Tuesday, 27 May 2025

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Inquiry into Workplace Surveillance

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (10:50): I rise to speak on the final report of the inquiry into workplace surveillance undertaken by the Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee, of which I am deputy chair. The committee investigated the extent to which surveillance data is being collected, shared, stored, disclosed, sold, disposed of and otherwise utilised in Victorian workplaces. In the final report my colleagues and fellow committee members the member for South-West Coast and the member for Warrandyte joined me in producing a minority report to address the concerns that were raised during the inquiry. Whilst we support the underlying intention to ensure fairness and respect for individual privacy, we strongly oppose the proposed regulatory approach that the majority report recommends. As members of the committee we respectfully dissented from the majority report and associated recommendations on workplace surveillance.

Before I go further into the details of this committee report I do wish to thank the organisations and many individuals who made submissions and attended public hearings to provide their experience and expertise. I also wish to acknowledge my fellow committee members as well as the secretariat: Kerryn, Marianna and Abbey.

During the committee’s inquiry we received a total of 44 submissions, 12 of which were made by individuals. In addition the committee held four public hearings and meetings over Zoom, which included representatives from industry groups, legal experts, academics and government bodies such as the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, Industrial Relations Victoria and WorkSafe Victoria. It was disappointing that few employers engaged in the inquiry.

The majority report fails to adequately address stakeholders’ concerns. It overreaches in its scope and risks creating an unnecessary and inconsistent legal burden on employers, especially small businesses. The recommendations in the majority report risk fragmenting the national regulatory landscape by seeking to introduce state-specific laws at a time when there are significant federal privacy reforms currently underway. In its submission to the committee’s inquiry the Business Council of Australia explicitly recommended that legislative reform be postponed until after the Commonwealth government finalises its reforms to the Privacy Act 1988, particularly in relation to employee records exemptions and small business exemptions. Pushing ahead with any reforms could lead to conflicting interpretations of key concepts such as what constitutes or defines a workplace or reasonable surveillance, which in effect could lead to a situation that burdens employers with overlapping obligations under state and federal law.

In addition to this concern raised in the minority report, multiple employer groups, including the Australia Industrial Group and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, recommended a non-legislative approach to workplace surveillance reform. In their submissions both industry groups advocated for the development of best practice guidelines or model policies rather than new statutory obligations. These industry groups argued that flexible industry-informed guidance would provide more practical and less disruptive solutions to privacy concerns than the rigid one-size-fits-all proposed in the majority report. Specifically, the Business Council of Australia stated that best practice guidelines co-designed with employers, unions and relevant government agencies would be more effective and less burdensome than broad new laws.

WorkSafe Victoria in its evidence to the committee cautioned that the privacy of co-workers or third parties inadvertently captured in surveillance data could be compromised. Also of concern was the administrative burden of processing requests, particularly for small business employers.

Rather than introducing complex new laws, we are calling on the government to consult further with employer groups, prioritise national consistency and adopt a more balanced education-led approach that recognises the legitimate interests of both employers and employees. The minority report has five recommendations, and we urge that be considered.