We are elderly and have obtained cleaning support via the Commonwealth Home Support Program (the original scheme). This process requires that we firstly gain approval from the Government and then locate a provider to manage the specific services. This has worked reasonably well until recently, when the provider changed their cleaning contractor. We were awaiting the new cleaner when we received a call telling us that the new cleaners would be required to photograph every room cleaned inside our house, and if we did not agree they would not clean our house.
I regard this as unnecessary, given that itâs impossible to tell how well the home was cleaned from a photograph. The presence of dust is not discernable in any âbeforeâ or âafterâ photographs. We have never had to agree to this before.
I regard this requirement as a distinct security risk, providing the cleaners (and thus their employer) with clear images of my house layout and any valuables visible in the home.
What do others think ? Is this legal? Is it a reasonable demand? Do I have any recourse ?
I can see why it is done. It isnât possibly about showing before and after cleaning, but the house being left as found, tidying up has been done and that nothing has been damaged, or missing. They possibly are doing it to protect themselves⊠such as claims something went missing from the house during the clean. There are possibly some whose memory might not be as good as in the past, or family members which might take advantage of the situation.
Our neighbour across the road recently had a home assist provider do a kickoff meeting. During this process, they photographed every room, as well as obtained a significant amount of personal information. They said the photos were to record condition of the house and items (contents), for record purposes. I was present at the kickoff and immediately though it was to protect themselves against claims the cleaner did something.
Is it a breach of privacy. Possibly not, unless they shared any images other than those immediately involved/responsible for cleaning your property⊠or you were in the photos.
It wouldnât worry me. It could be seen as a reasonable demand.
There are a range of different providers. If you are unhappy with one, you can change.
It is worth noting that this advice was provided in the kickoff meeting. They also advised they required two weeks notification of change in provider, but, could accommodate different timing should it suit them.
Edit: a point to mention is do you know that your existing provider doesnât take photos - the only way to know is to follow them around every second they are in the home. There is the possibility they do take photos as they will carry devices capable of taking photos. At least the new provider is being upfront in relation to it being a requirement.
Not having any experience with the topic I would be wary. While photos could be evidence of something, they would not be evidence of say a missing ring from a drawer or objects not clearly visible atop furniture, or something that may have been damaged during a clean and not owned up/reported.
When something goes missing or is damaged without evidence of who and how it can be a no-win situation since what could be deemed as unfounded accusations could result in seriously unpleasant repercussions - unless they could be proven.
Room photos? As a minimum I would ask why and what security will be used to secure the photos from any distribution beyond the service companyâs secure repository (ie not a desk drawer or memory stick or open to the world internet server).
As noted, photos in the wrong hands could be used for a 3rd party to case the place by stealth.
I would ask the cleaning contractor what the reason is.
I would then ask the Commonwealth whether this condition is permissible / common / etc.
I would investigate whether it is possible to lock a cupboard or a room - and remove the valuables to that location - so that valuables are not visible in any photo. (If a room then by definition that room wonât get cleaned.)
I would ask myself whether the pleasure derived from the valuable is exceeded by the stress of worrying about having it stolen i.e. time to sell the valuable.
It is unclear to me from your description whether the photos have been taken (i.e. you caved in and it is now too late and this discussion is academic) or the photos have not yet been taken (i.e. you are considering your options).
Invasion of privacy or reasonable demand?
This is a false dichotomy.
By definition, the situation is an invasion of privacy.
But it could nevertheless be justified / reasonable i.e. if the cleaning contractor had provided a reason at all.
It may also protect the cleaner against claims by the cleaning contractor that the cleaner didnât even show up etc. or vice versa.
The photosâ metadata indicate that the cleaner was at least present at the house and the minimum amount of time that the cleaner was at the house. (I know, sure, any IT person worth his/her salt can fake the metadata but perhaps that is not within the skillset of the average cleaner.)
I think the overall vibe of this topic is a sad indictment on Australia 2025.
Depending on the size and nature of the business it may need to comply with the Australian Government Privacy Act. The first test is subject to a turnover threshold-hold of $3M. Unlikely to be reached by a small local cleaning contractor - however if it is the provider who is asking for and will be the holder they may be captured. Assuming payment is made to the provider who subsequently pay the contractor.
The legislation requires the business to have a Privacy Policy and directs what must be included with in policy. Defined businesses with a turnover of less than $3M are also captured by the legislation. Whether the Commonwealth supported services are captured - the OAIC may be able to provide an answer. You could also ask your Service Provider for their Privacy Policy - assuming they have one. The following suggests they should including requirements listed in the Aged Care Act 2024.
Exactly. A friendâs mother, new to the home care package, found that a ring and some cash was missing after the âcleanerâ left.
I can understand that by taking photos they are protecting themself from being accused of causing damage to the property but itâs a one-sided protection..how would they react to being videotaped while on the premises..
PS Iâve noticed for some time that Toyota takes photos of the cars being left for service, possibly to be able to prove that any damage was already present.
This isnât legal advice but under the NSW Workplace Surveillance Act, a private residence can still be a workplace and subject to the provisions of that Act (and that would appear to apply in the scenario of this topic). If that applies then at minimum there are notification and signage obligations on the householder.
Speaking to my other half, who has extensive experience in managing government services contracts, it is believed it could be undertaken to meet evidentiary requirements of the government contract, when an audit is carried out.
The service providers will need to demonstrate X services have been provided on Y date, to validate any monetary claims against the government under their contract.
I suppose the government could ring up all the households where cleaning is done, hoping residents keep accurate records of what services were provided when. But, as indicated above with aging population receiving such services, memories may not be as good as in the past.
Photos seems a reasonable solution to validate use of taxpayer monies.
We have taken advantage of some of the government packages for things like LED replacements, door insulation , and similar smallish items. In each case the contractor had to take photos of what they replaced as evidence they did it. Some of the photos were almost funny as âproofâ, such as an LED in a ceiling without wider context beyond the fixture itself. Never a âroomâ though. So it could be as simple as your other half thinks.
Thanks for all the feedback - much appreciated. I think the above comment probably encapsulates the situation pretty well. Itâs not the world I used to live in, and itâs an indictment on human society that we are reduced to this. Moreover, the cleaners of today are so limited in what they will clean due to occupational health and safety. They wonât dust and there are rules governing what they will actually do. I would never have thought such a basic task could be made so complicated.
When someone else is paying, things tend to go that way.
I know nothing about your financial situation but it may be an option to ditch the government and just arrange and pay for your own cleaner privately, establishing a relationship directly with an actual cleaner, preferably someone local.
Having said that, I have heard older rellies complain in ancient times that no cleaner ever quite does as good a job as you yourself would do. So perhaps that aspect of it is not unique to current times.
Recently noticed our MAC lawn mowing man taking photos after he finished. When questioned he said it was a new thing by our provider because some contractors had been claiming without doing the work.
Personally if our cleaners are now required to take photos inside the house I will be cancelling the service
I believe itâs an invasion of privacy and a load of BS. The cleaner comes to the house and cleans as required by the owners, in the time frame allowed and goes home. We have a cleaner organised by DVA. We donât have any of this photo nonsense, and we have had a cleaner for about 5 years with no problems. The only thing we have to do now is to sign off on the cleaners phone. Who knows what they do with the information from these photoâs and who gets to see them. I would be looking elsewhere.
The purpose and use of the photographic content/information is one aspect. The following may provide insight to whether the taking of the photos is permissible and when it may not be. Some guidance on how it may be if one has granted access to the home or property.
They might want to have a better look before employing people: collecting payment for a job that wasnât done is considered fraud.
They are required to comply with checks of quality standards, insurance, police checks. When something goes wrong all they can think of is asking for photos as proof of having done a job? Why would they employ a worker with such low standards? Why would they trust their photos..
What is the governmentâs policy for the NDIS and its providers as they deal with many more vulnerable people? ChatGPT gives some alternatives scenarios. In return ask to take a photo of the driving licence of everyone whom cleans or supervisiors the cleaning.
Advise the Commonwealth Home Support Program to remove this new provider because taking phots is unacceptable.
I also recently started with the Commonwealth Home Support Program. It doesnât include cleaning though. I agree that I also find it a security risk, and strange that you are being required to agree to photos being taken. It seems like unfair pressure and they must be able to understand the concerns, especially for elderly people. I would suggest consulting with your My Aged Care Advisor to see whether you can perhaps find a more suitable provider. From my experience, sadly providers are not all equal.
Hello, there are some valid points in comments from others about âproof of serviceâ, however with the advent of the so called âconsumer centred systemâ there are inherent security risks. I suggest contacting the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission about your concerns: Make a complaint | Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Thank you for raising this, I will be checking with my mother to see if a similar practice is happening with her cleaning provider.
Thanks for all the various comments. I have taken your advice and written to the Government, which fortunately has a very efficient and easy site for lodging complaints. I hope their responses are equally efficient!
Iâll update you all on the response when I get it. Meanwhile, my house accumulates dirt and grime.
