Workplace surveillance could be changing – what do employers need to know?

Workplace surveillance is becoming more sophisticated and widespread, but the laws that govern it haven’t kept pace. From AI monitoring tools to wearable trackers and biometrics, new technologies are being deployed in workplaces across many industries, yet there is little regulation on how and when employers can use them.

In response to growing concerns about privacy, the Victorian Government requested the Economy and Infrastructure Committee (Committee) to conduct an inquiry into workplace surveillance. The Committee’s final report proposes 18 recommendations aimed at modernising workplace surveillance practices in Victoria. If adopted, these changes could reshape how surveillance is implemented and managed in workplaces across the state and nationally.

What the inquiry found about workplace surveillance in Victoria

The Committee found that workplace surveillance is accelerating across Victoria, often without employees’ knowledge or consent. While many employers use surveillance for legitimate reasons, such as protecting assets, monitoring employees’ health and safety or preventing misconduct, the report highlights several concerning trends.

Key findings include:

• surveillance is increasingly powered by AI and automation, raising questions about fairness and transparency
• employees are often unaware of being monitored, or how their data is being used
• there is limited evidence that surveillance improves productivity
• intrusive monitoring can create a toxic workplace culture and reduce morale
• health and safety risks may increase where there is constant surveillance or where surveillance intensifies workplace pressure
• surveillance can breach the privacy of workers and their families
• surveillance can worsen power imbalances in the workplace and discourage employees from collective action
• certain groups – particularly marginalised workers, and platform workers such as rideshare and food delivery workers – may experience disproportionate harm.

Given the above, the Committee concluded that reform is both necessary and overdue, and made 18 recommendations to the Victorian Government.

Workplace surveillance recommendations proposed by the Committee

The table below summarises the recommendations made by the Committee to the Victorian Government. These are proposals only and it remains unclear to what extent the Victorian Government will adopt them.

What could workplace surveillance reform mean for employers?

The proposed recommendations do not seek to ban workplace surveillance but rather to ensure it is justified, proportionate and transparent.

For employers, the recommendations would introduce several new responsibilities, including:

• undertaking risk assessments to ensure surveillance is justified
• providing clear, written notice to employees before beginning surveillance
• consulting employees before introducing or changing workplace surveillance practices
• reviewing automated decisions based on surveillance data and protecting that data, including overseeing third-party contractors engaged in the surveillance
• prohibiting covert or intrusive surveillance methods except in certain circumstances, with independent oversight.

Where is best practice in surveillance heading?

While the inquiry focuses on workplace surveillance in Victoria, it raises broader questions about what best practice in surveillance should look like.

Importantly, it made references to proportionality, which has been a theme of the Australian Privacy Commissioner (Commissioner) since her appointment, and was repeated in her speech launching Privacy Awareness Week on 16 June 2025.

In October 2024, the Commissioner issued a determination against Bunnings Group Limited in relation to its use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in stores between November 2018 and November 2021.  The decision is being appealed by Bunnings and is expected to be heard October this year. The detailed nature of the analysis undertaken provides several pointers to best practice for the compliance with, as a minimum, the Privacy Act in collecting sensitive information. While not all surveillance techniques use FRT, the key points remain the same:

• provide clear and adequate notice of data collection: That is, make the surveillance overt and provide individuals with the option not to enter if they did not consent to the surveillance
• implement robust privacy governance: Develop and implement practices, procedures, or privacy policy disclosures about the kinds of personal information collected, and how it is collected, held, and used, lawfully
• data retention and destruction: implement strategies reflecting the personal information lifecycle with destruction when no longer reasonably required.

While there is far more to be said about balancing security and privacy and the use of technology, the above provides a solid foundation.

If you have any questions about your workplace surveillance policy or practices, please get in touch with our team below.

Disclaimer
The information in this article is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate

Published by:

Charles Power

Lyn Nicholson

Lachlan Ahale

Share this