Western Australia Recording Laws 2025: All-Party Consent Rules

Recording a private conversation in Western Australia is only lawful when every participant consents. Section 5(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) prohibits recording even by a party to the conversation, carrying penalties of up to a $5,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment.

Western Australia Recording Laws: Is All-Party Consent Required?

Western Australia requires the consent of every party to a private conversation before any participant may record it, under section 5(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA). Unlike the majority of Australian states, WA does not permit one-party or participant-only consent recording of private conversations. The same all-party rule applies to video recording of private activities under section 6 of the same Act. Criminal penalties for an individual reach $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both.

Information last verified on 2026-05-15. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses audio and video recording law in Western Australia under the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), the federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), and the federal Criminal Code as amended to 2024. It does not address the law of other Australian states or territories in detail; for a national comparison, see the Australia recording laws hub. Readers in other WA-neighbouring states should note that laws differ significantly by jurisdiction.

Quick Answer: Is Western Australia an All-Party Consent State?

Yes. Western Australia is an all-party consent state for recording private conversations. Section 5(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) prohibits any person from installing, using, or maintaining a listening device to record a private conversation -- whether or not that person is a party to the conversation -- unless each principal party to the conversation has given express or implied consent. This distinguishes WA from Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, the ACT, and the Northern Territory, which permit a party to a conversation to record it without the consent of other participants. In WA, being a participant does not, by itself, authorise recording. The Act defines "private conversation" as any conversation carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that a party desires it to be heard only by the parties. Conversations in genuinely public settings, where participants ought reasonably to expect to be overheard, fall outside the definition and may be recorded without restriction from the Act.

Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA): Section 5 (Listening Devices)

Section 5 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) is the primary provision governing audio recording in Western Australia. It provides:

A person shall not install, use, or maintain, or cause to be installed, used, or maintained, a listening device: (a) to record, monitor, or listen to a private conversation to which that person is not a party; or (b) to record a private conversation to which that person is a party.

-- Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), s.5(1)

The second limb -- paragraph (b) -- is the critical difference between WA and one-party-consent states. In one-party-consent jurisdictions, a participant can always record their own conversations. In WA, even paragraph (b) is subject to the consent requirement. The prohibition is only lifted if each principal party to the conversation consents expressly or impliedly, or if a specific statutory exception applies.

The Act defines "listening device" broadly to include any instrument, apparatus, equipment, or other device capable of being used to record, monitor, or listen to a private conversation or words spoken to or by a person in private conversation. This covers smartphones, voice recorders, smart watches, smart speakers set to record, and any other technology with audio capture capability.

What Is a "Private Conversation" in Western Australia?

Under section 3 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), a "private conversation" is any conversation carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that one or more of the parties desires it to be listened to only by the parties. A conversation is not private if it is carried on in circumstances in which the parties ought reasonably to expect that it may be overheard by someone other than a party.

Conversations held inside a home, a closed office, a parked car, a private meeting room, or during a one-to-one phone call are typically private. Conversations at a crowded restaurant, in an open-plan public space, or at a public event -- where participants reasonably expect bystanders may hear -- typically do not meet the definition. The Supreme Court of Western Australia has held that if any one or more parties desired the conversation to be heard only by the parties to it, the first limb of the definition is satisfied.

Section 6: Video Recording (Optical Surveillance Devices)

Section 6 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) extends the same all-party consent framework to video recording of private activities. It prohibits installing, using, or maintaining an optical surveillance device to observe or record a private activity, regardless of whether the recorder is a participant. The same exceptions that apply to s.5 apply equally under s.6.

"Optical surveillance device" is defined to include any device capable of recording visually or observing a private activity: smartphones, CCTV cameras, dashcams, nanny cams, body-worn cameras, and similar equipment. A "private activity" is any activity carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that a party desires it to be observed only by those present. Activities in bathrooms, bedrooms, changing rooms, or inside a private residence are the clearest examples. An activity carried on in circumstances where observation by others is reasonably expected falls outside the definition.

Exceptions Under Section 6

The following circumstances permit video recording without full consent under s.6:

• Each principal party to the private activity consents expressly or impliedly to the recording.
• A principal party consents and the recording is reasonably necessary to protect that party's lawful interests (the s.5(3)(d) equivalent applied to optical devices).
• The recording is done in the course of a law enforcement officer's duties.
• The recording is authorised by a warrant under Part 4 of the Act.
• The activity takes place in a genuinely public setting with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The "Lawful Interests" Exception: Section 5(3)(d)

One of the most important exceptions to the all-party consent rule in Western Australia is the "lawful interests" provision in section 5(3)(d). It permits a participant to record without the consent of all other parties if two conditions are both met: the recording party (or a principal party) gives express or implied consent to the recording, and the recording is "reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests" of that party.

In AW v Rayney [No 4] [2012] WASCA 117, the Western Australia Court of Appeal established the operative principles for this exception:

• "Necessary" means appropriate or adapted to the purpose, rather than essential or indispensable.
• "Reasonably" imposes an objective test: the recording must be objectively appropriate or adapted in the circumstances.
• Whether the recording is reasonably necessary is determined by reference to facts and circumstances existing at the time of the recording, not in retrospect.
• "Protection" means defending, preserving, or safeguarding the party's lawful interests.
• "Lawful interests" are interests not contrary to statute or general law. The specific content of the interests must be determined from the particular facts of the case.

These principles have been applied in family law proceedings in Western Australia, where courts have considered whether recordings made by parties to custody or domestic violence disputes fall within the exception. The critical question is whether the recording was objectively necessary to protect a genuine interest, not merely convenient or precautionary.

Watch out: The lawful interests exception is narrow. Courts apply an objective standard. Believing subjectively that a recording was necessary to protect your interests is not sufficient if a reasonable person in your position would not have found it necessary. Recording "just in case" or for general insurance against future disputes is unlikely to satisfy s.5(3)(d).

Section 9: Publication and Communication Restrictions

Section 9 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) creates a separate offence from the recording offence in s.5. Even where a recording is lawfully made -- for example, with the consent of all parties -- section 9 prohibits publishing or communicating the recorded conversation or activity without the consent of all parties, unless an exception applies.

The main exceptions to the s.9 publication prohibition are:

• Publication with the consent of all principal parties.
• Publication where a principal party consents and there is reasonable belief that publication is in the public interest.
• Publication in the course of legal proceedings.
• Publication in the course of a law enforcement officer's duties.
• Publication to protect the best interests of a child or protected person.

The practical implication is significant: recording a conversation lawfully with all-party consent does not automatically authorise sharing that recording with third parties, posting it online, or using it in a media report. Each act of publication or communication triggers a fresh analysis under s.9. The criminal penalty for contravening s.9 is the same as for contravening s.5: a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both, for an individual.

Public Interest Caveat

The public interest exception under s.9 requires both that a principal party consents and that the publisher holds a reasonable belief that publication is in the public interest. Public interest matters in this context have generally been understood to include matters affecting public safety, transparency in the conduct of public officers, or the welfare of vulnerable individuals. Whether a particular publication meets the threshold is a matter for the courts to assess on the specific facts.

Children and Protected Persons

A person with care of a child or a protected person who is a party to a conversation or activity may record that conversation or activity, and may communicate the recording, where they hold a reasonable belief that: (a) using the recording device will contribute to the protection of the best interests of the child or protected person; and (b) recording is in the public interest. This exception recognises the need for carers to gather evidence of potential abuse, neglect, or other harmful conduct affecting vulnerable individuals.

Penalties for Recording Offences

The Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) sets out the following criminal penalties for recording and publication offences:

Additionally, the Criminal Code (WA) s.221BD provides for imprisonment of up to 3 years for distributing intimate images without consent (see below). Federal deepfake offences carry up to 7 years imprisonment (see below).

Civil liability also arises where a recording or publication causes loss or damage. The Act does not codify a specific civil damages regime, but common law torts of invasion of privacy and actions under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) may be available depending on the circumstances.

Phone Call Recording in Western Australia

Recording a phone call in Western Australia involves two concurrent legal frameworks: the state Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) and the federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act). Both must be satisfied.

Under the TIA Act, section 7 prohibits intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system without the knowledge of the person making the communication. The TIA Act's consent regime is distinct from the WA Act: under the TIA Act, interception without the knowledge of the maker is the relevant test, and there is no general "participant" or "one-party" consent exemption in federal telecommunications interception law for ordinary members of the public. Law enforcement interceptions under the TIA Act require a warrant.

For the purpose of recording a phone conversation you participate in, WA courts have generally analysed such recordings under the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) as the more specific state provision. However, a recording made using equipment that intercepts the telephone signal before it reaches the receiver may fall under the TIA Act's narrower rules rather than, or in addition to, the WA Act. When in doubt, both laws must be satisfied.

The practical rule for phone recording in WA is: obtain the express consent of all parties before recording any phone call. This satisfies both the WA all-party consent requirement and the TIA Act's knowledge requirement.

Recording Police Officers in Western Australia

Recording a police officer or other public official in a genuinely public setting does not ordinarily contravene section 5 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA). The reason is definitional: a police officer conducting official duties in a public place -- making an arrest, directing traffic, addressing a crowd -- cannot reasonably be taken to desire those communications to be heard only by the parties to them. A conversation carried on in open public by an officer exercising public powers is not a "private conversation" under s.3 of the Act.

However, the analysis changes if the interaction occurs in a setting where both the officer and other participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. An interview inside a private home, a conversation in a police interview room, or a discussion in a private space accompanying the officer may attract the private conversation definition, in which case the all-party consent rule applies.

A separate practical concern arises under the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and associated court rules: recordings made in court or in court precincts are subject to specific restrictions and may require judicial authorisation. Those rules operate independently of the Surveillance Devices Act.

In-Person Conversations: When Is Recording Lawful?

For face-to-face conversations in Western Australia, the key question is whether the setting makes the conversation private under s.3 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA). If yes, all-party consent is required to record. If no, the Act does not apply.

Settings where conversations are typically private:

• Inside any private dwelling (home, unit, caravan)
• In a closed office or meeting room
• In a parked vehicle away from public thoroughfares
• In a medical or legal consultation room
• In a restaurant booth or quiet corner where participants are not overheard

Settings where conversations are typically not private:

• On a public street or footpath
• In an open public park
• In a genuinely noisy public venue where conversation is audible to passers-by
• At a public rally, hearing, or community meeting

In ambiguous settings, the safe course is to obtain express consent from all participants before recording.

Workplace Recording Laws in Western Australia

Recording workplace conversations in Western Australia without the consent of all participants is a criminal offence under s.5 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), subject to the lawful interests exception. The Fair Work Commission has repeatedly characterised covert workplace recording as conduct that "strikes at the heart of the employment relationship" and treated it as a valid reason for dismissal in unfair dismissal proceedings.

In Chandler v Bed Bath N' Table [2014] FWC 3706, the Fair Work Commission found that the employee's covert recording of workplace conversations was itself a valid reason for dismissal, even though the overall dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair on other grounds. The Commission held that the recording constituted conduct contrary to general community expectations and was incompatible with the necessary trust and confidence in the employment relationship.

In Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No.2) [2016] FCCA 2318, a Western Australia court refused to admit an unlawfully recorded conversation as evidence, finding that the desirability of admitting it did not outweigh the undesirability having regard to the deliberate nature of the breach and the availability of alternative evidence.

When Workplace Recording May Be Justified

The lawful interests exception in s.5(3)(d) may apply in workplace settings where an employee faces a genuine and credible threat to their legal interests: documented harassment, bullying, or discrimination; credible threats of physical harm; or circumstances where alternative evidence collection is not reasonably available. Even where recording falls within the lawful interests exception, employees should be aware that: (a) the recording may still damage the employment relationship; and (b) courts and the FWC may take covert recording into account as a factor against reinstatement, even where the recording itself was lawful.

Home Security Cameras in Western Australia

Installing security cameras on private property for security purposes is generally lawful in Western Australia, subject to important limitations:

• Video recording: CCTV cameras monitoring your own property -- including entrances, driveways, and backyards -- are generally lawful. Cameras must be positioned to capture primarily your own premises.
• Audio recording: Recording audio through a home security system requires the consent of all persons whose conversations may be captured. If your security system includes microphones, you must either disable the audio feature or ensure that clear notice is given and consent obtained from any person who may be recorded.
• Neighbour privacy: Positioning cameras to deliberately capture images within neighbouring properties, into windows, or into private outdoor areas beyond your own boundary may contravene s.6 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA).

The Act does not impose a general consent requirement for capturing footage of truly public spaces -- footpaths, public roads, or open public areas visible from your property -- because persons in those settings have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Surveillance Warrants in Western Australia

Part 4 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) authorises courts to issue surveillance device warrants to law enforcement officers. A warrant permits recording that would otherwise be unlawful under ss.5 and 6.

To issue a warrant, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been, is being, is about to be, or is likely to be committed, and that the use of the device would assist the investigation. In assessing a warrant application, the court must consider: the nature and severity of the offence; the extent of intrusion on privacy; whether alternative evidence-gathering means are available; the probative value of the expected evidence; whether other warrants are in force for the same matter; and whether it is in the public interest. Evidence obtained outside the scope of a warrant may be inadmissible.

Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Recordings

An unlawfully obtained recording is not automatically inadmissible in Western Australian proceedings. Under the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and the common law discretion to exclude evidence, courts must weigh the probative value of the recording against the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and deterring unlawful conduct.

In criminal proceedings, the court applies a balancing exercise. Factors include the seriousness of the recording breach, whether alternative lawful means existed, the impact on the accused's rights, and the probative strength of the recording. Deliberate and planned breaches of the Surveillance Devices Act weigh heavily against admission: see Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No.2) [2016] FCCA 2318.

In civil and family law proceedings, courts have broader discretion to admit illegally obtained evidence, particularly where the best interests of a child or a party's safety are at stake. Family courts in WA have admitted recordings in domestic violence and parenting capacity proceedings where the recording was the only practicable means of preserving evidence of abuse or threats. A party who submits an unlawfully obtained recording may face a separate criminal prosecution under the Surveillance Devices Act and potential adverse costs orders.

No General State Privacy Statute: The Pre-2024 Gap

Until recently, Western Australia and South Australia were the only mainland Australian states without a general privacy or personal information protection statute covering the state public sector. The federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) covers private sector entities with annual turnover above $3 million (and certain smaller entities in prescribed categories), regulated by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). However, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) does not extend to state and territory government agencies, leaving WA public sector agencies outside any privacy statute regime prior to 2024.

Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA)

The Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA) (PRIS Act) and the Information Commissioner Act 2024 (WA) received Royal Assent on 6 December 2024. The PRIS Act introduces 11 Information Privacy Principles (IPPs), establishes the Office of the Information Commissioner for WA, and creates a mandatory breach notification scheme.

The PRIS Act's phased commencement schedule is:

• 6 December 2024: Preliminary and amending provisions commenced. No substantive privacy obligations yet.
• 1 July 2025: Office of the Information Commissioner and Privacy Deputy Commissioner established; administrative functions commenced.
• 1 July 2026: Main privacy obligations (IPPs) commence for WA public sector agencies.
• 1 January 2027: Notifiable information breach scheme commences.

The PRIS Act covers WA state government agencies only. Private sector entities in WA remain subject to the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) where applicable. The PRIS Act does not amend or replace the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) recording consent rules.

Federal Privacy Act 1988 and WA

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), administered by the OAIC, applies to private sector organisations in WA with annual turnover above $3 million and to health service providers, credit providers, and other prescribed entities regardless of turnover. The 13 Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) in Schedule 1 of the Act govern the collection, use, disclosure, and storage of personal information, including audio and video recordings that constitute personal information about identifiable individuals. The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) does not displace the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) recording consent requirements. An entity that lawfully records a conversation under the SDA may still breach the Privacy Act if it collects, uses, or discloses the personal information in that recording in a manner inconsistent with the APPs.

Voyeurism and Intimate Image Offences

Criminal Code (WA), Section 221BD

The Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2019 (WA) inserted section 221BD into the Criminal Code (WA). Section 221BD makes it an offence to distribute an intimate image of another person without that person's consent. "Distribute" includes sharing via social media, messaging apps, email, or any online platform.

The penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The offence does not require proof that the offender intended to cause harm or that the victim suffered harm -- the non-consensual distribution of the image is sufficient.

Defences to s.221BD include: distribution for a genuine scientific, educational, or medical purpose; distribution reasonably necessary for legal proceedings; and distribution for media activities where the publisher did not intend to cause harm and reasonably believed it was in the public interest.

"Intimate image" is defined to include images depicting a person's genital or anal area, images depicting a female person's breasts, and images that depict a person engaged in a private act. The definition extends to images captured covertly, including through devices installed unlawfully in breach of s.6 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA).

Deepfake Sexual Material: Federal Criminal Code Overlay

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) (Act No. 78 of 2024) amended Part 10.6 of the Criminal Code (Cth) and applies Australia-wide, including in Western Australia.

The Act inserted two new offences:

Section 474.17A -- Non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit material (including deepfakes): A person commits an offence if they use a carriage service (internet, phone network) to transmit, make available, publish, distribute, advertise, or promote material that is sexually explicit and non-consensual. The offence applies to both real material and material created or altered using technology, including AI-generated deepfakes. Maximum penalty: 6 years imprisonment.

Section 474.17AA -- Aggravated offences: Aggravated versions of the s.474.17A offence arise where: (a) the offender was responsible for creating or altering the material (e.g., the deepfake creator who also distributes); or (b) the offender had three or more prior civil penalty orders under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) in relation to contraventions involving similar material. Maximum penalty: 7 years imprisonment.

These federal offences are separate from, and cumulative with, the WA Criminal Code s.221BD offence. A person who creates and distributes a deepfake intimate image of a Western Australian resident without consent may face both WA state and Commonwealth charges.

Cross-Border Recording: Which Law Applies?

When a recording spans two jurisdictions -- for example, a person in Western Australia records a phone call with a person in Victoria, or an interstate employer records a meeting with a WA employee -- the question of which recording law applies is not fully settled by statute and requires careful analysis.

The general principles are:

• Where all parties are in WA at the time of recording: WA law (all-party consent) applies.
• Where the recording is made in WA but a party is interstate: WA law applies to the person making the recording in WA; the interstate party's state law applies to conduct on their end. Both sets of laws must be satisfied. Since WA is all-party consent, recording without consent of all participants is likely unlawful even if it would be lawful one-party consent in the other state.
• Where the recorder is interstate and the conversation partner is in WA: The law of the state where the recorder is located governs the recorder's conduct. However, the WA participant's rights and any potential civil claims may also involve WA law.
• Federal TIA Act: The TIA Act 1979 (Cth) applies to telephone and internet communications passing over telecommunications systems regardless of where the parties are located. Compliance with the TIA Act is required in addition to any applicable state law.

For cross-border workplace or business recording, the safest approach is to apply the most restrictive law of any state where a party to the conversation is located. Given WA's all-party consent requirement, this means obtaining consent from all parties in all cross-border conversations involving WA participants.

How WA Recording Laws Compare to Other Australian States

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I record a phone call in Western Australia without telling the other person?

No. Under section 5(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), recording a private conversation without the consent of all parties is a criminal offence. Phone calls are private conversations under the Act. Recording without the other party's knowledge or consent exposes you to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both.

Is Western Australia a one-party or two-party consent state?

Neither framing precisely describes WA law. WA requires the consent of all parties (every principal party) to record a private conversation under s.5 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA). This is sometimes described as "all-party" consent to distinguish it from one-party consent states (where any participant may record) and two-party consent states (where at least two parties, typically all parties to a two-person call, must consent). In a conversation with more than two participants, WA requires the consent of all of them.

Does the lawful interests exception let me record conversations at work?

Potentially, but it is narrow. Section 5(3)(d) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) permits a participant to record without all-party consent where the recording is reasonably necessary to protect that participant's lawful interests: AW v Rayney [No 4] [2012] WASCA 117. Recording to document genuine harassment, credible threats, or conduct likely to cause you legal harm may qualify. Recording general workplace interactions or meetings for general precaution is unlikely to satisfy the objective "reasonably necessary" standard. Even where the exception applies, courts and the Fair Work Commission may treat the covert recording as a factor against you in subsequent proceedings.

Can I share a recording I made lawfully with all-party consent?

Not without restriction. Section 9 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) creates a separate offence for publishing or communicating a recording of a private conversation or activity without the consent of all parties. Consent to recording does not automatically mean consent to publication. If you want to share a recording, you need a separate basis under s.9 -- most commonly, the consent of all parties to the conversation, or the public interest exception.

Is it legal to film police in Western Australia?

Recording police officers performing their duties in a genuinely public place is generally lawful under the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), because a police officer exercising public powers in a public setting is not engaged in a "private conversation" or "private activity" under the Act. However, recording a private conversation with police -- for example, inside your home during an investigation -- requires the consent of all participants under s.5. Separate court and evidence rules also restrict recording inside courtrooms and court precincts.

What is the penalty for recording someone without consent in WA?

Under sections 5 and 6 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), the criminal penalty for an individual is a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. For a body corporate, the fine is $50,000. Publishing or communicating an unlawfully obtained recording under s.9 carries the same penalties. Distributing intimate images without consent under Criminal Code (WA) s.221BD carries imprisonment for up to 3 years.

Does the new WA privacy law change recording rules?

The Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA) addresses the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by WA public sector agencies. It does not amend the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) recording consent requirements. The PRIS Act's main obligations commence on 1 July 2026. Private sector entities remain governed by the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The Surveillance Devices Act all-party consent rule is unchanged by the PRIS Act.

Can employers legally monitor employee communications in WA?

Employer monitoring of workplace communications is subject to the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA). Monitoring employee phone calls, recording meetings, or installing audio-capable devices in workplaces requires the consent of all parties whose private conversations may be captured. Monitoring email or computer activity does not ordinarily engage the SDA (which covers oral conversations and visible activities), but may engage the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) depending on the interception method. Clear written policy, disclosed to employees, is the standard approach for lawful workplace monitoring in WA.

What are deepfake laws in Australia and how do they apply in WA?

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) introduced sections 474.17A and 474.17AA into the federal Criminal Code. Section 474.17A makes it a federal offence to share sexually explicit material, including AI-generated deepfakes, without the consent of the person depicted, via a carriage service (internet or phone network). The maximum penalty is 6 years imprisonment, or 7 years for aggravated offences under s.474.17AA (including cases where the offender created the deepfake). This federal law applies in Western Australia. It operates alongside the WA Criminal Code s.221BD intimate image distribution offence.

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording and surveillance law in Western Australia. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. The information covers the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA), the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), the Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 (WA), the Criminal Code (WA), and the Criminal Code (Cth) as those laws stood on 2026-05-15. Laws change; readers should verify currency with the relevant legislation before acting. For advice about a specific situation, consult a lawyer licensed in Western Australia.

About the Author

[PLACEHOLDER -- author roster pending]

---

Last updated: 2026-05-15. Statutes cited reflect their in-force versions as of 2026-05-15.