National Domestic Violence Order Scheme Regulations 2017

The core concept is the interstate DVO as defined in section 6 of the Act and given content by regulation 5. An interstate DVO is an order made in another Australian jurisdiction that is prescribed in the regulations. The regulation does not incorporate the substantive definitions from each state Act; instead it names the specific instrument and type of order. This is a legislative incorporation by reference: the content of each state order is defined by the law of that state, but the Victorian regulation determines which of those orders qualify for automatic recognition. For example, a South Australian intervention order is prescribed only if it ‘addresses a domestic violence concern’ - a condition that requires the person requesting enforcement or recognition to check the underlying order’s purpose.

Registered foreign order under regulation 6 covers orders from outside Australia (most likely New Zealand) that have already been registered in a state or territory. The concept does not create a direct recognition path for foreign orders; it is a two-step process: register in an Australian jurisdiction first, then that registration is recognised across borders. The regulation also incorporates the concept of a corresponding New Zealand order from the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic), which is defined in that Act but imported via the general definitions in regulation 4.

Prescribed information is the second key concept. Sections 29(1) and (2) of the Act give a person the right to request information about a DVO from an issuing authority. The regulations specify what information must be provided. The distinction between court and police information is significant: courts hold formal records (orders, applications, certificates), while police hold operational information (risk assessments, criminal history, firearms authorities). Regulation 8(2) expands police disclosure to include ‘any other information about the protected person or the respondent’ - a very broad residual category that could extend to uncharged incidents or intelligence. This creates a potential privacy trade-off: the national scheme prioritises information sharing for enforcement and risk assessment over the respondent’s confidentiality.

The issuing authority concept determines who holds the information and who must respond to a request. In Victoria, courts and Victoria Police are issuing authorities. A court can be a Magistrates’ Court, Children’s Court, or County Court depending on the order type. Police officers who issue a police DVO are also issuing authorities. The regulations do not prescribe who may make a request under section 29; the Act governs that, and the regulations merely define what must be disclosed. However, the scope of disclosure under regulation 8(2) is not limited to parties to the DVO; it includes ‘any other information about the protected person or the respondent’ that Victoria Police holds. This could include information from other states held on national police databases, raising questions about accuracy and relevance.

The vexatious proceedings order reference in regulation 7(a)(vi) is notable: it requires disclosure of vexatious proceedings orders made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014, which may be unrelated to the DVO but held on the same court file. This could reveal that the applicant or respondent has been declared a vexatious litigant, a matter of public record but one that could influence a party’s decision to pursue a request.

The sunset clause is a subordinate legislative concept: the Regulations automatically expire after ten years unless remade. This is a feature of Victorian delegated legislation under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, intended to force periodic review. Given the cooperative federal scheme, any change in state laws that prescribe different orders (e.g. if Western Australia amends the Restraining Orders Act 1997) could render the prescription outdated unless the regulations are updated. The Table of Amendments shows no amendments to date, meaning the list of orders has remained static since 2017. If new order types are created in other states, they will not be recognised in Victoria until these regulations are amended.

The primary affected groups are respondents to domestic violence orders, protected persons, and the bodies that issue, enforce, and share information about those orders.

Respondents are affected because an interstate DVO or registered foreign order made in another state is automatically recognised in Victoria without any separate local proceeding. A respondent who was served with an order in Queensland, for example, can be arrested in Victoria for contravening that order, even if they have never set foot in a Victorian court. The information disclosure provisions mean that Victoria Police may share the respondent’s criminal record, firearms history, and risk assessment with a person who requests information under section 29 of the Act. The breadth of regulation 8(2) means the respondent’s private history of family violence (including reports that did not lead to charges) may be disclosed. There is no right in the regulations for the respondent to be notified of a request or to contest the disclosure.

Protected persons are also affected. They can request information about a DVO from Victoria Police or a court, and the regulations define what they will receive. For a court, they get copies of orders and certificates; for police, they also get risk assessments and criminal record information. This could empower them to make informed choices about safety, but it also means police may disclose information about the protected person themselves (e.g. their own history of family violence) if it is held on file, as the wording in regulation 8(2)(f) is reciprocal.

Victoria Police bears a significant compliance burden. Under regulation 8, police must retrieve and disclose a wide array of information upon request. This includes information from police databases that may require manual extraction: family violence risk assessments, criminal records, firearms authority details, matters pending before court, and ‘any other information’. The cost of processing such requests - particularly when the request comes from a person who may not be clearly identified under the Act - falls on the police force. There is no fee mechanism in the regulations to recover these costs. The absence of a limit on frequency or volume of requests could lead to administrative strain, especially if many protected persons make repeated requests.

Courts are affected by regulation 7. A court must provide copies of orders and applications upon request. The court may need to retrieve archived files, particularly for older orders or orders made in other jurisdictions that have been registered. The regulation includes certified extracts from contravention proceedings - this requires court registry staff to locate the specific record and produce a certified copy. The cost of certification may be recoverable under court fee schedules, but the regulations do not prescribe a fee.

Firearms authorities are indirectly affected because regulation 8(2)(d) requires police to disclose information about the respondent’s firearms authority or weapons approval. This links the DVO scheme with firearms licensing. If a person who requests information learns that the respondent holds a firearms authority, that information may be used to support an application to suspend or revoke that authority. Conversely, a respondent might be discouraged from applying for a firearms authority if they know the information will be disclosed.

Legal practitioners for both sides must understand the scheme to advise clients. For a respondent, counsel must warn that an interstate order is immediately enforceable in Victoria and that criminal record and risk assessments may be disclosed to the protected person upon request. For a protected person, counsel may advise on requesting information to assess risk, especially if the respondent has moved interstate.

Interstate agencies (e.g. Queensland Police, NSW Courts) are affected because the scheme depends on their orders being recognised. However, the regulations do not impose duties on them; they merely prescribe which of their orders count. If an order type is not listed (e.g. a particular interim order under South Australian law that does not address a domestic violence concern), it might not be recognised, creating a gap that frustrates the scheme’s uniformity.

Duty to provide information upon request: Section 29 of the Act creates a right for a person to request information about a DVO from an issuing authority. The regulations define what information must be provided. The issuing authority - whether a court under regulation 7 or Victoria Police under regulation 8 - must provide the prescribed information. There is no discretion to withhold the prescribed information on grounds of privacy, relevance, or timing, unless the Act itself provides an exception (the regulations do not create any). Regulation 8(2) imposes a particularly broad duty on police: they must disclose information about a report of family violence including risk assessments, matters pending before court, the respondent’s criminal history, and any firearms authority or weapons approval held. The duty is not limited to the current DVO; it extends to ‘any history of family violence related to the protected person or the respondent’.

Right to request information: The Act gives a person the right to request information. The regulations do not require the requesting person to demonstrate a relationship to the DVO or any particular interest. A stranger could theoretically request information about any DVO from Victoria Police, including the criminal record of the respondent. However, the Act may impose limitations; the regulations simply provide the content. The right is not absolute in the sense that only prescribed information must be provided; if the request seeks information not listed, the issuing authority may or may not provide it, but the regulations do not compel it.

Right to a copy of orders: Under regulation 7(a)(i) and 8(1)(a)(i), a person is entitled to a copy of a local DVO. This includes the order itself, not merely a summary. For a court, this is a straightforward document. For police, the ‘local DVO’ may be a police issued order. The right extends to applications, declarations, variation orders, substituted service orders, counselling orders, vexatious proceedings orders, and related orders.

Right to certified extracts from contravention proceedings: Under regulation 7(c), a person can obtain a certified extract from the court record of a proceeding for contravention of a DVO. This is useful for a protected person to show that a breach has occurred, or for a respondent to show that a contravention allegation was dismissed. The extract is certified, meaning it can be used as evidence.

No duty to notify the respondent: The regulations do not require the issuing authority to notify the respondent that information about them has been requested or disclosed. This is significant for privacy. A respondent may never know that their criminal record or risk assessment has been handed over to the protected person or a third party.

No duty to verify the accuracy of information: The regulations require provision of the information as held. They do not impose a duty on the court or police to verify that the information is current or accurate. For example, if a criminal record contains an outdated entry, the issuing authority still must provide it. The requesting person may rely on it, potentially to their detriment or the respondent’s detriment.

Duty to disclose firearms information: Regulation 8(2)(d) specifically requires police to disclose information about a firearms authority, weapons approval, or weapons exemption held by the respondent. This bridges the DVO scheme with firearms regulation. A protected person who learns that the respondent has a firearms authority can use that information to seek its suspension. The respondent has a right to be heard in any such firearms proceeding, but that right is not protected by these regulations.

Duty to maintain records: Implicitly, to be able to provide the prescribed information, courts and police must maintain records in a retrievable form. For a court, this requires filing and indexing orders and applications. For police, it requires maintaining databases that link family violence reports to individuals. The regulations do not prescribe a retention period, but the information must be available for the duration of the DVO and likely beyond, as section 29 requests can be made while the DVO is in force.

The Regulations themselves do not create any penalties. They are subordinate instruments that prescribe matters under the Act. The Act contains the enforcement machinery: contravening a recognised DVO is an offence under the law of the state where enforcement occurs (usually the state where the respondent is located). In Victoria, contravention of a DVO is an offence under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, with penalties including imprisonment. The Regulations facilitate enforcement by ensuring that interstate and foreign orders are treated as local DVOs for enforcement purposes, and by enabling information sharing that may support prosecution.

Failure to provide prescribed information: If an issuing authority (court or police) fails to provide the prescribed information upon a valid request under section 29, that failure is not directly penalised by these Regulations. However, the Act may provide remedies for non-compliance, such as a complaint to the Victorian Ombudsman or an application for judicial review. The absence of a specific penalty means that an issuing authority may delay or refuse disclosure without immediate legal consequence, subject to general public law duties.

Misuse of disclosed information: The Regulations do not create an offence for misuse of information obtained under section 29. If a protected person uses the criminal record of a respondent to harass or intimidate them, that conduct may be caught by other laws (e.g. stalking, misuse of personal information), but not by these Regulations. The regime trusts that the requesting person will use the information for the legitimate purpose of safety or enforcement, but there is no statutory constraint to that effect.

Liability of information provider: The Regulations do not grant immunity to the issuing authority for providing information in good faith. If the information is inaccurate and the requesting person acts on it to their detriment, the issuing authority could potentially face common law negligence claims, though such claims would be difficult against a court or police force absent misfeasance. The regulations do not address this risk.

Cross-border enforcement: The Regulations are part of a national scheme that makes interstate DVOs enforceable across borders. The practical penalties for contravention are state specific. A respondent who contravenes an interstate DVO in Victoria faces the same penalties as for a local DVO. The Regulations do not harmonise penalty levels across states; a breach may result in up to 2 years imprisonment in some states and 5 years in others. This inconsistency is a feature of the cooperative scheme, not a defect of these Regulations.

Firearms consequences: Disclosure of firearms information under regulation 8(2)(d) may lead to revocation of a firearms authority. The respondent may lose their licence or have weapons seized. This is an indirect penalty, but it arises from other legislation (the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic)), not from these Regulations. The Regulations merely enable the disclosure that triggers those consequences.

Enforcement against the issuing authority: If Victoria Police is the issuing authority and fails to provide prescribed information, the requesting person’s remedy is probably an internal complaint or a complaint to the Information Commissioner (for privacy) or to the Victorian Ombudsman. There is no specific enforcement mechanism in the Regulations. The only check is the sunset clause, which forces the government to review the regulations after ten years. But by then, non-compliance by a specific authority may have gone unremedied.

Private enforcement by parties: A party to a DVO cannot directly enforce the duty to provide information; they must rely on the section 29 right and then, if refused, seek judicial review. The Regulations do not create a private right of action against an issuing authority that fails to comply. This limits the practical enforceability of the disclosure regime.

The Regulations are intimately connected with the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme Act 2016 (Vic), which they implement. They fill the gaps left by the Act: prescribing the orders that are recognised and the information that must be disclosed. Without these Regulations, section 6 and 7 of the Act would have no operative content, and section 29 would require the issuing authority to guess what information to provide.

The Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) is the primary Victorian statute governing domestic violence orders. The Regulations incorporate its definitions and procedural mechanisms. Regulation 4 defines ‘corresponding New Zealand order’, ‘firearms authority’, ‘weapons approval’, and ‘weapons exemption’ by reference to that Act. Regulation 7(a)(iii)-(vii) and 8(1)(a)(iii)-(iv) refer to orders made under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, such as variation, extension, revocation, substituted service, and counselling orders. The Regulations also prescribe these orders as information that must be disclosed. This means that while the Regulations are about interstate recognition, they also affect how local Victorian orders are handled.

The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), and similar interstate Acts are referenced in regulation 5. The Regulations do not create any obligation on those states; they simply list which orders qualify. If an interstate Act is amended to change the name or type of order, the Victorian regulation will be out of date until amended. For example, the ACT’s Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 was repealed and replaced by the Family Violence Act 2016; regulation 5(a) preserves the old orders, which may still have effect, but new orders under the new Act are covered by regulation 5(b).

The Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 (Vic) is referenced in regulation 7(a)(vi). An order under that Act must be provided on request as prescribed information about a DVO. This creates an interaction: a protected person requesting information may receive an order declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant. That order may have been made in a different proceeding. This linkage could allow a requesting person to use the vexatious order to discredit the respondent in the DVO proceedings, though that would be tangential to the purpose of the information request.

The Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) and the Weapons Act 1990 (Vic) are indirectly engaged through regulation 8(2)(d). Victoria Police must disclose information about any firearms authority, weapons approval, or weapons exemption held by the respondent. This disclosure may prompt the protected person to apply to suspend the respondent’s firearms licence under the Firearms Act. The Regulations do not require police to revoke or suspend; they only disclose.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (Vic) governs the making and sunsetting of the Regulations. The sunset date of 15 November 2027 is stated in the endnotes. If the regulations are not remade before that date, the prescriptions lapse, and the Act becomes inoperative in part. This interacts with the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), which provides for style changes and defines what parts of statutory rules are authoritative.

The Criminal Records Act 1991 (Vic) may limit disclosure of spent convictions. However, the Regulations do not carve out spent convictions from the prescribed information. Regulation 8(2)(d) requires disclosure of ‘any history of family violence’ including the respondent’s criminal record. If that record includes spent convictions, the Regulations arguably override the general limitation on disclosure. This interaction is not addressed in the text, creating legal uncertainty. A court might have to determine whether the specific provision in the Regulations impliedly excludes the Criminal Records Act.

The Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic) governs the handling of personal information by Victoria Police. The disclosure of criminal records and family violence reports under regulation 8 may be authorised by the Regulations as a lawful disclosure under that Act. However, the breadth of ‘any other information’ in regulation 8(2)(f) could extend to deeply personal information (e.g. mental health history) that is unrelated to the DVO. The Regulations do not require the issuing authority to weigh privacy against the purpose of the request; they mandate disclosure of the prescribed categories regardless.

The Table of Amendments at the end of the Regulations states: ‘There are no amendments made to the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme Regulations 2017 by statutory rules, subordinate instruments and Acts.’ Further, the table for Amendments Not in Operation is also empty. This means that since commencement on 25 November 2017, the Regulations have remained in their original form. No changes have been made to the list of prescribed interstate DVOs, the list of registered foreign orders, or the information required to be provided.

This lack of amendment is notable given that several of the interstate Acts referenced in regulation 5 have been amended since 2017. For example, the Domestic and Family Violence Act of the Northern Territory has been amended multiple times, including a significant rewrite in 2020. The regulation prescribes orders made under that Act, but does not specify a version. Under normal interpretive principles, references to an Act incorporate the Act as amended from time to time. Therefore, the regulation likely continues to capture orders made under the amended NT Act, even if the order types have changed. The safer approach would have been to update the regulation to reference the specific current provisions, but the lack of amendment does not automatically create gaps if the Act is incorporated dynamically.

However, the situation with the Australian Capital Territory is different. Regulation 5(a) prescribes orders under the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) ‘as in force immediately before its repeal’. That Act was repealed and replaced by the Family Violence Act 2016. The regulation freezes the reference to the old Act’s force at the moment of repeal. This means orders made under the old Act are preserved, but any new orders under the 2016 Act are covered by regulation 5(b). This drafting choice creates a cut-off: if an order was made under the old Act but subsequently varied, the variation might be under the new Act, creating a dual regime. The lack of amendment may mean this nuance was either intentional or overlooked.

The absence of amendments also means that new interstate order types created after 2017 are not explicitly listed. For example, if Western Australia introduced a new interim order for family violence that does not fall under the existing heads in regulation 5(h) or (i), it would not be prescribed. The scheme relies on the existing categories being broad enough to cover all new orders. But that is not guaranteed. A respondent might argue that an order meets the description of a ‘family violence restraining order’ under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) even if it is a new subtype. A court would need to interpret the regulation purposively.

The sunset date of 15 November 2027 is approaching. As at 2025, there are about two years left. If the Regulations are not remade before then, all prescriptions will lapse. This would create a sudden gap in the recognition scheme for Victoria. Interstate orders would no longer be prescribed, meaning they would not be automatically recognised under the Act. Victoria Police and courts would no longer have a duty to provide the prescribed information. The Act would still be in force, but its core provisions would have no operative content. The government would likely introduce new regulations before the sunset, but the absence of amendment history suggests the regulations have not been a priority for review.

The Explanatory Details section is empty, providing no additional context.

The Regulations themselves have not been the subject of reported litigation, based on publicly available sources at the time of this writing. The text contains no case references, and the endnotes show no entries in the Explanatory Details section. Because the Regulations are procedural in nature - they prescribe orders and information - they are unlikely to be challenged directly. Most litigation around the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme would centre on the Act itself, particularly on the interpretation of ‘interstate DVO’ or ‘recognised DVO’ or on the exercise of powers under the Act.

However, potential litigation could arise in the following scenarios:

A respondent charged with contravening an interstate DVO might argue that the order is not a prescribed interstate DVO under regulation 5 because it was made under a state Act that has been amended, or because the order type does not fall within the description. For example, a Tasmanian family violence order made under the Family Violence Act 2004 could be challenged if the respondent claims it is not an ‘FVO’ because it was issued by a police officer, not a court. Regulation 5(g) covers both family violence orders (FVOs) and police family violence orders (PFVOs), so that challenge would likely fail. But a South Australian intervention order that addresses a domestic violence concern might be contested if the respondent argues the order was granted for a non-domestic purpose. The court would have to examine the order’s terms.

A protected person might challenge a refusal by Victoria Police to provide prescribed information. If police withhold information on the grounds of privacy or operational sensitivity, the requesting person could seek judicial review. The court would need to interpret regulation 8 to determine whether the information falls within the prescribed categories. The breadth of regulation 8(2)(f) (‘any other information about the protected person or the respondent’) is so wide that a refusal would be difficult to justify unless the information simply does not exist.

A respondent might bring a privacy challenge to the disclosure of spent convictions or other sensitive information not directly related to the DVO. They could argue that the Regulations implicitly require disclosure only of information relevant to the DVO, not all information held. The text of regulation 8(2)(d) requires ‘information about any history of family violence ... including, but not limited to, information relating to the criminal record’. A court might read this as limited to history that relates to family violence, not a general criminal record. But the regulation then includes ‘any firearms authority or weapons approval’ regardless of connection to family violence. The interaction is unclear.

Interstate orders that were made before the Regulations commenced on 25 November 2017 are covered because regulation 5 does not restrict the date of the order. But litigation might arise about whether an order made under a repealed Act (like the ACT’s 2008 Act) is still validly prescribed. Regulation 5(a) explicitly preserves those orders, so litigation would likely fail.

Given the absence of litigation history, practitioners should treat the Regulations as currently stable and uncontested. However, the sunset and the lack of amendments suggest that the Regulations may be due for review, and litigation could emerge if the government fails to update them, causing confusion.

1. Regulation 5(a) freezes the ACT’s old Act: The prescription of orders under the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) is ‘as in force immediately before its repeal’. Any variation to an order made under that Act after the repeal (when the new Family Violence Act 2016 came in) may technically be made under the new Act, not the old Act. A subsequent variation order would not be prescribed, meaning the original order might be recognised but the variation might not. This could create a scenario where an ACT order is partially recognised in Victoria.

2. Regulation 5(e) includes Queensland police protection notices and release conditions: These are not court orders. Police-issued notices and conditions of release imposed by police or a court are treated as interstate DVOs. A respondent might not be aware that a simple police notice issued in Queensland (e.g. a 24-hour protection notice) is immediately enforceable in Victoria. The notice may have expired by its terms in Queensland, but if the respondent travels to Victoria within the notice period and breaches it, they can be charged.

3. The phrase ‘addresses a domestic violence concern’ in regulation 5(f) and (i) is undefined. South Australia and Western Australia allow intervention orders for non-domestic purposes (e.g. neighbour disputes). Only those that address a domestic violence concern are prescribed. The requesting person or enforcing officer must determine from the order’s text whether it qualifies. This introduces uncertainty, especially for old orders that may not clearly state the relationship between the parties.

4. Regulation 8(2)(f): ‘any other information about the protected person or the respondent’ - This residual category is breathtakingly broad. It could include mental health assessments, school records, employer references, or anything else in Victoria Police databases. The regulation does not require the information to be relevant to the DVO or to family violence. A respondent might have their entire police file disclosed, including information about unrelated criminal investigations that did not result in charges. The practical limit is only whether the information is ‘held by Victoria Police’. There is no proportionality check.

5. No fee or cost recovery mechanism: The regulations do not authorise a fee for providing information. Courts and police must absorb the administrative cost. This may lead to slow responses if resources are scarce. There is no prescribed timeframe for compliance, so a request could be delayed indefinitely without penalty.

6. Regulation 7 includes ‘certified extract from the court record for a proceeding for a contravention or an alleged contravention’. If a contravention proceeding was dismissed or withdrawn, the extract will still show that an allegation was made. This could prejudice the respondent even if they were exonerated. The extract may be disclosed without any note of the outcome, potentially creating a misleading picture.

7. Vexatious proceedings orders are included in regulation 7(a)(vi). Even if the vexatious order was made against a third party unrelated to the DVO, it may be disclosed if it is held on the same court file. A protected person requesting information about a DVO might inadvertently learn that a witness or family member has been declared vexatious.

8. The Regulations do not address automated information systems. Victoria Police may have automated systems that generate reports. If a request is made, police may rely on automated extracts without manual verification. The regulations do not require a human check for accuracy or relevance.

9. Corresponding New Zealand orders are defined by the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, not by these regulations. A practitioner must check that Act to determine whether a New Zealand order qualifies. The Regulations only prescribe that court orders related to corresponding New Zealand orders must be provided upon request (regulation 7(a)(vii)), but do not list the New Zealand orders themselves.

10. The sunset on 15 November 2027 is absolute. If the Regulations are not remade, all prescriptions vanish. Existing interstate DVOs would stop being recognised for future enforcement. However, the Act still contains the power to prescribe, but until new regulations are made, the scheme is inoperable in Victoria. This could catch lawyers who assume the regulations are permanent.

Compliance depends on which role you play: issuing authority (Victoria Police or a court), requesting person, or respondent.

For Victoria Police as issuing authority: When a request under section 29 of the Act is received, identify whether the request falls under section 29(1) (information about a DVO) or section 29(3) (broader information). For a request under section 29(1), provide the information listed in regulation 8(1): copies of the DVO, declaration, variation/extension/revocation orders, substituted service orders, applications, notification information, certificates of service, and information about contravention reports, investigations or prosecutions. For a request under section 29(3), also provide the information in regulation 8(2): family violence incident reports and risk assessments, matters pending before a Victorian court about the respondent, any history of family violence (including criminal record, firearms authority, weapons approval, weapons exemption), and any other information about the protected person or respondent. Note that regulation 8(2)(f) is extremely broad; the officer must assess what ‘other information’ exists and provide it all. The officer should create a record of what was provided and to whom. No fee can be charged unless the Act separately permits it. If the request is unclear, the officer should ask the requester for clarification to avoid over-disclosure.

For courts as issuing authority: When a request under section 29 is received, provide the information listed in regulation 7: copies of the DVO, declaration under section 39 of the Act, variation/extension/revocation orders under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, substituted service orders, counselling orders, vexatious proceedings orders, orders relating to corresponding New Zealand orders, applications for any of those orders, certified extracts from contravention proceedings, and certificates of service or inability to serve. The court should ensure any extracts are certified. The court does not need to provide risk assessments or criminal records; that is police domain. The court should respond within a reasonable time (not prescribed) and cannot charge a fee unless authorised.

For a requesting person: Identify which issuing authority holds the information. If the order was made by a court, request from the court; if by police, request from Victoria Police. Make the request in writing, specifying that it is under section 29 of the Act and that you seek the prescribed information under the Regulations. If you want broader police information including criminal history and risk assessments, you must specifically request under section 29(3) of the Act. Be aware that the respondent may never be notified and that the information you receive might include spent convictions or irrelevant data. Do not use the information for harassment or other improper purposes, as that could be an offence under other laws. The regulations do not restrict your use, but other laws do.

For a respondent: Understand that if you have an interstate DVO against you, it is enforceable in Victoria. Your criminal record, firearms licences, and family violence history may be disclosed to the protected person upon their request. You cannot block the disclosure. If you believe the information is inaccurate, you cannot force the issuing authority to correct it before disclosure; you may only challenge it after the fact. If you are served with a request for information, you have no standing to object under these regulations. Your remedy is limited to complaining to the Victorian Ombudsman or the Information Commissioner about any over-disclosure.

General compliance steps:

• All parties should be aware of the sunset date: 15 November 2027. After that, the regulations lapse. If the scheme is to continue, the Victorian government must remake the regulations. Practitioners should monitor the Victorian Legislation website for updates.
• If you are a court registrar, ensure that court files contain the documents listed in regulation 7 so that you can comply with requests promptly.
• If you are a police officer or police records manager, ensure that your databases can generate reports that include all categories in regulation 8. Develop a template response to ensure consistency and completeness.
• If you are a lawyer, advise clients that information disclosed under these regulations is not protected by legal professional privilege; the issuing authority is not your client’s lawyer.
• If you are acting for a protected person, consider whether you need information from both the court and police, as each holds different data. The combination can give a fuller picture of risk.
• If you are acting for a respondent, advise that the respondent’s only practical protection is to ensure that any information held by police is accurate. They can request access to their own records under privacy laws to check for errors before the other party requests disclosure.