Mr Stephen Bali: I speak in support of the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Bill 2025. I have never heard so much crap in my life. I cannot fathom how Opposition members are coming up with their standard speaking points. They say, "How dare union officials have access to payroll systems?" Does the Liberal Party seriously think that the vast majority of small businesses still open up a wages book for a union official to look at in this modern era? These days, most small businesses use MYOB or another type of computer program. I am just amazed. In his contribution to the debate, the member for Willoughby stated:

This bill puts at risk the data of every person across our great State. It risks jobs, innovation and so much more … exposing businesses and communities to serious privacy and cybersecurity risks.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Security?

Mr Stephen Bali: It was "cybersecurity". Have members seen our union officials? I was a union official; we are marginally above the typewriter era. But those opposite expect union officials—who walk into businesses because they worry about workers' rights and safety and negotiate enterprise agreements so well—to somehow learn cyber espionage and log in to an employer's systems at midnight to find the secret spice recipe for KFC so they can release it to the world. I do not know where the Opposition is coming from. I did agree with the member for Willoughby when he said:

Yes, digital technologies, artificial intelligence, algorithms and automation are playing an increasing role in how work is allocated, monitored and managed. Those trends raise legitimate questions about psychosocial risks, excessive workloads, surveillance and fairness.

I love the Liberal Party. During this debate, one minute members of the Liberals and the Nats say, "How dare anyone look at any of these records?" But the next minute, most of them say, "By the way, we also recognise that the average person has had their rights infringed."

Let us look at some evidence. Let us look at working from home. Many people jumped at the chance to work from home, but how is that working out for them? Employers can use various monitoring methods, including software, cameras, video, audio surveillance systems, GPS tracking and biometric technology. The member for Willoughby wants us to wait around while employers use digital methods to monitor a person as they work in their lounge room, bedroom or home office.

These days, employers know when a worker's eyes flicker away from the screen. If a worker wants to go have a toilet break in their own home, they might get into trouble with their employer. That is why the Government is introducing these rules. Employers do not need to have fingerprint technology and retina scanning. Members opposite are worried about an employer's cybersecurity, but what about the security of the individual worker? Literally the most important identity markers a worker has on their body can now be accessed by their employer. How many digital systems get broken into around the world? Every system—whether that be Government or NASA or military or whatever—is vulnerable. Do those opposite really think that a small hairdressing business at Doonside has a cybersecurity system that can block access to the fingerprint data they are storing? We must consider the reality on the ground and work through these laws in a proper way.

Following the lead of the member for Willoughby, Liberal Party members talk about union officials walking into businesses and just grabbing information. Proposed new section 21A (2) of the bill states:

(2) A person conducting a business or undertaking must consider whether the allocation of work by or using a digital work system creates or results in any of the following risks—

(a) excessive or unreasonable workloads …

The union official will be looking at data and information about risks, not some secret spice recipe or customer records. There is nothing in the bill about that. I am sorry to scare everyone off, but that is really a marginal amendment. If you look at—

Mr Brendan Moylan: The spice recipe?

Mr Stephen Bali: The spice recipe? No, the access to information. The current Act states that the employer must provide onsite access to information not only to union officials but also safety inspectors. It also states that the union official or the person conducting a business or undertaking has a right to access a computer. The bill before the House only provides access to the information contained on that computer in relation to a safety issue. A union or other official cannot look at any other data. Yes, they can look at payroll records, but guess what? They probably already have those details. They know where the worker is.

Opposition members do not take on board the challenges that require us to make these provisions. They say that the 850,000 small businesses operating in New South Wales are all fabulous businesses—which they are. They are trying their best. Yet the latest available data shows that Australian employees missed out on $5 billion in super contributions in the 2018-19 financial year. So many people are underpaid because employers are able to get away with it. Do we have a union official that can go to every single site to make sure that the super is paid? No, we do not. What impact does that have? According to an ABC report on 28 October 2021, one particular worker contracted a life-threatening bacterial infection. He was a casual with no sick pay or annual leave. He wanted to claim total and permanent disability cover from his superannuation fund, but the employer had ceased paying into his superannuation account. This person not only lost $20,000 in super but also lost $60,000 because he could not access total and permanent disability cover. That is why union and other officials need access to information stored on computers in people's workplaces.

There are at least 800,000 small businesses in New South Wales, but I doubt there are even 500 union officials. That means one union official has to visit a thousand businesses. Union officials look after their members, in the first instance. Less than 20 per cent of the workforce are members of a union, so the vast majority of those 850,000 businesses have probably never seen a union official. I was a union official with the Australian Workers' Union and looked after hairdressers. Most of the time when I went to a small hairdressing business, the initial response was quite negative.

Mr Anthony Roberts: It was just your haircut.

Mr Stephen Bali: That was their fault; they gave me the haircut. My job was to make sure that wages and super were being paid and people were working to make sure of outcomes.

Ms Sophie Cotsis: Did you use a computer?

Mr Stephen Bali: They had a wages book so we could look at that. We could even photocopy it! We did not have iPhones in those days to take a picture, so I had to ask if I could go to the local library and make a photocopy. I thank the Minister for distracting me. But if the employer says no, the parties go to the Industrial Relations Commission. Actually, there is a step before that. [Extension of time]

If a union official turns up and asks an employer for information and the employer says no, what happens? Can the union official just barge in and somehow log on to the system? I doubt it. They would not know the password to get in.

Ms Sophie Cotsis: They're claiming that you're going to steal the computer.

Mr Stephen Bali: Oh, pick up the computer? It is all in the cloud so it does not matter if you pick up the computer these days; you still will not have access to it. It is a request for information. The union official may want to demand it, but it is only a request. If the employer says no—

Ms Sophie Cotsis: That's it.

Mr STEPHEN BALI: That is it—to a certain extent, Minister. Then a request can be made for the regulator to attend. A government employee from SafeWork would attend and try to work through the issue. Do not forget—we are talking about a safety issue.

Ms Sophie Cotsis: From the Act.

Mr Stephen Bali: From the Act.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Sonia Hornery): The member for Blacktown is doing well. He does not require assistance from the Minister.

Mr Stephen Bali: We are not looking at an employer's cryptic cyber formulas, customer bases or the opponents they plan to take out—none of that. It is about the employee's safety and how the employer is making them work. The regulator will attend and look at the issue. It is the employer who will show them the information. The union official would rarely touch anything. I have attended plenty of worksites where it is death by PowerPoint—the employer would produce 62 slides saying how safe the workplace is. The great Yossi Berger—God rest his soul—was a wonderful WHS officer for the Australian Workers' Union.

I remember being with him at a major glass factory where workers were catching on fire. They were working next to a blast furnace running at 700 degrees as the bottles were coming down. We were trying to work out why they were catching on fire. But the employer had prepared about 60 PowerPoint slides. We got to about the fifth slide and Yossi could not handle it any longer. He slammed the desk and said, "There's people dying out there." He used a few adjectives which I will not use in the Chamber. "People are dying out there. Don't give us a PowerPoint presentation. Don't give us excuses. Let's work through the issue."

The regulator will attend in the first instance. If that does not work out and problems remain, that is when the matter goes to the Industrial Relations Commission. Those who have not been union officials may use the old terminology and call it the Industrial Relations Court or something else. But it is just a commission. It is predominantly informal. I love the technical, legal term used in the Act. It refers to the problem in the workplace as "the thing". Parties can register a dispute with the commission. The process starts with conciliation and is followed by mediation. The final step is arbitration. The Liberals and the Nats are speaking about their little local hairdressers or nail technicians or tradies. They will not need lawyers. I cannot see how any of them are going to be affected. I cannot understand how a union official could affect a tradie's cybersecurity. It is all about whether an employee is being unfairly treated in the workplace.

For example, is the employer excessively monitoring by measuring the employee's heart rate or how fast they are working in a warehouse, or by putting cameras on the employee working from home? Media reports indicate—I do not know if it is true—that in China some employers have a board or ladder that ranks pickers and packers, and the bottom five get sacked every day. Are we heading towards that kind of society? Is that what the Liberals and the Nats expect—that we allow employers to do anything they want and workers are screwed non-stop? Members opposite are putting forward ridiculous ideas. The Minister has taken a balanced view to add a minor amendment that would enable access to software that determines how work is distributed. That is the only change in this legislation—not what members opposite are saying.