Australia Recording Laws: State-by-State Rules and Penalties (2026)

Australia has no single national recording law. The federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 governs interception of calls in transit everywhere, but whether you may record a private conversation you are part of depends on which of eight different state and territory Acts applies, and those Acts fall into three genuinely different groups, not a simple two-way split.

Jurisdiction scope: This article surveys recording and surveillance law across all eight Australian states and territories and the applicable Commonwealth legislation, including the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth), and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as amended by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth). For the full detail of any single state or territory, follow the links to its dedicated page below. This article does not address the recording laws of other countries.

Australia's Two-Layer System

The first layer is federal. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (the TIA Act) prohibits intercepting a communication while it is passing over a telecommunications system, and applies uniformly regardless of which state you are in. The Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) separately regulates how federal law enforcement agencies use surveillance devices under warrant; it creates no general rule for private citizens. The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) governs personal information handling by larger organisations and, since 10 June 2025, provides a civil action for serious invasions of privacy that reaches individuals as well.

The second layer is state and territory law. Each of the eight jurisdictions has its own surveillance devices (or listening devices) Act governing the use of listening devices, optical surveillance devices, and often tracking and data surveillance devices, in every context that is not federal telecommunications interception, including a private, face-to-face conversation, a workplace meeting, or a phone call once it has been received at your handset.

Federal Law: Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

Section 6(1) of the TIA Act defines interception as listening to or recording, by any means, a communication passing over a telecommunications system, "without the knowledge of the person making the communication." A communication is treated as passing over the system only until it becomes accessible to its intended recipient (s 5F), so a participant recording a call at their own handset is generally recording it after receipt rather than in passage over the network. That distinction is why the state or territory Act, not the TIA Act, is the operative framework for the question "can I record my own phone call": the TIA Act's target is third-party interception in transit (network taps, unauthorised listening by a carrier employee, and similar conduct), not a participant capturing their own end of the call.

The maximum penalty for unlawful interception under the TIA Act is two years imprisonment. The Act is administered by the Department of Home Affairs, and its warrant and authorisation provisions govern law enforcement and intelligence agency access, not ordinary participant recording.

Federal Law: Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth)

The Commonwealth Surveillance Devices Act 2004 regulates how federal law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, may install and use surveillance devices during criminal investigations. Part 3 sets out the warrant, emergency authorisation and tracking device authorisation framework that applies to those agencies. It creates no consent rule that binds private individuals; a member of the public recording a conversation looks to their state or territory's Act, not this one.

The Three Groups: Can You Record a Conversation You Are Part Of?

This is the question nearly every reader of this page actually has, and it is also where a lot of recording-law content, including earlier versions of this page, gets Australia wrong by borrowing the American "one-party consent" and "all-party consent" labels. Those US terms describe a binary that does not exist in Australian statutes, and importing it obscures a structural difference that matters far more than a consent count: whether the recording prohibition ever applies to a participant at all.

The eight Acts sort into three groups.

The most common error is grouping Western Australia with New South Wales because both are frequently described as requiring "everyone's consent." They do not work the same way. New South Wales' Surveillance Devices Act 2007 s 7(3)(b)(ii) excuses a recording "not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing" it to outsiders, which covers most ordinary personal recording. Western Australia's Surveillance Devices Act 1998 s 5(3) has no equivalent limb: outside law-enforcement duty, a participant's recording is excused only by consent, a lawful-interests justification, or the narrow public-interest route in Part 5 (s 5(2)(d), s 26). Western Australia belongs with South Australia, not with New South Wales.

Group 1 in practice: Victoria, Queensland, Northern Territory

• Victoria: Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) s 6(1) prohibits using a listening device to record a private conversation "to which the person is not a party." A participant is simply outside the section.
• Queensland: Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) s 43(1) creates the offence; s 43(2) exempts "a party to the private conversation."
• Northern Territory: Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT) s 11(1) requires that the person "is not a party" to the conversation as an element of the offence itself.

Describe this precisely: the prohibition does not extend to a conversation you are part of. In Victoria and the Northern Territory participants were never inside the prohibition to begin with; Queensland reaches the same result through an express exemption for a party (s 43(2)(a)). That distinction matters because publishing a lawfully made recording is regulated separately in all three (Vic s 11, Qld ss 44 to 45, NT s 15), so "the offence doesn't reach me as a recorder" does not mean "I can share the recording freely."

Group 2 in practice: New South Wales, Tasmania, ACT

• New South Wales: Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) s 7(1)(b) prohibits recording a private conversation you are a party to; s 7(3) excuses it where all parties consent, or a party consents and either the recording protects a lawful interest or is not made to communicate or publish it to non-parties.
• Tasmania: Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas) s 5(1)(b) and s 5(3) mirror the same structure.
• ACT: Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) s 4(1)(b) and s 4(3) mirror it again, with the added restriction that the Territory itself cannot rely on the lawful-interests limb (s 4(4)).

Group 3 in practice: Western Australia, South Australia

• Western Australia: Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) s 5(3) excuses a participant's recording for law-enforcement duty, consent from every party, or a lawful-interests justification. Separately, s 5(2)(d) and s 26 allow a party to record where there are reasonable grounds for believing the recording is in the public interest, and a judge may order that such a recording be published where that would protect or further the public interest (s 31). There is no personal-use limb.
• South Australia: Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) s 4(2)(a) is structured in a similar way (consent of all principal parties, or a use reasonably necessary to protect the recorder's lawful interests), and s 6 separately excuses a use of a listening device that is in the public interest. Both States therefore have a public-interest exception, framed differently, and neither has a personal-use limb.

A Second, Separate Question: Does the State Regulate Video?

Whether a state has a general video-surveillance offence at all is an independent axis from the consent question above, and the two do not track each other.

Queensland's Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 has no optical or visual-surveillance provision whatsoever; covert video of a private activity in Queensland is addressed only by the narrower Criminal Code voyeurism-type offences, not by a general surveillance prohibition. Tasmania and the ACT are audio-only for the same reason. This means a Group 1 state like Victoria (audio and video both regulated, offence structured around party status) behaves quite differently from Group 1 state Queensland (audio regulated the same way, but no general video law at all). Do not assume a state's position on the consent question tells you anything about its position on video.

Penalties for Illegal Recording

Western Australia and South Australia use fixed dollar penalties rather than penalty units, a structural difference from the other six jurisdictions; never convert a WA or SA figure using another state's penalty-unit multiplier. Penalty unit values are indexed on 1 July each year, so treat every dollar figure above as tied to the financial year shown, not as a permanently current number.

Publishing a Recording Is a Separate Offence Everywhere

Every one of the eight Acts treats communicating or publishing a recording as its own offence, distinct from making the recording. This is true even in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory, where recording your own conversation is outside the prohibition entirely; sharing it afterward is not automatically covered by the same freedom. Typical exceptions across the jurisdictions include consent of all parties, use in legal or disciplinary proceedings, protection of a lawful interest, and (in most, though not all) a public-interest ground. The exact wording, and which exceptions exist, differs by state; see the state-specific pages linked below for the precise section numbers.

Recording Phone Calls

For the full worked analysis, including video-conferencing platforms and interstate calls, see Can You Record a Phone Call in Australia?. Recording a phone call engages both layers described above. While the call is in transit over the network, the TIA Act's interception prohibition applies, but a participant recording their own end of a call they have already received is generally understood not to be "interception" within the meaning of s 6, because once the call has become accessible to the participant as its intended recipient it is no longer passing over the system (s 5F). The state or territory Act where the recording device is located then governs the recording itself, using the same group framework set out above. Video conferencing calls (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet) raise the same TIA Act analysis for their audio component; using a platform's own built-in recording feature, which captures the call at the endpoint rather than intercepting it mid-network, is the generally accepted practice.

Businesses that record customer calls typically play an automated notice ("this call may be recorded for training and quality purposes") at the start of the call. Continuing the call after that notice is generally treated as implied consent in every jurisdiction, regardless of group.

Recording Police

For the full state-by-state detail, including obstruction offences and where the "ought reasonably expect to be overheard" carve-out does not apply, see Recording the Police in Australia. No Australian jurisdiction makes it a standalone offence to film or photograph police performing their duties in a public place. Police conducting an arrest or search in a public street have a reduced expectation of privacy, and in most states "private conversation" and "private activity" definitions expressly exclude circumstances where the parties ought reasonably to expect they may be overheard or observed by someone else. The practical risk is not the recording itself but obstructing an officer in the execution of their duty, which is a separate offence in every state (for example, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 60(1AA); Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s 51(2)). Publishing footage that identifies a third party, such as a person being questioned or detained, can raise separate defamation or privacy exposure even where the act of recording was lawful.

One caution flagged in the state-specific research and worth repeating here: Tasmania's definition of "private conversation" has no "parties ought reasonably expect to be overheard" exclusion, and neither does the ACT's (Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT), dictionary), unlike the Queensland, Victorian, Western Australian and Northern Territory definitions. The general assumption that a public conversation cannot be a private conversation should not be transferred to Tasmania or the ACT without checking the Tasmania recording laws page.

Workplace Recording

For the full detail on notice obligations, covert surveillance authorities, and Fair Work Commission precedent state by state, see Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring in Australia. Whether an employee may record a workplace conversation they are part of depends entirely on the state group described above: Group 1 states place the recording outside the prohibition; Group 2 states usually excuse it through the personal-use limb; Group 3 states require consent from every party, a lawful-interests justification, or (in narrow cases) a public-interest ground.

State legality is not the end of the analysis. The Fair Work Commission has repeatedly held that covertly recording a workplace conversation can be a valid reason for dismissal, even where the recording was lawful under state surveillance law, because it can breach the employee's duty of good faith and fidelity. The leading authority is Schwenke v Silcar Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 4513 (permission to appeal refused, [2013] FWCFB 9842), and reaffirmed in Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2753. New South Wales (Workplace Surveillance Act 2005) and the ACT (Workplace Privacy Act 2011) each have a dedicated workplace surveillance statute requiring at least 14 days' written notice before an employer commences surveillance and a court-issued authority for covert surveillance. No other state or territory has an equivalent standalone statute; the Victorian Premier announced in July 2026 that Labor will introduce workplace surveillance laws, but none had been enacted at last verification.

Image-Based Abuse and Deepfakes

The Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), administered by the eSafety Commissioner, provides a civil enforcement pathway for image-based abuse: a person who shares, or threatens to share, an intimate image without consent can face civil penalties of up to 500 penalty units ($182,000 at the $364 Commonwealth penalty unit that applies from 1 July 2026), and eSafety can issue removal notices to platforms and to the person responsible.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) inserted new federal offences into the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) for using a carriage service to transmit sexual material, whether genuine or AI-generated or digitally altered, without the consent of the person depicted. It commenced on 3 September 2024, the day after Royal Assent (2 September 2024). The base offence carries a maximum of 6 years imprisonment; the aggravated offences in s 474.17AA, which apply where the person created or altered the material, or where 3 or more civil penalty orders had already been made against them under the Online Safety Act 2021, carry 7 years. This is a different commencement date from the statutory privacy tort described below; despite coming from a related legislative programme, the two do not share a start date.

The 2025 Federal Statutory Tort for Serious Invasion of Privacy

Schedule 2 of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) inserted a new statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy into the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). It commenced on 10 June 2025, six months after the amending Act received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024.

A plaintiff must establish all of the following (cl 7(1)):

1. The defendant invaded their privacy by intruding upon seclusion or misusing information relating to them.
2. A person in the plaintiff's position would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.
3. The invasion was intentional or reckless. Negligence does not suffice.
4. The invasion was serious.
5. The public interest in privacy outweighed any countervailing public interest, such as freedom of expression, the proper administration of government, or the prevention and detection of crime (cl 7(3)).

The tort is actionable without proof of damage (cl 7(2)). Courts must not award aggravated damages, may award damages for emotional distress, and may award exemplary damages in exceptional circumstances; the combined cap on non-economic-loss and exemplary damages is the greater of $478,550 and the maximum non-economic-loss figure available in defamation proceedings under an Australian law, which is $520,000 from 1 July 2026; economic loss is not capped (cl 11). The limitation period is generally the earlier of one year after the plaintiff became aware of the invasion, or three years after it occurred, extendable by the court to a maximum of six years (cl 14). Intelligence agencies, law enforcement bodies, government agencies and their staff acting in good faith, journalists in defined circumstances, and persons under 18 are exempt (Sch 2 cl 15 to 18).

The tort has already been tested. In Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396 (Gibson DCJ, 7 October 2025), the New South Wales District Court granted urgent interlocutory injunctions after private wedding photographs were published online as part of an extortion campaign, finding serious questions to be tried on intimidation, defamation and the statutory tort. That decision is interlocutory, not a final judgment on the merits or on quantum, but it confirms the tort is being actively litigated rather than sitting dormant.

Common Recording Scenarios

Several everyday situations raise their own wrinkles on top of the group framework above, and each has a dedicated national page with the full detail.

Recording someone without their consent. The starting question is always which group your state falls into and whether you were a party to the conversation. See Recording Someone Without Consent in Australia for the full national picture, including when a non-party's recording can still be lawful (consent of every party, law enforcement, a warrant).

Home CCTV and doorbell cameras. Every Act treats "listening device / private conversation" and "optical device / private activity" as separate offences under separate tests. Outdoor video of a yard or footpath generally escapes the optical provisions where one exists, but a microphone on the same device is judged independently under the listening-device test, which does not share the same outdoor carve-out. See CCTV and Home Security Camera Laws in Australia and Doorbell Camera and Neighbour Privacy in Australia, including how a New South Wales trespass-gated camera differs from a Victorian or South Australian private-activity-gated one.

Dash cams. Video of the road is unrestricted everywhere. In-cabin audio of passengers is the real risk, and it splits by group: in Western Australia and South Australia a driver recording passengers needs consent, a lawful-interest justification, or (in narrow cases) a public-interest ground; in New South Wales, Tasmania and the ACT the personal-use limb usually covers a recording never intended for third parties; in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory the driver is outside the prohibition for a conversation they are part of. Publishing dash cam footage with audio engages the separate publication offences everywhere. See Dash Cam Laws in Australia.

Drones. CASA's Part 101 rules are an aviation safety regime, not a privacy regime; drone footage that captures a private activity or private conversation is still assessed under the relevant state Act, where one applies. See Drone Privacy Laws in Australia.

Evidence: Can an Unlawfully Made Recording Be Used in Court?

Section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and the equivalent uniform evidence legislation adopted in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory, gives courts a discretion, not an automatic rule, to exclude evidence obtained improperly or in contravention of an Australian law. The court weighs the probative value and importance of the evidence against the gravity of the impropriety, whether it was deliberate or reckless, and the difficulty of obtaining the evidence lawfully, among other factors (s 138(3)). Queensland and South Australia have not adopted the uniform Evidence Act and apply the common-law Bunning v Cross discretion instead, which considers similar factors through different case law. Western Australia is presently mid-transition: the Evidence Act 2025 (WA) received Royal Assent on 25 September 2025 but had not commenced as of this article's last verification, so Western Australia continues to apply the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and common law in the meantime. Separately, Queensland (Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 s 46), Tasmania (Listening Devices Act 1991 s 14) and the ACT (Listening Devices Act 1992 s 10) go further: evidence of a private conversation obtained through an unlawfully used listening device generally cannot be given at all by the person who learned of it that way, subject to narrow listed exceptions such as the consent of the parties. In the ACT the bar also reaches recordings made under the s 4(3) consent exceptions, unless an exception in s 10(2) applies.

Courts do not guarantee admission of an unlawfully obtained recording, and a person who makes one still carries the underlying criminal or civil exposure regardless of whether a court later admits it. For a deeper treatment, including how family law and domestic violence matters are typically approached, see Secret Recordings as Evidence in Australian Courts.

Choosing the Right Page for Your Situation

This hub is deliberately a comparison and navigation page, not a substitute for the jurisdiction-specific detail. If you already know which state or territory applies to you, the dedicated page for that jurisdiction will have the exact section numbers, the full list of exceptions, current penalty figures, and recent case law that this overview necessarily compresses. If your situation involves a specific scenario, a phone call, a workplace dispute, a security camera, a police interaction, or evidence you are trying to use in a proceeding, the national concept pages linked throughout this article and listed again below go into that scenario in depth across every jurisdiction, which is often more useful than a single state's page if your situation could touch more than one state, such as an interstate phone call or an employee who works across borders.

State and Territory Pages

Each state and territory page below covers its Act's precise section numbers, exceptions, penalties, workplace rules and recent case law in full detail.

• New South Wales Recording Laws: Group 2 (broad personal-use exception); regulates listening and optical (trespass-gated)
• Victoria Recording Laws: Group 1 (outside the offence for participants); regulates listening and optical
• Queensland Recording Laws: Group 1; listening only, no general optical provision
• Western Australia Recording Laws: Group 3 (narrow lawful-interest and public-interest exceptions only); regulates listening and optical
• South Australia Recording Laws: Group 3 (narrow lawful-interest and public-interest exceptions only); regulates listening and optical
• Tasmania Recording Laws: Group 2; listening only; no "ought reasonably expect to be overheard" carve-out
• Northern Territory Recording Laws: Group 1; regulates listening, optical, tracking and (for law enforcement) data surveillance
• Australian Capital Territory Recording Laws: Group 2; listening only; government cannot rely on the lawful-interests limb

National Concept Pages

These pages cover a single scenario across all eight jurisdictions at once, which is often the more useful starting point if your situation could touch more than one state.

• Is It Legal to Record a Conversation in Australia?
• Recording Someone Without Consent in Australia
• Can You Record a Phone Call in Australia?
• Recording the Police in Australia
• Secret Recordings as Evidence in Australian Courts
• Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring in Australia
• CCTV and Home Security Camera Laws in Australia
• Doorbell Camera and Neighbour Privacy in Australia
• Dash Cam Laws in Australia
• Drone Privacy Laws in Australia

This guide is part of our Australia law guides.

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information about recording and surveillance law in Australia. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It reflects Commonwealth and state and territory legislation as verified against primary sources in October 2026, including the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as amended by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), and each state and territory's surveillance or listening devices Act. Laws and penalty unit values change, including on 1 July each year. For advice about your specific situation, consult a legal practitioner admitted in the relevant Australian state or territory.

Free calculators

• Australia recording consent checker: answers, per state or territory, whether recording a conversation or video in a given situation is likely lawful.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Australia use the same consent rules as the United States for recording conversations?

No, and describing Australia that way is the single most common source of confusion in this area. Australia has no single national consent rule, and its state and territory Acts do not reduce to a two-tier model. In Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory a participant is outside the recording offence (in Queensland through an express party exemption, s 43(2)(a)). New South Wales, Tasmania and the ACT prohibit participant recording but excuse most of it through a broad personal-use exception. Western Australia and South Australia prohibit it with only narrow lawful-interest and public-interest exceptions and no personal-use limb. Three genuinely different structures exist.

Can I legally record a phone call in Australia?

It depends on which state or territory you are recording from. In Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory, the state offence does not reach a participant's own recording. In New South Wales, Tasmania and the ACT, a broad personal-use exception usually covers a recording not intended for outsiders. In Western Australia and South Australia, only consent, a specific lawful-interest justification, or (in narrow cases) a public-interest ground excuses it. The federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 also applies while the call is in transit, but recording your own received call is generally understood not to be interception under that Act.

Is Western Australia the same as New South Wales for recording law?

No, despite both often being described loosely as requiring everyone's consent. New South Wales has a broad personal-use exception (Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) s 7(3)(b)(ii)) that excuses a recording not made to communicate or publish it to outsiders, covering most private recording. Western Australia's Surveillance Devices Act 1998 s 5(3) has no equivalent limb. Western Australia's structure is closer to South Australia's than to New South Wales'.

Does every Australian state regulate video recording the same way it regulates audio?

No. Whether a state has a general video-surveillance law is a separate question from its audio consent rule. New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory regulate optical (video) surveillance devices. Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT have no general optical surveillance offence; Queensland's Invasion of Privacy Act 1971, for example, covers listening devices only.

What is the new Australian federal privacy tort?

A statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, introduced by Schedule 2 of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), commenced on 10 June 2025. It lets an individual sue where their privacy was seriously, intentionally or recklessly invaded by intrusion upon seclusion or misuse of information, and a reasonable person would have expected privacy in the circumstances. It has already been applied in Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396, an interlocutory decision granting injunctions over the non-consensual publication of private photographs.

Can I record police in Australia?

Generally yes, where they are performing their duties in a public place. No Australian jurisdiction makes filming police in public a standalone offence. The real risk is obstructing an officer while filming, which is a separate offence everywhere. Publishing footage that identifies a third party who is not the officer, such as a person being detained, can raise separate legal risk even where the recording itself was lawful.

Does the federal deepfake law apply across all of Australia?

Yes. The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) is a federal law and applies uniformly in every state and territory. It commenced 3 September 2024 and criminalises transmitting sexual material, genuine or digitally altered, without the consent of the person depicted, with a maximum penalty of 6 years imprisonment (7 years for an aggravated offence).

Can a recording made in one state be used in a court case in another state?

Courts apply the Evidence Act discretion under section 138 (or, in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, the common-law equivalent) to weigh whether improperly obtained evidence should be admitted. Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT also have statutory bars in their listening devices laws (Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) s 46, Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas) s 14, Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) s 10): evidence of a private conversation obtained through an unlawfully used listening device generally cannot be given, subject to narrow exceptions. Outside those bars, admission is discretionary, not automatic, and does not remove the maker's separate criminal or civil exposure under the law of the state where the recording was made.