In Australia’s residential aged care sector, location tracking of staff via work phones or apps is increasingly common, promising improved safety and care coordination.
Yet, as staff raise concerns about privacy, providers face a complex challenge: how to balance operational needs with legal and ethical obligations. As Deanna McMaster, a lawyer at Minter Ellison, noted, “It’s a hornet’s nest… it varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction.”
This article explores the rules governing staff tracking across Australia, offering practical guidance for aged care management and workers to ensure compliance, foster trust, and maintain quality care.
The rules across Australia: A state-by-state guide
Tracking staff in aged care is governed by a mix of federal and state/territory laws, creating a complex compliance landscape. The federal Privacy Act 1988 and Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) set the baseline, requiring transparency, consent, and purpose limitation for collecting location data.
For example, APP 5 mandates notifying staff about data use, while APP 3 limits collection to what’s necessary for work, such as ensuring staff are at resident locations. However, state and territory laws often impose stricter rules, as McMaster emphasised: “You’ve got to follow the Privacy Act, which is federal, then the state laws deal with workplace surveillance.”
Here’s a snapshot of key requirements:
| Jurisdiction | Key Law | Notification | Consent | Penalties for Breach |
| NSW | Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 | 14 days’ written notice | Implied after notice; explicit for personal devices | $55,000 (corporations) |
| VIC | Surveillance Devices Act 1999 | Before tracking | Explicit, especially for personal devices | $37,000 (corporations) |
| ACT | Workplace Privacy Act 2011 | 7 days’ notice | Implied after notice | Fines, varies |
| WA | Surveillance Devices Act 1998 | Before tracking | Explicit for personal devices | $50,000 (corporations) |
| SA | Surveillance Devices Act 2016 | Before tracking | Explicit for personal devices | $15,000 or 3 years imprisonment |
| QLD, TAS | Privacy Act 1988 (federal) | At collection (APP 5) | Explicit for personal devices | Varies (federal penalties) |
| NT | Surveillance Devices Act 2007 | Before tracking | Explicit for personal devices | Fines or 2 years imprisonment |
In NSW, providers must provide 14 days’ written notice and a surveillance policy, with covert tracking illegal and punishable by hefty fines. Victoria requires explicit consent for personal devices, and public providers must respect privacy under the Charter of Human Rights.
The ACT mandates a 7-day notice period, while Queensland and Tasmania rely on federal laws due to no specific surveillance legislation. Western Australia, South Australia, and the Northern Territory prohibit covert tracking, requiring consent and notification.
For management, these rules ensure tracking supports care, such as coordinating staff in large facilities, but non-compliance risks privacy breaches or disputes, as McMaster warned: “The primary risk is breaching the Australian Privacy Principles, but also workplace disputes.” Workers can demand clear notification and challenge excessive tracking, such as outside work hours, which is generally unlawful.
Transparency first: Building trust legally and ethically
Transparency is a cornerstone of legal compliance and ethical tracking. Most jurisdictions require providers to notify staff before tracking begins, detailing the method (e.g., GPS on work phones), purpose (e.g., safety), and data handling.
McMaster stressed, “Make sure you tell staff before you do it.” The Privacy Act reinforces this, requiring providers to inform staff about data collection and use (APP 5).
Ethically, transparency addresses staff concerns about intrusive monitoring, fostering trust.
McMaster advised, “Provide detail to staff about exactly what you’re tracking, and that staff have an opportunity to engage with and understand that.” For example, a clear policy explaining how tracking ensures timely resident care can reassure staff while meeting legal standards.
Practical Steps for Providers:
For Workers: Request policy details and raise concerns locally, as McMaster suggested: “A local complaint to their employer is really the best way to deal with it.”
If unresolved, staff can escalate to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Transparency balances care and privacy by aligning tracking with operational goals, such as ensuring staff availability, while respecting staff rights, reducing the risk of disputes.
Consent and boundaries: Navigating personal devices and work hours
The use of workplace apps on personal phones is a growing concern, raising legal and ethical questions about consent and boundaries.
Explicit consent is required for tracking on personal devices in most jurisdictions, such as Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, per their Surveillance Devices Acts. The Privacy Act mandates informed consent for personal data (APP 3).
McMaster noted that employers can make tracking a condition of employment, but it must be “set up as a precondition” and clearly communicated.
Ethically, staff may feel pressured to install apps on personal phones, blurring work and personal life. McMaster emphasised avoiding tracking “personal movement as far as that is possible,” particularly outside work hours, which is illegal in most states.
For instance, tracking a staff member’s location during a break or after shifts risks breaching privacy laws and eroding trust.
Practical Solutions:
Worker Rights: Staff can refuse tracking on personal devices if not a clear employment condition and challenge off-hours monitoring as potentially unlawful. This approach supports care by enabling tracking for work purposes, such as home care visits, while protecting privacy.
Ethical tracking: Proportionality and data security
Ethical tracking extends legal rules, ensuring proportionality and data security. Tracking must be necessary for care needs, as McMaster noted: “It’s generally reasonable to monitor… activities people are doing for work.”
For example, GPS tracking is justified in remote facilities to ensure staff safety but may be excessive in small homes.
The Privacy Act requires securing location data against misuse (APP 11). Ethical providers invest in robust systems to prevent breaches, which could expose staff to risks like identity theft.
Tracking outside work hours or for non-work purposes is prohibited in most jurisdictions and risks disputes, as McMaster warned: “Even if the IT platform tracks personal movement, they shouldn’t look at that for work purposes.”
Practical Steps:
This balances care, such as ensuring emergency response, with privacy through minimal data collection and secure handling.
Practical steps for providers and workers
For Management:
For Workers:
The verdict?
Location tracking in aged care can enhance care delivery, but it demands careful navigation of legal and ethical boundaries. By understanding jurisdiction-specific rules, prioritising transparency, securing consent, and ensuring proportionality, providers can balance care and privacy.
Workers, empowered with knowledge of their rights, can advocate for fair practices. With the new aged care reforms rapidly approaching, fostering trust through clear policies and staff engagement will be key. By following the rules and prioritising respect, aged care providers can support quality care while safeguarding staff privacy.
Does it track if a home care worker is sitting on Their backsides reading a clients newspaper or telling the Person who is receiving the ‘care’ to pop the kettle on! The person who I know did that is no longer working in the industry!