The Victorian Government’s final Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025 (Vic) (Regulations) came into force on 1 December 2025 – a milestone moment for workplace wellbeing.
While earlier drafts of the Regulations proposed obligations on employers to maintain written prevention plans and report certain hazards to WorkSafe, those provisions were dropped in the final version. However, this doesn’t mean complacency is an option. WorkSafe Victoria still strongly recommends using the prevention-plan template developed during the drafting process to provide structure, transparency and minimise the risk of psychosocial hazards.
Importantly, these Regulations are now a standalone instrument – a new legal requirement that exists alongside the traditional Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 (Vic). Awareness of both is essential to avoid compliance gaps.
Eliminate or Minimise Psychosocial Risks
Employers are now explicitly required to identify and eliminate psychosocial hazards wherever possible. If elimination isn’t “reasonably practicable,” the employer must reduce the risk by modifying work design, systems and management structures. Then and only then, as a last resort, through training or information.
Know the Hazards
A ’psychosocial hazard’ is defined as any factor in:
that may arise in the working environment and may cause an employee to experience one or more negative psychological responses that create a risk to their health and safety.
Psychosocial hazards include but are not limited to:
These hazards can trigger cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and even physiological responses that threaten health and safety.
Continuous Risk Management
There is a hierarchy of measures which employers must comply with. In the first instance, an employer must eliminate the risk. However, if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate the risk, the employer must reduce the risk as far as reasonably practicable by altering the management of work, systems of work, work design or workplace environment. If the risk cannot be reduced by altering these systems, then the employer must use information, instruction or training to reduce the risk as far as reasonably practicable.
Employers must regularly review and revise controls under multiple scenarios:
WorkSafe can require Employers to review or update control strategies if safeguards aren’t kept up to date or robust. WorkSafe has released a Compliance Guide on managing risks to psychosocial hazards to assist employers in complying with the Regulation.
WorkSafe Victoria’s guidance on managing risks to psychosocial hazards is a useful starting point but with so much at stake, expert advice isn’t just prudent, it’s essential. Employers who take a strategic, informed approach to psychological safety now will build stronger, healthier, more resilient workplaces, and shield themselves from future legal or regulatory risk.
Moores can assist employers to amend their risk management frameworks to ensure that they effectively identify and mitigate psychosocial hazards, including occupational health and safety policies and procedures, training for senior leaders on identifying and managing psychosocial hazards, and implementing plans to minimise risks as far as possible.
For more information on the reforms, watch our webinar Psychosocial Hazards in the Workplace.
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.
Owners of residential property in Victoria may be required to lodge a Vacant Residential Land Tax (VRLT) notification if their property was vacant for six months or more during the 2025 calendar year.
If you own a residential property in Victoria which was vacant for six months or more during the period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, a VRLT notification for that property must be lodged with the State Revenue Office by no later than 15 February 2026.
Notifications must be made via the SRO’s online VRLT portal.
Importantly, a notification must be submitted even if you believe that the property is exempt from VRLT (for example, it was used as a family holiday home and it qualifies for the exemption). In that case, the exemption is claimed when the notification is made.
The only exception to the notification requirement is if a VRLT notification was lodged for 2025 claiming an exemption, that exemption application was approved, and the use of the property has not changed (ie. it still qualifies for that same exemption).
To find out more about whether VRLT applies to your property – and whether an exemption could possibly apply – use our self-assessment tool.
Contact us
To discuss your specific situation or for assistance with lodging a notification or claiming an exemption, please contact us.
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 organisati
On 9 December 2025, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) announced it will be launching into the new year with significant momentum with plans to undertake its first ever privacy compliance reviews.
Starting in the first week of January 2026, the OAIC’s targeted review will assess 60 entities across six sectors engaging in ‘in person’ collections of personal information privacy practices against the requirements under the Australian Privacy Principle (APP) 1.
The six sectors include:
The OAIC’s announcement is a timely reminder to ensure that your Privacy Policy is clear, accessible up to date and captures any changes to personal information handling practices as we head into 2026.
A key element of the review is the OAIC’s assessment of how these selected APP entities are complying with APP 1.4 which sets out items which must be included in your Privacy Policy to be compliant. The information required includes:
The Commissioner has power to conduct an assessment relating to the Australian Privacy Principles (under S 33C of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)). The January 2026 sweep is indicative of a move toward exercise stronger enforcement powers and a shift in the OAIC’s regulatory approach.
The Privacy and Data Security team at Moores can help you to proactively review your privacy practices including by ensuring your organisation has an up-to date privacy policy and undertake privacy audits. .
Stay tuned for our New Privacy Toolkit, to be released in early 2026.
Moores is pleased to share that our Practice Leader and Head of Education, Cecelia Irvine-So, has been recognised in the Herald Sun’s Victorian Education Power Rankings.
Described as a “major legal player behind the scenes”, Cecelia is acknowledged for her work supporting schools to navigate complex challenges, strengthen governance and create safe, thriving environments for students.
Moores is privileged to work alongside non-government schools across Victoria and Australia, supporting their ongoing impact on young people and their communities.
Under Cecelia’s leadership, our education practice continues to be sector-leading and trusted by schools seeking clear, practical and values-driven guidance.
Please contact us if you would like further information on how we can assist.
This month, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued three recall notices following the detection of asbestos in imported coloured and decorated sand products used by children for play and craft activities. These products have been sold by major retailers including Kmart and Officeworks throughout Australia between 2020 and 2025.1
The presence of asbestos in any product used by children will understandably cause concern, noting that the current government guidance is that risk is low.2 While school and early learning centres (ELCs) are focused on the operational response, it is equally important that they take steps now to ensure comprehensive, well-maintained records. Asbestos-related claims typically arise many years — even decades — after initial exposure. Without adequate documentation, it may be difficult in the future to ascertain the level and nature of potential exposure as well as whether reasonable steps were implemented to address risk at the time the risk was identified.
A dual focus is therefore essential:
The response has varied across states as regulators and agencies respond to the recall. Schools in the ACT, Tasmania and Brisbane have closed for disposal and deep cleaning. In Victoria, the Department of Education has responded but has not indicated any plans for school closures. The Australian Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has issued interim advice in response to the recall immediately advising consumers to:
“Stop using affected products, follow recall instructions, and await further advice. Current risk is low; no clinical checks needed.”3
For the workplace and school environment, Asbestos in Victoria and WorkSafe Victoria have also provided information here.
This recall identifies occupational, health and safety, and duty of care risks.
Taking a conservative approach, schools and ELCs should treat the recall notice as an alert to the potential for a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm requiring a risk response in line with the school’s own risk management framework and risk assessment process.
This means that schools and ELCs must act to eliminate or reduce the risk as far as possible in the workplace and learning environment.
In managing any response, schools and ELCs have a primary duty to ensure the safety of students, educators, and families by removing affected products from use and following health authority advice.
Once these immediate risks have been addressed, it is crucial not to overlook the long-term implications. While health authorities assess the risk as low, it is appropriate to collate and preserve any documentation that could assist to respond to possible future questions, reviews, or claims.
The following are some of the steps can support documenting any risk management response (in addition to immediate safety and remedial action):
Moores recommends that schools and ELCs collate and keep the following (if and to the extent that this information is available) for any coloured or kinetic sand products currently or recently in use:
Product documentation
Action documentation
People and situational documentation
Schools and ELCs should retain related records in line with:
Given the recall, ELCs and schools must act quickly to protect the health and safety of students and staff, and to keep their communities informed. At the same time, it is critical to establish a comprehensive documentation process that ensures you are well prepared should any claims arise in future.
Moores will continue to keep the sector informed. You can stay updated by subscribing to receive updates on this issue.
From 1 January 2026, a new mandatory and suspensory merger control regime (the Regime) under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (the CC Act) will apply to significant asset transfers, acquisitions and mergers. Not-for-profits (NFP) and charities acquiring assets or taking over another entity may need to seek ACCC approval for the transaction if certain threshold requirements are met.
The Regime1 establishes a mandatory notification obligation from 1 January 2026 for certain ‘acquisitions’ that meet prescribed thresholds. These ‘acquisitions’ cannot be effected until the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has granted approval. This requirement will also apply to merger agreements entered into before 1 January 2026 that are completed on or after that date.
Under s 50 of the CC Act, an ‘acquisition’ of shares2 or assets3 that would or is likely to substantially lessen competition in a market may be prohibited. The ACCC looks at factors such as market concentration, barriers to entry and whether the acquisition removes an effective competitor to determine whether the acquisition would substantially lessen competition.
An acquisition that is connected with Australia (e.g. the target carries on business in Australia or holds assets used in an Australian business) must be notified if it meets certain financial thresholds set by Ministerial Determination4. These are based mainly on revenue and asset value. In summary, an ‘acquisition’ by an NFP or charity5 would need to be notified to the ACCC in the following circumstances:
Even if the thresholds are met, notification may not be required in relation to:
Further, parties may apply to the ACCC for a notification waiver (available from 1 January 2026) which removes the obligation to notify. The ACCC has indicated it will provide further information about waivers later in 2025.
Organisations that are planning to merge and are required to notify have three options:
Broadly, the Regime includes provision for:
If a notifiable acquisition is completed without ACCC approval, the ACCC can void or stay the transaction. It would also be a contravention of the CC Act to:
Penalties for non-compliance are significant, being the greatest of: $50 million; three times the value of the benefit gained (if the benefit is determinable); or 30% of the entity’s adjusted turnover during the breach period (if the benefit is not determinable).
The Regime represents a significant regulatory shift for NFPs and large charities that are involved in large or regular merger transactions. Proactive engagement with the ACCC, early advice and strategic planning will position your NFP or charity to avoid surprises and ensure compliance with the Regime.
Moores Charity and Not-for-Profit team can work alongside you to prepare your board, assess merger readiness and liaise with the ACCC to ensure your organisation is well positioned for Regime compliance.
A Special Disability Trust (SDT) is a specific form of trust commonly used for beneficiaries who meet the statutory definition of “severe disability” under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (‘Social Security Act’)1. It is designed to provide financial support for care, accommodation and long-term welfare of an eligible beneficiary, commonly designated as a “Principal Beneficiary” while preserving the beneficiary’ entitlement to social security benefits, including the disability support pension. SDTs are frequently employed in succession planning, as they allow assets to flow seamlessly from the deceased estate into a protected legal structure for the ongoing benefit of the disabled beneficiary beyond the lifetime of parents or carers and finally to the residuary beneficiaries in accordance with the wishes of the donor(s).
The taxation regime applicable to SDTs further enhances their financial utility. Once an SDT is validly established with an eligible Principal Beneficiary, the Principal Beneficiary is deemed to be presently entitled to the income of the trust during their lifetime2, and the trustee is assessed on the net income of the trust (including capital gains) at the Principal Beneficiary’s marginal tax rate3. This ensures that the trust’s income is taxed at Principal Beneficiary’s marginal tax rate rather than at the penalty rates otherwise assessed to the trustee.
Further, any capital gain from a transfer of a capital gains tax asset to a SDT or a trust that becomes a SDT as soon as practicable after the transfer, is disregarded. In many jurisdictions, stamp duty relief is also available for eligible transfers.
From an estate planning perspective, SDTs serve as a secure, transparent, and enduring mechanism for protecting the welfare of individuals with severe disabilities. The trust structure ensures that the assets are used solely for the reasonable care and accommodation for the principal beneficiary.
The SDT also enables continuity of financial support and care beyond the lifetime of parents or carers, providing families with peace of mind that their loved one’s future needs will be met. Furthermore, the terms of the trust may specify how residual assets are to be distributed upon the death of the principal beneficiary.
Apart from the highly restricted eligibility criteria, limited ability on use of funds outside of care and accommodation needs of the Principal Beneficiary – i.e discretionary spending limited to $14,750 per annum (as at 1 July 2025) and stringent compliance rules to operate, we have also seen a common theme of certain uncertainties arising in relation to SDTs as to:
An SDT generally terminates upon the death of the principal beneficiary or when the trust’s funds are fully expended. At that point, the trust immediately ceases to qualify as a SDT under the Social Security Act.
Upon termination, the SDT ‘vests’, and the principles applicable to trust vesting should apply. ‘Vesting’ refers to the vesting of an interest rather than a position. An interest is regarded as having vested when:
The vesting of an SDT does not automatically result in the termination of the trust or the creation of a new trust. Vesting merely signifies that the beneficiaries’ interests have become fixed, not that the trust has ceased to exist7. In Taxation Ruling TR 2018/6: Income tax – trust vesting – consequences of a trust vesting, the Commissioner takes the view that where a trustee continues to hold property for takers on vesting, the property is held on the same trust as existed pre-vesting, albeit the nature of the trust relationship changes. The trustee’s role transitions from a duty to properly consider whether to distribute the net income of the trust in accordance with the discretionary power of appointment, to a duty to hold the whole of the capital and income for the benefit of the relevant beneficiaries.
Vesting itself does not compel the immediate transfer of trust property, however, beneficiaries are entitled to call for the transfer of the trust assets as soon as practicable once their interests become fixed8.
Upon vesting, the SDT’s assets vest in accordance with the terms of the trust deed – i.e in the residual beneficiaries specified in the trust deed, in the proportions nominated by the donor(s). This nomination can generally be found in Schedule B of the model SDT deed as prescribed pursuant to the Social Security Act.
From a taxation perspective, upon vesting, the special tax concessions afforded for SDTs cease to apply, and any income derived by the trust post Principal Beneficiary’s death is taxed under general trust taxation rules in Division 6 of Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (‘ITAA36’). This means the assessment of any income derived post Principal Beneficiary’s death will depend on whether there is any present entitlement to the trust income.
By way of an example, if an SDT was established under a Will, and the donor has nominated the funds back to his or her estate upon the death of the Principal Beneficiary, it could be that the estate account is reopened, and the funds are distributed as part of the estate. As no beneficiary can be presently entitled to income of an estate until it has been fully administered – i.e the residual amount can be ascertained after all debts, expenses, and liabilities are satisfied9, the trustee is likely to be assessed either under section 99 or 99A of the ITAA36 depending on whether the Commissioner is of the opinion that it would be unreasonable that section 99A should apply10.
Once the residual beneficiaries acquire a vested interest in the remaining trust assets and income, the relevant beneficiary or the trustee, in case of residual beneficiaries who are non resident or under a legal disability, will be taxed on their respective share of the trust income at their individual marginal tax rate11.
Alternatively, if the donor has directed the funds in the SDT directly to named beneficiaries as opposed to the estate, the interests of such beneficiaries should become ‘vested’ upon Principal Beneficiary’s death and the trustee of the SDT should hold the funds on trust for those beneficiaries until the distributions are made and the trust is wound up. In this scenario, any trust income derived post vesting should be made presently entitled to the residual beneficiaries together with the trust fund in the proportions as nominated by the donor and the beneficiaries will be taxed on their respective share of the trust income at their individual marginal tax rates.
What this means is that the uncertainties surrounding SDTs can be and should be managed and addressed right from the beginning at the planning stage so that there are no adverse tax consequences arising at the end.
As with any other trusts, the terms of the trust deed are paramount and, careful consideration should be given in nominating the residual/specified beneficiaries upon the end of the trust, and if an SDT is established under a Will, the terms of the Will should be in line with the terms of the SDT and ultimately your objectives.
The Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team at Moores is one of the largest in Australia with expertise in trusts and taxation. We can provide strategic advice tailored to your specific circumstances and work with you and your advisors through complex structuring, succession planning and tax issues in relation to special disability trusts from planning stage through to administration of same upon vesting.
If you have any general queries regarding a Special Disability Trust, please do not hesitate to contact us.
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 your organisation.
A binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) is a written instruction given by a member of a superannuation fund, directing the trustee to pay the member’s superannuation benefits to one or more of their ‘dependants’ and/or legal personal representative after their death.
Provided that the BDBN complies with the relevant fund’s requirements and is valid at the time of the member’s death, the trustee must comply with the direction in the nomination and pay the death benefit in accordance with that direction. Each super fund, including self managed super funds (SMSFs) will have their own requirements for making a valid BDBN, but generally, a nomination must:
Let’s look at why you might choose to have a BDBN and the issues that could arise if you do.
There are a number of reasons for why you may have, or be advised to have, a BDBN in place. For example:
Whilst a BDBN provides you with certainty and allows you to direct how your superannuation entitlements are to be dealt with on death without the trustee involved in the decision, a BDBN can potentially have the following drawbacks:
A discussion on death benefit payment strategy should always be considered as part of an estate plan and never in isolation. Whilst the overwhelming benefit of a BDBN is certainty and control, it is important to regularly review your BDBN to ensure that it aligns with your current wishes and objectives.
For advice or guidance regarding Estate Planning and Family Law including BDBN, please do not hesitate to contact us.
If you have any general queries regarding a BDBN, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Taxation Ruling TR 2013/2 (TR 2013/2) sets out the Commissioner’s interpretation of the law in relation to tax-deductible school building funds. The Australian Taxation Office published an updated ruling in October 2024 to reflect the more holistic approach taken by the Federal Court in the case of The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2021] FCA 1363 (the Buddhist Society Case). The updated ruling significantly broadens the categories of organisations that may be eligible for endorsement as school building funds.
Prior to October 2024, TR 2013/2 stated that:
In practice, many institutions providing ‘education’ were unable to satisfy these criteria.1
In the Buddhist Society Case, the Court found that the factors expressed in the original version of TR 2013/2 did not reflect the ordinary meaning of the term ‘school’. In particular, TR 2013/2 inappropriately elevated factors referred to in case law to the level of “prerequisites or inherent requirements” for school building funds. The Court took the view that a more holistic approach was required.
The ATO released a Decision Impact Statement on 18 May 2023 advising that it would review and update 2013/2 to reflect the Buddhist Society Case. The ATO subsequently updated TR 2013/2 on 4 October 2024. The key changes are discussed below.
The updated TR 2013/2 now explicitly incorporates the broader judicial definition of a ‘school’ adopted in the Buddhist Society Case, being ‘a place where people, whether young, adolescent or adult, assemble for the purpose of being instructed in some area of knowledge or of activity.2
Importantly:
The Buddhist Society Case also provided crucial guidance on how to assess whether a building is ‘used as a school’. A building will be ‘used as a school’ where it is used to provide instruction (or its use is incidental to the provision of instruction – such as a kitchen or bathroom facilities) and the extent and character of that use is such that the building can be described as ‘used as a school’.
The original TR 2013/2 stated that for a building to be a school building, its school use must be ‘substantial’. It focused on whether non-school use is of such kind, frequency or relative magnitude as to preclude the conclusion that the building has the character of a school building. The factors considered were primarily quantifiable, including the time, physical area, number of people and degree of modification dedicated to school versus non-school use.
In the Buddhist Society Case, the Court rejected this quantitative approach and found that the proposition that school use must be ‘substantial’ was not explicitly reflected in the case law. Instead, the Court stated that regard must be had to the following factors. These are now explicitly included in the updated TR 2013/2 as factors that must be weighed to determine whether a building has the character of a school building:
This enables a more holistic assessment to be made about whether a building can be a ‘school building’. Quantifiable factors such as physical area and time may be indicative but are no longer determinative.
The updated TR 2013/2 has replaced the ATO’s restrictive approach to what constitutes a ‘school’ and ‘school use’ with a broader, more flexible approach. This may enable more organisations that provide ‘instruction in an area of knowledge or activity’ to seek tax-deductible gift recipient endorsement for the operation of a school building fund. In particular, organisations that provide less traditional forms of education (for example, that do not include assessment or correction or provide a recognised qualification or status) such as religious instruction (e.g. Sunday schools or Buddhist meditation schools) or recreational instruction (e.g. dance schools, cookery schools, riding schools or woodwork schools) may now be eligible for endorsement. This may unlock funding opportunities and fast track community fundraising initiatives for capital projects.
Our Charity and Not-for-profit team can assist you in understanding the changes to the ATO’s position and assessing your eligibility for endorsement as the operator of a tax-deductible school building fund. We can support you to apply for endorsement and help you understand the rules and requirements for operating a school building fund, enabling the acquisition, construction, or maintenance of school buildings through tax-deductible donations.
Nine years ago, a Victorian court case significantly diminished the rights of injured people to argue that a bad waiver should be struck out. In the Bounce case, the court upheld one of these waivers for the first time.
This historic case has left its mark on the Victorian recreational services landscape. As a result of Rakich v Bounce, consumers can no longer be reasonably confident that they will be recompensed if injured. Schools can no longer adopt the presumption that a broadly worded waiver is unlikely to be valid.
Despite this, we still see documents from camp and excursion providers seek to include unacceptable waivers, often on the basis of “our insurer says we have to include this”.
Needless to say, schools should take pause before bundling waivers into the excursion documentation.
Snowboarding. Horse-riding. Rock climbing. Hiking.
Immersive experiences such as outdoor, wildlife and adventure excursions, help create rich educational experiences for students and are thought to deepen the benefits of in-class education.1 These activities are often classed as ‘high-risk recreational activities’ and are facilitated by third parties with specialist expertise, equipment and licenses. Arrangements with these providers will often involve a liability waiver, sometimes as a condition of student participation.
Knowing these cannot be signed by the school on behalf of students,2 schools will often pass these on for signature by a parent or carer.
However, while waivers have become a mundane part of the consumer experience, they are not toothless. Additionally, the education context brings further matters to consider – some of them quite complex.
While, the non-delegable duty of care prevents schools from ‘pointing the finger’ at a third party provider, even if that provider holds the expertise, a school should not be quick to accept a waiver of liability as it can affect the school’s commercial position.
Although a waiver of liability can appear to be a checkbox measure, there are common ‘red flags’ which indicate an inherent conflict with the function of a waiver and a school’s obligations and activities.
For instance, issues arise when a third party waiver:
or even –
This last ‘red flag’ has become more prominent in recent years. Historically, waivers have been difficult to enforce because they are frequently too broad and considered largely unenforceable due to public policy. However, in the November 2016 Bounce decision, the Supreme Court of Victoria reversed the historical position on appeal in favour of the provider, and not the injured person.
Clinton Sean Rakich3 was an adult who attended Bounce Inc, a trampoline centre, with friends at 9pm on a Thursday night. Part-way through the evening, he joined a game of ‘dodgeball’ on a framework of sixteen trampolines separated by padded steel framing. During this game, Mr Rakich landed awkwardly on a padded beam, resulting in a significant tibial injury to his right leg.
As well as claiming that Bounce had failed in its duty of care to provide adequate warning and safety information, Rakich argued that Bounce wasn’t able to rely on their waiver.
Under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), providers have to guarantee the use of due care and skill and fitness for a particular purpose. However, recreational service providers can be excluded from these guarantees if their terms meet very specific conditions.
Mr Rakich contended that Bounce could not access the exclusion because the terms did not meet the pre-conditions. Specifically, he argued that:
Ultimately, the Court determined in favour of Bounce. It both read down the parts of the waiver that were too extensive to fit within the ACL’s parameters, as well as read the exclusion terms as a whole (recognising the presence of the specific conditions). Mr Rakich’s claim for damages was dismissed.
And whilst the Bounce case does not impact the non-delegable duty of care which schools owe to students, it means that even if a school does everything right by the children in its care, taking all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of reasonably foreseeable harm, it could still be left ‘holding the bag’ for loss and damages in the event of an incident.
For schools which are coordinating excursions involving high-risk activities across classes of diverse ages and abilities, even a brief waiver can now pose a substantial financial risk.
We are increasingly seeing contention between third party providers who insist on their standard form waiver as a precondition to engagement, and schools who are unwilling to endorse the documents to parents/guardians.
But whether or not students are able to access enriching activities outside the classroom should not be at the mercy of the waiver.
If you have a waiver with red flags on your desktop, the Education Team at Moores has successfully provided schools with pathways for managing the commercial risks and negotiating amendments with third parties. Subscribe to receive updates when we release our Excursion Risks Toolkit, and reach out for support putting proactive resources in place so that your school is on the front foot with a clear position and mechanisms for navigating provider expectations.
To mitigate risks to your school whilst preserving and promoting rich educational experiences for students, contact Cecelia Irvine-So for further support and subscribe to receive updates directly in your inbox.