Wednesday, 30 July 2025

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Inquiry into Workplace Surveillance

John MULLAHY (Glen Waverley) (10:15): I rise to speak on the Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s report on the inquiry into workplace surveillance. I want to thank my fellow committee members: the chair, the member for Bellarine; the deputy chair, the member for Shepparton; the member for Pascoe Vale, the member for Tarneit, the member for South-West Coast and the member for Warrandyte. I would also like to thank the member for Narracan and the member for Kew for their time on our committee. To the secretariat of the committee – Kerryn Riseley, committee manager; Dr Marianna Stylianou, research officer; Abbey Battista, administration officer; and law student Patrick Horan – I would like to thank you for your dedicated support throughout this inquiry and for the preparation of the final report. Your professionalism and hard work have been invaluable.

The inquiry was initiated in response to growing concerns around the increasing use of surveillance technologies in Victorian workplaces. From GPS tracking and keystroke monitoring to facial recognition and AI-driven productivity tools, it is clear that workplace surveillance has evolved rapidly, often outpacing the regulatory framework designed to protect workers’ rights and privacy. Over the course of the inquiry the committee received 44 written submissions and conducted four days of public hearings, hearing from workers, union representatives, legal experts, academics, employers and regulators. I want to sincerely thank everyone who contributed. In particular I want to acknowledge those workers who shared their personal experiences, often under difficult circumstances. This helped the committee to understand the real and human impacts of these practices.

The committee’s report outlines the current state of workplace surveillance laws in Victoria and highlights several critical gaps. As it stands, Victoria does not have a dedicated, comprehensive legal framework that regulates workplace surveillance. What laws do exist are fragmented across state and Commonwealth jurisdictions and often fail to provide clear guidance or enforceable protections for workers. While there are certainly circumstances where some levels of surveillance are reasonable, for example, to protect safety, prevent theft or to ensure compliance, there is a clear need to ensure that surveillance is conducted transparently, proportionately and with proper consultation. What we heard from witnesses was that too often workers are being monitored without adequate notice or consent and without any meaningful understanding of what data is being collected, how it is being used or whether it is secure and how long they hold that data for. A central concern raised throughout the inquiry was the power imbalance. Workers often feel that they have no choice but to accept invasive surveillance practices, even when they feel uncomfortable or unsure about them. This is particularly true for casual workers, young people and those in insecure employment. In some cases surveillance was described as being used to monitor bathroom breaks, private conversations or actively well beyond what would be considered reasonable or necessary.

The report makes a number of key recommendations which I support. I will briefly speak to two of them. First, the committee recommends that Victoria introduce a dedicated workplace surveillance law, a modern, technology-neutral framework grounded in clear principles of necessity, proportionality and transparency. This would give both employers and workers greater clarity and confidence. It would also help ensure that emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and biometric tracking, are covered by the law from the outset rather than being dealt with retrospectively. Importantly, it would provide a baseline of rights for Victorian workers, ensuring they are not left behind as surveillance capabilities continue to expand. Second, the committee recommended introducing a requirement for employers to provide two weeks written notice before implementing any new form of workplace surveillance. Employers would also be required to consult with their staff or their representatives and make surveillance policies publicly available. This basic transparency would go a long way towards improving trust, reducing confusion and giving workers a real opportunity to understand and respond to changes that may affect them. It also aligns with good employer practice and would provide a clear, fair standard across the state.

At the heart of the report is a simple idea that surveillance should not come at the cost of dignity, autonomy or fairness in the workplace. Just as we protect workers’ rights to safe and respectful workplaces, we must also protect the right to privacy and fair treatment in the digital age. These protections are not about stifling productivity, they are about setting clear expectations and building respectful, transparent relationships between employers and employees.

Last but not least, I acknowledge all those from the Victorian community who took the time to contribute to this important inquiry. Your civic participation strengthens our democracy. I look forward to the government’s consideration of the report’s recommendations. It was disappointing that a minority report was written by those from the coalition; however, it is very understandable: they are very good at recording private conversations in a workplace.