Wednesday, 15 October 2025

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (10:25): Further to my contribution on 18 June, I rise to again support the parliamentary inquiry into workplace surveillance undertaken by the Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee that I am proud to part of. We heard a mountain of evidence from a range of employee, academic and community organisations and indeed business representatives which clearly demonstrated that we need to modernise Victoria’s workplace surveillance, monitoring and privacy legislation to keep pace with the growing and evolving employer workplace monitoring technology ecosystem.

Based on this extensive feedback, the inquiry found that while there are legitimate reasons for employers to undertake surveillance, such as to ensure workers’ health and safety, surveillance can become problematic when employers use surveillance covertly for other purposes. Left unchecked, growing and evolving employer methods of surveillance are increasingly raising privacy concerns, causing distress for employees when their employer’s surveillance practices are unreasonable, excessive and inaccessible by the employee. Workplace surveillance that is excessive and lacks transparency has been shown to have a significant negative impact on employees’ morale, job satisfaction and commitment to their organisation. It has also been shown that surveillance can intensify work, adversely affect employees’ mental and physical health and exacerbate the power imbalance between employers and employees. That is why the committee put forward 29 comprehensive findings and recommendations.

Recommendation 1 is the Victorian government introduce new standalone legislation, which I touched on in my last contribution. Recommendation 2 is the Victorian government include requirements for notification and disclosure in new workplace surveillance legislation that obliges employers to give 14 days’ written notice to workers of workplace surveillance. The notice is to specify the method, scope, timing and purpose of surveillance and how the surveillance data will be used and stored. Recommendation 3 is the government include a requirement in new workplace surveillance legislation for employers to consult with employees before introducing or changing surveillance practices in the workplace.

Recommendation 5 is that the government restrict covert workplace surveillance to cases where an employee is suspected of unlawful activity. The employer has to obtain a court order to undertake the surveillance and an independent surveillance supervisor has to be appointed to the case. Recommendation 7 is that the Victorian government work with employer groups to provide education, support services and material to employers about the changes to workplace surveillance regulation to help support them as part of any transition. Recommendation 9 is that the Victorian government include a requirement in new workplace surveillance legislation that employers must inform employees about who is collecting the workplace surveillance data, how the data is secured, stored and disposed of, who can use the data for what purpose and how long the data will be kept.

Recommendation 10 is that the Victorian government include a provision in new workplace surveillance legislation that employers must not sell employees’ personal data or any data collected about employees through surveillance to a third party. Recommendation 11 is that the government include a requirement in new workplace surveillance legislation that employers must ensure that any third party they contract to collect or store workplace surveillance data takes reasonable steps to protect that data and complies with the workplace surveillance policy.

Recommendation 13 is that the government include a requirement in new legislation that employers, upon request by an employee, must give the employee access to all workplace surveillance data generated by the employee. Recommendation 14 is that the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 also include biometric data in the definition of sensitive information. Recommendation 18 is that the government appoint the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, WorkSafe Victoria or another appropriate body as a regulator and adequately resource it to oversee the new workplace surveillance legislation with the power to inspect workplaces, investigate and resolve complaints. When combined, these recommendations provide for a balanced, pragmatic and sensible set of reforms that can help protect the interests of both employers and employees. As we work to help support more people to work from home, these reforms will become even more important than was previously the case.

Despite the overwhelming evidence and our comprehensive deliberations, at the eleventh hour the Liberals decided to lodge a dissenting report. They did so for two reasons: one is that they wanted to keep the workplace surveillance protection racket going for their mates at the big end of town and big business, who we know from this inquiry have been surveilling and collecting record amounts of data on their employees in unprecedented ways and failing to disclose any of those systems or approaches to the employees. The second reason is recommendation 8 that the Victorian government require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent surveillance of an employee while at work by a party other than the employer without the employee’s consent. The Liberals have a conflict of interest on this because this would contravene the member for Caulfield’s approach of secretly recording his own colleagues without their consent and without any transparency, which would be in breach of recommendation 8.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, we are debating committee reports. This is not a grievance debate where some cheap member makes cheap sledges. On relevance, this is an opportunity to debate committee reports. This is a clear sledge and an outrageous abuse of this chamber.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): The member’s time is over.

Anthony Cianflone: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw. He called me a ‘cheap member’. I ask him to withdraw. I take personal offence at that comment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Brighton?

James Newbury: I withdraw.