Wednesday, 19 November 2025

 John MULLAHY (Glen Waverley) (10:46): I rise to make a further contribution to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s report on the inquiry into workplace surveillance, and importantly, to reflect on the Victorian government’s response that was delivered yesterday. At the outset I again thank my fellow committee members, the chair and the deputy chair and the secretariat for their dedication. But today I want to focus not on the process – we have canvassed that in an earlier contribution – but on the broader policy significance of the government’s response and what it means for Victorian workers, for employers doing the right thing and, critically, for the future fairness of our workplaces.

The government’s response recognises what the inquiry made abundantly clear: workplace surveillance has changed dramatically. It is no longer just CCTV in foyers or call recording in customer service centres. It is AI-driven analyses of keystrokes, facial expressions, sentiment and behaviour. It is biometrics, third party data harvesting, GPS tracking, algorithmic decision-making and monitoring of workers in their homes through remote work software. The government’s response acknowledges what we heard repeatedly: our legal framework has not kept pace. Victoria’s key surveillance legislation was drafted almost 20 years ago, in a world before smartphones, before remote work and long before artificial intelligence could shape disciplinary decisions, performance assessments or even hiring outcomes without a human being’s involvement.

One of the most striking issues highlighted in the government’s response was the black hole around data protections. We heard evidence that many Victorian workers simply do not know who holds their data, how long it is stored for, whether it is shared with third party software providers or even whether it is sold. For many this data relates to intimate details, biometric locations, medical status, facial recognition patterns or emotional cues detected by algorithms. Much of this information is currently unprotected under existing law, particularly in the private sector, where the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 does not apply to employee records or to many small businesses. The government’s commitment to strengthening data security obligations, restricting the sale of employee data and expanding protections to the entire Victorian workforce, not just the public sector, is significant and long overdue. These reforms respond directly to the risks flagged repeatedly throughout the inquiry: the potential for misuse, data breaches, algorithmic discrimination and the chilling effect on workers’ confidence and wellbeing when they do not understand how they are being monitored.

Another key area addressed by the government’s response is covert surveillance. We heard disturbing examples of secret monitoring in Victorian workplaces, often deployed without justification, without legal oversight and without any clear purpose beyond exerting control. The government has rightly taken the view that covert surveillance must be tightly constrained, reserved only for clear cases of suspected unlawful behaviour, subject to a court order and accompanied by independent oversight. That is the modern standard. It is a reasonable standard, and it supports both ethical employers and workers, who deserve dignity and fairness.

The response also engages directly with the issue of automated decision-making, particularly for gig workers and platform workers whose employment status can be determined by opaque algorithms.

For many of these workers, a computer system can deactivate an account, issue warnings or apply penalties without a single human being ever reviewing the circumstances. The government’s support for requiring human oversight is, frankly, a test for whether we are prepared to put real people, not machines, at the heart of our employment system. Workers must not be disciplined or dismissed by software.

Importantly, the government response also recognises that workplace surveillance disproportionately affects certain groups: women, young people, migrants, people with a disability and LGBTIQA+ workers, who are more likely to work in insecure jobs, more likely to be monitored intensively and less able to challenge unreasonable practices. This is a question not only of privacy but of equity and fairness. Stronger laws will help ensure that the rights of the most vulnerable workers do not depend on the goodwill of the most powerful employers.

I also want to highlight the government’s commitment to meaningful consultation with business, unions and other stakeholders. Surveillance itself is not inherently bad. It can protect workers, it can protect clients, it can prevent theft, violence and misconduct, and many employers already act responsibly, transparently and ethically. But what the inquiry demonstrated and what the government has now acknowledged is that good employers should not be undercut by bad actors. A fair, clear and modern regulatory framework supports everyone.

Finally, I want to note the broader principles embedded in the government’s response: that surveillance must be reasonable, necessary, proportionate and transparent. These are not abstract notions. They are the foundation of trust in any workplace. When workers feel respected, when they understand what data is collected and why, when they know that surveillance has limits and oversight, workplace culture improves, morale improves and productivity improves, as was made clear through the inquiry’s evidence.