Australia
South Australia Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules (2026)
South Australia operates under an all-party consent model for recording private conversations. Under section 4 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA), everyone in a private conversation must consent before any participant may record it. The Act commenced on 18 December 2017 and covers four categories of device: listening devices, optical surveillance devices, tracking devices, and data surveillance devices.
This article explains what the law requires, which exceptions exist, how the participant exception compares to other Australian states, and how three significant developments since 2021 change the compliance picture: the 2024 federal deepfake legislation, South Australia's own 2025 deepfake laws, and the new federal statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy.
Information last verified on 15 May 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording and surveillance laws in South Australia under the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA), the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). It does not address laws in other Australian states or territories in detail; for national comparisons, see the Australia recording laws hub.
The Quick Answer: All-Party Consent with a Narrow Participant Exception
South Australia requires all-party consent to record a private conversation. Section 4(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) makes it an offence to record a private conversation regardless of whether you are a participant. If you are in the conversation, you still need everyone else's consent before you press record.
The Act provides a lawful interests exception under section 4(2)(b) for participants who record their own conversations. Recording is permitted if it is reasonably necessary to protect the lawful interests of the recording party. South Australian courts apply this test objectively and interpret it narrowly. Recording because you want an accurate record is not enough. Recording because you have a genuine, specific safety concern or a concrete legal interest at stake may qualify.
This puts South Australia in a meaningfully stricter position than Victoria and Queensland, where a participant in a conversation can generally record without needing to justify a lawful interest. For cross-border calls, the more restrictive jurisdiction's rules apply to the party in that state. A person in Queensland calling someone in Adelaide must ensure the Adelaide participant's requirements are met.
The maximum penalty for unlawful recording is $15,000 or 3 years imprisonment for an individual and $75,000 for a corporation. Sharing a recording with people who were not parties to the original conversation is a separate offence under section 9, carrying penalties of up to $10,000 or 2 years imprisonment.
The Surveillance Devices Act 2016: Structure and Scope
The Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) received royal assent on 18 February 2016 and commenced operation on 18 December 2017, following the passage of the Surveillance Devices Regulations 2017. It replaced the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972, which only covered audio recording. The 2016 Act governs four categories of device:
- Section 4: listening devices (audio recording of conversations)
- Section 5: optical surveillance devices (visual recording and observation of activities)
- Section 7: tracking devices (GPS and location monitoring)
- Section 8: data surveillance devices (monitoring computer input and output)
Section 6 provides a public interest exception applicable to both listening and optical devices. Sections 9 through 12 govern the communication, publication, and use of information obtained through surveillance devices. These publication restrictions operate independently of the recording offences: a person who lawfully records a conversation under an exception can still commit a separate offence if they share the recording with non-parties without authorisation.
Key Definitions
The Act defines a private conversation as a conversation carried on in circumstances where at least one party would reasonably expect it to be heard only by those present. A whispered exchange in a busy cafe can qualify if the participants would reasonably expect no one else to hear them.
A private activity covers any activity where at least one participant does not want anyone else to see or hear it.
A listening device means any instrument, apparatus, equipment, or device capable of being used to listen to or record a conversation. Hearing aids worn by hearing-impaired persons are excluded.
Consent Framework: All-Party Consent Required
Section 4(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) prohibits two distinct categories of conduct:
- Using a listening device to overhear, record, monitor, or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party.
- Using a listening device to record a private conversation to which the person is a party.
Both are offences. A third party eavesdropping electronically and a participant secretly recording their own conversation face the same maximum penalty: $15,000 or 3 years imprisonment (individual) or $75,000 (corporation).
Consent can be express or implied. Express consent means the person clearly agrees to being recorded. Implied consent arises from circumstances where the person was genuinely aware that recording was taking place and chose to continue. A business that plays an automated message stating "this call is being recorded for quality purposes" before the call begins generally obtains implied consent if the caller continues. However, simply being visible in front of a security camera does not amount to implied consent to audio recording.
Eavesdropping Without Recording
Section 4 also prohibits using a listening device to overhear or monitor a conversation you are not part of, even without recording it. Electronic eavesdropping is an offence in its own right.
The Participant Exception: Section 4(2) and Its Limits
The most frequently misunderstood aspect of South Australian recording law is the participant exception. Under section 4(2)(b), a party to a private conversation may record it without the consent of the other parties if the recording is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that party.
This exception has a single qualifying criterion: a genuine, objectively identifiable interest that the recording serves. The test is not whether you would like a reliable record of what was said.
Situations South Australian courts have accepted as qualifying lawful interests:
- Recording a former partner who was contacting the protected person in breach of an intervention order, where the person had a genuine fear for their safety: Groom v Police [2015] SASC 101, (2015) 252 A Crim R 332. Nicholson J held that courts should more readily accept a lawful interest where the person had a genuine concern for their safety.
- Recording conversations to gather direct evidence of criminal activity specifically directed at the recording party.
- Recording specific workplace meetings in limited circumstances where a concrete legal interest is at stake: Alliance Craton Explorer Pty Ltd v Mutton (referred to in Law Handbook guidance, full citation on file).
Situations courts have rejected:
- Recording to gain an advantage in civil litigation: Thomas & Anor v Nash [2010] SASC 153. Gaining a forensic edge is not a lawful interest.
- Recording as a general precaution to have an accurate record of a conversation without a specific threat or identifiable interest at stake.
- Mixed-purpose recordings: in Nanosecond Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor v Glen Carron [2018] SASC 116, the court found that some recordings met the lawful interests test and others did not, demonstrating that the analysis is applied conversation by conversation.
How SA's Exception Compares to Victoria and Queensland
South Australia's participant exception is narrower than its two most frequently compared neighbours:
| State | Statute | Participant exception rule |
|---|---|---|
| South Australia | Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) s.4(2)(b) | Participant may record own conversation only if reasonably necessary to protect lawful interests |
| Victoria | Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) s.6(1) | Participant may record own conversation freely; restriction is on communication/publication |
| Queensland | Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) s.43(2) | Participant may record own conversation freely |
A person in Melbourne can legally record their own phone call without telling the other party. The same recording made in Adelaide by a South Australian party is a criminal offence unless the lawful interests test is satisfied.
Section 9: The Publication Trap
A recording that is lawfully made under an exception can become unlawful the moment it is shared. Section 9 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) makes it a separate offence to knowingly use, communicate, or publish information derived from a lawfully recorded conversation (for example, one made under the lawful interests exception), unless the communication falls within a permitted category.
Permitted communications under section 9:
- To a person who was a party to the recorded conversation.
- With the consent of all parties.
- In the course of investigating a contravention of the Act.
- In specified legal proceedings.
- To the media, or in the public interest, where the recording was made under the public interest exception in section 6.
- As required by law or in the course of duty.
Penalty for unlawful publication of a lawfully made recording: up to $10,000 or 2 years imprisonment (individual); up to $50,000 (corporation).
If the underlying recording was itself unlawful, publishing it attracts the higher penalty under section 12: up to $15,000 or 3 years imprisonment (individual); up to $75,000 (corporation).
The practical consequence: if you lawfully record a workplace dispute under the lawful interests exception and then forward the audio file to a friend, a journalist, or a social media platform without meeting one of the permitted grounds, you commit a fresh offence. The illegality follows the information through every subsequent use.
Recording Phone Calls in South Australia
Phone calls involve both state and federal law. Section 7 of the federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) prohibits the interception of communications passing over a telecommunications system. However, recording your own telephone conversation is generally not "interception" under the TIA Act because the communication has already reached you. State law therefore governs recording of phone calls you are party to.
Under South Australia's Surveillance Devices Act 2016 s.4(1), the rule is clear: all parties must consent to the recording of a phone call, either expressly or impliedly.
For businesses recording customer calls: Play an automated notification at the very start of the call, before the customer speaks about their matter. If the customer continues after hearing the notification, that generally constitutes implied consent. If the customer objects, the recording must stop. Document your notification policy and train staff on compliance.
For personal calls: Tell the other person you intend to record and get their agreement before you begin recording. Silence or continuing the call after notification is usually treated as implied consent, but verbal confirmation is the safest practice.
The lawful interests exception under section 4(2)(b) can apply to phone calls on the same terms as in-person conversations. If you are receiving threatening calls in breach of a court order, recording those calls may be reasonably necessary to protect your lawful interests.
Recording In-Person Conversations
The same all-party consent rules apply to face-to-face conversations that qualify as "private" under the Act. The key question is always whether at least one participant would reasonably expect the conversation to be heard only by those present.
In practice:
- Recording a private meeting without informing all attendees is an offence.
- Recording a conversation with a landlord, neighbour, or colleague without their knowledge is an offence.
- Wearing a hidden microphone or body camera to capture a private exchange is an offence.
The lawful interests and public interest exceptions apply to in-person conversations on the same terms as phone calls. A covert recording made because you have a genuine, objective safety concern may qualify. A precautionary recording made because you "want evidence just in case" does not.
Optical Surveillance: CCTV, Cameras, and Video
Section 5 of the Act regulates optical surveillance devices. It is an offence to knowingly install, use, or maintain an optical surveillance device to record visually or observe a private activity without the express or implied consent of each party.
Penalty: up to $15,000 or 3 years imprisonment for individuals; up to $75,000 for corporations.
Important distinctions:
- Bathrooms, change rooms, and bedrooms: people always have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Installing cameras in these locations is unlawful regardless of any posted notice.
- Offices and meeting rooms: may constitute private spaces depending on the circumstances. A closed-door one-on-one meeting could be a private activity.
- Retail stores, lobbies, and public-facing areas: generally not private provided signage notifies people that CCTV is in operation.
For dashcams: video recording of public roads is lawful because it captures public spaces, not private activities. If the dashcam also records audio inside the vehicle, inform passengers that audio recording is active before the trip begins.
Tracking Devices and GPS
Section 7 makes it an offence to install, use, or maintain a tracking device to determine the geographical location of a person, vehicle, or thing without the consent of the person being tracked.
This covers GPS trackers placed on vehicles, phone location tracking apps used without the account holder's knowledge, and any technology that monitors movements. Placing a GPS tracker on another person's car without their knowledge is a criminal offence.
Exceptions apply for: law enforcement with appropriate authorisation; parents tracking minor children; employers tracking company vehicles where employees have been notified.
Data Surveillance Devices
Section 8 covers data surveillance devices: it is an offence to install, use, or maintain any device or program that accesses, tracks, monitors, or records the input or output of information from a computer without the consent of the owner or user.
Keystroke loggers, screen capture software, email monitoring tools, and internet browsing trackers all fall within section 8. Employers may monitor employee computer activity only with employee consent, typically obtained through signed IT acceptable use policies during onboarding. Best practice includes specifying in employment contracts exactly what monitoring occurs and why.
Workplace Recording Rules
South Australia has no standalone workplace surveillance legislation equivalent to the New South Wales Workplace Surveillance Act 2005. The Surveillance Devices Act 2016 applies to workplace surveillance directly.
Key obligations for employers:
- Policy disclosure: develop and communicate policies covering what surveillance is conducted, where, how, and why. Employees must be informed before monitoring begins.
- CCTV in common areas: lawful if employees and visitors are notified through signage and written policy.
- Private areas: monitoring of toilets, bathrooms, and changing rooms is prohibited regardless of policy or consent.
- Audio recording: workplace conversations require consent from all parties. Secret recording of employees is unlawful.
- Computer monitoring: requires employee consent via signed IT policies.
- Federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) overlay: employers with annual turnover exceeding $3 million, and all health service providers regardless of turnover, must also comply with the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) when handling employee personal information collected through workplace monitoring. There is no equivalent SA state privacy statute.
The Fair Work Commission has consistently held that secretly recording workplace conversations can justify dismissal even in one-party consent states. In South Australia, where all-party consent is required, secret workplace recordings carry both criminal liability under the Surveillance Devices Act and potential employment law consequences. Evidence obtained through unlawful workplace surveillance may be inadmissible in disciplinary proceedings and unfair dismissal claims.
Recording in Public Places
The Surveillance Devices Act 2016 defines "public place" broadly: any place the public has access to (whether freely or by payment) with the owner's consent, and any road, street, or thoroughfare.
Because a private activity cannot occur in a genuinely public place as defined by the Act, there are no general restrictions on taking photos or video in public places in South Australia. You can film streets, buildings, parks, and public events without consent from bystanders.
Caveats:
- Audio recording in public still requires consent if the conversation is private. Two people speaking quietly on a park bench may have a reasonable expectation that no one else is listening, even in public.
- Venues with conditional access: concert halls, sports stadiums, and private businesses may prohibit photography and recording as a condition of entry. Breaching those conditions is not a criminal offence under the Surveillance Devices Act, but it may constitute trespass.
- Voyeuristic filming: indecent filming in public remains an offence under the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s.26D regardless of location (see the section on voyeurism and humiliating filming below).
- Health care premises: section 48F of the Health Care Act 2008 (SA) prohibits publishing recordings that identify people at or near protected abortion service premises.
Recording Police Officers in South Australia
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public place is generally lawful in South Australia. When a police officer conducts their duties in public, there is no private conversation and no private activity within the meaning of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016. The private conversation requirement is simply not triggered by conduct that occurs openly in a public place.
The key limits are:
- If an exchange occurs in a location or manner where a reasonable person in the officer's position would expect it to be private (for example, a conversation in a private home or a closed room), the private conversation rules apply.
- Audio recording of a police interview conducted in a private space may require consent under section 4.
- Police have their own authorisation to record in the course of their duties: section 4(2)(c) of the Act excepts use of a listening device by an officer to record words spoken by or to them during activities carried out in the course of the officer's duties.
From a practical standpoint: filming a police officer making an arrest on a public street is not an offence under the Surveillance Devices Act 2016. The officer's activities in public are not a private activity. However, obstruction of police or interference with their duties is a separate offence, and you should ensure your recording does not interfere with police operations.
Voyeurism and Humiliating Filming (Summary Offences Act 1953)
Separate from the Surveillance Devices Act 2016, the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) contains specific offences targeting voyeurism, humiliating filming, and image-based abuse. These offences apply regardless of whether the filming occurs in a public or private place.
Section 26B: Humiliating or Degrading Filming
It is an offence to film a person being subjected to, or compelled to engage in, an act that a reasonable adult member of the community would consider humiliating or degrading, without the consent of the person being filmed. Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment.
Section 26C: Distribution of Invasive Images (Image-Based Abuse)
It is an offence to distribute an "invasive image" of another person, knowing or having reason to believe that the person does not consent to that particular distribution.
An invasive image is defined as a moving or still image showing a person:
- in a non-public place engaged in a private act, or
- in a state of undress exposing their genitals, anal region, or (for females) breasts.
The definition includes digitally altered images. Legitimate purposes (medical, legal, scientific, law enforcement) are defences.
| Circumstance | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|
| Adult depicted | $10,000 or 2 years imprisonment |
| Minor (under 17) depicted | $20,000 or 4 years imprisonment |
Section 26D: Indecent Filming (Voyeurism / Upskirting)
It is an offence to film another person:
- in a state of undress in circumstances where a reasonable person would expect privacy;
- engaged in a private act in circumstances where a reasonable person would expect privacy; or
- whose "private region" (genitals, anal region, or uncovered female breast or breast covered only by underwear) is filmed in circumstances where a reasonable person would not expect to be filmed.
The term "upskirting" falls squarely within this provision. The offence applies regardless of whether the filming occurs in public.
| Circumstance | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|
| Adult filmed | $10,000 or 2 years imprisonment |
| Minor (under 17) filmed | $20,000 or 4 years imprisonment |
Section 26DA: Threatening to Distribute
It is an offence to threaten to distribute an invasive image or an indecently filmed image, with intent to cause or reckless indifference to causing fear that the threat will be carried out. Maximum penalty: $5,000 or 1 year (adult depicted); $10,000 or 2 years (minor depicted).
Licensed investigator defence: it is a defence under sections 26C, 26D, and 26DA that the filming or distribution was carried out by a licensed investigation agent to obtain evidence in connection with a claim for compensation, damages, or other benefit.
Deepfakes and AI-Generated Content
Two distinct legislative frameworks now apply in South Australia to AI-generated and digitally altered depictions.
South Australia State Law: Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) ss.26G-26I (effective 3 November 2025)
South Australia enacted what the Attorney-General's Department described as "nation-leading" state-specific deepfake offences. These provisions target simulated persons, meaning AI-generated or digitally manipulated depictions that resemble real people, regardless of whether the person depicted actually exists.
Section 26G: Creating Deepfakes
A person who creates a humiliating or degrading depiction of a simulated person commits an offence. Maximum penalty: $10,000 or 2 years imprisonment.
A person who creates an invasive depiction of a simulated person commits an offence. Maximum penalty: $10,000 or 2 years (adult); $20,000 or 4 years (minor, where the simulated person purports to be under 17).
Section 26H: Distributing Deepfakes
A person who distributes a humiliating or degrading depiction of a simulated person commits an offence. Maximum penalty: 1 year imprisonment.
A person who distributes an invasive depiction of a simulated person commits an offence. Maximum penalty: $10,000 or 2 years (adult); $20,000 or 4 years (minor).
Section 26I: Threatening to Distribute
Threatening to distribute a deepfake depiction carries a maximum penalty of $5,000 or 1 year (adult); $10,000 or 2 years (minor).
Written consent is a defence to sections 26G and 26H. A person under 17 or with a cognitive impairment cannot provide effective consent. Courts may order the surrender of records and equipment used to create the material.
The SA provisions are more expansive than the federal Act in one critical way: they criminalise creation of deepfakes, not only transmission.
Federal Law: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s.474.17A (effective 3 September 2024)
The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) inserted section 474.17A into the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). It is an offence to use a carriage service to transmit sexual material relating to an adult without their consent, when the person knows or is reckless as to whether the depicted person consents.
Key features:
- Applies to images, videos, and audio that are unaltered, or edited or entirely created using technology (including generative AI).
- The form of the material is irrelevant: a real photograph distributed without consent and a wholly AI-generated image are both covered.
- Maximum penalty: 6 years imprisonment.
- Aggravated offence (repeat offenders with prior civil penalties under the Online Safety Act 2021, or creators of the material): 7 years imprisonment.
- Does not criminalise creation alone. A carriage service (internet, mobile network, etc.) must be used for transmission.
South Australian residents may be prosecuted under both the SA state provisions and the federal provision where both apply.
Privacy Law in South Australia: No State Privacy Act
Unlike most comparable jurisdictions, South Australia has no general state privacy legislation. The Law Handbook states plainly: "There is currently no legislation in South Australia creating a general right of privacy."
Instead, SA government agencies are bound by the Information Privacy Principles Instruction, a Cabinet Administrative Instruction in force since 1 July 1989 and reissued in May 2020. The instruction governs how agencies collect, store, use, and disclose personal information. However, it carries no legislative force: a member of the public cannot enforce it in a court of law. The instruction is policy, not statute.
Federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Application in SA
The federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) fill part of the gap for private-sector entities in SA. The APPs apply to:
- Organisations with annual turnover exceeding $3 million.
- All health service providers, regardless of turnover.
- Certain other entities prescribed by regulation.
The APPs govern how covered entities collect, use, and disclose personal information, including information derived from workplace monitoring, recordings, and other surveillance activities.
New Statutory Tort: Serious Invasions of Privacy (effective 10 June 2025)
The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) introduced a new statutory cause of action in tort for serious invasions of privacy, which commenced on 10 June 2025. This is a federal development that applies in South Australia as in all other states and territories.
A plaintiff may bring an action for either:
- Intrusion upon seclusion: physically intruding into private space, or watching, listening to, or recording a person's private activities.
- Misuse of private information: collecting, using, or disclosing information without consent.
To succeed, a plaintiff must establish:
- The invasion was intentional or reckless.
- A reasonable person in their position would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- The invasion was serious.
- Their privacy interest outweighs any countervailing public interest.
No proof of actual damage is required.
Remedies include: damages for emotional distress; exemplary or punitive damages in exceptional cases (capped at the greater of $478,550 or the maximum amount in defamation proceedings); injunctions; correction orders; apologies; declarations; and account of profits.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner does not administer the tort. Individuals must pursue claims through courts independently. The tort applies to any individual or entity, not only Privacy Act-regulated organisations.
The practical consequence for recording in SA: an unlawful surveillance recording that causes serious harm could now give rise to a civil claim under this tort, in addition to any criminal liability under the Surveillance Devices Act 2016.
Penalties Summary
Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA)
| Offence | Individual | Corporation |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawful use of listening, optical, tracking, or data device (ss.4, 5, 7, 8) | $15,000 or 3 years | $75,000 |
| Unlawful publication of lawfully obtained recording (s.9) | $10,000 or 2 years | $50,000 |
| Unlawful publication of unlawfully obtained recording (s.12) | $15,000 or 3 years | $75,000 |
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA)
| Offence | Adult victim | Minor victim |
|---|---|---|
| Humiliating/degrading filming (s.26B) | 2 years | 2 years |
| Distribution of invasive image (s.26C) | $10,000 or 2 years | $20,000 or 4 years |
| Indecent filming / voyeurism (s.26D) | $10,000 or 2 years | $20,000 or 4 years |
| Threatening to distribute (s.26DA) | $5,000 or 1 year | $10,000 or 2 years |
| Creating deepfake (humiliating/degrading) (s.26G) | $10,000 or 2 years | $20,000 or 4 years |
| Creating deepfake (invasive) (s.26G) | $10,000 or 2 years | $20,000 or 4 years |
| Distributing deepfake (humiliating/degrading) (s.26H) | 1 year | 1 year |
| Distributing deepfake (invasive) (s.26H) | $10,000 or 2 years | $20,000 or 4 years |
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
| Offence | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|
| Non-consensual transmission of sexual material via carriage service (s.474.17A) | 6 years |
| Aggravated (repeat offenders or creators) (s.474.17A) | 7 years |
How South Australia Compares to Other Australian States
Australia has no single national recording consent law. Each state and territory has its own regime.
All-Party Consent States
| State | Statute |
|---|---|
| South Australia | Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) s.4 |
| New South Wales | Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) |
| Western Australia | Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) |
| Tasmania | Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas) |
| Australian Capital Territory | Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) |
Participant-Consent States (Participants May Record More Freely)
| State | Statute | Key difference from SA |
|---|---|---|
| Queensland | Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) s.43(2) | Participant may record without justifying lawful interests |
| Victoria | Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) s.6(1) | Participant may record; restriction is on communication/publication (s.11) |
| Northern Territory | Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT) | Participant exception |
Federal Overlay
The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) prohibits third-party interception of communications on telecommunications networks. The federal Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) applies to federal law enforcement operations but does not regulate private recording.
For cross-border communications, the South Australian participant in a call must comply with South Australian law regardless of the other party's location. A person in Queensland calling someone in Adelaide cannot assume that Queensland's more permissive rules apply to the South Australian end of the call.
Practical Guidance
If you want to record a conversation in South Australia:
- Tell every person involved that you intend to record.
- Get their express agreement before you start recording.
- If anyone objects, do not record.
- Keep the recording secure and only share it with parties who were in the original conversation, unless you have a specific legal authorisation to share it more widely.
If you are a business recording customer calls:
- Play an automated notification at the start of every call, before the customer's substantive query begins.
- Give the customer a clear option to proceed without recording if they object.
- Document your recording policy and train all relevant staff.
- Store recordings securely with defined retention periods that comply with Australian Privacy Principles if your organisation is an APP entity.
If you believe someone has recorded you without consent:
- Contact South Australia Police (SAPOL).
- Seek legal advice from the Legal Services Commission of South Australia (free legal helpline: 1300 366 424).
- For image-based abuse or deepfake material, also contact the eSafety Commissioner (esafety.gov.au), which can require platforms to remove material under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth).
- Do not attempt to destroy or seize the recording device yourself.
Disclaimer: This article presents general legal information about recording and surveillance laws in South Australia. It does not constitute legal advice. The information covers the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA), the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), and applicable Commonwealth legislation as in force as of 15 May 2026. Laws can change. If you have a specific legal situation, consult a lawyer licensed to practise in South Australia.
Authorities Cited
- Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA). https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/lz?path=%2FC%2FA%2FSurveillance+Devices+Act+2016
- Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), ss.26B, 26C, 26D, 26DA, 26G, 26H, 26I. https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/a/summary%20offences%20act%201953/current/1953.55.auth.pdf
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s.474.17A (inserted by Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth)). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7205
- Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), Schedule 2 (statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, commenced 10 June 2025). https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/more-privacy-rights/statutory-tort-for-serious-invasions-of-privacy
- Privacy Act 1988 (Cth): Australian Privacy Principles. https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/the-privacy-act
- Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A02124
- SA Law Handbook: Recording Private Conversations or Activities. https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch34s01s04.php
- SA Law Handbook: Lawful Interest and Public Interest Exceptions. https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch34s01s04s04.php
- SA Law Handbook: Publication of Information Derived from Surveillance Devices. https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch34s01s04s05.php
- SA Law Handbook: Surveillance in the Workplace. https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch34s01s04s06.php
- SA Law Handbook: Lawful Authorisation Exception. https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch34s01s04s03.php
- SA Law Handbook: Photography and Film in Public Places. https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch34s01s04s02.php
- SA Law Handbook: Privacy (South Australian Government / Cabinet Administrative Instruction). https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch34s01s02.php
- SA Law Handbook: Distribution of Invasive Images. https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch12s09s03s02.php
- SA Law Handbook: Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy. https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch34s01s06.php
- OAIC: 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
- OAIC: Workplace Monitoring and Surveillance. https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/surveillance-and-monitoring/workplace-monitoring-and-surveillance
- Groom v Police [2015] SASC 101, (2015) 252 A Crim R 332. https://jade.io/article/400437
- Thomas & Anor v Nash [2010] SASC 153. (AustLII: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2010/153.html)
- Nanosecond Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor v Glen Carron [2018] SASC 116. (AustLII: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2018/116.html)
- SA Attorney-General's Department: Nation-leading changes tackling the dark side of Artificial Intelligence (deepfake laws, ss.26G-26I). https://agd.sa.gov.au/news/nation-leading-changes-tackling-the-dark-side-of-artificial-intelligence
- Surveillance Devices (Prescribed Circumstances) Amendment Regulations 2024 (SA). https://legislation.sa.gov.au/lz?path=%2Fv%2Fr%2F2024%2Fsurveillance+devices+%28prescribed+circumstances%29+amendment+regulations+2024_43
Last updated: 15 May 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 15 May 2026.
Sources and References
- Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) - South Australian Legislation(legislation.sa.gov.au).gov
- Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) - South Australian Legislation(legislation.sa.gov.au).gov
- Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) - Parliament of Australia(aph.gov.au).gov
- OAIC - Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy (commenced 10 June 2025)(oaic.gov.au).gov
- Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) - OAIC Overview(oaic.gov.au).gov
- Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)(legislation.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Recording Private Conversations or Activities(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Lawful Interest and Public Interest Exceptions(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Publication of Information Derived from Surveillance Devices(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Surveillance in the Workplace(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Lawful Authorisation Exception(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Photography and Film in Public Places(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Privacy (South Australian Government / Cabinet Administrative Instruction)(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Distribution of Invasive Images(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- SA Law Handbook - Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy(lawhandbook.sa.gov.au).gov
- OAIC - Workplace Monitoring and Surveillance(oaic.gov.au).gov
- SA Attorney-General's Department - Nation-leading deepfake laws (Summary Offences Act ss.26G-26I)(agd.sa.gov.au).gov
- Surveillance Devices (Prescribed Circumstances) Amendment Regulations 2024 (SA)(legislation.sa.gov.au).gov
- Groom v Police [2015] SASC 101, (2015) 252 A Crim R 332(jade.io)