.jpg)
.svg)
In late 2024 the Parliament of Australia passed the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), marking the first tranche in a multi-stage overhaul of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). This tranche received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024 and implements significant reforms to Australia’s federal privacy framework.
The reforms come against a backdrop of increasing privacy harm. In 2024 Australian organisations and government agencies reported 1,113 notifiable data breaches to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), the highest annual total since mandatory breach reporting began under the Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme in 2018 and a 25% increase over 2023.
Notifiable data breaches remain predominantly caused by cyber security incidents, with malicious attacks accounting for the majority of reported incidents and thousands of individuals affected.
The combination of increased breach activity and the emergence of technologies such as cloud data platforms, automated systems and artificial intelligence has exposed structural limitations in the Privacy Act’s ability to govern personal information handling in modern data ecosystems. The first tranche of reform is intended to address these limitations by strengthening regulatory powers, increasing transparency obligations, and introducing new avenues of legal accountability.
Why Australia’s Privacy Law Is Being Rewritten
The Australian Privacy Act 1988 was enacted in a pre-internet era. At that time, personal information was most often recorded and shared in static records, paper files and centralized databases. The privacy risks of distributed cloud computing, pervasive internet traffic, application programming interfaces (APIs) and automated decision systems were not contemplated in the original legislative design.
Over the past decade the landscape of data processing has changed fundamentally. Personal information now flows through complex topologies of internal systems, third-party services, platform APIs and machine learning models. Service architectures are distributed across multiple jurisdictions and use real-time data streams to deliver functionality. These developments have created both new forms of privacy risk and gaps in regulatory coverage.
A 2023 Gartner survey of data and analytics leaders found that 98 % of organisations worldwide use cloud services for data storage or processing, and that 67 % report spending more time managing data privacy and security risks than two years prior. Cloud-native architectures, software as a service (SaaS) integrations, microservices and increasingly autonomous systems are now routine components of enterprise IT landscapes.
In the Australian context, the OAIC’s own breach statistics show a sustained upward trend in reported incidents involving large datasets and external system compromise. The prevalence of API-exposed endpoints, third-party service integrations, and cross-border data flows has significantly increased the volume and complexity of personal information handling.
Against this backdrop, technology evolution has outpaced the regulatory model embedded in the Privacy Act. The Act’s original mechanisms, primarily administrative enforcement and narrowly defined compliance obligations, were never designed to assure accountability for dynamic, automated and distributed systems. This structural mismatch has constrained the Act’s effectiveness in delivering real privacy protection in modern data ecosystems.
The 2024 reforms are thus a systemic response to these conditions. They aim to broaden the regulator’s remit, enhance individual rights, and create actionable obligations around transparency and accountability that extend into the operational layer where personal data is processed. In doing so they shift the legal and compliance focus from policy statements and documentation to evidentiary requirements about how data is actually managed in live systems.
What the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 Actually Changed
The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 introduces structural changes to how the Privacy Act 1988 is enforced and how privacy obligations are applied in practice. Rather than relying primarily on post incident investigations and negotiated outcomes, the reforms are designed to create a system where organisations face clearer legal exposure, stronger regulatory oversight and more direct accountability to individuals.
The changes fall into three core areas that together reshape the compliance landscape.
A new tiered civil penalty regime
Before the 2024 amendments, privacy penalties in Australia were largely limited in scale and applied mainly in extreme cases. The new framework introduces a tiered civil penalty system that allows courts to impose penalties in proportion to the seriousness of a breach.
This regime enables regulators and courts to distinguish between technical non compliance, systemic failures and deliberate or reckless misuse of personal information. It also allows penalties to be calibrated based on the nature of the data involved, the number of individuals affected and the organisation’s level of responsibility.
For enterprises, this removes the previous assumption that privacy enforcement was primarily reputational. Financial exposure now scales with the operational impact of a failure. Large scale data handling and automated processing therefore carry proportionally higher risk.
Expanded powers for the OAIC
The reforms significantly strengthen the enforcement toolkit of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
The OAIC now has broader authority to compel information, require corrective actions and issue binding directions. It can require organisations to explain how personal information is handled within their systems and to demonstrate how risks are being managed.
This represents a shift from advisory regulation toward supervisory oversight. The regulator is no longer limited to reviewing written policies or responding to complaints. It can demand evidence of how personal data is processed in operational environments.
For organisations that rely on complex digital infrastructures, this creates an expectation that data handling practices must be observable, auditable and capable of being explained in concrete terms.
Stronger individual rights
The amendments also strengthen the position of individuals whose data is collected and processed.
New rights allow individuals to seek greater transparency, request explanations of data use and pursue remedies when their privacy is infringed. These rights are reinforced by the introduction of the statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, which will come into effect in 2025.
Together these changes mean that individuals are no longer dependent solely on regulatory action to enforce their privacy. They can directly challenge organisations when personal information is misused or disclosed inappropriately.
This increases the legal and operational importance of being able to demonstrate how personal data is handled across systems, rather than relying on high level statements about compliance.
The New Statutory Tort for Serious Invasion of Privacy
One of the most significant changes introduced by the 2024 reforms is the creation of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This marks a fundamental shift in how privacy rights are enforced in Australia.
Under the existing framework, individuals who suffered harm from misuse of their personal information largely depended on regulatory intervention by the OAIC. Remedies were limited and often slow. The statutory tort changes this by giving individuals a direct cause of action against organisations in the courts.
From mid 2025, a person will be able to bring a claim where there has been a serious invasion of their privacy, including through misuse of personal information or unjustified interference with their private life. Courts will be able to award damages and grant other remedies based on the impact of the invasion and the conduct of the organisation.
The significance of this change lies in how privacy failures will now be evaluated. Legal exposure will no longer depend on whether a regulator decides to pursue enforcement. It will depend on whether an organisation’s systems, processes and data handling practices caused harm to an individual.
In practical terms, many future claims are likely to arise from failures in complex digital environments. These include data leaks through application interfaces, unauthorised sharing with third party services, misuse of data by automated systems, or unintended exposure of sensitive information through analytics and monitoring tools.
In these scenarios, liability will be determined by what actually happened inside operational systems rather than what an organisation intended or documented. This increases the importance of being able to reconstruct data flows, identify which systems processed personal information, and show whether that processing aligned with lawful purposes.
The statutory tort therefore connects privacy law directly to system behaviour. For organisations that rely on distributed cloud platforms, software integrations and automated processing, this represents a new class of legal risk that cannot be managed through policies alone.
Automated Decision-Making and AI Under the Australian Privacy Act
The 2024 reforms also bring automated decision making within the scope of formal privacy regulation. This reflects the growing role of algorithms, machine learning systems and rules based engines in making decisions that affect individuals.
Under the amended Privacy Act, organisations will be required to disclose when personal information is used in automated decision making processes that have a significant effect on individuals. This includes systems that determine access to services, set prices, approve applications, detect fraud, or influence how people are treated by digital platforms.
These obligations are not limited to what is commonly described as artificial intelligence. They apply to any system that uses personal data to make or materially influence decisions without direct human involvement. In modern enterprises this includes scoring engines, recommendation systems, automated workflows, risk models and many forms of third party software.
The intent of these provisions is to address the growing opacity of digital decision systems. Individuals often have no visibility into how their personal information is processed or how automated outcomes are generated. The reforms seek to correct this imbalance by requiring organisations to be transparent about the existence and nature of automated processing.
This introduces a new compliance challenge. In order to disclose how automated decision making operates, an organisation must first be able to identify which systems are using personal data for these purposes, what data inputs they rely on, and how those inputs affect outcomes.
In complex technology environments this is rarely straightforward. Data is collected through multiple channels, passed through application interfaces, enriched by external services and consumed by models and decision engines that are maintained by different teams or vendors. The paths that personal information takes through these systems are often undocumented and change over time.
As a result, the legal requirement for transparency intersects directly with the technical problem of data observability. Organisations cannot provide accurate disclosures about automated decision making unless they can see how personal data is actually used within their live systems.
Australian Privacy Act 2025–2026: Key Implementation Milestones
The first tranche of reforms establishes the legal framework, but the practical impact of the Privacy Act overhaul unfolds over the 2025 and 2026 period. During this phase, new rights, obligations and enforcement mechanisms move from legislation into operational reality. For enterprises, this is the point at which privacy compliance becomes directly tied to system behaviour and evidentiary capability.
Mid-2025 (Statutory tort becomes active, New complaint and redress mechanisms come in-force)
From mid 2025, the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy comes into force. This marks the moment when individuals gain a direct legal pathway to challenge how their personal information has been handled.
At the same time, expanded complaint and redress mechanisms take effect. Individuals will have greater ability to seek explanations, remedies and compensation without relying exclusively on regulatory intervention. This changes the risk profile for organisations in two important ways.
First, privacy failures can escalate into legal action more quickly. Second, organisations must be prepared to respond with evidence that explains how personal data was used in practice, not just how it was intended to be used.
In this environment, incident response extends beyond breach notification. It includes the ability to trace data flows, identify affected individuals, and demonstrate whether processing activities aligned with lawful purposes. Organisations that cannot reconstruct these facts face increased litigation exposure.
Late-2025 to 2026 (Automated decision-making transparency, Privacy policy and system disclosure obligations are all enabled)
The later phase of reform focuses on transparency obligations related to automated decision making and system level disclosures. During this period, organisations will be required to update privacy policies to explain when personal information is used in automated decisions that have a significant effect on individuals.
These disclosures must be meaningful. Generic statements about the use of algorithms or analytics will not be sufficient. Organisations will need to describe the role of personal data in decision processes and the types of systems involved.
In parallel, expectations around system disclosure will increase. Regulators and courts will expect organisations to understand which systems process personal data, how data moves between internal and external services, and where automated processing occurs.
This phase reinforces a central theme of the reform program. Privacy compliance is no longer satisfied by static documentation. It depends on ongoing visibility into live data processing activities across digital systems.
Why Traditional Privacy Programs Fail Under the Australian Privacy Act
Many existing privacy programs were designed for an environment where personal information was handled through relatively stable systems and predictable processes. Compliance activities focused on policy drafting, consent management, vendor questionnaires and periodic audits. These approaches assumed that data flows could be documented once and relied upon over time.
That assumption no longer holds.
Modern enterprise systems are dynamic. Personal information moves continuously through APIs, cloud platforms, third party services and automated workflows. New integrations are added, configurations change and data is reused for secondary purposes without direct involvement from legal or compliance teams.
Traditional privacy controls struggle in this environment for several reasons.
First, documentation quickly becomes outdated. Data flow diagrams and privacy impact assessments reflect a point in time view of systems that are constantly evolving. They do not capture how data is actually used after deployment.
Second, accountability is fragmented. Legal teams define obligations, security teams manage infrastructure and engineering teams build and operate systems. Without shared visibility into data movement, no single function can reliably explain how personal information is processed end to end.
Third, audits and reviews are retrospective. They identify issues after data has already been exposed or misused. Under the new enforcement regime, this delay creates legal and regulatory risk rather than mitigating it.
As enforcement powers expand and individual litigation becomes possible, these limitations become material. Organisations that cannot observe and explain real data handling practices will struggle to respond to regulatory inquiries, defend legal claims or meet transparency obligations.
The reforms therefore expose a structural weakness in traditional privacy governance models. Compliance mechanisms that operate independently of live systems are no longer sufficient to manage privacy risk in modern data environments.
Pro Tip: Under the Australian Privacy Act, the weakest point in most privacy programs is not policy quality but lack of operational evidence. Enterprises increasingly need to demonstrate how personal data moves through live systems, including which APIs exist, which are active, what personal data they transmit and where that data is sent.
Levo.ai addresses this gap by providing runtime API discovery, continuous API inventory and sensitive data visibility across production environments. These capabilities allow organisations to observe personal data in motion and to correlate system behaviour with privacy obligations. In the context of expanded enforcement powers and individual litigation risk, this operational visibility becomes a prerequisite for explaining data handling practices under regulatory or legal scrutiny.
How the Australian Privacy Act Affects Modern Data Architectures
The Privacy Act reforms assume that organisations have a clear and accurate understanding of how personal information moves through their systems. In modern data architectures, this assumption is increasingly difficult to satisfy.
Enterprise systems are no longer built around single applications or centralised databases. They are composed of distributed services that communicate through APIs, event streams and background processes. Personal information is ingested, transformed and transmitted across multiple layers of infrastructure, often spanning internal platforms and external vendors.
In these architectures, data handling is continuous rather than episodic. Information is exchanged automatically between services, enriched by third party tools and consumed by analytics and decision systems in near real time. This makes it difficult to define a single point at which privacy obligations can be enforced through policy or manual review.
The reforms bring this architectural reality into focus. Obligations related to cross border disclosure, automated decision making and individual redress all depend on understanding how data behaves in production environments. This includes knowing which services process personal information, which APIs transmit it, and which external systems receive it.
For organisations operating cloud native or SaaS heavy environments, these questions cannot be answered reliably through design documentation alone. The behaviour of systems in production often diverges from intended architecture due to configuration changes, feature releases and third party integrations.
The reforms therefore place implicit pressure on enterprises to align privacy governance with system observability. Compliance depends on being able to observe data movement across service boundaries and to correlate that movement with legal obligations.
In effect, privacy law is now coupled to architecture. The more distributed and automated a system becomes, the greater the need for visibility into how personal information flows through it. This represents a fundamental shift in how privacy compliance must be approached in modern technology environments.
Why the Australian Privacy Act Requires Runtime Data Visibility
The cumulative effect of the 2024 reforms is a shift in what regulators, courts and individuals will expect organisations to be able to demonstrate. Privacy compliance is no longer assessed primarily through written policies, contractual assurances or one time assessments. It is assessed through evidence of how personal information is handled in live systems.
To meet obligations under the amended Privacy Act, organisations must be able to answer practical questions. These include which systems process personal data, how that data moves between services, whether it is disclosed to third parties or overseas recipients, and whether it is used in automated decision making. In modern digital environments, these questions are inseparable from how APIs operate in production.
In practice, this requires organisations to know which APIs exist across their environment, which of those APIs are active, and what data they transmit. Undocumented or unmanaged APIs create blind spots where personal information can be exposed, reused or exported without governance oversight. Without an accurate and continuously updated inventory of APIs, privacy obligations cannot be reliably enforced.
Runtime data visibility also requires identifying personal and sensitive data within API traffic. This includes understanding which fields carry personal information, how that data is transformed or enriched as it moves between services, and which downstream systems receive it. Static classification exercises cannot capture this behaviour when payloads change dynamically and integrations evolve over time.
Under the new enforcement and litigation landscape, this capability becomes a compliance requirement rather than a technical enhancement. When responding to regulatory inquiries, individual complaints or legal claims, organisations must be able to reconstruct what occurred within their systems. This includes tracing which API transmitted the data, which service consumed it, and whether that transmission aligned with declared purposes and consent.
API Monitoring alone is not sufficient. Organisations must also be able to detect anomalous or unauthorised data flows and intervene when personal information is exposed outside approved boundaries. This includes blocking or controlling API traffic that sends personal data to unapproved third parties, overseas services or automated decision systems.
Without these controls, organisations are forced to rely on assumptions about system behaviour. These assumptions are increasingly fragile in environments characterised by frequent deployment, third party integration and automated processing. As a result, gaps between documented intent and operational reality become sources of legal and regulatory exposure.
The reforms implicitly require privacy governance to extend into the operational API layer. Organisations that cannot discover their APIs, maintain an accurate inventory, observe personal data in motion and enforce controls at runtime will struggle to meet transparency obligations, defend against claims of misuse, or demonstrate compliance under scrutiny.
Conclusion : Preparing for Australian Privacy Act Enforcement in 2025 and 2026
The first tranche of reforms to the Australian Privacy Act marks a transition rather than an endpoint. The legislative changes introduced in 2024 establish a framework that will be progressively enforced through 2025 and 2026, as new rights, obligations and accountability mechanisms take effect.
For enterprises, preparation requires more than updating policies or revising contractual templates. The reforms assume that organisations can explain how personal information is handled within live systems, including how data moves across services, how it is disclosed to third parties, and how it is used in automated decision making.
This represents a shift from declarative compliance to evidentiary compliance. Organisations must be able to demonstrate, with specificity, how their systems behave in practice. This includes being able to reconstruct data flows, identify points of risk, and respond to regulatory or legal scrutiny with factual clarity.
Preparing for this enforcement era therefore involves aligning privacy governance with operational reality. Legal, security and engineering functions must work from a shared understanding of how personal data is processed across modern architectures. Visibility into runtime data movement becomes central to meeting transparency obligations, managing litigation risk and responding effectively to incidents.
As subsequent tranches of reform are introduced, this alignment will become more important rather than less. Topics such as cross border data disclosure, automated decision making transparency, statutory tort exposure and enterprise compliance execution will increasingly depend on the same underlying capability: the ability to observe and control how personal data flows through production systems.
