TheArtOfService
Australia My Health Records Act 2012GDPR

Australia My Health Records Act 2012 covers 35% of GDPR

14 of the 40 controls in GDPR are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Australia My Health Records Act 2012. 26 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.

35%
of the target already covered
14
controls evidenced
26
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of GDPR your Australia My Health Records Act 2012 evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.

37 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

Where the gaps are

Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.

Chapter IV - Controller and Processor7 of 16 evidenced, 9 to do
Chapter II - Principles3 of 7 evidenced, 4 to do
Chapter III - Rights of the Data Subject3 of 11 evidenced, 8 to do
Chapter V - Transfers of Personal Data1 of 6 evidenced, 5 to do

Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.

Claims that held

A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.

MYHR-GOV-5GDPR-Art.16argued against and upheld
Right to rectification

The System Operator must act on correction of information held.

MYHR-GOV-5GDPR-Art.17argued against and upheld
Right to erasure (right to be forgotten)

Destruction obligations apply to records in the National Repositories Service.

MYHR-SEC-7GDPR-Art.18argued against and upheld
Right to restriction of processing

Consumer set controls restrict access to documents while the record persists.

MYHR-SEC-1GDPR-Art.24argued against and upheld
Responsibility of the controller

Written policy required covering security and access management of the system.

MYHR-REG-4GDPR-Art.28argued against and upheld
Processor

Contracted service providers must be authorised and meet the system's obligations.

MYHR-ENF-3GDPR-Art.29argued against and upheld
Processing under the authority of the controller or processor

Unauthorised use or disclosure by personnel is an offence attracting sanctions.

MYHR-ENF-4GDPR-Art.31argued against and upheld
Cooperation with the supervisory authority

Cooperation with regulator enforcement including undertakings and injunctions.

MYHR-SEC-5GDPR-Art.32argued against and upheld
Security of processing

Security risks identified and managed through periodic risk assessment.

Claims that did not hold

Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.

The full report

Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.

Buy this crosswalk