Australian companies flagged for excessive employee tracking
Employees across Australia are being closely monitored by their employers, through computer screens, telephone calls, and even facial expressions, often without clear consent, according to an inquiry by the Legislative Assembly Economy and Infrastructure Committee conducted in May 2025.
The inquiry found that surveillance technologies, once limited to basic safety tools, have become more advanced, affordable, and widely deployed in modern workplaces.
Yet, Australia’s workplace surveillance laws have not been updated since 2006, despite rapid developments in digital and biometric monitoring tools.
The widespread shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid deployment of surveillance software, with little time available for employers to consider the legal and privacy implications.
This disconnect suggests that regulation has failed to keep pace with modern monitoring practices, leaving employees exposed to invasive surveillance.
Employees are frequently unaware of the extent of data collection or how their personal information is being stored, shared, or used.
Key Findings on Surveillance Practices
The inquiry highlighted various surveillance practices including keystroke logging, body-worn cameras, monitoring or recording of phone calls, facial recognition, and tools that track physical responses like heart rate and eye movement.
The inquiry found that the forms of workplace surveillance involve necessitating the use of an app designed to continuously gather private employee data, an AI model that detects facial expressions to analyze if the worker is concentrating, as well as neurotechnology tools designed to gauge attention levels.
The inquiry raised concerns that tools first used for safety, like monitoring alertness or protective gear, were later repurposed to track performance and behavior without employees’ knowledge; a practice referred to as “function creep.”
Surveillance has extended into personal spaces, with monitoring in home offices or work vehicles at times capturing family members or others without their consent.
Many employees were not clearly told what data was being collected or how it would be used, and most had no real way to opt out of being monitored, as refusal could put their jobs at risk. Even when consent was requested, it was often not truly informed or freely given.
Impact of Workplace Surveillance on Workers
Excessive and unregulated workplace surveillance has been linked to serious harm, with research presented to the Committee showing it contributes to psychological strain, lower job satisfaction, and higher staff turnover.
Being constantly watched at work was suggested to pressure employees to work faster, skip breaks, and push themselves too hard, leading to physical strain, workplace injuries, and mental health issues.
A repeated loss of autonomy and dignity at work has also been reported where employees feel less trusted and more controlled, and this was found to affect morale and workplace culture.
Power imbalances were also said to be reinforced, with employers having broad access to behavioral data while workers are not given the same visibility or control over their information.
Union activity is also reported to be affected as workers are expressing fear of being monitored and penalized, making them hesitant to speak to union reps or raise concerns.
Such apprehension has weakened workplace advocacy and made it harder for employees to defend their rights.
Marginalized groups, including women, migrants, young people, platform workers, and people with disabilities, were also reported to likely be more negatively impacted by excessive surveillance.
Outdated Federal Laws Offer Limited Protection
The inquiry revealed a lack of consistency in how workplace surveillance is regulated across Australia’s jurisdictions.
At the federal level, there are no direct laws that govern workplace surveillance. Commonwealth legislation (Cth), laws enacted by the Australian Parliament, does not specifically regulate monitoring in the workplace, offering minimal legal protection to workers.
Notably, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) leaves it up to each state and territory to make their own rules about workplace surveillance, instead of setting a single national law.
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which governs the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, also provides limited protection.
While it applies to Australian Government agencies, private health service providers, and businesses with an annual turnover of $3 million or more, it explicitly exempts employee records from its privacy provisions, and contains no direct references to workplace surveillance.
As a result, many workers, especially those in small businesses, remain outside the scope of federal privacy protections.
At the state level, only New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) have dedicated workplace surveillance laws, which include requirements such as providing prior written notice to employees.
The remaining states and territories lack such legislation, contributing to a fragmented and outdated legal framework.
Related Content:
Australia’s minimum wage rises 3.5% from 1 July 2025
Create an account and take the hassle out of time tracking - it's FREE forever for unlimited users!
