Australia’s emerging oil and petrol constraints are no longer simply a supply‑chain issue. While the situation remains fluid, organisations should now be considering the potential implications for workforce availability, continuity of service delivery and legal compliance if fuel disruption escalates.
This is familiar territory. During COVID‑19, employers were required to identify critical operations, respond to transport and workforce disruption, and make rapid decisions while remaining compliant with workplace laws. Fuel scarcity raises similar challenges, but in a different legal and operational context. Importantly, many of the lessons around early planning, flexibility and communication remain highly relevant.
For employers, the task is to balance operational continuity with obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act), industrial instruments and anti‑discrimination law. Organisations that respond best will be those that plan early, consider impacts across their whole workforce (including contractors and labour hire arrangements), and respond lawfully, consistently and in a way that aligns with their values.
There is currently no broad “essential services” regime of the kind implemented during COVID‑19 lockdowns. However, the distinction remains important from a workforce planning and risk perspective.
Fuel constraints are likely to affect sectors unevenly. Organisations delivering critical services, including healthcare, disability support, education, transport, logistics, utilities and food supply, may face heightened expectations to continue operating even in constrained conditions. Other services may have greater scope to scale back, modify delivery models, or temporarily defer non‑critical activities.
The critical question for employers is not whether they are “essential”, but how fuel scarcity affects their ability to operate safely and lawfully. Employers should start thinking now about where their exposure lies, including:
Working through these issues early will support defensible and consistent decision‑making if disruption intensifies.
Industrial instruments such as Awards, Enterprise Agreements and employment contracts may contain stand down mechanisms. These instruments should be checked at first instance to determine the rules that apply to an employee where they can no longer be usefully employed. If there are no relevant provisions in these instruments, then the Fair Work Act permits employers to stand down employees without pay where they cannot be usefully employed due to a stoppage of work for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible.
A petrol shortage may, in limited circumstances, enliven a lawful stand down. However, the threshold is high and the assessment is highly fact‑specific.
In practice, stand down may only be arguable where the organisation has closed or reduced operations because of an enforceable government direction, or when fuel disruption causes a genuine stoppage of work, for example because critical inputs cannot be delivered, essential on‑site staff cannot attend and no alternatives exist, or fuel‑dependent processes cannot be performed safely or legally.
By contrast, stand down is not available merely because conditions become more difficult. Increased costs, reduced demand, partial disruption or individual transport difficulties are unlikely to meet the statutory test. A clear causal connection between fuel constraints and a stoppage of work is required.
Before considering stand down, employers should carefully document impacts, explore alternatives (such as redeployment or flexible work), review applicable awards, agreements and contracts, and communicate early with affected employees.
Fuel scarcity will inevitably affect some employees’ ability to attend the workplace. As many employers experienced during COVID‑19, rigid or inconsistent responses in this space can quickly give rise to disputes and legal risk.
An employee’s inability to attend work due to fuel access is not, of itself, a lawful basis for stand down. Instead, employers should adopt a structured and reasonable approach that balances operational requirements with legal obligations.
Depending on the circumstances, this may involve exploring alternative arrangements such as remote work, accessing accrued leave, or unpaid leave by agreement. What employers should avoid is unilateral action that is not legally supported, including imposing unpaid leave, disciplining employees where non‑attendance is genuinely outside their control, or applying inconsistent rules across the workforce.
Fuel shortages rarely affect only one part of an organisation. Disruption to freight, suppliers or service partners can quickly flow through to workforce issues, affecting rosters, hours of work and service delivery models.
From an employment perspective, this may require changes to how work is organised, including adjustments to hours, consultation under awards or enterprise agreements, redeployment or cross‑skilling, and reconsideration of contractor or labour hire arrangements.
Legal risk most often arises where changes are rushed, poorly documented or implemented without required consultation. Employers who identify likely supply chain pressure points now will be better placed to align workforce planning with operational reality.
Rising fuel costs and scarcity can also create immediate financial pressure, including higher freight costs, increased fleet expenses and renewed scrutiny of travel allowances and reimbursements.
Employers should proactively review employment contracts, policies and industrial instruments that govern travel and expense obligations, as well as supplier arrangements that allow for fuel surcharges or price variation. Experience from COVID‑19 suggests that temporary, well‑communicated adjustments developed through consultation are significantly lower risk than reactive changes made under pressure.
Operational disruption does not displace legal obligations. Employees with disability, caring responsibilities or other protected attributes may be disproportionately affected by fuel shortages, and employers continue to have obligations to make reasonable adjustments unless doing so would cause unjustifiable hardship.
Eligible employees may also make flexible work requests under the Fair Work Act, which must be genuinely considered and responded to within statutory timeframes. Blanket refusals or inflexible positions are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
As COVID‑19 demonstrated, uncertainty itself creates risk, including psychosocial risk. Employees may be anxious about cost pressures, job security and expectations around attendance or availability.
Employers should undertake a risk assessment in this context and consider controls to mitigate the workplace risks arising from the current uncertainty. This process should be documented and reviewed.
Clear, early and empathetic communication will significantly reduce the likelihood of grievances, disputes and disengagement. Employers should consider preparing messaging now that explains how decisions will be made if disruption escalates, what flexibility may be available, and where employees can seek support. Even a legally sound response can fail if it is poorly communicated.
Fuel constraints may ultimately resolve with limited disruption. However, organisations that wait until impacts are acute will have fewer lawful and practical options available and increased exposure to risk.
Prudent organisations are already stress‑testing operations and supply chains, identifying fuel‑dependent roles, reviewing contracts and policies, planning consistent responses and preparing communication strategies in advance. These steps are valuable regardless of whether formal fuel limits or government mandates are introduced. Even in the absence of regulation, fuel scarcity can disrupt workforce availability, service delivery and organisational culture.
Moores advises employers on navigating workforce disruption, operational risk and compliance during periods of uncertainty. We can assist with scenario planning, reviewing stand down and flexible work options, advising on consultation obligations, and supporting lawful and practical responses aligned with organisational values. Contact us on (03) 9843 0418.
Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to you or your organisation.
The recent decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Fair Work Ombudsman v Jats Joint Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 25 (Decision) has clarified that homecare, disability and social workers should not be paid night shift penalty rates for shifts immediately before or after sleepovers. This is contrary to the Fair Work Ombudsman’s (FWO) longstanding position that Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award), sleepovers cannot count as a break between rostered work periods or as a break in a broken shift.1 The situation is fluid, and employers should closely monitor future changes to the SCHADS Award to ensure they are meeting their pay obligations for employees performing sleepovers.
Jats Joint Pty Ltd (Jats Joint) is a national disability support provider covered by the SCHADS Award
Following a complaint from an employee, Ms Richards, the FWO investigated and issued a compliance notice in January 2024 alleging that Jats Joint had failed to pay a 15% night shift loading for work performed immediately before and after Ms Richards’ sleepover shifts.
Jats Joint successfully challenged the notice at first instance in July 2025. The FWO appealed.
The question raised by the appeal was whether an employee who works on shifts before and/or after a “sleepover” at a client’s premises is entitled to be paid a “night shift” loading in respect of those shifts of 15% of their ordinary rate of pay under cl 29.3(b) of the SCHADS Award.
Jats Joint argued a period of sleepover is not a period of work and should be regarded as a break, as expressly contemplated in cl 25.4 and 25.7(f). The FWO disagreed, arguing that on its proper construction, cl 29.3(b) of the SCHADS Award requires the night shift loading to be paid in respect of the ordinary hours worked by an employee in a night shift where that shift inclusive of any sleepover finishes after midnight or commences before 6am on Monday to Friday.
The Full Court (Wigney, Shariff and McDonald JJ) dismissed the appeal finding that:
In making its decision, the Court acknowledged that the relevant terms of the SCHADS Award lack clarity and precision, but nonetheless preferred the construction advanced by Jats Joint.
For employers covered by the SCHADS Award, the decision has a number of practical consequences worth noting. In particular:
While this decision provides welcome clarity for employers covered by the SCHADS Award, the position may not remain settled for long. Three applications are currently before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking to vary the sleepover provisions in the SCHADS Award. In its initial decision, the FWC found that the SCHADS Award should be varied so that a sleepover is not treated as a break from work. If finalised in their current form, those variations would effectively reverse the outcome in Jats Joint.
Employers covered by the SCHADS Award should review their current sleepover rostering and payroll arrangements in light of this decision and monitor further developments. Our Workplace Relations team are available to support you to understand the decision and what this may mean for your workforce.
Contact us
Most schools will be aware that land used for school purposes generally qualifies for an exemption from land tax in Victoria.
However, there are a number of nuances which can impact on this general position. In this article we highlight some of the potential traps which schools and other education providers should be aware of.
Land tax
Vacant residential land tax (VRLT)
There are three specific areas where we have noticed some of our education clients getting caught out with regard to land tax and VRLT.
Trap 1 – Not applying for an exemption
The charitable land tax exemption is only available upon application to the SRO. Certain evidence must be presented in support of the application, including evidence of specific non-profit provisions in the school’s constitution and evidence demonstrating the use of the land in question.
Once an exemption is granted, it is ongoing so long as the use of the land continues to satisfy the criteria for exemption.
If the use of the land changes so that it no longer qualifies for exemption, the SRO must be notified. If not, then penalty tax may be applied on top of normal land tax once the issue is detected.
Trap 2 – Sharing use of school facilities
Sharing use of school facilities can impact on your exemption status. In brief:
A more detailed exploration of the issue of shared use can be found in our previous article ‘Hiring out the hall in 2025 – Land tax and facility hire for charities‘.
If you are unsure about whether your particular shared use arrangements could impact on your land tax exemption, guidance can be sought from the SRO in the form of a private ruling application.
Trap 3 – Overlooking VRLT reporting
It is common for schools to have residential landholdings – these properties may be used as a principal’s or caretaker’s residence, be rented out to third parties, or held for future school development.
These properties will be subject to land tax, but they may also be subject to VRLT if they are not occupied by a person as their PPR for more than 6 months of the year. If such a vacancy does occur, then a VRLT notification needs to be made to the SRO by 15 February of the following year, otherwise penalty tax may be imposed on top of VRLT.
The Commercial Real Estate team at Moores has extensive experience assisting schools and other education providers in navigating the land tax and VRLT rules, and we would be glad to help you with any questions, exemption applications, private ruling applications or reporting in this space.
The Australian Government has announced reforms aimed at addressing its broader objective of doubling philanthropic giving in Australia by 2030.
The reforms focus on two key areas:
These reforms come as a response to recommendations made in the Future Foundations for Giving inquiry conducted by the Productivity Commission, as well as proposals contained in the sector-led Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint.
To better reflect the role of public and private ancillary funds in facilitating charitable giving, the reforms propose to rename public ancillary funds and private ancillary funds to ‘public giving funds’ and ‘private giving funds’ respectively.
Under the proposed reforms, the Government will set a minimum annual distribution rate of 6% of net assets for both public and private ‘giving funds’ (the current rate is 4% for public ancillary funds and 5% for private ancillary funds).
Giving funds must distribute a minimum share of their assets each year to qualify for tax concessions. Raising the distribution rate aims to direct more philanthropic capital to operating charities in the short term while still allowing funds to maintain capital and earn investment returns.
Treasury analysis indicates that a fund earning market returns and distributing 6% of net assets annually could operate for decades even without new contributions. In practice, many funds already exceed this level, with about two-thirds of public funds and half of private funds distributing more than 6% in recent years. The average distribution rate for private ancillary funds in the period from 2000 to 2021 was 8% and for public ancillary funds in the period from 2011 to 2021 was 15.3%.
The reforms will also allow giving funds to smooth distributions over a three-year period. This change is intended to provide greater flexibility for funds supporting larger or multi-year charitable initiatives. This will enable giving funds to make large distributions in a single year and then distribute less than the minimum distribution rate in the subsequent two years. This may be particularly beneficial where funds are supporting major projects or responding to short term needs.
The new minimum distribution rate will apply from the first financial year following amendments to the giving fund guidelines. Existing giving funds will also benefit from a two-year transition period before the new distribution rate must be met.
This initiative is similar in concept to changes made to the ancillary fund guidelines in 2020 that permitted ancillary funds that exceeded the minimum distribution rate in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 financial years to distribute lower amounts in subsequent years. Those changes were intended to promote philanthropic giving during the COVID-19 economic downturn.
The Government has recently endorsed 34 new community charities as deductible gift recipients.
Community charities are locally focused charitable trusts or incorporated bodies that support community initiatives by distributing funds, property or benefits to organisations endorsed as DGRs. For instance, they may support a wide range of initiatives, including:
Importantly, previously DGR endorsement was only available for discrete categories (e.g. only environment, or only cultural activities), requiring organisations pursuing broad purposes to establish and operate more than one DGR endorsed entity. Community charities are more flexible, as they can incur expenditure in support of all DGR purposes and are not confined to one category, allowing them to direct tax-deductible donations to a wide range of charitable causes.
The measures aim to strengthen the philanthropic ecosystem by encouraging more timely distributions from giving funds while expanding the number of organisations able to access DGR status and attract tax-deductible donations. For charities, foundations and philanthropic donors, the reforms may have implications for fund governance, distribution strategies and eligibility for tax-deductible giving structures.
Our Charity and Not-for-profit team advises charities, philanthropic foundations and donors on the legal and regulatory framework governing tax-deductible giving in Australia.
We can assist with:
If your organisation operates, or is considering establishing, a giving fund or seeking DGR endorsement, our team can help you understand the implications of these reforms and ensure your structure remains compliant.
Have you considered benefitting a charity in your Will and are not sure how to start?
There are various ways to benefit charities after you have died and the estate planning lawyers at Moores are available to assist. We can help with choosing the most appropriate way to do this, to suit your circumstances and objectives.
Residuary Gift
The simplest way to support your chosen charities is via a gift of a portion of your estate. This portion is calculated once all other specific gifts, expenses and liabilities have been deducted (called your ‘residuary estate’). You may gift your whole residuary estate, or a part or percentage of your residuary estate. This can be split between multiple charities and beneficiaries in your desired proportions.
A residuary gift is an effective way to ensure that the gifts you are leaving to charities flex with the potential increases and decreases of the value of your estate.
Monetary gift
You may nominate a specific sum of money to be distributed to your chosen charity. However, it is important to note that a monetary gift will not change over time according to inflation unless you specifically allow for that in your Will.
There is also a risk that if your estate’s value has reduced over time, the charity’s monetary gift will take priority over any gifts of residual estate you may being providing to other beneficiaries, resulting in your other beneficiaries receiving a lot less of your estate than intended.
Specific gift
A less common, but still valid option is where you gift a specific asset that you own to a charity.
Examples include:
You must own this asset when you die for this gift to be valid. If you do not own the asset and do not update your Will, there is a possibility that your chosen charity will not receive any benefit from your estate, unless your Will specifically substitutes the gift for, as an example, a monetary gift.
There can also be tax consequences that also need to be considered and should be addressed in your Will, before making a gift of specific assets.
Other options
In some cases, you can nominate a charity as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy however you will need to contact your life insurance fund and/or your financial planner to arrange this. Note that this option is not available for life insurance policies held within superannuation.
If you want to direct any of your superannuation to benefit a chosen charity, this would first require consideration of having a binding death benefit nomination (a separate document) in place to direct your superannuation into your estate, so that the gift in your Will can take effect. There are generally tax consequences that need to be considered and should be addressed in your Will before making such a gift.
If you would like to consider your options for making charitable gifts in your Will, our experienced lawyers in the Moores Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team can assist you with ensuring that your chosen charities benefit in accordance with your wishes.
On 17 February 2026, the Victorian government passed the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. This bill amends the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) so that organisations can now be held liable for sexual abuse carried out in relationships akin to employment. In practice, this could cover abuse perpetrated by priests and potentially other volunteers. This legislation overturns and significantly reshapes the legal landscape created by the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 (Bird), which found that the Catholic Church could not be held vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of a priest because the priest was not considered to be an employee.
The Bill also provides that a claim may now be brought on previously barred cause of action or settled cause of action resolved before 1 July 2018 or between 13 November 2024 and the date the amendments come into effect to address the consequences of effectively reversing the Bird ruling.
The Bill sets the circumstances in which organisations can be held vicariously liable for child abuse, including historic child abuse. An institution will now be vicariously liable for the abuse of a child where:
This extends vicarious liability beyond traditional employment relationships to people who have authority, trust, and influence over children. Factors to determine whether someone is akin to an employee include:
The Bill clarifies that independent contractors are not considered akin to employees. However, this leaves open the possibility that members of religious ministry and volunteers may now fall within the category of individuals for whom institutions can be vicariously liable.
Our child safety team are available to support you to ensure your organisation has appropriate processes and safeguards in place to meet your duty of care and mitigate risk of liability. Our disputes team are also able to assist with any advising on or responding to potential claims or liability arising from this reform.
The Commonwealth Government has established the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, reflecting heightened national concern about antisemitism and its impact on community safety, education and social cohesion.
The Royal Commission will hold its first public hearing on 24 February 2026.
For schools, understanding how a royal commission operates and how institutions may become involved, is important.
The Royal Commission has been established with a relatively compressed timetable:
During this period, the Commission will gather evidence through submissions, hearings and compulsory information-gathering powers.
Royal commissions have broad coercive powers under federal legislation. Relevantly, the Commission may:
Failure to comply with a notice to produce, without reasonable excuse, can constitute a criminal offence. Timeframes for compliance are often short.
Schools may come to the attention of the Commission in two primary ways:
1. Notices to produce
Schools may be required to produce documents such as:
Early legal advice is important, particularly where privilege, confidentiality or sensitive material is involved.
2. Case Study Examination
As with other royal commissions, the inquiry may examine particular institutions as case studies, involving closer scrutiny of policies, responses and decision-making. While no case studies have yet been announced, schools with diverse communities or prior incidents may wish to prepare for this possibility.
Royal commissions are powerful and highly public processes. For non-government schools, early preparation and informed engagement can significantly reduce legal, operational and reputational risk, and ensure the institution is well placed should the Commission seek information or evidence.
Moores will provide updates to the sector as the legislation progresses. Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Moores is pleased to announce the appointment of Alexandra Gronow as Special Counsel in the Workplace Relations Team.
Alexandra brings extensive expertise in general employment and discrimination law, advising organisations at every stage of the employment lifecycle. Her practice includes strategic guidance on contracting, performance management and disciplinary processes, workplace compliance and investigations, as well as termination of employment. Alexandra also has significant experience representing clients in employment, discrimination and human rights litigation across State and Federal jurisdictions.
Alexandra’s background in not-for-profit and government sectors gives her a strong appreciation for the importance of tailored and practical legal advice. She is known for her thorough and detail-oriented approach and is committed to assisting organisations to understand and respond to their multifaceted and evolving workplace obligations with clarity and confidence.
“Moores’ commitment to human centric and principled decision making resonates deeply with how I practise law,” says Alexandra. “I wanted to work with like-minded people and clients that prioritise integrity and service. Joining Moores allows me to do this while continuing to deliver exceptional outcomes.”
We’re delighted to welcome Alexandra to her new role at Moores.
To find out more, please do not hesitate to contact us.
From 23 February 2026, responsibility for overseeing Victoria’s Reportable Conduct Scheme (Scheme) and Child Safe Standards (Standards) will shift from the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) to the Social Services Regulator. This significant reform reshapes how child safety risks are reported, managed and monitored across the state.
Under the current model, organisations covered by the Scheme typically report allegations of reportable conduct to the CCYP, which then shares information with other agencies, including Working with Children Check Victoria.
However, the Social Services Regulation Amendment (Child Safety, Complaints and Worker Regulation) Act 2025 (Vic) is transforming this landscape. These reforms respond directly to the findings of the Rapid Child Safety Review, which highlighted critical gaps in information sharing, particularly when allegations were unsubstantiated but still raised safety concerns.
To close these gaps and strengthen state‑wide consistency, Victoria is consolidating key safeguarding functions – Working with Children Checks, the Reportable Conduct Scheme, and the Child Safe Standards – within a single regulator. Other sector-specific regulators of the Child Safe Standards currently remain unchanged.
From Monday 23 February 2026:
This new regulatory model is designed to achieve better coordination, more consistent oversight, and stronger protections for children.
For most organisations working with children in Victoria, the immediate practical impact is relatively small, yet it is crucial to be prepared.
1. New reporting pathwaysFor all organisations covered by the Scheme, you must now report:
to the Social Services Regulator, rather than the CCYP.Your core obligations to notify, investigate, and provide a final outcome report remain unchanged.
2. Update your systemsNow is the time to:
This regulatory shift provides a timely opportunity to review broader child safety settings and strengthen your organisation’s continuous improvement efforts.
3. Expect a different compliance approachEach regulator brings its own style. Organisations may notice:
Being proactive will help ensure your organisation remains compliant and confident during the transition.
4. Watch for further changes
As functions consolidate under the Social Services Regulator, additional refinements to the Scheme and Standards are likely. We anticipate future steps to streamline reporting, align processes with other regulatory requirements, and enhance information sharing.
You can read CCYP’s guidance here.
5. Implications outside Victoria
Interstate organisations should also stay alert. Other jurisdictions may introduce similar reforms, particularly in light of heightened scrutiny of child safety within early childhood education and other vulnerable sectors.
How Moores can help?
Moores is already working with organisations across education, disability, faith‑based services and community sectors to prepare for this shift. We can assist with:
Disclaimer: This article contains details about sexual assault/abuse which may be upsetting for some readers. Reader discretion is advised.
On 11 February 2026, the High Court of Australia delivered a landmark judgment in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2 (AA). The Court held that organisations that exercise care of children can be held liable for breaches of a non-delegable duty of care which includes intentional criminal acts, such as sexual abuse, committed by a “delegate”. In doing so, the Court has overturned the long-standing authority of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4.
This decision removes key defences previously relied upon by institutions facing historic abuse claims, specifically those involving non-employees like volunteers. In doing so, it significantly expands the circumstances in which organisations can be held liable for the actions of volunteers, and requires a higher standard of monitoring and supervision to keep children and young people safe.
The High Court held, by majority, that the Diocese was liable to AA for breach of a non-delegable duty of care that it owed at the time of the abuse. Specifically, the majority held that:
To understand the impact of this decision, it is important to understand the difference between the two forms of liability that the High Court addressed:
Vicarious Liability (The “Employee” Test):
Non-Delegable Duty of Care (The “Delegate” Test):
For over two decades, the decision in Lepore generally protected institutions from non-delegable duty claims involving intentional criminal acts. The High Court have overturned that decision, establishing that:
The High Court’s ruling widens the scope of potential liability for organisations, in particular for organisations that rely on volunteers, such as scouting groups, schools and sporting clubs.
Under Lepore, an organisation may have been able to argue that it was not liable for harm if the harm was committed by eg, a volunteer parent or scout leader. Under the High Court’s ruling, if an organisation assigns a volunteer to perform a function, the organisation is responsible for that volunteer’s actions where a non-delegable duty of care is owed. As such, the institution assumes responsibility for the child’s safety while they are in the volunteer’s care.
Our child safety team can support organisations to understand the extent to which they owe a duty of care to children, and steps to take to remain compliant with the non-delegable duty of care and embed child safety at all levels of the organisation.
Our disputes team can assist with resolving claims or potential claims