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

How Recording Laws Work in New Zealand

New Zealand does not have a single recording law statute. Instead, several overlapping laws govern when and how you can record conversations, phone calls, video, and audio. The primary statute is the Crimes Act 1961, specifically Part 9A, which deals with crimes against personal privacy. The Privacy Act 2020, the Employment Relations Act 2000, and the Intelligence and Security Act 2017 fill in the gaps.

The bottom line: if you are a party to a conversation, you can record it. If you are not, recording it is a crime. But even when recording is technically legal, the way you use that recording matters. Employment law, privacy obligations, and rules around intimate visual content all add restrictions that go well beyond the basic one-party consent framework.

This guide breaks down each statute, explains the penalties, and covers the practical scenarios that trip people up.

Section 216B: The One-Party Consent Rule

What the Law Says

Section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961 makes it an offense to intentionally intercept any private communication using an interception device. The penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

But the law carves out a critical exception. Section 216B does not apply when the person intercepting the communication is a party to that communication. This is what lawyers and journalists refer to as one-party consent.

Who Counts as a "Party"?

Section 216A defines the terms. A "private communication" is any communication made under circumstances where the parties reasonably expect it to stay between them. A "party" to that communication includes:

• Any originator of the communication
• Any person the originator intended to receive it
• Any person who intercepts the communication with the express or implied consent of an originator or intended recipient

That third category is important. If someone asks you to record a phone call on their behalf, and they are a party to the call, you can lawfully do so with their consent.

What This Means in Practice

If you are on a phone call, in a face-to-face meeting, or exchanging messages, you can record that interaction without telling the other person. You are a party to the communication, so Section 216B does not apply to you.

However, if you leave a recording device in a room and walk out, or tap someone else's phone line, you are no longer a party. That crosses the line into criminal territory.

Section 216C: Disclosing Intercepted Communications

The companion provision, Section 216C, targets the downstream use of unlawfully intercepted communications. Anyone who intentionally discloses the substance or existence of a private communication, knowing it was obtained through a breach of Section 216B, faces imprisonment for up to two years.

This matters because even if someone else illegally records a conversation and hands the file to you, sharing or publishing it can land you in prison. The law treats the disclosure as a separate offense from the interception itself.

Intimate Visual Recordings: Sections 216G Through 216J

New Zealand updated its Crimes Act in 2006 through the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Act to address hidden cameras and voyeurism. These provisions operate independently from the audio interception rules and carry stiffer penalties.

What Qualifies as an Intimate Visual Recording?

Section 216G defines an intimate visual recording as any visual recording (photograph, video, digital image) made without the knowledge or consent of the subject, in circumstances where that person would reasonably expect privacy, and where the person is:

• Naked or has exposed breasts, genitalia, or buttocks
• Engaged in intimate sexual activity
• Showering, toileting, undressing, or engaged in similar bodily functions

The definition covers recordings made in any medium using any device.

Section 216H: Making an Intimate Visual Recording

Section 216H criminalizes intentionally or recklessly making an intimate visual recording of another person. The penalty is imprisonment for up to three years.

The "recklessly" standard is significant. A person does not need to intend to capture intimate content. If they set up a camera in circumstances where intimate footage was a foreseeable outcome, that can be enough for a conviction.

Section 216I: Possession

Section 216I makes it an offense to possess an intimate visual recording without reasonable excuse, knowing that it is an intimate visual recording. The penalty is imprisonment for up to one year.

The "reasonable excuse" language provides a narrow defense. Law enforcement officers handling evidence, for example, would fall under this exception.

Section 216J: Publishing and Distribution

Section 216J prohibits publishing, importing, exporting, or selling an intimate visual recording. Anyone who does so, knowing or being reckless about the nature of the recording, faces imprisonment for up to three years.

Section 216K: Exceptions

Section 216K provides limited exceptions to Section 216J. Innocent intermediaries, such as postal operators, couriers, network operators, and internet service providers, are not liable if they facilitate access to a recording without knowing or suspecting it is intimate in nature. Law enforcement and security personnel also receive an exemption under certain conditions.

The Harmful Digital Communications Amendment (2022)

The Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Act 2022 added another layer of protection. Posting an intimate visual recording online without consent is now a standalone offense under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. Penalties include:

• For individuals: up to two years in prison or a fine up to $50,000
• For businesses: a fine up to $200,000

Courts can also issue interim orders requiring platforms to take down material during proceedings.

A Gap in the Law: Audio Recordings

One limitation that legal scholars have flagged is that Sections 216G through 216J cover only visual recordings. Covert audio recordings of intimate situations fall outside the scope of these provisions. In early 2025, the resignation of a press secretary to the Prime Minister over allegations involving covert recordings highlighted this gap. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon indicated openness to revisiting the law on intimate audio recordings. As of March 2026, no amending legislation has been passed.

Workplace Recording in New Zealand

Workplace recording sits at the intersection of criminal law, privacy law, and employment law. The result is a framework where something can be technically legal under the Crimes Act but still get you fired or penalized under employment law.

The Good Faith Duty: Section 4

Section 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 requires employers and employees to deal with each other in good faith. That obligation includes being active and constructive in maintaining a productive employment relationship, and not doing anything that is misleading or deceptive.

New Zealand courts and the Employment Relations Authority have consistently found that covert workplace recording can breach this duty, even when the recording itself is lawful under Section 216B.

Downer v LM Architectural Builders Ltd [2024] NZERA 204

This case, decided in 2024, drew a clear line between lawful and unlawful workplace recording.

Ms. Downer, an employee of LM Architectural Builders Ltd, made two covert recordings. The first captured a conversation between herself and the company's managing director. The Employment Relations Authority found this recording admissible. Because Downer was a party to the conversation, no criminal offense occurred under Section 216B. The Authority also rejected the employer's argument that the conversation was "without prejudice," finding that no formal dispute had been raised at the time.

The second recording was different. Downer recorded the managing director speaking on the telephone to a third party. She was not part of that conversation. The Authority held that this recording was improperly obtained under Section 216B and excluded it from evidence. The Authority emphasized that "allowing improperly obtained recordings to be admitted as evidence does not promote good faith behaviour in the workplace."

Practical Consequences

Other cases reinforce the risks of covert workplace recording:

• In Milham v Chief Executive of Waikato Institute of Technology [2016] NZERA Auckland 259, the Authority found that secret recording damaged trust between the parties and was a factor in determining that reinstatement was not practical.
• In Nicol v Canterbury Concrete Cutting NZ Ltd [2018] NZERA Christchurch 180, an employee won their unfair dismissal claim but received a $2,000 penalty for breaching good faith by covertly recording workplace conversations.

The takeaway: recording a conversation you are part of will not land you in jail, but it can cost you your job or reduce any payout in an employment dispute.

Recording in Public Places

New Zealand law generally permits recording in public places, but the rules shift depending on whether you are an individual or an organization.

Individuals

Taking photos, video, or audio recordings in public is broadly legal for personal use. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner confirms that "taking photos or recordings in public places is generally allowed" for individuals.

There are limits. Recording that a court would consider "highly offensive to an objective reasonable person" can give rise to a tort claim for invasion of privacy. Filming accident scenes where subjects cannot consent and are in distress is one example. Emergency workers can also stop recordings that interfere with their duties.

Facility-specific rules may also apply. Swimming pools, gyms, and event venues often prohibit photography through their terms of entry, and those restrictions are enforceable.

Organizations and Agencies

Businesses and government agencies that record in public spaces must comply with the Privacy Act 2020. Information Privacy Principles 1, 3, and 4 require agencies to:

• Have a lawful purpose connected to their functions (IPP 1)
• Tell people that recording is occurring, why, and how footage will be used (IPP 3)
• Collect information in a manner that is lawful, fair, and not unreasonably intrusive (IPP 4)

Common compliance methods include signage at entry points and terms and conditions for events.

Privacy Act 2020: How It Applies to Recording

The Privacy Act 2020 replaced the Privacy Act 1993 and governs how agencies collect, store, use, and disclose personal information. Audio and video recordings count as personal information when they identify or could identify an individual.

Key Principles for Recording

Principle	Requirement
IPP 1	Collection must be for a lawful purpose connected to the agency's functions
IPP 3	Individuals must be informed that information is being collected, why, and how
IPP 4	Collection must be lawful, fair, and not unreasonably intrusive
IPP 5	Agencies must protect recordings against loss, unauthorized access, and misuse
IPP 6	Individuals have the right to access recordings of themselves
IPP 9	Recordings cannot be kept longer than necessary for the original purpose

Penalties

Breaching the Privacy Act can result in complaints to the Privacy Commissioner. If a complaint proceeds to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the Tribunal can award damages, including compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and emotional harm. The Privacy Commissioner can also issue compliance notices, and failing to comply with a notice is an offense carrying fines up to $10,000.

CCTV and Surveillance Cameras

New Zealand does not have a dedicated CCTV statute. Instead, CCTV operation falls under the Privacy Act 2020 and, where audio is captured, the Crimes Act 1961.

Requirements for Businesses

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner recommends that businesses using CCTV:

• Establish a clear purpose before installation
• Post visible signage identifying the operator and providing contact details
• Disable audio recording unless there is a specific, justified need
• Limit camera placement (never in bathrooms, changing rooms, or bedrooms)
• Set retention periods and delete footage once the purpose is fulfilled
• Respond to access requests from individuals captured on camera

Audio capture through CCTV is especially sensitive. The Privacy Commissioner has stated that "collecting audio from CCTV is more invasive, so if it's not necessary, don't do it." If audio is captured, Section 216B of the Crimes Act may apply if the conversations recorded are private communications and the operator is not a party.

Business Call Recording Compliance

Businesses that record phone calls need to navigate both the Crimes Act and the Privacy Act. Here is what compliance looks like:

What the Crimes Act Allows

If a business employee is a party to the call, the recording is lawful under Section 216B. The employee is a party to the communication, so no interception offense occurs.

What the Privacy Act Requires

Even though the recording may be lawful, the Privacy Act imposes additional obligations on businesses (as "agencies"). Under IPP 3 and IPP 4, an agency collecting personal information should inform the individual that the call is being recorded and explain the purpose. Failing to disclose recording may be found to be unfair or unreasonably intrusive under IPP 4, even if it is not criminal.

Best practices for business call recording in New Zealand include:

• Playing an automated notification at the start of recorded calls
• Stating the purpose of the recording (quality assurance, training, record-keeping)
• Providing an option to opt out where practical
• Storing recordings securely and deleting them on schedule
• Training staff on disclosure obligations

Government Surveillance: The Intelligence and Security Act 2017

The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 replaced the former Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969. It created a unified framework for how intelligence agencies can intercept communications.

Protection for New Zealand Citizens

The original GCSB Act 2003, Section 14, prohibited the Bureau from targeting New Zealand citizens or permanent residents for intelligence-gathering interceptions. The 2017 Act carries forward this principle but introduces a warrant-based system.

Under the current law, intelligence agencies may only intercept the communications of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents through a Type 1 intelligence warrant (Section 58). Issuing such a warrant requires the approval of both the responsible Minister (typically the Attorney-General) and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. The proposed activity must be:

• Necessary to protect national security
• Proportionate to its purpose
• Not achievable by less intrusive means

This dual-authorization requirement distinguishes New Zealand from jurisdictions where a single executive or judicial officer can approve domestic surveillance.

The Search and Surveillance Act 2012

For domestic law enforcement (as opposed to intelligence agencies), the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 governs the use of surveillance devices. Police and other enforcement officers who want to use an interception device to monitor private communications must obtain a surveillance device warrant from a judge. Without a warrant, any interception by law enforcement is unlawful.

Penalty Summary

Offense	Statute	Maximum Penalty
Intercepting a private communication (non-party)	Crimes Act s 216B	2 years imprisonment
Disclosing unlawfully intercepted communication	Crimes Act s 216C	2 years imprisonment
Making an intimate visual recording	Crimes Act s 216H	3 years imprisonment
Possessing an intimate visual recording	Crimes Act s 216I	1 year imprisonment
Publishing/distributing intimate visual recording	Crimes Act s 216J	3 years imprisonment
Posting intimate visual recording online (individual)	Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (as amended 2022)	2 years imprisonment or $50,000 fine
Posting intimate visual recording online (business)	Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (as amended 2022)	$200,000 fine
Non-compliance with Privacy Commissioner notice	Privacy Act 2020	$10,000 fine

Forfeiture of Equipment

Under Section 216E of the Crimes Act, a court may order forfeiture of any interception device used in the commission of an offense under Part 9A. For intimate visual recording offenses, the court may also order destruction of the recording within 10 working days and forfeiture of any equipment used to create or store it.