Page 213 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
individually. But on the other, it seems to be sufficient that the general workplace policy is developed and given to employees. On the one hand, employees do not need to be advised of optical surveillance being used in areas that are not their normal workplace. But on the other hand, optical surveillance needs to be obvious and a sign needs to be erected that notifies people that they may be under surveillance.
Then there are levels of subjectivity. For example, consultation in good faith is said to be achieved if the employer gives the employee a genuine opportunity to influence the conduct of the surveillance. Just what is a genuine opportunity is not certain and is open to interpretation.
There are practical problems as well. For example, the bill would require an employer to give a new worker notice of the surveillance that will apply to that prospective employee before they start work. This creates security issues for the employer, particularly if the new worker baulks at the last moment and decides not to start work with that employer. Suddenly, the employer’s surveillance policy is in the hands of someone outside the workplace.
Further, what of the casual worker who may be longstanding but work only occasionally? What happens if the worker turns up to work only to discover that CCTV surveillance has been installed in their work area during the time since their last engagement and that the employer has overlooked telling them before they start? Does the employer have to turn off the surveillance?
Even the practical issue of signage has a question mark over it. For example, what signs will be required on mobile phones that are capable of being tracked via GPS tracking technology? Indeed, detailed mobile phone bills, showing where, when, for how long and to whom phone calls were made, end up in the hands of employers. Do these bills amount to covert surveillance? Back in the workplace, where signs have been put up about optical surveillance, there is no guidance as to the size of the sign, what must be printed on the sign or even the size and style of the font to be used. It is merely required that a sign be “clearly visible”—another subjective element of this bill.
Yet another element of the bill, while small, may nonetheless impede its effectiveness. The bill places a limit of 30 days on the duration of covert surveillance. This would better be left to the Magistrates Court to decide, based on the application that sits before it in those cases. Then the court could reasonably consider the duration of covert surveillance on the merits of the application before it, rather than be restricted by a legislated or regulated duration.
I have outlined a number of the practical issues that this bill presents to employers and employees in the territory today. These issues amount to yet another increase in business compliance requirements—what is commonly called red tape—that governments of the left, including the far left wing of the Labor Party, the Greens, constantly like to foist on business.
Like the Liberal opposition, business groups we have spoken to, whilst supporting the principle of the bill, have concerns about the practical aspects—that is, the operation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video