The Code uses a small set of concept definitions to delimit its scope and the avenues for departure from the Health Privacy Principles.

• The Act: clause 3(1) defines “the Act” as the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002. Wherever the Code refers to the Act, it ties its provisions to that primary statute (clause 3(1)).

• Human services agency and allied agency: clause 4(1) defines a human services agency as a public sector agency that provides welfare, health, mental health, disability, drug and alcohol treatment, housing and support, or education services. An allied agency is an agency (not a public sector agency) that is wholly or partly funded by a human services agency and approved in writing by the head of that human services agency as an allied agency for the purposes of clause 4. The head of a human services agency has an explicit written-approval role in designating allied agencies.

• Senior officer and head: clause 4(1) requires the head of the human services agency to nominate, in writing, senior officers who may give authorisations. The senior officer’s written nomination and role are central to the authorisation mechanism.

• Authorisation under clause 4: clause 4(2) creates a statutory exception to the Health Privacy Principles, permitting collection, use and disclosure of health information about an individual where there is a written authorisation from a senior officer, provided certain criteria are met. Clause 4(3) prescribes the form of the authorisation (period not exceeding 12 months; classes of information; specified agencies to receive disclosures). Clause 4(4) details the satisfaction thresholds that the senior officer must reach before authorising.

• Substantial adverse impact: clause 4(1) supplies a non-exhaustive definition, listing examples such as serious physical or mental harm, significant loss of benefits or other income, imprisonment, loss of housing or loss of a carer. The inclusion of “includes, but is not limited to” means the list is illustrative rather than exhaustive.

• Scheme and its objects: clause 6(1) defines “scheme” as the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model and clause 6(2) sets out five objects claimed for the scheme: victim safety; appropriate handling of charged persons; prevention of re-offending; improved coordination of services to victims and those in domestic relationships; and effective management of domestic violence matters throughout the criminal justice process.

• Coverage of the scheme: clause 7 specifies which persons fall within Part 3, linking the scheme to certain police Local Area Commands and Local Courts (Campbelltown, Macquarie Fields, Wagga Wagga, Junee, Temora) and to people charged with or the victims of domestic violence offences as defined by the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and persons in domestic relationships.

• Exemptions from the Health Privacy Principles and access rules: clause 8 identifies the HPPs from which participating agencies and private persons are relieved for scheme purposes when acting in accordance with Attorney General-approved privacy procedures. Clause 9 addresses access rights: public sector agencies need not comply with HPP 7 for scheme-held information, unless the person is a victim; private sector participants need not comply with Divisions 3 and 4 of Part 4 of the Act in respect of scheme-held information unless the person is a victim.

• Notes non-operative: clause 3(2) states that notes included in the Code do not form part of the Code; the Code’s operative content is confined to the clauses themselves.

These concepts establish two distinct legal mechanisms (human services authorisation and scheme exemption) and set decision-making roles (heads, senior officers, Attorney General) that determine when and how deviations from the HPPs and the Act’s access provisions may occur. The definitions are narrowly drafted in places (geographic/local court limits, time-limited authorisations) and broadly drafted in others (illustrative definition of substantial adverse impact, wide range of service types captured by “human services agency”).

The Code directly affects three groups of actors: (1) public sector human services agencies and their staff; (2) private sector persons who participate in the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model; and (3) individuals whose health information is collected, used or disclosed under the two exception mechanisms.

Public sector human services agencies: Clause 4 establishes special authority for human services agencies , public sector agencies that provide welfare, health, mental health, disability, drug and alcohol treatment, housing and support, or education services , to collect, use and disclose health information outside the Health Privacy Principles where a senior officer provides written authorisation. The head of each agency decides which allied agencies (if any) are approved in writing and nominates senior officers in writing (clause 4(1)). The head therefore exercises an administrative gatekeeping function; senior officers exercise discretionary decision-making under clause 4(2)-(4). Public sector agencies also are among the entities that may participate in the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model scheme and thereby invoke the exemptions in clause 8 and the access modifications in clause 9.

Private sector persons participating in the scheme: Clause 8 applies its HPP exemptions to “a public sector agency, or private sector person, that participates in the scheme”. The text therefore contemplates private entities that formally participate in the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model. For those private sector persons, clause 8 removes specified HPP obligations for scheme purposes when the activity complies with Attorney General-approved privacy procedures. Clause 9 exempts private sector participants from Divisions 3 and 4 of Part 4 of the Act (which deal with access and related processes) for scheme-held health information unless the person is a victim. The Code does not set out the mechanism for “participation”; however, any private person that is a participant will, by operation of clause 8, have a different privacy obligation profile in respect of scheme activities.

Individuals whose information is involved: Clause 4 applies to “health information about an individual” where the senior officer authorises collection/use/disclosure; and Part 3 applies to a defined list of persons associated with domestic violence processes in specified police areas and Local Courts (clause 7). Those persons include people charged with domestic violence offences by police in specified Local Area Commands, people against whom proceedings are commenced or moved to certain Local Courts, victims of domestic violence offences referred to those provisions, and persons in domestic relationships with those victims (clause 7). Clause 9, in particular, creates a differential treatment between victims and non-victims: victims retain certain access rights (HPP 7 compliance by public sector agencies and Divisions 3 and 4 Part 4 compliance by private sector participants), whereas non-victims covered by the scheme can, for scheme-held information, expect reduced rights of access.

Who pays and who decides: The Code vests decision-making power in agency heads (who approve allied agencies and nominate senior officers), senior officers (who may authorise departures from the HPPs under clause 4), and the Attorney General (who must approve privacy procedures for the scheme (clause 8)). The “costs” in privacy protection are borne by the individuals whose health information is collected, used or disclosed under these exceptions; administrative and oversight costs fall on the participating agencies and private persons who must implement the authorisation processes and operate in accordance with the Attorney General-approved privacy procedures. The Code confines the departures and sets time and purpose limits (e.g. 12-month maximum for human services authorisations), which shapes who is affected and how long they may be affected.

Geographic and subject-matter limits: The effect is geographically bounded for the scheme to certain police Local Area Commands and Local Courts (clause 7). The human services agency authorisation is not geographically limited in the text, but it is limited to the agencies listed by function in clause 4(1). The Code therefore targets particular service contexts and a particular suite of domestic violence criminal justice settings rather than applying statewide without constraint.

The Code creates duties and rights by specifying what authorised persons and participating agencies may do, and by limiting access rights for certain people in particular settings.

Duties on heads of agencies and senior officers (clause 4): Heads of human services agencies must approve allied agencies in writing and nominate senior officers in writing (clause 4(1)). Senior officers have the duty to give written authorisations under clause 4(2) only if satisfied of specified preconditions (clause 4(4)). Those preconditions are duties of assessment: confirm the individual is a recipient or proposed recipient of services; that the individual or authorised representative has failed to consent; that reasonable grounds exist to believe that not collecting/using/disclosing the specified information would risk substantial adverse impact on the individual or another person; that the collection/use/disclosure is likely to assist in developing/giving effect to a case management or service delivery plan; and that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the individual of the specified information, agencies and proposed period (clause 4(4)(a)-(e)). The authorisation itself must specify classes of information, specified agencies and have a period not exceeding 12 months (clause 4(3)). These are procedural duties embedded in the statutory authorisation.

Notification duty (clause 4(4)(e)): Senior officers must ensure reasonable steps are taken to notify the individual of the specified information, the specified agencies, and the period the authorisation is proposed to have effect. The Code’s note explains that notification would normally be in writing, but other methods may be appropriate for certain clients (for example, illiterate clients), which the Code identifies as an acceptable deviation in practice (clause 4(4)(e) and accompanying note).

Limit on duration (clause 4(3)): Any authorisation for collection/use/disclosure under clause 4 must have effect for no more than 12 months, which places a temporal duty on agencies to renew or reassess any ongoing derogation from HPPs.

Authority to depart from Health Privacy Principles (clause 4(2) and clause 8): Clause 4(2) explicitly permits a human services agency to collect, use or disclose health information contrary to the Health Privacy Principles if a senior officer has given written authorisation. Clause 8 provides that a public sector agency or private sector person participating in the scheme is not required to comply with specified Health Privacy Principles (HPP 1(1), 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11) in respect of collection, holding, use or disclosure of health information about a person to which Part 3 applies, provided the activity is for scheme purposes and done in accordance with privacy procedures approved by the Attorney General. These clauses confer lawful authority to depart from the HPPs when statutory conditions are met.

Access rights limitations (clause 9): For health information held for scheme purposes, clause 9 narrows the right of access. Public sector agencies participating in the scheme are not required to comply with Health Privacy Principle 7 (which deals with access to health information) for such information unless the person is a victim of domestic violence. Private sector participants are not required to comply with Divisions 3 and 4 of Part 4 of the Act (which contain the Act’s provisions on access and related mechanisms) for scheme-held health information unless the person is a victim. In short, victims retain access protections; other persons covered by the scheme may have reduced access.

Attorney General’s procedural role (clause 8): The exemptions in clause 8 apply only when the collection, holding, use or disclosure is for the purposes of the scheme and is done in accordance with privacy procedures for the scheme that are approved by the Attorney General from time to time. The Attorney General therefore has a continuous approving role for the privacy procedures that define how the scheme may operate in practice.

Rights preserved for victims: Clauses 8 and 9 carve out victims of domestic violence so that a person who is a victim retains certain protections (e.g. access rights) that others covered by the scheme do not. Clause 9(1) expressly preserves HPP 7 compliance for victims; clause 9(2) preserves Divisions 3 and 4 compliance for victims in respect of private sector participants.

Limits and procedural safeguards: The Code places specific procedural requirements (written authorisation, notification, maximum 12 months) and definitional limits (who is a human services agency; what is substantial adverse impact; who is covered by the scheme) that function as rights-limiting and procedure-creating devices. The Code also signals that notes are not operative parts of the Code, so duties and rights rest in the clauses themselves (clause 3(2)).

The text provided is the Code and does not itself set out criminal sanctions or civil penalties within these clauses. The Code operates as a statutory Code of Practice under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 by reference (clause 3(1) defines “the Act”), and its enforcement consequences therefore derive from how the Act establishes remedies, enforcement or contravention consequences elsewhere. The Code itself prescribes permissive authorisations and exemptions; it does not specify fines, offences or administrative penalties in the clauses excerpted.

Enforcement mechanisms implicit in the structure:

• Administrative decision-making and internal accountability: Clause 4 requires written authorisations by senior officers and written approvals by heads (for allied agencies), which places administrative obligations on agencies and their officers. These written decisions create documentary records that would be available for internal review, audit or external oversight under the Act’s broader enforcement regime (the Code references the Act as the governing statute).

• Attorney General’s approval role: Clause 8 ties scheme exemptions to privacy procedures approved by the Attorney General. That approval process is a gate for acceptable procedures and creates a locus for oversight in that the Attorney General’s approved procedures materially determine whether an action falls within the clause 8 exemption.

• Rights preserved for victims and access limitations: Clause 9 differentiates victims from others; victims retain access rights that participating agencies must respect. Non-compliance with those preserved rights would engage the Act’s mechanisms (not in the excerpt) for complaints and remedies; the Code does not, by itself, provide remedies.

What the Code does not do: The provided text does not create new criminal offences, specify pecuniary penalties, or establish a separate enforcement body for breaches of the Code’s provisions. It does not provide a schedule of sanctions for misuse of authorisations or for failure to follow Attorney General-approved privacy procedures. Any enforcement, penalty or remedy therefore must be located in the broader Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, or in other supervisory and judicial forums referred to by that Act.

Practical enforcement implications for agencies and private participants: The Code’s requirements (written authorisation, notification, time limits, Attorney General-approved privacy procedures) generate administrative compliance obligations. Failure to keep proper written authorisations, to follow the Attorney General’s procedures, or to observe the exception limits (for example, applying clause 8 exemptions outside scheme purposes) would remove the statutory cover the Code affords and expose agencies to whatever enforcement framework the Act provides. Given the Code’s repeated references to written approvals and authorisations, the practical enforcement risk centres on documentary compliance and conformity with the Attorney General’s approved procedures.

The Code is explicitly linked to and operates against the backdrop of other statutes. Clause 3(1) defines “the Act” as the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 and therefore frames the Code as a Code of Practice within that statutory architecture. Multiple cross-references in the Code tie substantive meaning to other statutes.

References to primary statutes:

• Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002: The Code’s exceptions and authorisations are framed as departures from the Health Privacy Principles and the Act’s access provisions. Clause 4 begins “Despite the Health Privacy Principles” to create an express statutory override where the authorisation criteria are satisfied. Clause 9 expressly disapplies HPP 7 (public sector) or Divisions 3 and 4 of Part 4 of the Act (private sector) for scheme-held information, subject to the victim exception. Therefore, the Code modifies how the Act’s privacy principles and access rights operate in specified contexts.

• Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007: Part 3 imports definitions from the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 by reference. Clause 5 defines “domestic relationship” and “domestic violence offence” as having the same meaning as in that Act. The scope of Part 3 therefore depends on the substantive definitions in the Crimes Act for the criminal conduct and relationship categories that bring persons into the Code’s Part 3.

• Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA): Clause 5 also imports the definition of “person who has been charged with an offence” from LEPRA. That cross-reference ties Part 3’s coverage of “persons who have been charged” to the charging constructs and definitions established in LEPRA.

Interplay patterns and operational implications:

• Code as subordinate instrument: The Code, by operating with “despite” language, functions as an exception-making subordinate instrument that modifies the operation of HPPs and access provisions in identified circumstances. It does not repeal the Act; instead it calibrates how the Act applies to human services agency case management and to the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model.

• Limits of cross-references: Because definitions such as “domestic relationship” and “domestic violence offence” are imported from other Acts, any change to those definitions in the referenced Acts will change who is covered by Part 3. The Code does not re-state those definitions; it relies on the primary statutes to supply the substantive meaning.

• Attorney General’s procedural superintendence: Clause 8 places the Attorney General at the centre of the scheme’s privacy procedure approvals. That situates the Code’s practical operation within the Attorney General’s procedural control and creates an intersection with executive administrative law: privacy procedures approved by the Attorney General determine whether clause 8’s exemptions apply.

• Interaction with administrative law and record-keeping obligations: The written-authorisation and written-approval requirements create administrative acts that may be subject to judicial review or other administrative law scrutiny under the general rules governing public sector decision-making. The Code does not itself set out judicial review pathways, but those external review mechanisms will interact with the Code in practice.

• Non-exhaustive definitions and other Acts: Clause 4’s non-exhaustive definition of “substantial adverse impact” means that other statutes or common law principles may be used in interpreting what counts as substantial adverse impact in particular cases. The Code leaves the substantive assessment to senior officers, who must have “reasonable grounds” for their beliefs.

In short, the Code modifies the operation of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 in specified service-delivery and domestic violence court contexts, while importing substantive content from the Crimes Act and LEPRA. The Attorney General’s approvals and the Code’s documentary requirements create nodes for administrative interaction with other statutes and executive processes.

The text supplied contains metadata that records insertions and substitutions. Those entries indicate the Code has been amended or had parts inserted at particular times; they are the only amendment-history items present in the input and must be treated as the instrument’s internal amendment annotations.

• Part 1 Preliminary: The part heading indicates “pt 1, hdg: Ins 2010 (234), Sch 1 [1]”. That shows Part 1’s heading or related portion was inserted in 2010, recording the instrument responsible (Ins 2010 (234), Sch 1) and a bracketed note [1].

• Clause 3 substitution: Clause 3 contains the note “cl 3: Subst 2010 (234), Sch 1 [2]”. That explicitly records that clause 3 was substituted in 2010 by the Schedule 1 of instrument 2010 (234).

• Part 2 Human services: The part heading has “pt 2, hdg: Ins 2010 (234), Sch 1 [3]”, showing Part 2’s heading was inserted in 2010 under the same instrument reference.

• Part 3 Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model: The part notation “pt 3 (cll 5-9): Ins 2010 (234), Sch 1 [4]” appears in the part heading and clauses 5-9 bear the same bracketed note, indicating that Part 3 (clauses 5-9) was inserted in 2010 by that instrument.

• Clause-level insertion notes: Clause 5 and clause 6 end with “pt 3 (cll 5-9): Ins 2010 (234), Sch 1 [4]”, and clause 7 and clause 8 and clause 9 have the same bracketed amendment annotation, indicating all these clauses were inserted together by the 2010 instrument.

What can be stated from the text: The Code as presented has undergone at least one significant amendment or insertion exercise in 2010 under instrument reference 2010 (234), Schedule 1. Clause 3 was substituted in that amendment. Parts 2 and 3, and clauses 5-9, show insertion annotations tied to 2010. The Code’s commencement date is 1 July 2005 (clause 2), so the 2010 instrument represents a post-commencement amendment or insertion.

What the supplied text does not show: The supplied text does not provide the full legislative history such as the original instrument number in 2005, the text of the 2010 instrument beyond its insertion/substitution notes, dates other than the 2005 commencement and the 2010 amendment reference, or any subsequent amendments after 2010. The text also does not record repeals, renumberings, or marginal notes beyond the insertion and substitution annotations. Any further amendment history must be located in a consolidated register or the statute database that records instrument 2010 (234) Schedule 1 and any later amending instruments.

The provided Code text does not contain references to judicial decisions, reported cases, or litigation outcomes interpreting these provisions. It also does not list any determinations, tribunal decisions, or precedents. Clause 5 cross-references other Acts (the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002) but includes no authority citations to case law.

What the text allows us to state concretely:

• There are no cases mentioned in these clauses. The Code itself cites only statutes and internal amendment annotations; it does not include or summarise any litigation history.

• Any litigation history about how clause 4 authorisations, the Attorney General-approved privacy procedures under clause 8, or the clause 9 access limitations have been interpreted or applied would need to be sourced from external case law databases or reports. The Code text does not record such cases.

• The absence of litigation references in the Code means that, from this text alone, one cannot point to judicial constructions of “substantial adverse impact”, the sufficiency of “reasonable steps” to notify under clause 4(4)(e), or the scope of the Attorney General’s approval power for scheme privacy procedures.

Guidance for researchers seeking litigation: To establish how courts or tribunals have interpreted the Code’s clauses, and in particular, how the Act interacts with clause 4 authorisations or clause 8/9 exemptions for the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model, one must consult reported decisions mentioning the Health Records and Information Privacy Code of Practice 2005 or the relevant sections of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, and look for cases involving the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model in the specified Local Area Commands or Local Courts. The text provided contains none of that material.

The Code contains several points where a close reading is required to avoid misapplication. These are the practical "gotchas" drawn from the text.

“Despite the Health Privacy Principles”: Clause 4(2) and clause 8 begin by stating that the human services authorisation or scheme participation applies “despite the Health Privacy Principles.” That is statutory authorisation to depart from HPPs where the Code’s conditions are met. Practitioners must not assume the HPPs are absolute in the contexts the Code covers; they are subject to these carve-outs when the precise statutory criteria are met.

Who decides allied agency status and senior officer status: Clause 4(1) gives the head of the human services agency the power to approve allied agencies in writing and to nominate senior officers in writing. The head’s written approval and nomination are preconditions; lack of written approval/nomination means clauses 4(2)-(4) cannot be validly invoked. A common error would be to rely on an oral or informal approval.

Notification ambiguities: Clause 4(4)(e) requires reasonable steps to notify the individual of the specified information, specified agencies and the proposed period. The accompanying Code note says notification would normally be in writing but other methods may be appropriate (for example, where the client is illiterate). The Code does not elaborate what counts as “reasonable steps” in particular circumstances; that will require careful documentation and context-specific judgment.

Maximum 12-month authorisation: Clause 4(3) caps authorisations at a maximum of 12 months. A practical pitfall is failing to diarise renewals before the 12-month expiry. Continuing to collect/use/disclose after expiry would be outside the authorisation and therefore outside the Code’s exception.

“Satisfied” and “reasonable grounds” standards: Clause 4(4) requires a senior officer to be “satisfied” of several matters and to have “reasonable grounds” to believe that substantial adverse impact would follow without the proposed action. The code does not provide a checklist or evidentiary standard; those terms are legal standards that require recordable factual bases. Poorly documented satisfaction will leave the authorisation vulnerable to challenge, and the Code itself does not supply remedial wording for defective authorisations.

Broad but non-exhaustive “substantial adverse impact”: Clause 4(1) lists illustrative examples of substantial adverse impact but the list is non-exhaustive. A risk is either over-broad interpretation to justify unnecessary departures from HPPs or under-inclusiveness where harm outside the listed examples is ignored. Senior officers must record why the particular case meets the non-exhaustive threshold.

Scheme participation unknowns: Clause 8 applies to “a public sector agency, or private sector person, that participates in the scheme,” but the Code extract does not set out the administrative mechanism by which participation is effected or recorded. Agencies and private persons must clarify how formal participation is to be established in practice and ensure they act within Attorney General-approved procedures, otherwise clause 8’s exemptions will not lawfully apply.

Attorney General-approved privacy procedures control the exemption: Clause 8 requires that scheme activities be “done in accordance with the privacy procedures for the scheme that are approved by the Attorney General from time to time.” That places a procedural limit on clause 8’s operation and gives the Attorney General continuous control over which practices attract the exemption. Acting in a manner inconsistent with the approved procedures removes the legal cover.

Access rights differ by victim status: Clause 9 preserves access rights for victims but not necessarily for others. Practitioners tending to assume a uniform access regime will be caught out: a public sector agency participating in the scheme must comply with HPP 7 for victims but not for other persons covered by the scheme; private sector participants must comply with Divisions 3 and 4 of Part 4 of the Act for victims but may be exempt for non-victims.

Geographic and jurisdictional limits of Part 3: Clause 7 limits Part 3’s application to people charged in the Campbelltown, Macquarie Fields or Wagga Wagga Local Area Commands and to proceedings in (or moved or adjourned to) the Local Courts at Campbelltown, Junee, Temora or Wagga Wagga. Applying the scheme to persons or proceedings outside these areas would be a jurisdictional error.

Notes do not form part of the Code: Clause 3(2) explicitly says notes included in the Code do not form part of it. Relying on the explanatory note in lieu of a clause is an error in statutory construction.

Overlap between clause 4 and Part 3: There are two distinct departure mechanisms , clause 4 authorisations for human services agencies and clause 8 scheme exemptions for scheme participants. A practical gotcha is conflating the two; they operate under different decision-makers and different procedural constrains (senior officer written authorisation vs Attorney General-approved privacy procedures).

No penalties in the clause text: The Code does not set out specific sanctions in the provided clauses; enforcement will depend on the Act and other mechanisms. Assuming an internal sanction regime exists in the Code itself would be incorrect.

Below are concrete, documentable steps for agencies, private sector participants, and practitioners who need to ensure actions are within the Code’s permitted deviations and satisfy its procedural conditions. Each step is grounded in the specific clauses of the Code.

For human services agencies using clause 4 authorisations

1. Confirm agency status and designate allied agencies in writing:

   • Ensure your agency meets the functional definition of a “human services agency” in clause 4(1) (welfare, health, mental health, disability, drug and alcohol, housing and support, education services).
   • If you intend to work with non-public “allied agencies,” obtain written approval from the head of the human services agency before treating an organisation as an “allied agency” under clause 4(1).

2. Nominate senior officers in writing:

   • The head of the human services agency must nominate senior officers in writing who are empowered to give authorisations (clause 4(1)). Keep the nominations on file and update them formally if personnel change.

3. Use a written authorisation template and limits:

   • Draft a written authorisation form compliant with clause 4(3): it must specify the period (no more than 12 months), the classes of health information to be covered, and the human services agencies or allied agencies to whom the information may be disclosed.
   • Maintain a register of authorisations with start and expiry dates. Do not allow collection/use/disclosure under an expired authorisation.

4. Document the senior officer’s satisfaction with clause 4(4) preconditions:

   • Record, in contemporaneous notes, the factual basis for each clause 4(4) requirement: that the individual is receiving or proposed to receive services, that they or their authorised representative have failed to consent, the reasonable grounds for believing substantial adverse impact will follow otherwise (and why), and how the collection/use/disclosure will likely assist a case management or service delivery plan.
   • For the “reasonable grounds” threshold and “satisfied” standard, record evidence, risk assessments or professional judgments relied upon.

5. Take reasonable steps to notify the individual:

   • Make and record reasonable steps to notify the individual of (i) the specified information (ii) the specified agencies and (iii) the proposed period (clause 4(4)(e)). Where appropriate, provide written notification; where the person is illiterate or otherwise unable to receive written notice, record the alternative method used and why it was appropriate.

6. Time-limit reviews and renewals:

   • Before any authorisation approaches the 12-month limit, reassess the predicate facts and re-authorise in writing if still justified, creating a new authorisation with a new 12-month ceiling if needed.

For participating in the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model scheme (Part 3)

1. Establish formal participation and scope:

   • Confirm whether your agency or private entity has a formal participation mechanism for the Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model. The Code’s exemptions under clause 8 apply only to a “public sector agency, or private sector person, that participates in the scheme.” Document how participation is recorded and authorised.

2. Obtain and comply with Attorney General-approved privacy procedures:

   • Clause 8 requires scheme activities to be done “in accordance with the privacy procedures for the scheme that are approved by the Attorney General from time to time.” Obtain the current approved procedures and ensure operational workflows, staff training and records show compliance with those procedures.
   • Any deviation from the approved procedures undermines the clause 8 exemption.

3. Understand the geographic and person limits:

   • Apply Part 3 only to persons within clause 7’s scope: those charged by police in Campbelltown, Macquarie Fields or Wagga Wagga Local Area Commands, proceedings commenced or moved to the Local Courts at Campbelltown, Junee, Temora or Wagga Wagga, victims of domestic violence in respect of those offences, and persons in domestic relationships with those victims (clause 7).
   • Do not treat persons outside these defined areas or courts as covered by the scheme for clause 8 or clause 9 purposes.

4. Apply HPP exemptions only for scheme purposes:

   • Clause 8’s HPP exemptions apply only for the purposes of the scheme and when privacy procedures approved by the Attorney General are followed. Keep file-level documentation linking the activity to scheme objectives listed in clause 6(2) (e.g. safety of victims, coordinated service delivery, case management).

5. Manage access and victim exceptions:

   • For public sector participants, remember clause 9(1): HPP 7 compliance is not required for scheme-held information unless the person is a victim. Ensure processes are in place to identify victim status and to respond to access requests accordingly.
   • For private sector participants, clause 9(2) removes Divisions 3 and 4 of Part 4 of the Act unless the person is a victim. Private participants must therefore have an intake process to determine when a person is a victim and must comply with access obligations in those instances.

Record-keeping and governance across both mechanisms

1. Maintain documentary trails:

   • Keep written authorisations, heads’ approvals of allied agencies and senior officer nominations, copies of Attorney General-approved privacy procedures, notification evidence, and case management plans linked to authorisations. These documents provide the factual basis for lawful exceptions.

2. Train staff and delegate roles in writing:

   • Train staff on the precise criteria in clause 4(4) and the operation of clause 8/9. Ensure delegations, decision-makers and processes are set out in internal policies and are consistent with the Code.

3. Audit for compliance with time limits and procedures:

   • Conduct periodic audits of authorisations (expiry, notification evidence, link to case management), scheme participation actions (compliance with Attorney General procedures), and access request handling (victim identification and differential treatment).

4. Risk-management: assess and justify necessity:

   • In every instance, ensure the decision to depart from HPPs is justified as necessary to address a risk of substantial adverse impact or to carry out scheme purposes (clause 4(4)(c) and clause 6(2) objects). Record risk assessments and the link to case management plans.

Legal and administrative liaison

1. Coordinate with the Attorney General’s office and legal advisers:

   • Obtain and review the Attorney General-approved privacy procedures and seek clarification where they are ambiguous. Legal advisers should review templates for authorisations and notification materials.

2. Liaise with the heads of agencies to formalise allied agency approvals and senior officer nominations:

   • Make sure these approvals are in place prior to relying on clause 4 authorisations.

3. Keep informed about amendment history and changes to cross-referenced statutes:

   • Because Part 3 imports definitions from the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 and LEPRA (clause 5), and because clause 3 was substituted in 2010, changes in those Acts or further amendments to the Code may affect coverage and requirements. Monitor legislative updates.

By following these steps , documenting written approvals and authorisations, complying with Attorney General-approved privacy procedures for the scheme, carefully identifying who is a victim for access purposes, and keeping time-bound records , agencies and private participants will be operating the exceptions the Code allows in a manner that is traceable and auditable under the statutory framework the Code references.