The infamous Epstein Files have re-emerged into public regard following a key new development. The passing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act required the U.S. Department of Justice to release Jeffrey Epstein related documents. Including witness statements, travel lists, visitor logs, electronic device data and related resources. Subsequently exposing those involved and the networks that enabled the crimes.
A general public consensus has emerged that the public has a right to know. Exposing systemic corruption, complicity and collusion is a vital step in the way of holding the wealthy and powerful elites accountable.
The burgeoning demands for transparency go much further beyond the US Criminal Justice System. They reflect a global demand for openness and accountability as essential pillars of democracy. When serious allegations arise, investigative bodies and institutions must be held fully accountable. Their records ought not remain sealed.
This is a demand which feels familiar for those advocating for fair workplaces. The workplace acts as a microcosm for this power, vulnerability and privacy experienced every day. The Epstein Files forces us to reflect on our own workplaces here in Australia. Questioning whether Australian workers are being provided the transparency and fairness they are all entitled to. Particularly surrounding personnel files, independent medical examinations, harassment complaints, unfair dismissals, general protections cases and internal investigations.
Criminal justice institutions investigating serious abuse are now facing growing public pressure to be transparent and accountable.
So why should employers possess the unbridled prerogative to withhold documents regarding employees’ own health, conduct and employment.
Both houses of the United States Congress have now passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This requires the Department of Justice to publish a wide array of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes by the 19th of December 2025. These documents were previously sealed.
These documents involve seized devices (mobile phones, computers, storage and hard drives), photographs, travel records, interviews, victim statements and communications. The release aims to uncover the full extent of Epstein’s network and the systems that allowed his crimes to occur.
However, some materials will remain sealed or redacted. This centres around content which will identify victims or jeopardise ongoing inquiries.
The debate is a contentious one. Many officials are urging transparency whilst others are wary of complicating the ongoing investigations. Tensions have continued between public interest and privacy of the victims.
This is not a tension which is unique to criminal justice. It is one which exists in the everyday workplace. In environments where evident power imbalances render transparency and accountability untenable.
To understand how Epstein-style transparency applies to workplaces, we first need to examine what Australian law already requires from employers.
This section of federal law recognises that individuals have a right to access information related to their own employment.
These legal protections afforded to employees go nowhere near far enough, particularly in regard to investigations, medical examinations and internal complaint files.
Ultimately, there is general understanding that employees should have access to records about their own employment. Though the existence of such a right becomes murky in regard to workplace harassment files, IMEs or employer conducted inquiries.
Limits on access to records are not just mere procedural deficiencies. They have very real and substantive consequences, perpetuating power imbalances existent in the workplace. Particularly in unfair dismissals, general protection claims, harassment, IMEs or internal investigations. Where these documents determine someone’s professional fate and future. Here are the key issues:
If an employee cannot see the evidence being used against them how can they be expected to genuinely respond? This denies them any and all opportunity for procedural fairness. A fact which is particularly detrimental when someone’s livelihood and reputation is at stake.
Employers possess an undeniable and unequivocal power over their employees. They control the process used throughout performance reviews, IMEs, the disciplinary process, investigations, complaints and terminations. They control not only the outcome, but also the flow of information leaving the power imbalance more heavily skewed. Through controlling what remains private, employers can entrench the abuse, silence victims and protect perpetrators.
When an unfair dismissal or disciplinary action occurs without transparency about the evidence used, employees lack the option to challenge decisions. Those who do choose to challenge these decisions through unfair dismissal, general protections or workplace rights claims are unable to argue against the employer’s version of events. This places a significant handicap on any ability to challenge any decisions made by employers.
Workplace medical examinations, fitness-for-work assessments and dismissals based on health reasons involve private health data, doctoral opinions and risk assessment. Employees are often denied access to the health evaluations that influence major decisions about their employment. This prompts serious concerns relating to privacy concerns, justice and human rights. If an employee cannot see what a doctor writes about them, how can they challenge its validity.
The lack of transparency underpinning these processes means decisions affecting one’s livelihood or reputation are made with secrecy. Without accountability and contrary to all principles of dignity, justice and fairness.
Initially the Epstein Files, regarding sex-trafficking, abuse against minors and criminal investigation may not seem to possess much overlap with workplace law in Australia. Though the underlying dynamics and issues are strikingly alike.
Just as Epstein exploited his wealth and social power, the workplace involves an underlying hierarchy. Employers always hold disproportionate power over their employees.
In both contexts, documents can be concealed, withheld, or heavily redacted. Often justified by a thinly veiled excuse of “privacy, “confidentiality,” “ongoing investigations,” and “sensitive information.”
Both issues surround a call out for transparency and accountability. Victims, survivors and the public have demand the release of Epstein related documents. As have employees and workplace representatives, demanding transparency relating to serious allegations and decisions. Especially when they affect employment, health, security or reputation.
The Department of Justice’s release of the files is a major step toward public accountability and justice for the victims. Access to workplace files would similarly ensure fairer outcomes in dismissal claims, health related disputes, harassment complaints and general protections matters.
Transparency is not just a political or a social ideal. It is a cornerstone aspect of justice, accountability and dignity, wherever power imbalances exist. The Epstein Files release can and ought serve as a reminder of this fact.
Given these parallels, the ongoing public contentiousness regarding the Epstein Files acts as a critical lens in reimagining how workplace s should handle internal documents.
The current Privacy Act “employee records exemption,” provides employers major discretion of what, when and with whom they share information to. This is particularly damaging when relating to employees professional future.
Recommendation: Amending this legislation to require more transparency. Ensuring legislative regulations do not only ensure employees access to basic records, but such also as pay and hours. But also, to internal investigation reports, IME reports, witness statements and any other materials relied upon for adverse action.
This seeks to ensure workplace record access aligns with principles of fairness and justice. And that workplaces reflect the transparency demanded by the public in investigations such as the Epstein files.
As shown in Aurizon v Cameron Webb (2024), employers have no obligation to give affected employees access to the investigation reports that inform their decisions.
Recommendation: Adopt legal minimum standards for internal investigations.
These reforms would intend to shift the “secret file culture” toward accountability, fairness, trust and transparency. Values the majority of workplaces intend or claim to uphold, but often fail to do in practice.
Workplace medical assessments determine whether a worker is fit to continue, ready to return or will declared medically unfit for the workplace. Despite the significance of these documents, employees often will very rarely get to see the full medical report.
Recommendation: Employers must commit to providing employees with copies of all medical assessment reports which implicate employment outcomes. Employees should reserve the right to retain second independent medical opinion if they choose to contest the finding.
This would transform IMEs from black-box decisions to transparent processes reflective of all workers’ rights to accountability.
Limited access to documents, reports and medical files renders employees’ ability to bring or defend workplace claims near impossible.
Recommendation: Workplace laws should require employers to provide relevant internal documentation for the purposes of legal challenges. The Fair Work regime should ensure this, extending it to cover general protections and anti-discrimination laws.
This would seek to democratise and improve access to justice and reduce power imbalances within the workplace. Also ensuring workplace practices and procedures align with social demands for accountability and transparency.
Read more: Top Reasons Why You Should File An Unfair Dismissal Claim
Transparency is not just for our society’s high-profile scandals. It needs to be standard for all workplaces. The question arises of who gets to control the narrative and who gets to the see the records. Why should investigations remain secret when employees’ reputations, professional standing and health are at stake?
Australian law remains disquietingly silent on deep structural issues regarding the confidentiality of internal investigations and assessment. Our laws empower secrecy more than fairness, and this secrecy enables abuse.
It is time for organisations to adopt transparency-based disclosure policies. We need to demand fairness, clarity and procedural justice. Dignity, trust and fairness in the workplace should never be optional.
If you believe documents are being withheld, you have been unfairly dismissed or caught up in a workplace investigation you can’t access, don’t stay silent.
Contact us today on 1800 333 666.
We are not lawyers however we are the leading workplace experts in Australia. If there is any unlawful behavior or discrimination in your workplace, including adverse action, get advice today.
