Page 212 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the people involved in the relevant conversation give their consent or if the device is used in other circumstances set out in the section. Exceptions in clause 23 of the bill, allowing employers to deny access to records on certain grounds, would be preserved.
Clause 29 of the bill requires the Magistrates Court to appoint at least one person as a surveillance supervisor in relation to an application for the issue of a covert surveillance authority. A surveillance supervisor must not give another person access to covert surveillance records except as provided for under section 31. These are functions that may be difficult or impossible for a covert surveillance supervisor to undertake if they are too closely related to or employed by the relevant employer. The government amendment inserts into clause 23 a requirement that the surveillance supervisor must be independent of the employer.
Clause 41 of the bill states that an employer commits an offence if the employer conducts surveillance of a worker in a prohibited non-work area. The government amendment adds a first-aid room to the list of prohibited non-work areas set out in subclause 41(2). A first-aid room is a significant area in the workplace and should be included as a prohibited area.
These amendments will strengthen the intent of the bill and aid in its consistency and its compatibility with the existing law. The government will also be supporting the technical amendment Ms Bresnan has foreshadowed to the bill.
This is important legislation. It is legislation that Labor had contemplated implementing as part of its broader privacy reforms; nevertheless, we will support the bill and I urge other members to do the same.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.49): Whilst the Canberra Liberal opposition supports the principle of the Workplace Privacy Bill 2010, we hold some concerns about its construction, the manner in which it might work in practice and the impact that it would have on the business community and the workplaces of the ACT.
It is important that everyone in the workplace—employers and employees alike—should play on a level playing field. Interaction one with the other on comparable terms is important. Transparency in policy and industrial democracy are important. To take that approach is just good, sound business practice. It encourages employee loyalty, higher productivity, better job security, and a higher level of business viability and prosperity. If everyone in the workplace is aware of the workplace rules, conditions and policies and has a say in their development, the result is a healthy workplace.
So from the viewpoint of the principle of this bill, the Canberra Liberals are supportive. But, as is always the case, the devil is in the detail. While we are not proposing amendments at this time, there are a number of areas where we have a concern as to the on-the-ground operation of the bill. These are areas we will monitor as the bill comes into force and into operation.
For example, on the one hand, the bill would suggest that employers need to ensure that individual employees are aware of how workplace surveillance might affect them
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video