Everything on this website is written by Privaproof and checked against the primary source: the Act itself, on the register that publishes it, at the compilation in force. Not a summary, not a law firm's blog, not another vendor's page. This is how that works, and where its limits are.
Last reviewed 9 September 2026.
Privacy law is the kind of subject where a confident wrong answer does real damage. Somebody reads that they can destroy a tenant's file, or that a signed form covers a credit check, or that they have five business days to action an unsubscribe, and they act on it. So the question worth asking a vendor is not whether their content sounds authoritative. It is what they actually did before publishing it.
Here is our answer, in enough detail that you can test it. Every legal claim on this site names its section. You can open the same source we did.
A statement about the law is only as good as the thing it was read from. Secondary sources go stale silently, and a section number that was right in 2023 can have been repealed and substituted since. So we read the instrument.
Reviewed by Matthew John Hodgkinson, an Australian practising solicitor, of Papillon Lawyers Pty Ltd (ABN 89 668 707 097). His name is on the Kit page and in the structured data, because a named reviewer is a checkable claim and an anonymous one is not.
Written by Privaproof, and checked against the primary sources named on each page. The author box on every page tells you who wrote it. That is a different thing from the paragraph on the left, and we would rather you knew which you were reading.
Kits for the other industries we serve are written by Privaproof on the same basis. We say who wrote a thing, and we do not borrow authority we have not got.
Checking is only worth something if it leaves a trace. Ours is kept as it happens, not written up afterwards.
Figures as at 9 September 2026.
A verification record holds the quoted words of the provision, where they were read, the compilation and its date, and what the finding means for our pages. When a claim turns out to be wrong, the record says so and the correction is dated. We keep the ones that went against us, because those are the useful ones.
Some mistakes are better caught by a machine than by a careful reader, because a careful reader gets tired and a machine does not. Thirty-nine automated checks run on every release and any one of them will stop it. They include a check that no page outside real estate claims a solicitor reviewed it, a check that a commencement date is stated rather than derived (a plausible-looking calculation produced the wrong date twice), a check that every published pinpoint has a verification record behind it, and a check that no page ships with its body missing.
That last one exists because a page once shipped with its body missing. Which brings us to the honest part.
In September 2026 we ran the whole site back through the process: one reviewer per page, primary sources only, every claim tested rather than skimmed. Across 152 pages that produced over 1,500 individual changes.
About one check in five confirmed the page was already right and needed nothing. The rest ranged from a missing statutory condition to a claim that was simply wrong. We fixed them and re-dated the pages.
A worked example, because a process is easier to judge on a real case.
Four of our strata pages and one document quoted a tribunal saying there is "effectively no privacy in strata records". It reads like law. It has a speaker, it is in quotation marks, and it sounds exactly like something a tribunal would say.
A full-text search of NSW Caselaw returns nothing. The sentence is the headline of a law firm's commentary, promoted somewhere along the way into a judicial holding. We had repeated it.
What replaced it was better than what we lost. Reading the Act at source turned up section 57 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015: where a duty is delegated to the managing agent, a breach makes the agent guilty of the offence instead of the owners corporation. Real, sourced, and squarely the point a strata manager needs. The invented quotation was not even doing the job the true provision does.
We publish this because the alternative is asking you to trust a claim of accuracy with nothing behind it. A vendor who has never found an error in their own material has not looked.
Three things are true at once, and leaving any of them out would make this page a worse guide than it should be.
General information is not advice about you. Everything here is general information and document templates you tailor, not legal advice. Privaproof is not a law practice. Whether the Privacy Act reaches your business at all turns on your turnover and structure, and several of the duties people assume are universal are not.
Checked does not mean exhaustive. Where we have checked some states and not others, the page says which. Where a question is genuinely unsettled, the page says that too rather than picking the answer that suits us.
The law moves, and a document you downloaded does not. That is the actual problem with a template, free or paid: it was accurate on the day it was written. Keeping it current is the work, and it is what the subscription pays for.
Pick any legal claim on this site. It will name a section. Open the register, read the section, and see whether we described it accurately, including its conditions. That is the standard we would want applied to anyone selling us compliance documents, so it is the one we have built for.
If a page here ever states something you can show is wrong, tell us and we will correct it and date the correction. That is the same process described above, and it does not change because the finding came from outside.
See what is in the Kit Check whether the Act applies to you
This is general information and document templates you tailor to your own business, not legal advice. Privaproof is not a law practice and does not provide legal advice. Nothing in these terms excludes, restricts or modifies any guarantee, right or remedy you have under the Australian Consumer Law. For advice on your specific circumstances, consult a qualified Australian legal practitioner.