australian Government response to the Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism ↩︎
Special envoy’s plan to combat antisemitism | Prime Minister of Australia ↩︎
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 (Cth); Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 (Cth). ↩︎

Home >> News >> Page 3

On Wednesday 14 January 2026, the Department of Education (DOE) announced that a major cyberattack has compromised the personal information of students from all Victorian government schools.

This news is a timely reminder that all schools are required by law to keep personal information secure. Schools are required to report eligible data breaches to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, whether or not these are caused by the school or by a malicious actor.

What we know so far about the DOE cyberattack

According to the DOE, an unauthorised external third-party accessed a database containing information about current and past school student accounts, including:

Student names
School-issued email addresses
School names and year levels
Encrypted passwords for school accounts

What trends correlate with data breaches in non-government schools?

Whilst there is no evidence that any non-government schools were impacted, privacy breaches (including from cyberattacks) do occur at non-government schools – both Catholic and independent. We often support schools in these matters.

In our experience, certain factors tend to correlate with breaches. These include:

Adoption of new CRMs and platforms (including leaving administrator access open, and having incorrect privacy settings, which make online forms publicly searchable);
Keeping old information which is no longer required, instead of archiving or destroying it;
A spike in emails sent to incorrect recipients on Fridays and in the lead-up to school holidays;
Incorrect settings (for example, in Teams or on consent platforms); and
Circulating spreadsheets via email (instead of SharePoint for example).

How we can help

Moores supports non-government schools with privacy compliance, data breach response and cyber incident management. In late January 2026, Moores will release its 2026 Privacy Toolkit, designed to assist organisations of all types to meet their obligations under Australian privacy laws.

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.

Contact us

Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.

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