Comparing the Surveillance Devices Act (WA) & Workplace Act (NSW)

This essay provides a comparative analysis of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) and the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW), focusing on their implications for workplace surveillance and employee privacy. It examines key clauses within each act, including regulations on recording private activities, requirements for notifying employees about surveillance, and penalties for violations. The essay highlights the NSW legislation's emphasis on employee notification and simplified language, arguing that it offers superior protection for employee privacy compared to the WA act. The analysis considers the scope, applicability, and enforcement mechanisms of both acts, ultimately concluding that the NSW Workplace Surveillance Act is more effective in addressing surveillance and privacy concerns in business organizations. The essay references specific sections of both acts and relevant academic literature to support its claims.

Running Head: COMPARE AND CONTRAST WA AND NSW
Compare and Contrast WA and NSW
Name
Institutional Affiliation

COMPARE AND CONTRAST WA AND NSW 2
Compare and Contrast WA and NSW
Introduction
Surveillance devices are installed at workplaces, and they are required to be regulated
by a competent authority. The Australian Law Reform Commission by the government of
Australia has provided laws to monitor and regulate surveillance devices in each territory.
The Surveillance Devices Act (WA) 1998 is an act by the Australian government to regulate
the usage of devices of optical surveillance, tracking, and listening (Paterson, 2018). The
Surveillance Devices Act is applicable in workplaces where devices of surveillance are
installed. These devices include CCTVs (closed-circuit TV), security cameras, GPS systems,
and telephonic monitoring. Under this act, the recording of private activity is considered an
offense, such as the installation of surveillance devices in toilets or change rooms. Similarly,
recording private conversations is also treated as an offence under this act.
The Workplace Surveillance Act (NSW) 2005 is an act that is functional on the core
purpose of regulating and outlining the lawful use of audio, geographical tracking, computer
surveillance, and cameras. It is important to note that this act restricts the usage of two
different types of surveillance, including covert and overt. The infringement of someone’s
right to privacy is considered unlawful, and it is a significant set of rules to facilitate a secure
working environment.
Discussion
This section is focused on the discussion of the main clauses of two different acts of
surveillance in the Australian jurisdiction.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST WA AND NSW 3
Surveillance Devices Act (WA) 1998
According to section 6 of part 2 of Surveillance Devices Act 1998, any person is not
allowed to observe or record a private activity of any other person. The act clarifies that this
clause is applicable regardless of the status of that person who intends to observe or record a
private activity, like a party (directly involved in the activity) or a non-party (not involved in
the activity). If the law breaching party is an individual, then a fine of $5000 or 12-month
imprisonment or both can be imposed as a penalty. In the case of law encroachment by the
corporate entity, then a $50000 fine is imposed (Surveillance Devices Act, 1998). However,
this subsection is not applicable in certain cases, including usage of surveillance devices with
the issued warrant, an emergency warrant, usage according to Commonwealth law, and
unintentional recording of private activity. In addition to this, if a person or group of persons
of private activity mutually agree to maintain surveillance during that particular activity, then
it is not considered a breach of law.
In part 5 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998, it is discussed that the enforcement of
the penalty in case of violation is not applicable under this act if the same activity is unlawful
according to other laws in the country. According to this part 5, any other person can observe
or record the private activity of other persons or persons if it is in the interest of the public,
child, or mentally ill persons. Division 3 of Part 5 discusses the use of optic or listening
surveillance devices in an emergency or by a person whose job is to report to the Judge after
going though recordings. The Judge can also ask for private activity recordings as evidence,
and maintain the right to return, keep or destroy the evidence provided. Division 4 of Part 5
of the Surveillance Device Act 1998 provides instructions for the publication of private
information or communicates it to the public for protecting the interest of the public.
Furthermore, the act provides the liberty to the Judge to make any report available for
other officials but only for the protection of interest of the public. These pieces of evidence

COMPARE AND CONTRAST WA AND NSW 4
can be delivered to police force, commission for crime and corruption, inspector of
parliament, federal police, designated commission, or crime commission to either work on it
or keep in safe custody for future use. According to section 32 of Division 4 of Part 5, the
application can be written to the Judge for accessing information, and section 33 emphasizes
on maintaining the confidentiality of written application. The application received must not
become a part of the open court hearing, and the decision to share evidence information as a
response to any application received must be taken by the Judge only.
Workplace Surveillance Act (NSW) 2005
In Part 1 of the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005, preliminary information regarding
the act is provided. Section 1 of Part 1 provides the name of the act as the Workplace
Surveillance Act 2005. Section 3 of Part 1 of this act underlines the basic definitions of
concepts necessary to understand with respect to surveillance at the workplace. Section 3 of
Part 1 refers to Section 5 for a detailed definition of the word ‘at work.’ Other definitions
included in this part camera, covert surveillance and authority, employee, employer,
representative of the employer, exercise, function, law enforcement agencies and related
corporations, surveillance by means of camera, tracking and computer, information, record,
supervisor, unlawful activity and the workplace. Section 5 of Part 1, ‘at work,’ is a term used
for the employee working at an employer’s workplace and employer-related corporation as
the workplace. It also includes any person working under a bailment contract to release the
carriage.
According to Part 2 of the act, all actions beyond the scope of covert surveillance
should be in compliance with this part in such a way that employees are notified about
workplace surveillance. Section 9 of Part 2 provides information about the scope of
application of this part of the act under consideration. According to Section 9, surveillance is
applicable to the employee, which is being carried at a workplace by the employer of that

COMPARE AND CONTRAST WA AND NSW 5
employee. According to Section 10 of Part 2 of the NSW Act, surveillance cannot be carried
for any employee unless they are notified 14 days before the commencement of surveillance
at the workplace. In addition to this, according to sub-section 3 of Section 10, if the employee
has not started working yet and surveillance is being practiced at the workplace then he/she
should be notified. Sub-section 4 of section 10 elaborates on the critical components of
notification, which must comprise type, method, time, continuity, and time duration.
According to sub-section 5 of section 10, the employee should be notified through email,
which is counted as a written document (Workplace Surveillance Act, 2005). Sub-section 6
of section 10 states that any camera placed by the employer at a place that is not usually used
by the employee as their workplace needs to be notified. Section 11 provides additional
information that when there is camera surveillance, then it should be made visible as well an
indication should be given. Section 14 of this act indicate that surveillance is linked to the
acceptance of employee, and it must follow the agreement in the cases where surveillance has
another purpose. According to Section 15 of Part 3, surveillance of employees is prohibited in
the bathing area, toilets, or change rooms that may result in a maximum penalty of 50 units.
Comparison
The comparison of both surveillance device acts in Australia, including the
Surveillance Devices Act (WA) 1998 and Workplace Surveillance Act 2005, shows that the
latter possess superiority as compared to the other. The Workplace Surveillance Act of NSW
covers the most populated and highly commercial region of the country. It provides a greater
degree of protection to employees from camera surveillance. Moreover, this act uses more
simplified language and terms for quick interpretation. Surveillance Devices Act 1998, on the
other hand, has a formal legal language that is not understandable without the help of an
advocate. It is also exhibited by part 5 of this act that it becomes secondary as compared to
other law applicability in that area, and judges in courts are provided more power to use,

COMPARE AND CONTRAST WA AND NSW 6
disseminate or destroy evidences. Furthermore, this act is not specifically formulated for
workplace surveillance; hence its content follows conventional legal expression rather than
the expression of business writing or communication. Workplace Surveillance Act 2005
(NSW) prioritize the acceptance of employee, and the employers are bound to notify their
employees about surveillance at the workplace. By comparing and contrasting both device
surveillance acts in Australia, it is found that the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 of NSW
can be more helpful in sorting out issues of surveillance and privacy in business organizations
as compared to the WA surveillance act.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST WA AND NSW 7
References
Surveillance Devices Act (1998). Retrieved from: https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/
Workplace Surveillance Act (2005). Retrieved from:
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/cda3e2c0-0fd3-6065-e243-
e81a43c4fdb2/2005-47.pdf
Paterson, M. (2018). Regulating Surveillance: Suggestions for a Possible Way Forward. Can.
J. Comp. & Contemp. L., 4, 193 Retrieved from
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cajccl4&div=9&id=&
page=[12 April 2020]