Allegations have surfaced that Australian firm Safetrac conducted undisclosed audio surveillance on remote workers.
The company, which has a presence in Auckland, reportedly used Teramind software to access laptop microphones. Staff were allegedly recorded for extended periods—up to 10 hours a day. Safetrac provides compliance and risk-management services to clients across Australasia.
Victorian Police Investigates as Surveillance Claims Spark Legal Debate
The controversy, first reported by the Australian Financial Review, has triggered a Victorian police inquiry and prompted debate in New Zealand about the legality of such surveillance. Two employees who discovered the monitoring complained, but were later dismissed — leading to a union complaint.
Safetrac maintains the dismissals were linked to misconduct and underperformance, not whistleblowing, and said the monitoring was for “legitimate business purposes.”
Legal Implications for Covert Monitoring in New Zealand
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner said New Zealand law takes a hard line on covert listening. “In New Zealand, using a laptop as a listening device to monitor employees could be a criminal offence if the employee is not aware of the recording,” a spokeswoman said.
She pointed to section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961, which makes it an offence to record private communications, as well as principles of the Privacy Act 2020 that bar “unreasonably intrusive” information collection.
“If an employer has concerns about an employee’s performance, they should take steps to manage their concerns, such as talking directly to the employee or following a performance improvement process,” she added.
Employment Law Experts Warn of Risk to Employer Compliance
Employment lawyer Jennifer Mills said the case showed the legal risks of intrusive monitoring. “It is hard to see how information on a conversation between an employee and their child could be considered necessary to a company’s purposes,” she said.
“Overall, I think it would be difficult for a company to incorporate a policy like the one you have referred [Safetrac’s alleged conduct] to in a way which is not legally problematic.”
She noted the Employment Relations Act 2000 requires employers to deal with workers in good faith. “Monitoring must be proportionate and fair. An employer recording the conversations of employees who work from home seems disproportionate and unfair, and therefore likely in violation of the act.”
Workplace Surveillance Undermines Trust, Says Academic
Massey University Professor of Management Jarrod Haar said: “The literature tells us surveillance has major issues around justice and in this case injustice and that’s why people react poorly. If people don’t trust you, they’re not going to give you their all.
“I was quite flabbergasted by the whole thing. It’s definitely not recommended in my opinion. It’s an overstep of technology in the workplace.”
He warned that newer forms of digital surveillance, including AI-powered systems that analyse keyboard and mouse data, were already raising concerns.
Safetrac’s Corporate Compliance Origins Under Scrutiny
Safetrac was established in 1999 as a spin-off from New Zealand law firm Minter Ellison Rudd Watts.
The company was created to enhance corporate ethics and compliance. Its founders included Ross Patterson, a former Telecommunications Commissioner.
The company, which employs two staff in Auckland and around 55 in Australia, counts Air New Zealand among its clients. Safetrac is accused of monitoring its own staff, not those of its customers.