Privacy, information sharing and a collaborative approach

Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence together with the coronial inquest into the death of Luke Batty recognised what many practitioners working in the family violence field already knew: that the safety of victims, including children, was often undermined by inadequate information technology and confusing policies for sharing information between agencies about perpetrator risk. The Royal Commission wanted this to change. They spelled out that some specified services should be able to share information about victims and perpetrators to more effectively assess and manage risk. Importantly, this recognised that access to perpetrator information such as corrections history and criminal charges brings perpetrators into view at times of heightened risk, increasing accountability and enhancing victim safety.

In its report, the Royal Commission also criticised the way in which some (but not all) organisations currently operate in an isolated and non-integrated way. The commissioners urged services within different fields of expertise to work together more effectively, through the sharing of information and through collaboration. For practitioners already working within collaborative partnerships this was a welcome endorsement of the great work already being done. For some time, Community Legal Centres have been operating health justice partnerships, placing lawyers alongside medical staff in mainstream health services and hospitals. This victim-centred approach focuses on the victim’s needs by bringing important services to them, rather than requiring victims to navigate complex service systems to seek out help. In the same way that the proposed family violence information sharing regime is intended to operate, this collaboration has the professionals doing the work, reducing the trauma a victim experiences by continually repeat their story to numerous service providers.

It is recommendation five of the Royal Commission into Family Violence that paves the way for legislation creating a family violence information sharing regime to remove barriers and simplify complex privacy legislation. The Royal Commission emphasised that “legislation should be clear and succinct, so that it can be effectively applied by front-line workers”. The Commission was also certain that the new regime should replace existing privacy protections only to the extent necessary, and should also preserve victims’ control over their information. For adults and children who have experienced family violence and the loss of power and control this brings, information sharing to support safety and recovery needs to be based on principles of self-determination where victims have control over what is shared and with whom, recognising the further loss of power that sharing information without informed consent can entail.

The benefits of well-coordinated information sharing are obvious. However, in a family violence context, protecting privacy and maintaining victim confidentiality can be as critical to ensuring safety and managing risk as information sharing is. It is a fine balance between different means of pursuing the same priority: victim safety. For the information sharing regime to be purposeful and safe, and to reap the benefits the Royal Commission proposed, there must be careful safeguards in place to ensure there is not a trade-off of privacy that could compromise the safety of a person who is seeking help. 

We already know that in small communities women have limited options and face greater barriers in accessing services, where professionals may be known by or connected with the perpetrator. With this in mind, the new information sharing regime must be able to operate safely across Victoria, including within regional locations and close knit communities. In all but the most extreme, high risk situations, privacy should be maintained unless the victim seeks otherwise. In many high risk situations, it is critical that victims can keep their whereabouts secret from the perpetrator, as information in the wrong hands could lead to tragic outcomes.

While looking at the complexities of information sharing, I have once again been reminded of the importance of collaboration and that many heads are always better than one. I have been pleased to work with the expertise of DV Victoria, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, Women’s Legal Service Victoria and the Law Institute of Victoria to help guide the development of the information sharing regime, using each other’s specialised expertise in the hope that the safety for victims that the Royal Commission hoped to achieve will be realised.