Queensland Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Queensland is one of Australia's most permissive jurisdictions for recording conversations. Under section 43 of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), a party to a private conversation may record it without the knowledge or consent of the other parties. Queensland has no optical surveillance statute prohibiting visual-only recording in non-intimate settings, though a law reform process initiated by QLRC Report No. 77 (2020) remains incomplete as of May 2026.

Information last verified on 15 May 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Queensland state recording law under the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) and the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), plus the applicable federal framework under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). It does not address recording laws in other Australian states. For a national comparison, see the Australia recording laws overview.

---

Quick Answer: Is Queensland a One-Party Consent State?

Yes. Queensland is a one-party consent (participant exception) jurisdiction. Section 43(1) of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) ("IPA 1971") prohibits using a listening device to overhear, record, monitor, or listen to a private conversation. Section 43(1)(b) creates the critical exception: that prohibition does not apply "where the person using the listening device is a party to the private conversation." In plain terms, if you are part of the conversation, you may record it without telling anyone else. This makes Queensland one of the most permissive recording law jurisdictions in Australia. Most other Australian states require all parties to consent before any recording is made.

The one-party consent rule applies to audio recordings of private conversations. It does not extend to recording private conversations you are not involved in, and it does not override the federal telecommunications interception regime, which treats recording at the network level as a separate offence regardless of whether you are a party.

---

Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld): The Core Framework

The Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) is Queensland's primary recording statute. Unlike every other Australian state and territory, which has replaced listening-device laws with broader "surveillance devices" legislation, Queensland still relies on this 1971 framework as at May 2026. The Act is current in its 1 July 2024 version.

What is a Listening Device?

Section 4 of the IPA 1971 defines "listening device" as "any instrument, apparatus, equipment or device capable of being used to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation simultaneously with its taking place." The definition is technology-neutral and captures:

• Mobile phones and tablets with voice recording applications
• Dedicated voice recorders and dictaphones
• Landline telephone recording adapters
• Smart watches and wearable devices with recording capabilities
• Concealed "bugs" and surveillance devices

The definition requires simultaneous capture: the IPA 1971 does not govern accessing stored communications (that is primarily addressed by the federal TIA Act).

What is a Private Conversation?

The IPA 1971 does not exhaustively define "private conversation," but section 4 makes clear that a conversation ceases to be private where "either of those persons ought reasonably to expect the words may be overheard, recorded, monitored or listened to by some other person." Queensland courts assess privacy by reference to:

• The location where the conversation takes place (private home, enclosed office, or open public space)
• The relationship between the participants
• The nature and content of the discussion
• Whether other people are present or in earshot

A conversation held at a desk in an open-plan office where colleagues could overhear is less likely to be "private" than a meeting in a closed room. A conversation in a public park where passers-by can hear the words is unlikely to qualify. Where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, the IPA 1971 applies.

Section 43: The Prohibition and the Participant Exception

Section 43(1) of the IPA 1971 creates the baseline offence: using a listening device to overhear, record, monitor, or listen to a private conversation. Maximum penalty: 40 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment.

Section 43(1)(b) provides the participant exception: the prohibition does not apply "where the person using the listening device is a party to the private conversation."

Section 43(2) provides further exceptions allowing recording without being a party in specific circumstances:

• Commonwealth customs officers authorised by warrant
• Persons employed in Commonwealth security duties
• Police officers acting under legislative authority
• Public safety entity officers using government network radio in emergency situations
• Communications centre operators responding to duress alarms or officer safety concerns

Public safety entities for this purpose include the Queensland Ambulance Service, Queensland Police Service, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, Rural Fire Service Queensland, Marine Rescue Queensland, and the State Emergency Service.

Section 44: Unlawful Publication by Non-Parties

Section 44 creates a separate offence: communicating or publishing the substance of a private conversation obtained through the unlawful use of a listening device. Maximum penalty: 40 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment. This section targets recipients or third parties who spread the fruits of someone else's unlawful recording, regardless of whether they did the original recording themselves.

Section 45: Publication Restrictions on Parties

Even a party who lawfully recorded a conversation under s.43(1)(b) faces restrictions on what they can do with the recording. Section 45 makes it an offence for that party to "communicate or publish" the substance of the recording to a person who was not a party to the original conversation. Exceptions apply where:

• All parties to the conversation give express or implied consent to publication
• Publication occurs during court or tribunal proceedings
• Publication is reasonably necessary in the public interest
• Disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect the lawful interests of a party to the conversation
• Disclosure is made to a person who has a reasonable interest in the private conversation
• Disclosure is reasonably necessary in the performance of a duty

The "lawful interests" exception is frequently invoked by employees who record workplace misconduct or harassment. Courts assess whether the recording and disclosure are proportionate to the asserted interest.

Section 46: Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Recordings

Section 46 of the IPA 1971 generally prohibits using knowledge derived from an unlawfully obtained recording in civil or criminal proceedings. Exceptions apply where a party to the conversation consents, or where the evidence is adduced in proceedings under the IPA 1971 itself.

However, s.46 does not operate as an absolute exclusionary rule. Courts retain discretion under the uniform evidence legislation (including the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)) to admit improperly obtained evidence where the desirability of admitting it outweighs the undesirability of how it was obtained. Relevant factors include the seriousness of the offence, the availability of other evidence, and whether the recording shows conduct by a party acting in good faith.

Section 49A: Corporate Liability

Section 49A provides that where a corporation commits an offence under sections 43, 44, 45, or 46, each executive officer of the corporation who authorised the offence, or who knew or ought reasonably to have known of it and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it, is also guilty of the offence and liable to the same penalty.

---

Optical Surveillance Gap and the QLRC Reform Process

Queensland has no equivalent of the visual surveillance offences found in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, or the ACT. The IPA 1971 deals only with listening devices (audio). The result is that visual-only recording (a camera capturing images without sound) of people in public or semi-public spaces is largely unprohibited in Queensland, unless it falls within the specific privacy-breach offences in the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) (discussed below under s.227A).

QLRC Report No. 77 and the Draft Surveillance Devices Bill

In February 2020, the Queensland Law Reform Commission published Report No. 77, "Review of Queensland's laws relating to civil surveillance and the protection of privacy in the context of current and emerging technologies." The QLRC recommended repealing the IPA 1971 entirely and replacing it with a new Surveillance Devices Act that would cover audio surveillance, visual surveillance, tracking devices, and data surveillance in a single modern framework.

The QLRC's draft Surveillance Devices Bill 2020 proposed:

• A comprehensive prohibition on the use, installation, and maintenance of surveillance devices without consent or authorisation
• A participant exception for audio devices consistent with the existing IPA 1971 position
• New prohibitions on visual surveillance in private places and workplace spaces
• Regulation of tracking devices attached to vehicles
• Data surveillance provisions

The Queensland Government conducted public consultation on a staged implementation approach, with the consultation period closing in May 2023.

As of May 2026, the Queensland Parliament has not enacted the proposed Surveillance Devices Act. The IPA 1971 remains in force. The optical surveillance gap identified by the QLRC persists. Those monitoring the reform process should check the Queensland Parliament Bills page for current status.

---

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld): Visual Surveillance Offences

Although Queensland lacks a general optical surveillance prohibition, the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) contains targeted offences for privacy-invasive visual recording.

Section 227A: Observations or Recordings in Breach of Privacy

Section 227A makes it a misdemeanour to observe or visually record another person in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy, without that person's consent. Maximum penalty: 3 years imprisonment.

The offence has two limbs:

Section 227A(1): Observing or visually recording a person who is in a private place (such as a bedroom, bathroom, toilet, or changing room) and who is engaging in a private act, where the recording is made for the purpose of observing that private act.

Section 227A(2): Observing or recording another person's genital or anal region without consent, regardless of location, when done for the purpose of observing or recording that region. This provision covers "upskirting" and similar conduct in public places.

The consent definition in s.227A(3) was amended by the Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld), effective 23 September 2024. The amendment aligns the consent standard with the affirmative consent framework, clarifying that consent must be freely and voluntarily given.

Section 227B: Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images (Image-Based Abuse)

Section 227B makes it an offence to distribute a "prohibited visual recording" of a person without that person's consent in a way that would reasonably cause the person distress. Maximum penalty: 3 years imprisonment. The offence applies regardless of whether the original recording was made with consent.

A prohibited visual recording includes images or video showing:

• Genitals, anal region, or breasts (for a person whose breasts develop or have developed)
• A person engaged in a private act
• A person in a private place

Section 227B does not require proof that the distribution caused actual distress, only that it would reasonably do so. Courts may also order offenders to take reasonable steps to remove, destroy, or delete the images. Failure to comply with such an order is a further offence carrying up to 2 years imprisonment.

Section 223: Distributing Intimate Images Without Consent

Section 223 of the Criminal Code prohibits a person from distributing an intimate image of another person without their consent in a way that would reasonably cause distress. Maximum penalty: 3 years imprisonment. Consent must be freely and voluntarily given; a child under 16 cannot give consent for these purposes. Intent to cause distress is not required under s.223(1)(b): it is enough that a reasonable person would expect distress to result. A defence exists for genuine artistic, educational, legal, medical, scientific, or public benefit purposes where it was reasonable to act.

---

Deepfake Sexual Material: Criminal Code Amendment (Cth) 2024

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) commenced on 3 September 2024. It inserts new provisions into the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) creating federal offences for the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit material that has been digitally created or altered.

Key features of the federal scheme:

• Primary offence: Transmitting or making available, to another person using a carriage service, material that is, or appears to be, sexually explicit and where the person knows or is reckless as to whether the other person depicted has consented. Maximum penalty: 6 years imprisonment.
• Aggravated offence 1: Applies to repeat offenders with prior civil penalties under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth).
• Aggravated offence 2: Applies to persons who created or altered the offending material.
• Scope: Covers images, videos, and other visual material. Audio-only deepfakes are not within this Act's specific scope.
• Retrospective application: The offences apply to material transmitted after commencement regardless of when it was created.

Queensland residents who share deepfake sexual material may face prosecution under both the federal scheme and Queensland's state intimate image provisions.

---

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) and the Federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld): Public Sector Only

The Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) ("IP Act") contains the Queensland Privacy Principles (QPPs), which govern how Queensland government agencies collect, use, store, and disclose personal information, including audio and video recordings. The IP Act applies exclusively to Queensland public sector agencies and local governments. It does not apply to private individuals or private-sector organisations.

Under QPP 3, agencies may only collect personal information that is reasonably necessary for one or more of the agency's functions. Surveillance recordings by Queensland government bodies (police body cameras, CCTV in government buildings, court recordings) must comply with the QPPs. The Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland (OIC Qld) publishes guidance on camera surveillance and audio recording by government agencies.

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth): Federal Private Sector Baseline

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) apply to private-sector organisations with annual turnover exceeding $3 million, as well as certain health service providers, credit reporting bodies, and other prescribed entities regardless of size. Recording a conversation and using or disclosing it in connection with a business activity may engage the Privacy Act if the recording constitutes "personal information" about an identifiable individual.

Federal Statutory Tort for Serious Invasion of Privacy (from 10 June 2025)

The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024, introducing Schedule 2, which establishes a new statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy. The tort commenced on 10 June 2025.

The tort creates a civil right of action for individuals where:

1. Another person invaded their privacy by (a) intruding upon their seclusion, or (b) misusing information relating to them.
2. The plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.
3. The invasion was intentional or reckless.
4. The invasion was serious, weighing the public interest in privacy against any countervailing public interests (such as free speech, law enforcement, or journalism).

Relevance to recording: A non-consensual audio or video recording that intrudes upon a person's seclusion may give rise to a statutory tort claim under Schedule 2, independently of any criminal liability under the IPA 1971. Remedies include damages (including for emotional distress), injunctions, declarations, and an order requiring a public apology.

Limitation periods: claims must be commenced within the earlier of one year from the plaintiff's awareness of the invasion or three years from the invasion itself.

The tort does not require proof of damage. This is a significant change from the common law position in Queensland, where intrusion upon seclusion has not been recognised as a standalone cause of action.

---

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth): Federal Override

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) ("TIA Act") is a federal statute that prohibits the interception of communications passing over a telecommunications system. The TIA Act operates alongside and independently of Queensland's IPA 1971. Where both apply, the TIA Act takes priority.

The key distinction is between (a) recording a conversation after it has been converted to audible sound, and (b) intercepting a communication at the point it passes over the telecommunications network. The first method is governed by Queensland law alone; the second is a federal offence under the TIA Act regardless of party status.

Legal Methods of Recording Phone Calls in Queensland

Because the TIA Act prohibits network-level interception, the legally accepted method of recording a telephone call in Queensland is to use an external device that captures the audio after it has been converted to sound:

• Hold an external recorder near the phone's speaker during a call
• Place the phone on speaker and use a separate recording device to capture the ambient audio
• Use a recording application that does not directly interface with the telecommunications carrier's network

The TIA Act was most recently amended by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (Cth), which made adjustments to warrant provisions but did not alter the fundamental prohibition on interception without authorisation.

Video Conferencing and Online Meetings

Recording a Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, or similar video conference call raises the same TIA Act question as phone calls, because the communication passes over the internet as a telecommunications system. The practical consensus among Australian legal commentators is that activating the platform's own built-in recording function (which records the media at the endpoint, not at the network layer) does not constitute "interception" under the TIA Act. Connecting a separate network-layer tool to capture packets in transit would be an interception.

Queensland's single-party consent rule under the IPA 1971 applies to the audio component of a video call, meaning a party to the call may record it using the platform's built-in recording feature. Prudent practice is to announce the recording at the start.

---

Penalties for Recording Offences in Queensland

Audio Recording and Publication Offences (IPA 1971)

Offence	Section	Maximum Penalty
Recording a private conversation without party status	s.43(1) IPA 1971	40 penalty units OR 2 years imprisonment
Unlawfully publishing a recording made by another	s.44 IPA 1971	40 penalty units OR 2 years imprisonment
Unlawfully publishing a recording made by yourself	s.45 IPA 1971	40 penalty units OR 2 years imprisonment
Corporate executive liability for above offences	s.49A IPA 1971	Same as principal offence

As of 1 July 2025, one Queensland penalty unit equals $166.90 under the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2025 (Qld). The maximum fine for a 40-penalty-unit offence is therefore $6,676. Penalty units are indexed annually.

Courts may also order forfeiture of any listening device used in the commission of an offence.

Visual Recording Offences (Criminal Code 1899 (Qld))

Offence	Section	Maximum Penalty
Observing or recording person in private place without consent	s.227A(1) CC1899	3 years imprisonment
Observing or recording genital/anal region without consent	s.227A(2) CC1899	3 years imprisonment
Distributing prohibited visual recording without consent	s.227B CC1899	3 years imprisonment
Distributing intimate images without consent	s.223 CC1899	3 years imprisonment
Failure to comply with removal order under s.227B	s.227B CC1899	2 years imprisonment

Sentencing for visual recording offences depends on factors including the nature of the breach, the purpose of the recording, harm caused to the victim, age of the victim, and the defendant's criminal history.

Federal Deepfake Offence (Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth))

Offence	Provision	Maximum Penalty
Non-consensual sharing of deepfake sexual material	Crim. Code Act 1995 (Cth)	6 years imprisonment
Aggravated (repeat offender or creator of material)	Crim. Code Act 1995 (Cth)	Higher penalty

---

Civil Liability: When Can You Be Sued?

Federal Statutory Tort (from 10 June 2025)

As described above, the new statutory tort in Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) allows an individual to sue for serious invasion of privacy. A non-consensual recording that intrudes upon seclusion or misuses personal information, made intentionally or recklessly, can ground a claim. Damages may include emotional distress. No proof of economic loss is required.

Existing Common Law Causes of Action

Queensland courts have not recognised a standalone common law tort of privacy. However, a non-consensual recording may support claims in:

• Breach of confidence: Where the recording captures confidential information imparted in a relationship of confidence (for example, a doctor-patient or employer-employee context).
• Defamation: Where the recording is published and contains false statements of fact.
• Harassment: In employment contexts, repeated covert recording may constitute workplace harassment under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) or the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

---

Recording Phone Calls in Queensland

Phone call recording in Queensland sits at the intersection of state and federal law:

1. State law (IPA 1971): Recording the audio of a call you are party to is permitted under s.43(1)(b).
2. Federal law (TIA Act): The method of recording must not intercept the communication at the telecommunications network layer. Use an external device to capture audio at the speaker.
3. Publishing the call: Even a lawfully recorded call cannot be published to third parties without meeting a s.45 exception.
4. Business call recording: Businesses that record customer calls for quality assurance purposes should announce this at the start of the call. Best practice disclosure: "This call may be recorded for training and quality purposes."

---

Recording In-Person Conversations

For face-to-face conversations, the IPA 1971 participant exception applies directly. A party to the conversation may record it using any listening device without notifying others. Points to keep in mind:

• The conversation must qualify as "private" under the Act's test. A meeting held at a public counter with passers-by present may not be private.
• Even a lawful recording cannot be shared with third parties without meeting a s.45 exception.
• In employment contexts, a lawful recording can still constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal (see Workplace Recording section).

---

Recording Police in Queensland

There is no specific Queensland or Commonwealth law that prohibits filming or recording police officers performing their duties in a public place. The IPA 1971 participant exception means that if a member of the public is part of an interaction with police (for example, being questioned or searched), they may record that interaction.

Restrictions that do apply:

• Obstruction: Filming police is lawful provided it does not obstruct an officer in the execution of duty, which is an offence under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). Staying at a reasonable distance and not interfering with the officer's actions is the practical rule.
• Lawful directions: Where police give a lawful direction to move on from an area, compliance is required. A person cannot remain in a restricted area solely to continue recording.
• Audio of private police communications: Intercepting radio communications or private communications between officers without a lawful basis would engage the TIA Act and potentially the IPA 1971.
• Evidence seizure: Under s.29(2)(a) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), police may seize a device if they reasonably suspect it contains evidence of an offence, but they cannot confiscate a phone merely because it captured lawful footage.

The "lawful interests" exception in s.45(3) of the IPA 1971 supports the proposition that recording police misconduct and disclosing it (for example to a complaint authority or legal representative) falls within the protection of a lawful interest.

---

Workplace Recording in Queensland

The Core Rule

Queensland's single-party consent rule applies in the workplace: an employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it without informing other participants. This is a direct consequence of s.43(1)(b) of the IPA 1971. No Queensland-specific workplace surveillance legislation modifies this position.

Legal Does Not Mean Consequence-Free

The Fair Work Commission has consistently held that covertly recording workplace conversations, even where lawful under state law, can constitute a fundamental breach of the employment relationship and a valid reason for dismissal.

In Zhang v Royal Automobile Association of South Australia [2019] FWC 5663, the Commission found the recording "fatally damaged" the employment relationship and constituted a valid reason for dismissal. The Commissioner declined to admit the recording into evidence.

In Chandler v Bed Bath N' Table [2020] FWC, the Commission accepted a recording into evidence, and it assisted Ms Chandler's unfair dismissal case. However, when the covert recording was disclosed, the Commission found it was itself a valid reason for dismissal; reinstatement was refused because the secret recording destroyed the necessary trust.

In Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures [2024] FWC, the Commission rejected an unfair dismissal application on discovering the employee had secretly recorded her employer during a dispute about rostered hours. The Commission found this "contrary to her duty of good faith and fidelity to her employer."

In Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCCA, the Federal Circuit Court declined to admit an unlawfully recorded conversation into evidence, weighing that the recording was a partial fragment, other witnesses could give better evidence, and the recording had been deliberately withheld until late in proceedings. Note that this case arose in Western Australia, not Queensland, but the court's balancing reasoning is cited in Queensland proceedings.

What Employers Can Do

Unlike New South Wales and the ACT, Queensland has no workplace surveillance legislation. Employers relying on general law in Queensland may:

• Monitor computer usage and internet activity on work systems
• Review emails sent or received on work infrastructure
• Deploy CCTV in common areas with appropriate notice to employees

Employer audio recording of employees (for example, monitoring call centres) requires either consent or at minimum clear prior disclosure, to avoid breaching the IPA 1971. If an employer deploys a listening device in a meeting room to record conversations between employees who are not parties to those conversations, and the employer is also not a party, that would be an offence under s.43(1) of the IPA 1971.

---

Voyeurism and Image-Based Abuse

Section 227A of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) covers voyeurism: visual recording in private places and upskirting as described above. The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld), effective 23 September 2024, updated the consent standard in s.227A(3).

Section 227B covers distribution of prohibited visual recordings. Section 223 covers distribution of intimate images. Combined with the federal deepfake provisions (from 3 September 2024), Queensland has a multi-layered framework targeting image-based abuse.

Queensland Police Service operates a dedicated reporting pathway for sharing of intimate images at police.qld.gov.au/safety-and-preventing-crime/sharing-of-intimate-images.

---

How Queensland Compares to Other Australian States

Queensland is the most permissive major jurisdiction in Australia for audio recording, alongside the Northern Territory. Every other state requires all-party consent for audio recording.

Jurisdiction	Audio Consent Rule	Key Statute
Queensland	One-party (participant exception)	Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), s.43
Northern Territory	One-party (participant exception)	Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT), s.4
New South Wales	All-party consent required	Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s.7
Victoria	All-party consent required	Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), s.6
Western Australia	All-party (with some exceptions)	Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), s.5
South Australia	All-party consent required	Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA), s.5
Tasmania	All-party consent required	Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas), s.5
ACT	All-party consent required	Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT), s.4
Federal overlay	Party may not intercept at network level	TIA Act 1979 (Cth)

Queensland's lack of a visual surveillance statute is unusual. Every other state and territory prohibits certain forms of visual surveillance through their surveillance devices legislation. The QLRC has recommended reform, but as at May 2026 the IPA 1971 remains in force and no visual surveillance statute has been enacted.

---

Cross-Border Recording

When a conversation crosses jurisdictional lines (for example, a Queensland resident recording a call with someone in Victoria or NSW), the question arises which state's law applies.

Australian courts have generally held that the state law of the place where the recording device is located governs the recording act. Where the recorder is in Queensland, the IPA 1971 participant exception applies. The person in Victoria or NSW may be subject to their own state's law as a matter of that state's jurisdiction over its own residents, but Queensland law does not require their consent.

The federal TIA Act applies nationally, so both parties are subject to the network-level interception prohibition regardless of which state they are in.

Practical guidance for cross-border calls: record using an external device at your end (not a network-level interception); you are in Queensland and the IPA 1971 applies to your act of recording.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I record a conversation in Queensland without telling the other person?

Yes, if you are a party to the conversation. Section 43(1)(b) of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) expressly permits a party to a private conversation to record it without notifying other participants. If you are not part of the conversation, recording it without consent is an offence.

Does the one-party consent rule apply to phone calls?

The IPA 1971 participant exception applies to the audio content of a phone call. However, you must use an external recording device (such as a recorder held near the speaker) rather than directly intercepting the telecommunications network, which would be a federal offence under the TIA Act.

Can I publish or share a recording I made legally?

Not freely. Even a lawfully made recording cannot be shared with third parties without meeting one of the exceptions in s.45 of the IPA 1971. Permitted reasons include: all parties consent; use in court proceedings; publication is reasonably necessary in the public interest; or disclosure protects your lawful interests. Sharing outside these exceptions is a separate offence.

Can recordings I make be used in court?

A lawfully obtained recording (one made by a party under s.43(1)(b)) is generally admissible in civil and criminal proceedings. An unlawfully obtained recording is generally inadmissible under s.46, but courts retain discretion to admit it if the desirability of the evidence outweighs the manner in which it was obtained.

Can my employer secretly record me at work?

If your employer is a party to the conversation (for example, a manager listening in on a call they are participating in), the IPA 1971 participant exception applies. If the employer is not a party (for example, secretly recording meetings between employees), that would be an offence under s.43(1) unless a statutory exception applies. Queensland has no workplace surveillance legislation analogous to NSW or ACT rules.

Can I record a police officer in Queensland?

Yes, in public and during interactions you are part of. Recording police carrying out their duties in a public place is not prohibited, provided you do not obstruct the officer or breach a lawful direction. The "lawful interests" exception in s.45(3) IPA 1971 supports disclosing such recordings to complaint authorities.

What is the penalty for recording someone illegally in Queensland?

The maximum penalty under the IPA 1971 is 40 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment. From 1 July 2025, one penalty unit is $166.90, so the maximum fine is $6,676. For visual recording offences under the Criminal Code (s.227A or s.227B), the maximum is 3 years imprisonment.

Has Queensland enacted a new Surveillance Devices Act?

No. As of May 2026, Queensland has not enacted the new surveillance devices legislation recommended by the Queensland Law Reform Commission in Report No. 77 (2020). The Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 remains in force. Monitoring the Queensland Parliament's bills list is recommended for updates.

What is the new federal privacy tort?

A statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy commenced on 10 June 2025 under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). A person can sue for damages (including emotional distress) where another person intentionally or recklessly seriously invaded their privacy, and there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. It applies to non-consensual recordings that intrude on seclusion.

Does the federal deepfake law apply in Queensland?

Yes. The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) is a federal law that applies throughout Australia, including Queensland. It criminalises non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit material that has been digitally created or altered, with a maximum penalty of 6 years imprisonment. It has applied since 3 September 2024.

---

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information about Queensland recording laws. It is not legal advice and does not address any individual's specific circumstances. The law as described reflects Queensland and federal legislation current as at 15 May 2026, including the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) as at 1 July 2024, the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) as amended to September 2024, and federal statutes including the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (as amended by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024) and the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth). The law may change after this date. Readers should consult a lawyer licensed in Queensland for advice about their specific situation.

---

About the Author

[PLACEHOLDER: author roster pending]

---

Authorities Cited

1. Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), ss.4, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49A. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1971-050
2. Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss.223, 227A, 227B. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1899-009
3. Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02124
4. Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), Schedule 2 (statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, commenced 10 June 2025). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A03712
5. Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00121
6. Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth), commenced 3 September 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00078
7. Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld), effective 23 September 2024. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/act-2024-020
8. Criminal Code (Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Amendment Act 2019 (Qld). https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/act-2019-001
9. Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2025 (Qld) (penalty unit value $166.90 from 1 July 2025). https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/2025-11-17/sl-2025-0106
10. Queensland Law Reform Commission, Report No. 77: Review of Queensland's laws relating to civil surveillance (February 2020). https://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/653322/QLRC-Report-77-online.pdf
11. Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2009-014
12. Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland, Camera Surveillance, Video, and Audio Recording: A Community Guide. https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/guidelines/for-community-members/Information-sheets-privacy-principles/camera-surveillance,-video,-and-audio-recording-a-community-guide
13. Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy. https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/more-privacy-rights/statutory-tort-for-serious-invasions-of-privacy
14. Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s.29. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/current/act-2000-005
15. Zhang v Royal Automobile Association of South Australia [2019] FWC 5663.
16. Chandler v Bed Bath N' Table [2020] FWC.
17. Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures [2024] FWC.
18. Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCCA.
19. Queensland Police Service, Sharing of Intimate Images. https://www.police.qld.gov.au/safety-and-preventing-crime/sharing-of-intimate-images

---

Related Articles

• Australia Recording Laws: National Overview
• New South Wales Recording Laws
• Victoria Recording Laws
• Australian Capital Territory Recording Laws

---

Last updated: 15 May 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as at 15 May 2026.