ACT Recording Laws: One-Party Consent, Penalties and Privacy Rights (2026)

The Australian Capital Territory operates under a one-party consent framework for audio recordings. Under section 4(3)(b)(ii) of the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT), any participant in a private conversation may record it without telling the other parties, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of sharing it with outsiders.

Is the ACT One-Party or All-Party Consent?

The ACT is effectively a one-party consent jurisdiction for audio recordings, despite how its primary statute is sometimes described. The Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) begins with a prohibition on participant recording in section 4(1)(b), but section 4(3)(b)(ii) immediately carves out an exception that covers most everyday recording situations: a participant may record a private conversation without any other party's knowledge or consent, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing it to persons who are not parties to the conversation.

In plain terms, this means you can record any conversation you are part of for your own reference, without telling anyone else. The restriction is not on making the recording. The restriction is on what you do with it afterward. If you keep the recording for personal use, you are within the exception. If you send it to a third party or post it publicly, you leave the exception and potentially violate section 5.

This participant exception is broad enough that the ACT's practical operation closely resembles a one-party consent jurisdiction like Queensland or Victoria. The headline "all-party consent" label, which appears in some secondary sources, refers to the baseline prohibition in section 4(1)(b) read in isolation. Reading the statute as a whole, the participant exception in section 4(3)(b)(ii) is the operative rule for most real-world recording situations.

The Act is administered by the Attorney-General through the Justice and Community Safety Directorate. First enacted on 25 September 1992, the Act has been amended 11 times and currently stands at republication R10, effective 11 February 2022 following the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (No 2).

Key Definitions Under the Act

What Is a Listening Device?

The Act defines a "listening device" broadly. It covers any instrument, apparatus, equipment, or device capable of being used to listen to or record a private conversation. That includes smartphones, tablets, voice recorders, dictation devices, audio surveillance equipment, and any video camera with audio recording capability.

Hearing aids are specifically excluded from the definition.

The breadth of this definition matters. If you use your phone to record a conversation, your phone is a listening device under the Act. The same applies to a laptop running recording software, a smartwatch with a microphone, or a dashcam that captures audio.

The Optical Surveillance Gap

The Listening Devices Act 1992 is an audio-only statute. It covers recording of private conversations by sound. It does not cover optical or visual surveillance of private activities, such as covert video recording without audio.

This is a meaningful gap. States such as New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and Queensland have dedicated surveillance devices legislation covering both audio and optical surveillance. The ACT has no equivalent optical surveillance devices statute. A person who installs a hidden camera to record images (without sound) of private activity in the ACT is not committing an offence under the Listening Devices Act, though they may commit offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (discussed below) or attract civil liability.

Practitioners and residents should be aware of this gap when assessing whether covert visual monitoring is regulated under ACT territory law.

What Is a Private Conversation?

The Act protects "private conversations": conversations carried on in circumstances indicating the parties intended them to be heard only by themselves. The critical question is whether the participants had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

A conversation in a closed office between two colleagues is private. A conversation at a loud bar table could be private if the speakers intended it to remain between them. A speech delivered to a crowd at a public rally is not private.

For telephone calls, the analysis focuses on each party's circumstances. If one party is alone in a private room, the conversation is private even if the other party is in a public place. The expectation of privacy from the perspective of any one party can make the entire conversation private.

Principal Parties vs. Parties

The Act distinguishes "principal parties" from "parties." A principal party is someone who speaks or is spoken to during the conversation. A party includes principal parties and also anyone who, with a principal party's consent, listens to or records the conversation.

This distinction matters because the Act's exceptions hinge on whether a "principal party" consents. Someone listening in with permission is a party but not a principal party, and their consent alone does not trigger the exceptions.

Section 4: The Core Prohibition and Participant Exception

Section 4 is the heart of the Act. It creates two distinct prohibitions:

Subsection 4(1)(a) makes it an offence to use a listening device to listen to or record a private conversation to which you are not a party. This covers eavesdropping and covert surveillance of other people's conversations.

Subsection 4(1)(b) makes it an offence to use a listening device to record a private conversation to which you are a party. This is the general prohibition that applies to participants. However, section 4(3) immediately provides exceptions that largely govern everyday practice.

The maximum penalty for violating section 4 is 50 penalty units. Under the ACT's Legislation Act 2001 (section 133), one penalty unit equals $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation. That translates to a maximum fine of $8,000 for an individual or $40,500 for a corporation.

The Section 4(3) Participant Exceptions

Subsection 4(2) exempts:

• Use of a listening device under an authority granted by Commonwealth or ACT law
• Unintentional hearing of a private conversation by means of a listening device

Subsection 4(3) provides the key practical exceptions. The prohibition on participant recording in subsection 4(1)(b) does not apply if:

(a) Each principal party to the conversation consents to the recording; or

(b) A principal party consents, and one of the following applies:

• (i) That principal party considers, on reasonable grounds, that the recording is necessary for the protection of their lawful interests; or
• (ii) The recording is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation to any person who is not a party to the conversation.

The exception in section 4(3)(b)(ii) is the operative one-party consent rule. A participant who records for personal reference, to retain notes of a meeting, or to preserve evidence of a dispute is within this exception. The intent not to share with outsiders is what matters. The recording itself requires no disclosure to other parties.

The "lawful interests" exception in section 4(3)(b)(i) covers recording where the participant has reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary to protect their rights. Courts have interpreted "necessary" in this context to mean "reasonably appropriate" rather than "absolutely essential." A participant who records to document workplace harassment, an insurance dispute, or a threat to their safety can rely on this exception.

Section 5: Restrictions on Sharing Participant Recordings

Section 5 governs what happens after a lawful recording is made. Even a recording that was lawful under the section 4(3) exceptions is subject to restrictions on sharing.

A party to a private conversation commits an offence by communicating, publishing, or divulging a record of that conversation if the party knows the record was made using a listening device. The maximum penalty is 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

Exceptions under section 5(2) allow sharing in these circumstances:

• Communication to another party to the conversation
• With consent of each principal party
• In the course of civil or criminal proceedings
• When reasonably necessary for the protection of the party's lawful interests
• Under an authority granted by law

The practical takeaway: you can record a conversation for personal reference without telling anyone, but sharing that recording with a third party requires you to meet one of these exceptions. Posting a recording on social media, sending it to a journalist, or forwarding it to a non-party employer would almost certainly violate section 5 unless every principal party consented.

Section 6: Sharing Unlawfully Obtained Recordings

Section 6 addresses a different scenario: what happens when someone receives a recording that was made illegally. If a private conversation comes to your knowledge through the unlawful use of a listening device, you commit an offence by communicating or publishing that conversation or any report of it.

The maximum penalty mirrors section 5: 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

This provision means that even if you did not make the illegal recording yourself, passing it along or publishing its contents is a separate criminal offence. Journalists, employers, and anyone who receives leaked recordings should be aware of this rule.

Section 7: Possession of Unlawful Recordings

Section 7 makes it an offence to possess a recording that you know was obtained through the unlawful use of a listening device. It does not matter whether you were involved in making the recording. Simply having it in your possession while knowing it was illegally obtained is enough.

The maximum penalty is 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

Section 8: Manufacturing and Supplying Listening Devices

Section 8 targets the supply chain. It is an offence to manufacture, supply, sell, distribute, possess, or offer to supply, sell, or distribute a listening device if you know it is intended or principally designed for use in contravention of section 4.

The maximum penalty is 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

This section is aimed at sellers of covert surveillance equipment marketed specifically for illegal recording purposes, not at manufacturers of smartphones or general consumer electronics.

Recording Phone Calls in the ACT

Phone calls in the ACT are subject to both territory and federal law. The Listening Devices Act 1992 governs the use of recording devices, while the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) separately prohibits the interception of telecommunications.

Under section 7 of the federal TIA Act, it is a criminal offence to intercept a communication passing over a telecommunications system without proper authorisation. However, a party to a telephone conversation who records it using their own device (rather than tapping the telecommunications line itself) generally falls under state or territory legislation rather than the federal intercept provisions.

In practical terms, if you are a party to a phone call in the ACT and want to record it:

• You can record it for personal reference without sharing it (section 4(3)(b)(ii) exception)
• You can record it if you reasonably believe it is necessary to protect your lawful interests (section 4(3)(b)(i) exception)
• You need consent from all principal parties if you intend to share the recording with non-parties

Businesses that record phone calls, such as call centres, must obtain consent from all parties. The standard practice of playing "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" at the start of a call is designed to obtain that consent. Continued participation after the notification constitutes implied consent.

Recording In Person in the ACT

The rules for in-person recording mirror those for phone calls. The Listening Devices Act 1992 applies to any private conversation, regardless of medium.

If you are sitting in a meeting and want to record it, the same section 4(3) exceptions apply. You can record for personal reference without intending to share. You can record to protect your lawful interests. Or you can get consent from all principal parties.

Recording in public places follows different rules. If a conversation takes place in a genuinely public setting where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, it is not a "private conversation" under the Act, and the recording restrictions do not apply. Street performers, public speeches, and open-air protests fall into this category.

Semi-public spaces require care. A conversation at a restaurant table, even though the restaurant is open to the public, could still be private if the speakers intended their discussion to remain between themselves.

Recording Police in the ACT

The ACT is policed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), not a territory police force. The AFP operates under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) and ACT Policing functions, with AFP officers carrying body-worn cameras in the field.

Recording police in a public place in the ACT is lawful under the participant exception in section 4(3) of the Listening Devices Act 1992, provided you are present and thus a party to the interaction. A participant (including a bystander who enters a conversation with an officer) may record for personal reference without notifying the officer.

Several practical points apply:

• If you are not present and are recording police activity from a distance without participating in any conversation, you may not qualify as a "party" under the Act, and the participant exception would not apply. Recording of genuinely private conversations among officers not directed at you would be prohibited under section 4(1)(a).
• Recording in a public space where police are conducting publicly visible law enforcement activities (such as an arrest on a public footpath) does not involve a "private conversation" and falls outside the Act's restrictions entirely.
• Obstruction offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the common law apply regardless of recording. You must not obstruct police in the exercise of their duties while recording.
• The AFP's body-worn camera guidelines govern police use of recording equipment; the public does not need the AFP's consent to record police conduct in public spaces.

Workplace Recording and Surveillance

The ACT has a separate statute governing workplace surveillance: the Workplace Privacy Act 2011 (ACT).

Notified Surveillance

Employers who want to conduct surveillance in the workplace must give affected workers at least 14 days written notice before the surveillance begins. During this notice period, the employer must consult in good faith with any employee who raises concerns about the surveillance.

The notice must describe the type of surveillance, the areas it will cover, and how the information collected will be used. This applies to audio recording, video cameras, email monitoring, internet usage tracking, and GPS tracking of company vehicles.

Covert Surveillance

Covert surveillance (monitoring without the employee's knowledge) requires authorisation from the ACT Magistrates Court. An employer must apply to the court and demonstrate reasonable grounds for the covert monitoring. If approved, the court issues an authority outlining the permitted scope and duration of the surveillance. The authority is valid for 30 days.

This is a higher threshold than most Australian jurisdictions impose for workplace surveillance.

Prohibited Areas

The Workplace Privacy Act absolutely prohibits surveillance in certain areas, including toilets, parent rooms, and showers. No exception exists for these locations, regardless of any notice or court authorisation.

Privacy Act Obligations for ACT Government Employers

ACT government agencies are also subject to the Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT). Employee personal information collected through workplace surveillance must be handled in accordance with the Territory Privacy Principles under that Act. The ACT Privacy Commissioner (appointed 1 July 2024) can investigate complaints by employees about ACT agency privacy breaches, including complaints about surveillance-related personal information handling.

Penalties

Violations of the Workplace Privacy Act carry penalties of up to 50 penalty units for the most serious offences and 20 penalty units for lesser violations.

Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT) and Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)

Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT)

The Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT), which commenced 1 September 2014, governs the collection, use, disclosure, storage, and access to personal information by ACT public sector agencies. The Act sets out 14 Territory Privacy Principles (TPPs) modelled on the Australian Privacy Principles under the federal Privacy Act 1988.

The TPPs govern how ACT government agencies handle personal information, including information derived from surveillance, recordings, or monitoring activities. An ACT agency that records a person's voice or captures personal information through surveillance must comply with the TPPs when deciding how to store, use, or share that information.

The ACT Privacy Commissioner, a position within the ACT Human Rights Commission, administers the Information Privacy Act 2014 and accepts complaints about breaches by ACT government agencies. The ACT Privacy Commissioner was appointed on 1 July 2024. Prior to that date, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) provided privacy services to the ACT under a Memorandum of Understanding. Historical OAIC decisions from that period are archived by the OAIC.

Complaints about private sector organisations operating in the ACT fall under the federal Privacy Act 1988 and are handled by the OAIC, not the ACT Privacy Commissioner.

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Section 12

The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) section 12 provides a statutory right to privacy and reputation. The ACT is one of only two Australian jurisdictions (with Victoria) that has enacted a statutory human rights act applying to government conduct.

Section 12 provides that a person must not have their privacy, family, home, or correspondence interfered with unlawfully or arbitrarily, and must not have their reputation attacked unlawfully. This right is particularly relevant to surveillance and recording in the following contexts identified by the ACT Human Rights Commission:

• Collection, storage, use, sharing, disclosure, or publication of personal information
• Restricting or regulating access to personal information
• Surveillance of people, including by CCTV, for any purpose
• Compulsory or involuntary non-consensual physical interventions

Section 12 does not operate as a standalone criminal prohibition. Its primary role is as an interpretive tool: ACT courts and tribunals must interpret territory legislation in a way compatible with human rights protected under the Act. ACT government agencies must also act compatibly with section 12 when making decisions about surveillance or recording of individuals.

Practically, section 12 may be relevant where an ACT agency conducts surveillance under a statutory power that is ambiguous as to scope. A court would be expected to read that power narrowly to avoid interfering with the section 12 privacy right except to the extent justified.

Federal Privacy Act 1988 Overlay

The Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 applies to private sector organisations and Commonwealth government agencies operating in the ACT. Large private sector employers in the ACT with an annual turnover above $3 million, as well as all Commonwealth agencies, must comply with the 13 Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) under that Act.

The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) amended the Privacy Act 1988, with the majority of amendments commencing 11 December 2024. Those amendments include strengthened enforcement powers for the OAIC and new provisions relating to online platforms and children's privacy. The Privacy Regulation 2013 was replaced by the Privacy Regulations 2025.

The OAIC remains the responsible regulator for the federal Privacy Act. ACT residents with complaints about private sector organisations or Commonwealth agencies should contact the OAIC rather than the ACT Privacy Commissioner.

Evidence Rules: Admissibility of Recordings

Part 3 of the Listening Devices Act addresses admissibility of recordings as evidence in court proceedings.

Section 9 provides that references to "giving evidence" of a private conversation include producing a record of that conversation.

Section 10 establishes the general rule: evidence of a private conversation obtained through the unlawful use of a listening device is not admissible in court. Neither is evidence obtained as a direct consequence of such a conversation.

Exceptions exist. The evidence may be admissible if:

• The recording was made by a party who had consent of each principal party
• The recording was made by a party to protect their lawful interests
• Each principal party consents to the evidence being given
• The proceedings are for an offence under the Listening Devices Act itself
• The person also obtained knowledge of the conversation from other sources not involving the listening device

The court also retains a general discretion. Even where the evidence was illegally obtained, a judge may admit it if the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained through illegal means. In practice, this balancing test is most commonly applied in criminal proceedings where the recording captures evidence of serious offences.

How the ACT Compares to Other Australian Jurisdictions

Australia does not have a single national recording law. Each state and territory has its own legislation, creating a patchwork of rules.

One-Party Consent Jurisdictions (Including ACT by Operation of Exception)

Queensland and Victoria operate under one-party consent for participants. If you are a party to the conversation, you can record it without telling anyone else. Queensland restricts sharing the recording with non-parties, while Victoria is more permissive.

The Northern Territory and the ACT also allow participants to record their own conversations without consent from other parties under comparable participant exceptions.

All-Party Consent Jurisdictions

New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania start from an all-party consent position but carve out exceptions for participants who need to protect their lawful interests. NSW's Surveillance Devices Act 2007 has a structure similar to the ACT's Listening Devices Act, including a lawful interest exception.

The Practical Difference

In practice, the ACT's recording framework closely resembles a one-party consent jurisdiction. The section 4(3)(b)(ii) exception is broad: it covers any participant recording where the intent is personal use, not sharing. The real restriction is on what you do with the recording afterward. Making the recording is typically lawful; sharing it without consent or legal justification is where most offences occur.

Voyeurism, Intimate Image Abuse, and Deepfakes

Intimate Observations: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Section 61B

The Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), current as of republication R155 (23 February 2026), contains section 61B covering "Intimate observations or capturing visual data." This offence fills part of the optical surveillance gap left by the Listening Devices Act 1992's audio-only scope.

Section 61B addresses covert visual observation or capture of a person in circumstances involving their genital or anal region or the breasts of a female person, without consent and in circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as in a bathroom, bedroom, or changing room).

The maximum penalties under section 61B are:

• Basic offence: 200 penalty units, imprisonment for 2 years, or both
• Aggravated offence: 250 penalty units, imprisonment for 3 years, or both

Intimate Image Abuse: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Part 3A

Part 3A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), comprising sections 72A through 72H, addresses intimate image abuse. Key provisions include:

• Section 72A: Definitions, including the definition of "intimate image" (still or moving image showing a person's genitalia, anal region, or female/transgender female breasts)
• Section 72B: Meaning of "distribute" (broadly defined to include sending, transmitting, exhibiting, or making available by any means, whether or not another person actually views the image)
• Section 72C: Non-consensual distribution of intimate images
• Section 72D: Distribution of an intimate image of a young person

Penalties under Part 3A range from 2 years imprisonment for the basic distribution offences to 15 years imprisonment for the most serious offences involving young persons, depending on the nature of the conduct and aggravating circumstances.

Federal Deepfake Law: Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth)

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) (No. 78 of 2024) commenced 2 September 2024 (the day after Royal Assent). It operates federally across all Australian jurisdictions including the ACT.

The Act amends Part 10.6 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) by replacing section 474.17A and inserting section 474.17AA. The new provisions cover the non-consensual transmission of sexually explicit material using a carriage service, including material that has been created or altered using technology such as artificial intelligence. The material need not be real; deepfakes (AI-generated or manipulated sexual images) are expressly covered.

The key offences and penalties are:

• Section 474.17A (basic offence): Using a carriage service to transmit sexual material where the depicted person does not consent and the sender knows or is reckless as to that lack of consent. Maximum penalty: 6 years imprisonment.
• Section 474.17AA (aggravated offences): The aggravated offence applies where (1) the offender created or altered the material using technology, or (2) the offender has had 3 or more relevant civil penalty orders made against them under the Online Safety Act 2021. Maximum penalty: 7 years imprisonment.

For ACT residents, this federal law operates alongside the ACT Crimes Act 1900 Part 3A intimate image abuse offences. A person who creates a deepfake of an ACT resident and shares it online may face both federal charges under section 474.17A / 474.17AA and territory charges under Part 3A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

Penalties Summary Table

Offence	Statute	Maximum Fine	Maximum Imprisonment
Unlawful use of listening device (participant)	LDA 1992 s.4	50 PU ($8,000 / $40,500)	None
Sharing lawful recording without authority	LDA 1992 s.5	50 PU ($8,000)	6 months
Sharing unlawfully obtained recording	LDA 1992 s.6	50 PU ($8,000)	6 months
Possessing unlawful recording	LDA 1992 s.7	50 PU ($8,000)	6 months
Manufacturing/supplying devices for illegal use	LDA 1992 s.8	50 PU ($8,000)	6 months
Intimate observations (basic)	Crimes Act 1900 s.61B	200 PU ($32,000)	2 years
Intimate observations (aggravated)	Crimes Act 1900 s.61B	250 PU ($40,000)	3 years
Non-consensual distribution of intimate image	Crimes Act 1900 Part 3A	(see Part 3A)	Up to 15 years
Deepfake / non-consensual sexual material (basic)	Criminal Code s.474.17A	N/A	6 years
Deepfake / non-consensual sexual material (aggravated)	Criminal Code s.474.17AA	N/A	7 years

Note: For corporations under the LDA 1992, the penalty unit value is $810, making the maximum corporate fine $40,500 per offence. Penalty unit value for individuals is $160 (Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s.133, current as of February 2026).

This article presents general legal information about the Australian Capital Territory's recording laws as at 15 May 2026. It is not legal advice and does not address your individual circumstances. ACT law is governed primarily by the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT), the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT), the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), and applicable Commonwealth legislation. If you need advice about your specific situation, consult a lawyer admitted to practice in the Australian Capital Territory.