Following its meeting with Independent Schools Victoria (ISV), the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) has recently released its 2025 ‘action plan’ to respond to client and stakeholder research findings. It is centred on the core theme of ‘helping schools comply’.
The VRQA has acknowledged the evolving complexity and compliance burdens being placed on schools and its 2025 cyclical review program will centre its focus on compliance with Child Safe Standards, including Ministerial order 1359.
The VRQA has identified the importance of schools having a risk management strategy to prevent, identify and mitigate child safety and wellbeing risks. In carrying out this strategy, the school environment, programs the school delivers, and the needs of the students are to be considered.
As part of their 2025 cyclical review program, the action plan will include the following:
The VRQA has also informed schools that they are in the process of reviewing the Guidelines to the minimum standards and requirements for school registration.
The new guidelines aim to clarify what tangible compliance looks like and the evidence that is required to demonstrate this.
Make sure to keep an eye out, as the VRQA will continue to consult further on the new guidelines.
Moores’ Education and Training team has a wealth of experience in navigating the complex landscape of independent school regulation and assisting clients to meet their compliance requirements. Please contact our expert Education and Training team for tailored advice on how you can ensure your school is staying up to date with the relevant guidelines.
Please contact us for tailored advice on how you can ensure your school is staying up to date with the relevant guidelines.
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Elder financial abuse is a growing and deeply concerning issue, particularly as we face an unprecedented transfer of generational wealth from baby boomers to their children and grandchildren. Baby boomers are the wealthiest generation in history and Australians are expected to inherit an estimated $3.5 trillion over the next two decades, making the elderly increasingly vulnerable to exploitation.
Elder financial abuse is the misuse or misappropriation of an elderly person’s money, assets or property, and often by trusted individuals – such as family members, friends, attorneys or caregivers – with close family members being the most common perpetrators.
Elder financial abuse often begins or worsens when an elderly person starts to lose decision-making capacity. Cognitive decline makes them more vulnerable to manipulation, as their ability to manage finances, detect exploitation, or seek help is reduced. Increased dependence on others, often family and carers, can create opportunities for abuse, especially when the elderly person is isolated or unable to understand or report what is happening. Further, the rapid digitalisation of government and private services has made older, less technically savvy Australians even more reliant on family to manage their finances, increasing the risk of exploitation.
Elder financial abuse situations often start with an offer to help. Below are some warning signs that can assist in the early identification and intervention of financial abuse.
If you notice some of these signs, it is important to seek legal advice.
Moores’ experienced elder financial abuse team can assist with early intervention, safeguarding assets and restoring the rights of your loved one.
Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.
In light of the election outcome, the Federal government is indicating that it will press on with the proposed changes, so that advisors will again need to turn their minds to potential implications.
This is a challenge when we don’t have certainty about the content of any reintroduced bill to Parliament nor what amendments might be sought in the Senate. In the short term, we suggest:
Longer term, if the legislation is passed, it will also require a rethink of the benefits of reversionary pensions, as the impact on the recipients total super balance could increase the impact of the proposed new tax.
Stay informed about the legislative updates and contact the Estate Planning team for expert advice and guidance in navigating the evolving landscape of superannuation.
The Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth) takes effect from 1 November 2025, implementing around sixty recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Significantly, it introduces duties that apply to aged care providers and their responsible persons. This article provides an overview of those duties and their implications for the governance of registered providers of aged care services.
On 1 November 2025, the Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth) (New Aged Care Act) will take effect and replace the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) as the principal legislation that governs registered providers of aged care services in Australia. This will affect registered providers of aged care services and their responsible persons.
“Registered providers” are organisations that are approved to provide funded age care services by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The term “registered providers” replaces the term “approved providers” under the current Aged Care Act.
“Responsible persons” include the members of a registered provider’s governing body (such as its board members), being persons who are responsible for executive decisions. This also includes individuals who have authority or responsibility for planning, directing or controlling a registered provider’s activities.
The New Aged Care Act establishes the following duties for registered providers and their responsible persons.
Once the New Aged Care Act takes effect, responsible persons will be personally exposed to a civil penalty of up to 150 penalty units if they:
A “significant failure” includes a significant departure from the conduct reasonably expected of responsible persons.
Responsible persons will also be personally exposed to a civil penalty of up to 500 penalty units if there is a serious failure to comply with their duty and their conduct results in the death of, serious injury to or illness of an individual.4
Taking “reasonable steps” to exercise due diligence (as described above) will assist to demonstrate compliance with the responsible person duty. Having regard to those “reasonable steps”, it will be prudent for responsible persons to:
This reflects a shift in board culture, referred to in the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, that requires responsible persons to: have closer oversight of their registered provider5; ensure that there is a feedback loop between responsible persons and management via a ‘quality care advisory body6’ and ensure that policies and procedures are not only developed, but actively implemented and embedded in the operations of their registered provider.
Our charity and not-for-profit team helps organisations from the ground up, from the establishment process to guiding board members through their legal duties. Moores can assist to ensure your board members understand their duties and have appropriate processes in place to support compliance.
The Aged Care Bill 2024 (Cth) is available on the Parliament of Australia website.
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.
When meeting with clients to discuss their estate planning, superannuation is a big part of the conversation for many. Afterall, it is often where a significant portion of their wealth lies.
It is also an area of the law, where despite the vastness of the wealth, there is a lot of confusion about how superannuation is dealt with on death. This is unsurprising though, given the seemingly constant changes to the law.
Frequently, our discussions with clients involve education that their superannuation is not automatically dealt with under their Will, and (typically) the need to have the correct nomination in place to direct the trustee of the superannuation fund as to how to deal with their superannuation on death.
But what is the ‘correct nomination’? Is a non-binding nomination enough?
The recent case of Lynn v Australian Financial Complaints Authority [2025] FCA 175 is a cautionary tale of circumstances where the deceased’s non-binding nomination in favour of his children and stepchildren, for his industry-fund super, was more-or-less disregarded in a dispute between the deceased’s children, stepchildren and his spouse, from whom he was separated at his death.
In this case, the Federal Court sided with the children of the deceased superannuation fund member over his estranged wife, in a dispute over the distribution of his superannuation benefits years after his death. The Federal Court supported the decision of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which overturned the super fund’s previous decision to give 100% of the deceased’s superannuation benefit to his estranged wife, despite having a non-binding death benefit nomination in place.
For advice or guidance regarding Estate Planning and Family Law, please do not hesitate to contact us.
One of the most common questions our Commercial Real Estate team receives from non-profit entities is whether sharing use of their facilities with others will cause a land tax problem.
Here, we provide some guidance on this complex issue.
All land in Victoria is subject to annual land tax, unless an exemption applies under the Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic).
Land tax is assessed annually on the basis of land ownership as at midnight on 31 December of the year preceding the assessment year. For example, the land you own at midnight on 31 December 2024 is used to calculate your land tax liability in 2025.
Section 74 of the Land Tax Act provides an exemption from land tax for properties which are used and occupied by a charitable institution exclusively for charitable purposes.
Therefore, to gain an exemption under Section 74, two distinct limbs must be satisfied:
Where only a part of the land meets the requirements for the charitable use exemption, that part of the land is exempt from land tax, and the remaining land is subject to land tax unless another exemption applies to it.
It is important to be aware that the exemption is only available upon application to the SRO – generally you will only receive an exemption if you have applied for one.
The exclusivity requirement was added to Section 74 in 2021, and has created concern for many charities who had traditionally shared use of their facilities with the local community.
The SRO has issued a public ruling (Ruling LTA-009) which provides guidance on how the exemption is interpreted and applied by the SRO in practice, but it cannot – and does not – cover every possible scenario.
Non-profit organisations therefore need to be aware that the wording of the legislation and the associated policy creates some grey areas – some uses unquestionably qualify for exemption, but many other common uses are less certain.
The following table illustrates the issue based on a number of common scenarios, using a traffic light system:
It is the property owner’s responsibility to report any incorrect assessment to the SRO each year – whether a property is being incorrectly accorded an exemption, or whether a property with an exempt use is being assessed for land tax. If a property is incorrectly accorded an exemption and the taxpayer does not notify the SRO, the SRO can impose heavy penalties if it picks up on the issue through its own investigations.
If you are uncertain about whether your property qualifies for exemption (whether you are receiving an exemption or not), it is therefore a good idea to seek advice from a lawyer or another professional advisor with specific expertise in the land tax field.
Where a charity shares use of their facilities with a third party, there are a number of steps which should be considered in order to reduce the risk of an unexpected land tax liability arising. These may include documenting the terms of the hire arrangement and, depending on the terms of the hire, notifying SRO of the arrangements. A lawyer with experience in the field can advise on whether any such steps are recommended in your specific circumstances, and assist you with putting the appropriate documentation into place.
The Commercial Real Estate Team at Moores has extensive experience in assisting non-profit organisations with land tax matters and can provide strategic advice tailored to your specific property use, helping to guard against an unexpected land tax liability.
Disputes over Wills can be stressful, costly, and unexpected. Whether you’re making a Will, administering an estate, applying for Probate, defending a challenge to a Will or questioning your exclusion as a beneficiary, understanding the main ways Wills can be challenged is essential.
The two main ways Wills are challenged is challenging the validity of the Will itself, or by a claim challenging whether the Will-maker has made adequate provision for someone they have a moral obligation to provide for (testator’s family maintenance).
Testamentary capacity
For a Will to be valid, the Will-maker (testator) must have had testamentary capacity when creating it. This means they need to:
Testamentary capacity is usually presumed, but this presumption can be rebutted. If the testator did not have testamentary capacity, then the Will is invalid.
Knowledge and approval
A person making a will is presumed to know and approve its contents. Challenges may arise about the testator’s knowledge and acceptance if there are questions about testamentary capacity or suspicious circumstances around the creation of the Will. If there are suspicious circumstances regarding how the will came about, this can mean the party trying to prove the will needs to positively prove the testator had testamentary capacity and knew and approved what was in the will.
Undue influence (in relation to Will-making)
If someone improperly influences a person to change their Will, or create a new one, the Will may be invalid due as a result of it having been procured by undue influence. To invalidate the Will, it needs to be shown that there was actual coercion that overbore the testator’s own free will to do a Will in the form they wanted. The level of undue influence and coercion required to succeed will depend on all of the circumstances, including the testator’s vulnerability to influence.
Before disputing the validity of a Will, the terms of the previous valid Will should be investigated. Sometimes the terms of the previous Will are no more favourable to the person considering challenging the Will than the current Will.
In Australia, it is accepted that we are free to dispose of our assets however we want, including through a Will: we have “testamentary freedom”. But the courts can intervene when this freedom is abused.
Eligible persons, such as spouses, children or financial dependants, can apply for further provision from the estate when they have been left out or are inadequately provided for. These claims are called testator family maintenance claims, further provision claims, or, in Victoria, Part IV claims.
A testator family maintenance claim is not a dispute about ensuring equality between beneficiaries (for instance, children of a deceased). To be successful, applicants must establish that:
In addition to the more common types of claims discussed above, if the deceased promised to leave specific assets or benefits to someone after their death, and this promise isn’t honoured in the Will, the person to whom the promise was made may be able to enforce the promise. They must be able to show that they relied on the promise and have suffered loss because of it.
Estoppel claims often arise in relation to estates that contain shares or property related to a family business, especially farming properties.
Act Quickly
Timing is critical. Each type of claim has its own strict time limits as to when you can make an application. Failure to make a claim by the relevant deadline can mean you are unable to challenge the Will, or otherwise pursue legal rights.
The Estate Litigation Team at Moores is one of the largest and most experienced in Australia, and can advise and guide you through your challenges or disputes related to Wills and estates.
Additionally, you can:
A person’s Will only governs assets that form part of their “estate”. Therefore, when a person dies, a key responsibility of their executor is to identify which assets do, and which assets do not, form part of the estate.
Whilst this distinction may appear obvious, there are several assets that people typically consider part of their overall wealth, that will not form part of their estate, to be governed by their Will.
But even where an asset may not strictly form part of an estate, it is important for an executor to appreciate how it is dealt with, as it may require involvement from the executor, or it may ultimately impact the distribution of estate assets.
For an executor to fulfil their role properly, in a manner that reduces their exposure to liability, it is therefore crucial that an executor understands the difference.
Only the assets (and liabilities) that are owned personally by a person, will form part of their estate. This typically includes assets such as shares, bank accounts and real estate, that are registered or owned in the name of the deceased. Whilst this is not always the case, it is a good starting point.
Where the asset does not have a formal register of ownership (like personal items), then further investigation is required to determine the beneficial owner and will depend on the circumstances surrounding its acquisition and ownership.
The following are examples of assets that will not form part of an estate and will require different treatment.
Jointly held assets
Assets that are jointly held by the deceased and another person typically do not form part of an estate, as they are dealt with in accordance with the principle of survivorship, meaning that the deceased’s interest in the asset will automatically pass to the surviving owner. This is because the deceased and the surviving owner did not hold separate severable interests in the asset – but together held an interest in the entirety of the asset.
The most common examples are the jointly held matrimonial home and jointly held bank accounts. It is for this reason that a person may not leave an estate when they leave a surviving spouse.
However, the precise form of joint ownership is important. In relation to real estate, the principle of survivorship will only operate if the property is owned with another person as ‘joint proprietors’. If it is owned as ‘tenants in common’, then the deceased’s interest in that property will form part of their estate and their executor will be obliged to deal with it as part of the administration of their Will.
Superannuation
Superannuation does not automatically form a part of a person’s estate. This is because super is held in trust for the person by the trustee of the superannuation fund.
Though, whilst super may not initially form part of the estate, an executor must make enquiries with the superannuation fund as to where payment is proposed to be made, including whether the deceased left any binding nominations.
The executor should also consider making a claim for payment on behalf of the estate given their obligation to maximise the assets of an estate for the benefit of the beneficiaries, which obligation can cause a conflict of interest for the executor, if not handled carefully.
Where payment will ultimately be made depends on several factors, including whether a binding nomination was made and whether the deceased left persons who are considered dependents for superannuation purposes.
If the super is ultimately paid to the estate, then the executor must deal with it in accordance with the person’s Will.
Assets held in trusts
Assets held in a trust do not form part of a person’s estate.
This is because trust assets are not held personally by the deceased person and remain assets of the trust to be dealt with in accordance with the rules of the trust (which are typically set out in a ‘deed of settlement’). This is the case even where the deceased funded the acquisition of the assets or is the ‘primary beneficiary’ of the trust.
To complicate matters, it is not always obvious when somebody owns assets personally or as trustee of a trust and trusts may be implied (as opposed to express), such that their existence is not always apparent.
And even when a trust exists, an executor must examine whether there are any interests or roles that they need to consider; for instance:
Therefore, at the very least, the executor should ensure they review the financial statements and the deed of settlement (and any amendments) of any trusts that the deceased had involvement with.
The Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team at Moores is one of the largest in Australia and can assist you in preparing your Will to ensure that your assets do not end up somewhere unexpected.
When does faking a sick day to watch a footy game cross the line from a questionable choice to grounds for dismissal? A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision highlights that a fabricated sick leave claim can justify an employee’s summary dismissal. The case of Fuller v Madison Branson Lawyers Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 784 provides valuable insights for employers on managing dishonest conduct by employees and the action that employers can take in response to malingering.
Mr. Fuller, a Melbourne based solicitor, planned an interstate trip for the AFL ‘Gather Round’. Despite booking flights and AFL tickets earlier in the week, he didn’t request leave. Instead, after flying to Adelaide, he emailed work on Friday claiming he was unwell and unable to come in. He then spent the weekend socialising and attending games. While driving home from Adelaide on Monday, he again emailed his employer claiming “discomfort” prevented him from using public transport. He obtained an online medical certificate for Monday and later provided a (false) statutory declaration to support his application for personal leave on Friday. His employer, Madison Branson Lawyers (a small business), later discovered social media photos of his Adelaide trip. Following an investigation where Mr Fuller was evasive, he was dismissed for serious misconduct due to dishonesty.
Deputy President Andrew Bell upheld the dismissal as fair for the following reasons:
Deputy President Bell noted that Mr. Fuller’s conduct and attitude was “utterly incompatible with his ongoing employment as a solicitor at the firm, where integrity and honesty are paramount”. Not only did Mr. Fuller make false representations to his employer, but he was also found to have given false evidence to the FWC.
While the decision has been welcomed by employers, it has also prompted an important discussion about the interplay between neurodiversity, mental health, and leave. While mental health conditions are recognised as a potential ‘illness’ under the Act allowing for personal leave, the employee must be unfit for work because of that illness. Mr. Fuller, who has ADHD (unknown to the employer), made submissions that burnout necessitated a ‘mental health day’. However, the FWC found that feeling stressed or needing time off didn’t automatically meet the Act’s requirements for paid leave, distinguishing this from being incapacitated by illness. The decision underscores that despite the obligations of employers to regarding psychosocial risks, employees must satisfy leave criteria and remain honest.
Managing employee conduct, leave entitlements, and honesty requires careful navigation. The Moores Workplace Relations team provides pragmatic, commercially focused advice to help employers manage these situations effectively.
Please contact us if you would like further information on how we can assist.
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.
Spoiler warning!
For those who have been living under a rock, the new hit show Adolescence has everybody talking. Based in the UK, at the centre of story is a 13-year-old boy, Jamie Miller, who is accused of murdering his female classmate, Katie.
The show, with its one-take hour long episodes, has mesmerised viewers and prompted a healthy international debate around the world on the topic of physical violence and online harm.
Watching this show through the lens of someone who works in the child safety and safeguarding space, there were 3 parts of the show that grabbed our attention.
The first point that struck us was the profound detrimental impact the online environment is having on children’s psyche and wellbeing.
In the show, it is revealed that in the lead up to her murder, Katie shared a private topless image of herself with a male classmate, who, without Katie’s consent, distributed the image to his other male classmates. In an engrossing conversation with his forensic psychologist Jamie admits that he pursued Katie romantically because he thought his romantic prospects with Katie were improved because of the harm Katie has suffered to her reputation. In a complicated twist, it is also revealed that following Jamie’s romantic approach to Katie, he is bullied by Katie and his other classmates online, including via Instagram posts which, using emojis, ridicule Jamie and label him as an incel and part of the ‘red pill community’.
It is clear the bullying and toxic online environment have an immense impact on Jamie, Katie and other children at the school. In the episode with the forensic psychologist, Jamie flips chaotically between self-hatred, misogyny and ferocious anger at a world which he perceives as being biased against him and other boys.
The second point that struck us was the utter confusion and lack of understanding shown by every adult in the show about the challenges young people are facing online. This is most powerfully demonstrated in episode 2, when the police detectives try to find answers at Jamie and Katie’s school. The detectives are hopelessly out of their depth and misconstrue the online interactions between Jamie, Katie and their other classmates. They incorrectly believe that Katie was friendly with Jamie online when she was actually bullying him.
Online bullying at the school is rampant, affecting most students. There appears to be no systemic approach to managing the issue of online harm at the school, and the teachers are overwhelmed and ill-equipped to support their students to deal with it. This leads to a defeatist attitude from teachers who throw their hands up in the air because it is all too hard.
The third powerful point in the show for us was the heartbreaking despair shown by Jamie’s parents as they ponder whether there was anything they could have done differently to protect Jamie, see the signs and steer him in a better direction. Jamie’s father recalls buying Jamie a computer and a headset, and thinking he was doing the right this for his child who would be safe in his room at home. Jamie’s mother recalls Jamie being online in his bedroom until 1am every night, and her not realising what was happening to Jamie as he sat in front of his computer night after night.
In Adolescence, Katie’s intimate image was shared online by one of her classmates.
This conduct, if it occurred in Victoria, would be criminal conduct.
Under section 53S of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), if a person (A):
The penalty is up 3 years imprisonment. Consent is irrelevant if person (B) is under 18 years of age.
Under section 53T of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic),if a person (A):
The penalty is up 3 years imprisonment.
These Victorian offences clarify that:
There are also a range of federal offences that may be relevant to this conduct.
For example, under section 75 of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), a person (A) must not post or threaten to post an intimate image online of another person (B) without (B)’s consent. The eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue a removal notice or formal warning and can make a civil penalty order of up to 500 penalty units (currently $165,000).
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 to target 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 for sharing of non-consensual deepfake sexually explicit material.
It is not enough in today’s world to say that online harm is all too hard to address. Online abuse is not just happening overseas or in fictional TV shows like Adolescence.
In 2023-24, the eSafety Commission received 7,270 reports about image-based abuse and requested removal from more than 947 locations across 191 platforms and services.
In February 2025, two Year 11 students from Gladstone Park Secondary College were suspended pending a police investigation after fake sexually explicit images of up to 60 students from the school were circulated online.
The risks are real, and it is incumbent on organisations that exercise care, supervision and control over children (and parents) to deeply consider ways to empower students to be safe online, and support students to understand their rights and options if they are victims of online abuse.
There are many lessons that could be taken from this show, but for us, two key lessons are:
Our child safety and safeguarding team helps organisations with incidents of online harm between students and can provide support in navigating any investigations that may arise.
Moores can also provide tailored training about online harm for staff and support organisations that provide care, supervision and support to children to develop meaningful strategies for preventing and responding to online harm at their school.