Mandatory Data Breach Reporting and Planning

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

Failing to plan is planning to fail when it comes to data security and breach responses. In this post, we examine the regulatory obligations of entities under the notifiable data breach (NDB) scheme. Specially, we examine when reporting is mandatory and what the features of a broader effective response plan are.

When is reporting mandatory?

The NDB scheme is found in Part IIIC of the Privacy Act and requires certain businesses to notify affected individuals and the Privacy Commissioner of certain data breaches.

The reporting obligation kicks in where there is an ‘eligible data breach,’ which is a data breach where:

  • there is unauthorised access to or disclosure of personal information held by an entity (or information is lost in circumstances where unauthorised access or disclosure is likely to occur);
  • this is likely to result in serious harm to any of the individuals to whom the information relates; and
  • the entity has been unable to prevent the likely risk of serious harm with remedial action.

The policy rationale for the NDB is to ensure that individuals affected by a data breach can take action to reduce the risk of loss- steps such as updating passwords and securing other accounts.

From a practical perspective, organisations that have had a data breach often need to examine if serious harm is likely. ‘Serious harm’ is not defined in the Privacy Act. Whether there is a risk of serious harm is determined objectively- from the perspective of a ‘reasonable person.’

 Examples of serious harm provided by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner include:

  • identity theft, which can affect an individual’s finances and credit report;
  • financial loss through fraud;
  • a likely risk of physical harm, such as by an abusive ex-partner;
  • serious psychological harm; and
  • serious harm to an individual’s reputation.

Ultimately, it will be for individual organisations to undertake that assessment with the assistance of suitably experienced legal and compliance professionals. The key to ensuring that the process is conducted efficiently and effectively is a business’s data breach plan- a plan that should be in place before a breach occurs.

What is an effective plan?

All organisations should seek to plan to respond effectively to data breaches. An effective response is one that stops the loss of data, that minimises the impact of the breach, and resolves any underlying deficiencies in a business’s data collection, storage, and disclosure processes and systems.

An effective response was described by Mr Timothy Pilgrim PSM (Australian Information Commissioner) as a ‘response that successfully reduces or removes the risk of harm to individuals, and which aligns with legislative requirements and community expectations.’[1]

A data breach response plan should, clearly, be implemented before a breach occurs. It should be regularly reviewed and updated, and all staff should be trained on it and understand their respective roles within it.

Compliance with the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) will, in itself, reduce the likelihood of a data breach. APP 11 requires that entities take reasonable steps to protect the personal information they hold from misuse, interference and loss, and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure.

What is reasonable for an entity depends on the characteristics of the entity, the types of information held and the risks of unauthorised access, loss or disclosure. To comply with APP 11, entities should conduct risk assessments to determine whether their controls are reasonable or if additional measures should be implemented.

The best mitigation against a data breach is to not have data to be lost or stolen in the first place. Business should consider whether they actually need to collect the personal information they are collecting and whether they are able to then destroy or de-identify personal information.

Many businesses are under the misapprehension that they need to keep all data for seven years for ‘audit purposes.’ Most times, this is simply not the case.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has some fantastic resources available for businesses who are establishing or reviewing their data breach plan.  


[1] Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Data breach preparation and response – A guide to managing data breaches in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)- July 2019

More to explorer

werribee park mansion

Victoria consults on lower prices for embedded network customers

The Victorian Government has opened consultation on proposed pricing reforms for embedded networks, following its announcement that it intends to require lower energy prices for households and small businesses in those networks. The consultation is relevant to residential and small commercial embedded network customers, embedded network operators, exempt sellers and suppliers, licensed retailers operating in embedded networks, owners corporations, retirement villages, caravan parks, shopping centres and providers of bundled energy-related services such as bulk hot water, centralised heating and cooling.

smartphone beside a magnifying glass

Energy Retailer Assurance Audits in 2026: An Australian Guide

Assurance audits used to be a tick-the-box exercise. They are not anymore. With the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) refreshing its Compliance Procedures and Guidelines and releasing an updated Practice Guide for Compliance Audits last year energy retailers in Australia are operating in a sharper, more evidence-driven assurance environment than at any point in the National Energy Retail Law’s history. This post explains, in plain English, what an assurance audit looks like under the current settings, where the AER is looking hardest in 2025/26, and

street road near green and yellow trees

Embracing the uncertainty of rapid advancement and adoption of general artificial intelligence for energy businesses

The way businesses and professionals interact with artificial intelligence has changed. Over the past two months, we have observed a shift across our client base and the broader regulatory and legal community that goes beyond curiosity or experimentation. Professionals who were previously sceptical are now actively engaging with AI tools. Those who were already experimenting are finding that the tools have become materially more capable than they were even six months ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *