Wednesday, 13 August 2025

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Inquiry into Workplace Surveillance

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (11:06): I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s inquiry into workplace surveillance. It was a committee that I was on for quite a time, and I enjoyed my time on that committee with my fellow members. I say a big thankyou to the secretariat, who did an enormous amount of work. We had an enormous amount of public interest in this particular subject.

When we talk about workplace surveillance and the way workplaces are more diverse now, we always have to look at balance. What we did find out through this committee is that sometimes the balance could have been skewed one way, and maybe not fairly. We sit back and we talk about the worker’s right to privacy, and we certainly support that right, but we also talk about the employer’s right to have his workplace surveilled, for want of a better word. Not all workplaces have surveillance to watch workers; they have surveillance because they need to check for theft and break-ins and all those other things that unfortunately happen in workplaces. I can say when I employed people on building sites I had surveillance on worksites not to look at what the blokes were doing or whether they were sitting too long in the toilet or having a smoke behind the shed; although they were builders – they could smoke anywhere and it did not matter.

Tim Bull interjected.

Wayne FARNHAM: Yes, it was me, member for Gippsland East. You are 100 per cent right. But it was more for theft at night and to catch those who would come in and steal stuff at night; that is what it was about. When we were in the committee and I was listening to the hearings, I heard a story about a person that was on WorkCover. Something happened at work, and they ended up on WorkCover. What surprised me – and it surprised me it did not appear in the recommendations – was that when a workplace incident happens, the employer is not necessarily obliged to give that footage over. Out of all the stuff we listened to in these committee hearings, that particular point shocked me. It shocked me for two reasons. As an employer, if I had the surveillance, I would give it over straightaway to WorkCover to either support the claim of the worker that has been injured or find out for whatever other reason that accident occurred. To me, it is common sense: if there is a workplace accident and you have the footage, hand the footage over.

We have got to remember WorkCover and WorkCover premiums are there for a reason. If you get injured at work, you are covered. I do not know why any employer would resist giving that information over unless there was gross negligence on his behalf. And to be honest, if those employers are doing that, well, stuff them; they probably do not deserve to have employees. In my mind, and I have said this before in this chamber, as a builder you never want to make that phone call to someone to say their partner has been injured or their child has been injured. That is deadset, rock-solid simple; you do not want that. I understand accidents happen, not always through negligence of the employer and not always through negligence of the employee. Sometimes stuff happens for no reason. It could be someone slipped. That can occur in any workplace, and it is not through anything other than that. I was actually surprised when I read this that that recommendation was not in there – the recommendation that should say that employers have to give over that footage straightaway in case of a workplace accident. I think it is very, very relevant in this case.

As I said, in everything we do in this chamber, in every law we put through or any piece of legislation, we have to find the balance, and we know that workplaces have changed. We know that employers have a right to have workplace surveillance; that is fine. We also know that employees have a right to privacy. The Commonwealth are going through workplace surveillance issues at the moment; they are looking at that. It was put forward that the ACT has a very good model. But I will note that in the minority report they said the Victorian government should wait until the Commonwealth have done their part, which I also agree with; there is this balance right through. But my big recommendation and my own personal recommendation is that the government should look at legislating vision on workplace safety.