Wednesday, 18 June 2025

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Inquiry into Workplace Surveillance

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (10:21): That is a hard act to follow. It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise and make a contribution on the report on the inquiry into workplace surveillance, an inquiry conducted by the Legislative Assembly’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee. It was one that was chaired by the magnificent member for Bellarine. I also should acknowledge the member for Glen Waverley and the member for Pascoe Vale, next to me, who made a pretty significant contribution to that inquiry.

We know that the way that work is done in this state, in this country and in fact in the Western Hemisphere has significantly changed over time, and the way that employers have surveilled their employees has changed with that. What we know now from this inquiry and the evidence that we heard is that Victorian legislation, unfortunately, has not kept up with that. The overwhelming amount of evidence that we heard is that Victoria’s laws in respect to governing the way that employers surveil their employees are no longer fit for purpose. There is no standalone legislation in Victoria that covers this. There is no onus on an employer to consult about the way that they are going to surveil their employees, and they do not even have to notify them. I mean, an employer in Victoria can bring in a new form of workplace surveillance that may be incredibly intrusive, and there is no onus on that employer to even let their workers know that that is what they are doing. That is the overwhelming evidence that we heard.

We have a situation where two comparable jurisdictions to Victoria, the ACT and New South Wales, both have standalone legislation in respect to workplace surveillance. The ACT’s legislation requires genuine consultation when an employer wants to begin to undertake new workplace surveillance. We heard that the ACT legislation is not foolproof and is not perfect, but at least it requires genuine consultation in respect to this matter.

We heard several, honestly, alarming examples from witnesses in respect to how workplace surveillance had been used in a pretty horrendous way. The member for Mulgrave just spoke about an example in a healthcare setting where a registered nurse was wearing a body cam for her own safety, and that footage was used in a disciplinary procedure to dismiss her. We heard of instances from the Finance Sector Union where managers were using emails and surveillance to stop union organising activity. They were blocking union emails. We have seen public articles about how Woolworths in their warehouses have been using surveillance to count how many pieces of stock employers are picking, and if they do not meet a certain standard they face disciplinary action. None of this contributes to productivity in our economy.

The overwhelming amount of evidence that we heard is that it leads to burnout. There is function creep, and it leads to lower productivity, it leads to mental issues and it leads to WorkCover claims. It is frankly a drag on the Victorian economy.

The hearings were conducted, I think, incredibly well by the chair, the member for Bellarine. Frankly, throughout the hearings I thought everybody that was on the committee was in pretty serious agreement about what the clear path on this was to be, so it was to my surprise that I saw a minority report to this by the member for South-West Coast, which frankly just says: do nothing. It cites a federal inquiry that is happening at the moment, which does not actually have the capacity to fix anything that we have been speaking about.

One of the recommendations – the most important recommendation – for standalone Victorian legislation requiring employees to consult is absolutely fantastic.