Northern Territory Recording Laws: When You Can Record a Private Conversation (2026)

Under section 11 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT), the Northern Territory's recording offence only catches someone who records a private conversation they are not a party to. A participant is outside the offence entirely, without needing an exception, though publishing the recording afterward is a separate matter under section 15.

Information last verified July 2026, including primary-source verification of sections 11, 12 and 15 and the current Northern Territory penalty unit value. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording and surveillance law in the Northern Territory under the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT), the Information Act 2002 (NT), the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), and applicable Commonwealth legislation including the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), and the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth). It does not address the laws of other Australian states and territories; for those, see the Australia recording laws hub.

Can You Record a Private Conversation in the Northern Territory?

Yes, if you are a party to it. Section 11(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT) provides that a person is guilty of an offence if they install, use or maintain a listening device to listen to, monitor or record a private conversation to which the person is not a party, and know the device is used without the express or implied consent of each party. Both limbs of that offence require that the recorder is not a party to the conversation. If you are an active participant, whether on a phone call, in a face-to-face meeting, or on an internet voice call, section 11 does not reach you at all. No advance notice is required and no consent from the other parties is needed, because your own participation places you outside the section, not inside an exception to it.

The NT groups with Victoria and Queensland on this specific question, though its statutory scheme is closer to Victoria's than Queensland's, because it regulates video the same way it regulates audio. Recording a private conversation you are not part of remains a serious offence: up to 250 penalty units or two years imprisonment. Publishing a recording, even one made lawfully, is governed separately by section 15. For the full picture of how all eight Australian states and territories split on this question, see Is It Legal to Record a Conversation in Australia? and the Australia recording laws hub.

Why the Drafting Technique Matters

Section 11(1)(a) requires the prosecution to prove, as an element of the offence, that the recorder "is not a party" to the conversation. This is not an exception the accused must raise; it is a fact the prosecution must establish before a conviction can occur at all. If the prosecution cannot prove non-party status, the case fails on that element regardless of anything else. This differs structurally from New South Wales, Tasmania and the ACT, where the baseline offence catches a participant's own recording outright and it falls to the accused to establish that one of the statutory exceptions, most often the personal-use limb, applies. It differs again from Western Australia and South Australia, which use the same defendant-must-establish-the-exception structure as Group 2 but offer a narrower list of exceptions. Practically, an NT participant facing a complaint about their own recording starts from a stronger position than a participant almost anywhere else in Australia: there is no exception to argue, because the conduct was never captured by section 11 in the first place.

The Surveillance Devices Act 2007: Structure

The Act governs listening devices, optical surveillance devices, tracking devices and data surveillance devices across the Territory, replacing the earlier Surveillance Devices Act 2000 and aligning the NT's framework with the model legislation adopted across most Australian jurisdictions.

Definitions (Section 4)

A listening device is any device capable of being used to listen to, monitor, or record a conversation or words spoken to or by a person, including smartphones, digital recorders and baby monitors; hearing aids and devices used by people with hearing impairments are excluded.

An optical surveillance device is any device capable of monitoring, visually recording or observing an activity, including cameras, video recorders and camera-equipped phones; ordinary spectacles or contact lenses correcting impaired vision are excluded.

A tracking device is any electronic device capable of determining or monitoring the geographical location of a person, vehicle or thing.

A data surveillance device monitors or records the input or output of information from a computer, such as keyloggers and screen-capture software.

A private conversation is one carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate the parties desire it to be heard only by themselves; a conversation in a public place where others could reasonably overhear does not qualify. A private activity follows the same logic for observation. A party to a conversation is a person by whom, or to whom, words are spoken in the course of it, which is the definition that determines whether section 11 reaches you at all.

Section 11: Listening Devices

Section 11(1) requires, as elements of the offence, that the person (a) installs, uses or maintains a listening device to listen to, monitor or record a private conversation to which the person is not a party, and (b) knows the device is used without the express or implied consent of each party. Maximum penalty: 250 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment.

Because "not a party" is an element of the offence itself, a participant's own recording sits outside section 11 from the start.

Section 11(2) sets out further, narrower exclusions that apply regardless of party status: use under a warrant, emergency authorisation, corresponding interstate warrant, or a law of the Commonwealth; use by a law enforcement or ICAC officer, not a party to the conversation, with at least one party's consent and a reasonable belief it is necessary to protect someone's safety; body-worn video used in accordance with s 14A; and use under the emergency public-interest provisions at s 43.

Applying Section 11

A Darwin resident who receives a threatening phone call from someone they previously dealt with is a party to that call, so they may record the entire conversation under section 11 without telling the caller. By contrast, a person who plants a recording device in a meeting room to capture a conversation between two colleagues, without being present or part of it, falls squarely inside the section 11 offence.

Section 12: Optical Surveillance Devices

Section 12 mirrors section 11's structure for visual recording: a person is guilty of an offence if they install, use or maintain an optical surveillance device to monitor, record visually or observe a private activity to which they are not a party, knowing it is used without each party's consent. Maximum penalty: 250 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment. As in Victoria, audio and video are regulated on the same participant-based structure in the NT, unlike New South Wales' separate trespass test or Queensland's absence of any optical provision at all.

The "private activity" definition does the practical work: filming someone in a public park where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy is generally not an offence, while placing a hidden camera in a home, bathroom or changing room to observe activity the subject reasonably expects to be private is a serious offence regardless of the recorder's motive.

Section 12(2) excludes use under warrant, emergency authorisation or Commonwealth law; use by a law enforcement or ICAC officer on a place with the occupier's authorisation where reasonably necessary to protect someone's lawful interests; use by a law enforcement or ICAC officer that does not involve unauthorised entry onto a place or interference with a vehicle; body-worn video under s 14A; and use under the emergency provisions at s 44.

Section 13: Tracking Devices

Section 13 prohibits installing, using or maintaining a tracking device to determine or monitor a person's geographical location without consent, with the same maximum penalty of 250 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment. This provision is increasingly relevant given GPS-enabled technology: placing a GPS tracker on another person's vehicle without their knowledge, or secretly installing location-monitoring software on someone's device, both fall within this prohibition. Exceptions exist for law enforcement officers acting in the course of duty.

Section 14: Data Surveillance Devices

Section 14 is narrower than the preceding sections: by its own terms it regulates data surveillance devices only for law enforcement officers or ICAC officers. The Act does not create a general prohibition on a private individual's use of a keylogger or similar tool; other law, including the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), may still apply to unauthorised computer access by a private individual.

This gap has practical significance for NT employers monitoring staff computer use. Because section 14 does not bind a private employer, deploying keystroke-logging or screen-monitoring software on a work computer is not independently restricted by the Surveillance Devices Act in the NT the way it might be treated as a data surveillance question in a jurisdiction with a broader provision. That does not make it consequence-free: an employer's use of such software can still engage the Fair Work Act's general protections, an implied term of trust and confidence in the employment relationship, and, for larger employers, the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to the extent employee records fall outside the Act's employee-records exemption. The absence of a section 14 restriction on private use is a gap in this specific Act, not a green light under every other law that might apply.

Section 15: Publishing or Communicating a Recording

Even a recording made entirely lawfully under section 11 or 12 is subject to a separate restriction on what happens next. Section 15(1) makes it an offence to communicate or publish a record or report of a private conversation or private activity, knowing it was obtained directly or indirectly through a listening device, optical surveillance device or tracking device. Maximum penalty: 250 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment.

Section 15(2) excludes communication or publication made with the express or implied consent of each party; that is reasonably necessary in the public interest or to protect the lawful interests of the person making it; made in the course of legal or disciplinary proceedings; of "protected information"; or made by a law enforcement or ICAC officer in specific investigative or disciplinary circumstances or otherwise in performance of duty. The public-interest and lawful-interests exceptions give the NT a comparatively broad safe harbour for sharing a lawfully obtained recording; a person who records a threatening phone call and shares it with police to support a complaint would likely fall within the lawful-interests limb.

Worked Example: Where the Participant Position Runs Out

Consider a Darwin resident who is a party to a heated dispute with a former business partner and records the call under section 11 without needing to justify anything. If that person then posts the audio publicly to embarrass the other party, section 15 applies in full force, and none of its exceptions is obviously available on those facts: no consent, no legal proceeding, no established pre-existing lawful interest, and public embarrassment is not a public-interest disclosure. A recording that carried zero criminal exposure at the point of capture can carry a full 250-penalty-unit, two-year exposure at the point of publication. Treat recording and sharing as two separate legal questions, because the freedom the NT gives a participant to record does not carry over automatically to what happens with the recording afterward.

Recordings as Evidence in NT Courts

The Northern Territory has adopted the uniform Evidence Act, alongside the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT. Section 138 gives a court a discretion, not an automatic rule, to exclude evidence obtained improperly or in contravention of Australian law, weighing its probative value and importance against the gravity of the impropriety, whether it was deliberate or reckless, and the difficulty of obtaining it lawfully.

Because section 11 places a participant's own recording outside the Act entirely, an NT participant's recording of their own conversation generally raises no section 138 problem in the first place; there was no contravention to weigh. The harder evidentiary questions arise from a non-party's unlawful recording, or from a lawful recording that was shared in breach of section 15 before being tendered. Australian courts, including in family law and domestic violence matters, have shown a willingness to admit recordings made by one party to document abuse or threats, even in jurisdictions with a stricter starting position than the NT; given the NT's participant position, a recording made by a party generally faces fewer admissibility hurdles than the equivalent recording would in a Group 2 or Group 3 state. For maximum evidentiary value, keep the recording unedited, preserve the original file, and be able to identify the voices and confirm when and where it was made. For the general Australia-wide position, see Secret Recordings as Evidence in Australian Courts.

Other Recording Scenarios in the Northern Territory

Home CCTV and doorbell cameras. A camera capturing a driveway, yard or public footpath generally falls outside section 12's "private activity" definition, but a microphone on the same device is judged separately under section 11's "private conversation" test, which does not share the same outdoor carve-out. A hushed conversation captured by a doorbell camera's microphone on an otherwise empty footpath can still be a private conversation. See CCTV and Home Security Camera Laws in Australia and Doorbell Camera and Neighbour Privacy in Australia.

Dash cams. Video of the road is unrestricted, as everywhere in Australia. In-cabin audio of passengers is analysed under section 11 in the ordinary way: an NT driver who is a party to the in-cabin conversation is outside the offence, though publishing footage with that audio re-engages section 15. See Dash Cam Laws in Australia.

Drones. Drone video in the NT is governed by the same section 12 "private activity" test as any other optical device, on top of CASA's separate aviation safety rules, which are a safety regime, not a privacy one. See Drone Privacy Laws in Australia.

Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations

For the full Australia-wide analysis of the federal telecommunications layer, including video-conferencing platforms and interstate calls, see Can You Record a Phone Call in Australia?.

The Act draws no distinction between a phone call and a face-to-face conversation; the operative question in both is always whether you are a party. For phone calls, if you are on the call, whether a landline call, a mobile call, or an internet-based voice call, you may record it, using a built-in phone feature, a separate app, or an external device. The same applies to in-person settings: workplace meetings, negotiations, interviews and casual conversations.

Cross-jurisdictional calls add a wrinkle. If you are in the NT recording a call with someone in New South Wales, NT law governs your own conduct in the Territory and you have not broken NT law by recording as a participant, but the position can become more complicated if the recording is later used in proceedings in the other jurisdiction, which applies its own law to what happened on its end of the call.

The Federal TIA Act

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) prohibits intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system "without the knowledge of the person making the communication" (s 6). A participant recording their own phone call generally falls outside that definition, because the person doing the recording has knowledge of the communication; the TIA Act's central concern is carrier-level interception by third parties and the warrant framework for law enforcement telecommunications access, not personal recording by a participant.

Workplace Recording

The Northern Territory has no standalone workplace surveillance statute, unlike New South Wales' Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 or the ACT's Workplace Privacy Act 2011. Workplace surveillance in the NT falls entirely under the general Surveillance Devices Act.

Employee Position

Because section 11 does not reach a participant, an employee may lawfully record a workplace conversation they are part of, including performance reviews, disciplinary meetings, and discussions about workplace conditions, without notifying the employer or other participants, and without advance notice required under NT law.

Employer Obligations

Employers are bound by the same rules as everyone else: they cannot install a listening device to secretly record a private conversation between employees they are not a party to, and video cameras must not be placed where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms, changing rooms, or a private office with the door closed. The NT does not legally require advance notice of workplace surveillance, but a clear written surveillance policy that employees acknowledge is good practice and supports an implied-consent argument.

The Fair Work Commission Factor

Lawfulness under the Surveillance Devices Act does not insulate an employee from workplace consequences. In Karen Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2753, Deputy President Coleman held that secretly recording workplace conversations is "highly inappropriate, irrespective of whether it constitutes a criminal offence in the relevant jurisdiction," reflecting the Fair Work Commission's consistent approach nationally: a legal right to record does not protect against a finding that covert recording justified disciplinary action or dismissal.

Recording Police

Recording a police officer performing duties in a public place is lawful in the NT. Section 12 prohibits recording a private activity, and police conducting patrols, executing searches, or engaging with the public in a visible public space are not engaged in a "private activity" under section 4, because the conduct is observable by any bystander.

Practical points: police cannot lawfully order you to stop filming in a lawful location where you are not interfering with their duties, cannot confiscate your device to delete footage, and cannot demand you delete recordings. You must not obstruct police in the exercise of their duties; filming from an adequate distance without interference does not amount to obstruction. Recording inside a police station or other non-public facility is different, where operational security concerns and facility rules may apply.

Watch out: even where filming police is lawful, obstructing or resisting police is a separate offence under the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT). Keep a respectful distance and do not physically interfere with any police action while filming.

For the Australia-wide position, including the "ought reasonably expect to be overheard" carve-out and the one jurisdiction where it does not apply the same way, see Recording the Police in Australia.

Recording in Public and on NT Land

Recording in public spaces is generally permitted because both "private conversation" and "private activity" exclude situations where a party ought reasonably to expect they could be overheard or observed. Photography and video on public streets, in parks, at beaches and in other openly accessible areas is lawful in the NT for personal and journalistic purposes. Commercial filming in NT parks and reserves requires a permit from the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. Recording on private property requires the owner's or occupier's consent, and you must comply if asked to stop on private premises.

Recording on Aboriginal land in the NT raises a further, separate layer that does not arise on ordinary freehold or Crown land. Entry onto Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Act 1978 (NT) and the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 generally requires a permit from the relevant Land Council, and unauthorised entry is itself an offence independent of anything in the Surveillance Devices Act. A visitor who has lawfully entered Aboriginal land and records a conversation they are a party to is still governed by the ordinary section 11 participant position; the permit system is a land-access control, not a recording-consent regime, but it means the practical starting point, whether you are lawfully present at all, is a separate question worth resolving before the surveillance-law analysis becomes relevant.

Emergency Use and Law Enforcement Warrants

Part 5 and Part 6 of the Act allow surveillance devices to be used without a warrant in genuine emergencies, where a person reasonably believes the circumstances are so serious and urgent that use of the device is in the public interest. This is not a blanket exception: a person relying on it must give a written report to a Supreme Court Judge within two business days of starting the use, under section 45, stating particulars of the device, its use, and the reason it was believed necessary. Failing to give that report is itself an offence carrying a maximum of 100 penalty units or 1 year imprisonment.

Separately, Part 4 sets out the warrant framework for law enforcement, under which a Supreme Court Judge may authorise police and other law enforcement officers to use surveillance devices during investigations, heard in closed court, with statutory requirements for the content and duration of warrants and post-use reporting.

Voyeurism and Intimate Image Offences

The Surveillance Devices Act addresses covert recording by third parties; a separate body of criminal law addresses distribution of intimate images and voyeuristic material.

Division 7A of Part VI of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) creates the offence of distributing intimate images without consent. Section 208AA defines "intimate image" broadly to cover still and moving images of a person engaged in a sexual act or depicted in a sexual manner or context, deliberately wide enough to capture different forms of sharing including social media posting. Section 208AB makes distributing an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted an offence carrying up to 3 years imprisonment, indictable but triable summarily, with exceptions for law enforcement investigations, medical examinations, scientific research and education. "Distribute" covers both physical and electronic sharing, including sharing without a specific or identified recipient, such as posting to a public forum.

These provisions apply alongside, not instead of, the general listening and optical device offences: secretly filming someone in a private activity (a s 12 offence) and then distributing the footage (a s 208AB offence) engages both statutes.

Federal Deepfake Offence

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) commenced 11 December 2024 and applies in the NT as a federal law. It amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) to criminalise using a carriage service to transmit sexual material, whether genuine or created or altered using AI or other technology, without the consent of the person depicted, with knowledge or recklessness as to the absence of consent. The NT's own Division 7A addresses distribution of intimate images generally; the Commonwealth offence adds a parallel layer specifically targeting AI-generated and digitally manipulated sexual content, and both can apply to the same conduct.

Information Act 2002 (NT)

The Information Act 2002 (NT) combines freedom of information, privacy and records management in a single statute, unusual among Australian jurisdictions. Its Information Privacy Principles govern how NT public sector agencies collect, use, store and disclose personal information, including information collected through recording. The Office of the NT Information Commissioner administers both the FOI and privacy provisions, and individuals who believe an NT government agency has mishandled their personal information can lodge a complaint there.

The federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles do not apply to NT government agencies; those remain subject to the Information Act's principles. Commonwealth agencies operating in the NT, such as Centrelink and the ATO, and private-sector organisations meeting the federal turnover threshold, remain subject to the federal Privacy Act and the OAIC.

Civil Remedies: The Federal Statutory Tort

Since 10 June 2025, Schedule 2 of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) has provided a statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, applicable across every Australian jurisdiction including the NT. A plaintiff must establish all of: an invasion by intrusion upon seclusion (surveillance, recording) or misuse of private information; a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; intentional or reckless conduct, not mere negligence; and seriousness. Covert recording of a person in a private space, or recording a private conversation without party status (a s 11 offence), can satisfy the intrusion pathway if the remaining elements are met. Remedies include damages, with non-economic loss capped at approximately $478,550 (exemplary damages available in exceptional cases), injunctions, and orders for destruction or return of material. Available defences include consent, lawful authority, and public interest in journalism or public safety. The tort is a civil action, separate from and additional to any criminal prosecution under section 11.

Penalties

The NT uses a penalty unit system, indexed annually on 1 July in line with Darwin's Consumer Price Index under the Penalty Units Act (NT). The current rate, for the 2026-27 financial year, is $194 per penalty unit; the 2025-26 rate was $189.

These are maximum penalties; courts consider the circumstances of each case, including intent, harm caused, whether the conduct was part of a pattern of behaviour, and whether the offender has prior findings under the Act. A first offence involving a single instance of unlawful recording is treated very differently at sentencing from a course of conduct involving repeated covert surveillance of the same person, even though both sit under the same maximum penalty on paper, and a court sentencing under the Surveillance Devices Act retains the same general discretion it would apply to any other offence carrying a term of imprisonment as its maximum.

How the NT Compares with Other Australian Jurisdictions

The NT groups with Victoria and Queensland on the single question of whether a participant's own recording is caught by the offence: in all three it is not, because each Act is drafted around a "not a party" element. That grouping does not track the video question: the NT regulates optical surveillance the same way it regulates audio (like Victoria), while Queensland has no optical provision at all.

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 a narrow lawful-interest exception and no personal-use limb. The NT's section 15 public-interest and lawful-interests exceptions give it one of the broader frameworks among the three Group 1 states for sharing a lawfully obtained recording afterward, a genuine point of contrast with Queensland's narrower section 45 list. Compare directly against Western Australia Recording Laws and South Australia Recording Laws for the narrow-exception structure, or Victoria Recording Laws for the jurisdiction closest to the NT on both axes. For the full eight-jurisdiction comparison, see the Australia recording laws hub.

Note: The Commonwealth statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy (from 10 June 2025) applies uniformly across every jurisdiction listed. Whether the underlying conduct falls outside a state's recording offence has no bearing on whether it can still ground a civil tort claim.

2025-26 Legislative Developments

In 2025, the NT Parliament passed the Housing, Transport and Surveillance Devices Legislation Amendment (Police Public Safety Officers) Act 2025 (NT), creating a new category of Police Public Safety Officers (PPSOs) and amending the Surveillance Devices Act to give PPSOs surveillance powers aligned with existing law enforcement officers. PPSO Squad 1 was sworn in on 23 February 2026, and the NT Police Force has stated an intention to graduate 72 PPSOs by the end of December 2026, conducting high-visibility patrols in public housing, on public transport, at shopping centres and at events. This amendment did not change the core recording position for private citizens described above.

At the Commonwealth level, the deepfake offence (from 11 December 2024) and the statutory privacy tort (from 10 June 2025) both took effect after the previous version of this page, and are addressed in the relevant sections above.

Recording in Healthcare, Legal and Remote Community Settings

Section 11's participant position applies without any special carve-out for professional context. A patient who is a party to a consultation, a client who is a party to a meeting with a lawyer or financial adviser, or a person who is a party to a call with a service provider may record it under the same rule that applies to any other private conversation, and the professional on the other end has no veto under the Surveillance Devices Act itself. A healthcare or legal practice that itself wants to record calls or consultations, for training, quality assurance, or file-keeping, must either be a party (which it usually is) or obtain consent from everyone involved if a third party is silently listening in without participating.

The NT's remote and regional communities add a practical dimension not present in more urbanised states: interpreter-assisted conversations, community meetings, and consultations conducted partly in language raise the same section 11 analysis, but establishing who is a "party" to a conversation involving an interpreter, and what a "private conversation" means in a community setting with several people present, can be less straightforward than the paradigm two-person phone call the Act was drafted around. None of this changes the legal test; it changes how carefully the facts need to be established before relying on the participant position.

Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring: Where to Read More

The workplace section above covers the NT-specific position. For the Australia-wide comparison, including notice obligations that exist in New South Wales and the ACT but not in the NT, see Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring in Australia.

Related Australia Recording Law Guides

• Australia Recording Laws: National Overview: the full three-group comparison across all eight states and territories
• 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
• Victoria Recording Laws
• Queensland Recording Laws
• Western Australia Recording Laws
• South Australia Recording Laws

This guide is part of our Australia law guides.

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording and surveillance law in the Northern Territory and applicable Commonwealth legislation. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT), verified against the current AustLII consolidated text of sections 11, 12 and 15 in July 2026, the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), the Information Act 2002 (NT), and applicable Commonwealth legislation. 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 Northern Territory.