Employers Have Unlimited Ability to Monitor Workers

SMALL business and all private-sector employers have unfettered ability to monitor their workers using technology and private investigators.
This is partly because of an exemption to the Privacy Act that the federal government has refused to close.
The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended more than two years ago that the exemption for small business and private companies be removed, but the government is still considering its response.
However, forensic accountants warn that fraud by insiders is on the rise in the workplace, and that subjecting employers to the Privacy Act could worsen the problem.
A recent survey of 214 organisations by KPMG found that $345 million had been siphoned off by fraud over two years, with most of it occurring in house.
The recent collapse of Victorian retailer Clive Peeters was triggered by the siphoning off of $19m by one employee.
The ALRC recommended removing private sector exemptions because it said the government had granted them only to win business support for extending the act's coverage in 2000.
An exemption was granted to small businesses and not-for-profit organisations with an annual turnover of $3m or less.
"No other comparable jurisdiction in the world exempts small businesses from the general privacy law," the ALRC said in its August 2008 report.
In addition, the employee records maintained by private organisations are generally exempt under the act, even though public sector employees are not exempt. The ALRC recommended this exemption be removed, thereby creating "consistent rules" for all employees.
Privacy Minister Brendan O'Connor said "due to the complexity and sensitivity" of these recommendations, the government wanted to "consult extensively". Mr O'Connor said he had no knowledge of spies being used in the workplace.
Allens Arthur Robinson's employment relations partner Jamie Wells said removing the exemption was unlikely to reduce the ability of employers to monitor their staff. He said they would simply resort to "greater use of employee consent".