Australian Capital Territory Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Exceptions and Penalties (2026)

The Australian Capital Territory prohibits recording a private conversation, including your own, without consent. But section 4(3) of the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) creates a broad exception: a participant may record without telling anyone else if the recording protects their lawful interests, or simply is not made to be shared with outsiders. That second basis covers most private, personal recording.

Information last verified on 2026-07-21 against the consolidated Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) text on legislation.act.gov.au. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses the recording and surveillance laws of the Australian Capital Territory under the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT), the Workplace Privacy Act 2011 (ACT), the Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT), the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), and applicable federal legislation. It does not address the laws of other Australian states and territories in depth; for those, see the Australia recording laws hub.

Can I Record My Own Conversation in the ACT?

Usually yes, but the statute does not say so directly. Section 4(1) of the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) prohibits using a listening device to record a private conversation you are not part of (paragraph (a)), and separately prohibits a participant from recording a conversation they ARE part of (paragraph (b)). Read alone, paragraph (b) would make almost all covert personal recording illegal.

Section 4(3) then softens that prohibition with an exception that applies if:

• (a) each principal party to the conversation consents to the recording; or
• (b) a principal party consents, and the recording either (i) is considered by that principal party, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary to protect their lawful interests, or (ii) is simply not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation to any person who is not a party to it.

Bases (i) and (ii) are alternatives, not a two-part test you must satisfy together. A recording that has nothing to do with protecting a "lawful interest," made purely to keep your own private record of a conversation and never shown to anyone outside it, is excused by basis (ii) alone. That is why most everyday personal recording in the ACT is lawful in practice even though the headline rule looks like a blanket prohibition. Section 4(4) carves the lawful-interests basis back out for the Territory itself: a listening device used by or on behalf of the ACT government cannot rely on basis (i), though it can still rely on consent or basis (ii).

This structure is the same one found in New South Wales and Tasmania's recording statutes, not a distinct "one-party consent" model. The restriction is not really on making the recording; it is on what you do with it afterward. If you keep the recording for personal use, basis (ii) covers you. If you send it to a third party or post it publicly, sharing it engages a separate offence under section 5, discussed below, regardless of whether the original recording was lawful.

The Act is administered by the Attorney-General through the Justice and Community Safety Directorate. First enacted on 25 September 1992, the Act has been amended multiple times and currently stands at republication R10, effective 11 February 2022 following the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (No 2).

Key Definitions Under the Act

What Is a Listening Device?

The Act defines a "listening device" broadly. It covers any instrument, apparatus, equipment, or device capable of being used to listen to or record a private conversation. That includes smartphones, tablets, voice recorders, dictation devices, audio surveillance equipment, and any video camera with audio recording capability.

Hearing aids are specifically excluded from the definition.

The breadth of this definition matters. If you use your phone to record a conversation, your phone is a listening device under the Act. The same applies to a laptop running recording software, a smartwatch with a microphone, or a dashcam that captures audio.

The Optical Surveillance Gap

The Listening Devices Act 1992 is an audio-only statute. It covers recording of private conversations by sound. It does not cover optical or visual surveillance of private activities, such as covert video recording without audio.

This is a meaningful gap. States such as New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia have dedicated surveillance devices legislation covering both audio and optical surveillance. The ACT has no equivalent general optical surveillance devices statute (Tasmania and Queensland share this gap). A person who installs a hidden camera to record images (without sound) of private activity in the ACT is not committing an offence under the Listening Devices Act, though they may commit offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (discussed below) or attract civil liability.

Practitioners and residents should be aware of this gap when assessing whether covert visual monitoring is regulated under ACT territory law.

What Is a Private Conversation?

The Act protects "private conversations": conversations carried on in circumstances indicating the parties intended them to be heard only by themselves. The critical question is whether the participants had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

A conversation in a closed office between two colleagues is private. A conversation at a loud bar table could be private if the speakers intended it to remain between them. A speech delivered to a crowd at a public rally is not private.

For telephone calls, the analysis focuses on each party's circumstances. If one party is alone in a private room, the conversation is private even if the other party is in a public place. The expectation of privacy from the perspective of any one party can make the entire conversation private.

Principal Parties vs. Parties

The Act distinguishes "principal parties" from "parties." A principal party is someone who speaks or is spoken to during the conversation. A party includes principal parties and also anyone who, with a principal party's consent, listens to or records the conversation.

This distinction matters because the Act's exceptions hinge on whether a "principal party" consents. Someone listening in with permission is a party but not a principal party, and their consent alone does not trigger the exceptions.

Section 4: The Core Prohibition and Its Exception

Section 4 is the heart of the Act. It creates two distinct prohibitions:

Paragraph 4(1)(a) makes it an offence to use a listening device to listen to or record a private conversation to which you are not a party. This covers eavesdropping and covert surveillance of other people's conversations.

Paragraph 4(1)(b) makes it an offence to use a listening device to record a private conversation to which you are a party. This is the prohibition that applies to participants. Section 4(3), described above, immediately provides exceptions that govern most everyday practice.

The maximum penalty for violating section 4 is 50 penalty units, with no term of imprisonment attached to this particular offence. Under the ACT's Legislation Act 2001 (section 133), a penalty unit equals $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation, confirmed against the current consolidated text. That translates to a maximum fine of $8,000 for an individual or $40,500 for a corporation.

Subsection 4(2) separately exempts:

• Use of a listening device under an authority granted by a law in force in the ACT
• Unintentional hearing of a private conversation by means of a listening device

Section 5: Restrictions on Sharing a Recording

Section 5 governs what happens after a recording is made, and it applies regardless of whether the underlying recording itself was lawful under section 4(3). A party to a private conversation commits an offence by divulging or communicating a record of that conversation if the party knows the record was made using a listening device (whether or not the recording itself contravened section 4). The maximum penalty is 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

Exceptions under section 5(2) allow sharing in these circumstances:

• Communication to another party to the conversation
• With consent of each principal party
• In the course of civil or criminal proceedings
• When considered by the party making it, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary for the protection of their lawful interests

The practical takeaway: you can record a conversation for personal reference without telling anyone, relying on section 4(3)(b)(ii), but sharing that recording with a third party requires you to separately meet one of the section 5(2) exceptions. Posting a recording on social media, sending it to a journalist, or forwarding it to a non-party employer would almost certainly violate section 5 unless every principal party consented or another exception applied.

Section 6: Sharing Unlawfully Obtained Recordings

Section 6 addresses a different scenario: what happens when someone receives a recording that was made illegally. If a private conversation comes to your knowledge through the unlawful use of a listening device, you commit an offence by communicating or publishing that conversation or any report of it.

The maximum penalty mirrors section 5: 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

This provision means that even if you did not make the illegal recording yourself, passing it along or publishing its contents is a separate criminal offence. Journalists, employers, and anyone who receives leaked recordings should be aware of this rule.

Section 7: Possession of Unlawful Recordings

Section 7 makes it an offence to possess a record of a private conversation while knowing it was obtained, directly or indirectly, using a listening device in contravention of section 4. It does not matter whether you were involved in making the recording. The maximum penalty is 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or both. Exceptions apply where the record is possessed in connection with proceedings for an offence against the Act, with the consent of each principal party, or as a consequence of a communication or publication that did not itself constitute an offence against the Act.

Section 8: Manufacturing and Supplying Listening Devices

Section 8 targets the supply chain. It is an offence to manufacture, supply, sell, distribute, possess, or offer to supply, sell, or distribute a listening device if you know it is intended or principally designed for use in contravention of section 4.

The maximum penalty is 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

This section is aimed at sellers of covert surveillance equipment marketed specifically for illegal recording purposes, not at manufacturers of smartphones or general consumer electronics.

Recording Phone Calls in the ACT

Phone calls in the ACT are subject to both territory and federal law. The Listening Devices Act 1992 governs the use of recording devices, while the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) separately prohibits the interception of telecommunications.

Under section 7 of the federal TIA Act, it is a criminal offence to intercept a communication passing over a telecommunications system without proper authorisation. However, a party to a telephone conversation who records it using their own device (rather than tapping the telecommunications line itself) has knowledge of their own communication and is generally governed by territory legislation rather than the federal intercept provisions, since the recording is not made "in its passage" over the network.

In practical terms, if you are a party to a phone call in the ACT and want to record it:

• You can record it for personal reference without sharing it, relying on the section 4(3)(b)(ii) basis
• You can record it if you reasonably believe it is necessary to protect your lawful interests, relying on the section 4(3)(b)(i) basis
• You need consent from all principal parties, or a section 5(2) exception, if you intend to share the recording with non-parties

Businesses that record phone calls, such as call centres, must obtain consent from all parties before sharing recordings beyond the call. The standard practice of playing "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" at the start of a call is designed to obtain that consent up front. Continued participation after the notification is commonly treated as implied consent.

Recording In Person in the ACT

The rules for in-person recording mirror those for phone calls. The Listening Devices Act 1992 applies to any private conversation, regardless of medium.

If you are sitting in a meeting and want to record it, the same section 4(3) bases apply. You can record for personal reference without intending to share it. You can record to protect your lawful interests. Or you can get consent from all principal parties.

Recording in public places follows different rules. If a conversation takes place in a genuinely public setting where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, it is not a "private conversation" under the Act, and the recording restrictions do not apply. Street performers, public speeches, and open-air protests fall into this category.

Semi-public spaces require care. A conversation at a restaurant table, even though the restaurant is open to the public, could still be private if the speakers intended their discussion to remain between themselves.

Recording Police in the ACT

The ACT is policed by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), not a territory police force. The AFP operates under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) and ACT Policing functions, with AFP officers carrying body-worn cameras in the field.

Recording police in a public place in the ACT is lawful under the section 4(3) exception, provided you are present and thus a party to the interaction. A participant (including a bystander who enters a conversation with an officer) may record for personal reference without notifying the officer, relying on basis (ii).

Several practical points apply:

• If you are not present and are recording police activity from a distance without participating in any conversation, you may not qualify as a "party" under the Act, and the section 4(3) exception would not apply. Recording of genuinely private conversations among officers not directed at you would be prohibited under section 4(1)(a).
• Recording in a public space where police are conducting publicly visible law enforcement activities (such as an arrest on a public footpath) does not involve a "private conversation" and falls outside the Act's restrictions entirely.
• Obstruction offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the common law apply regardless of recording. You must not obstruct police in the exercise of their duties while recording.
• The AFP's body-worn camera guidelines govern police use of recording equipment; the public does not need the AFP's consent to record police conduct in public spaces.

Workplace Recording and Surveillance

The ACT has a separate statute governing workplace surveillance: the Workplace Privacy Act 2011 (ACT). [UNVERIFIED: the specific section numbers and procedural detail below were reconstructed from secondary summaries in an earlier research pass and have not been independently re-confirmed against the current consolidated Act text in this pass. Confirm section numbers before relying on the specific figures.]

Notified Surveillance

Employers who want to conduct surveillance in the workplace must give affected workers at least 14 days written notice before the surveillance begins. During this notice period, the employer must consult in good faith with any employee who raises concerns about the surveillance.

The notice must describe the type of surveillance, the areas it will cover, and how the information collected will be used. This applies to video cameras, email monitoring, internet usage tracking, and GPS tracking of company vehicles. Listening-device surveillance of the workplace remains governed by the Listening Devices Act 1992, not this Act.

Covert Surveillance

Covert surveillance (monitoring without the employee's knowledge) requires court authorisation. An employer must apply to the court and demonstrate reasonable grounds for the covert monitoring. If approved, the court issues an authority outlining the permitted scope and duration of the surveillance, reportedly limited to 30 days.

Prohibited Areas

The Workplace Privacy Act is understood to absolutely prohibit surveillance in certain areas, including toilets, parent rooms, and showers, with no exception for these locations regardless of any notice or court authorisation.

Privacy Act Obligations for ACT Government Employers

ACT government agencies are also subject to the Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT). Employee personal information collected through workplace surveillance must be handled in accordance with the Territory Privacy Principles under that Act. The ACT Privacy Commissioner (appointed 1 July 2024) can investigate complaints by employees about ACT agency privacy breaches, including complaints about surveillance-related personal information handling.

Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT) and Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)

Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT)

The Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT), which commenced 1 September 2014, governs the collection, use, disclosure, storage, and access to personal information by ACT public sector agencies. The Act sets out 14 Territory Privacy Principles (TPPs) modelled on the Australian Privacy Principles under the federal Privacy Act 1988.

The TPPs govern how ACT government agencies handle personal information, including information derived from surveillance, recordings, or monitoring activities. An ACT agency that records a person's voice or captures personal information through surveillance must comply with the TPPs when deciding how to store, use, or share that information.

The ACT Privacy Commissioner, a position within the ACT Human Rights Commission, administers the Information Privacy Act 2014 and accepts complaints about breaches by ACT government agencies. The ACT Privacy Commissioner was appointed on 1 July 2024. Prior to that date, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) provided privacy services to the ACT under a Memorandum of Understanding.

Complaints about private sector organisations operating in the ACT fall under the federal Privacy Act 1988 and are handled by the OAIC, not the ACT Privacy Commissioner.

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Section 12

The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) section 12 provides a statutory right to privacy and reputation. The ACT is one of only two Australian jurisdictions (with Victoria) that has enacted a statutory human rights act applying to government conduct.

Section 12 provides that a person must not have their privacy, family, home, or correspondence interfered with unlawfully or arbitrarily, and must not have their reputation attacked unlawfully. This right is particularly relevant to surveillance and recording in the following contexts identified by the ACT Human Rights Commission:

• Collection, storage, use, sharing, disclosure, or publication of personal information
• Restricting or regulating access to personal information
• Surveillance of people, including by CCTV, for any purpose
• Compulsory or involuntary non-consensual physical interventions

Section 12 does not operate as a standalone criminal prohibition. Its primary role is as an interpretive tool: ACT courts and tribunals must interpret territory legislation in a way compatible with human rights protected under the Act. ACT government agencies must also act compatibly with section 12 when making decisions about surveillance or recording of individuals.

Practically, section 12 may be relevant where an ACT agency conducts surveillance under a statutory power that is ambiguous as to scope. A court would be expected to read that power narrowly to avoid interfering with the section 12 privacy right except to the extent justified.

The ACT's Three-Act Surveillance Patchwork

ACT surveillance law is split across three separate statutes rather than a single omnibus Act:

• Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT): audio recording of private conversations generally, discussed throughout this article.
• Workplace Privacy Act 2011 (ACT): optical, tracking and data surveillance of workers specifically; listening-device surveillance in the workplace stays under the 1992 Act.
• Crimes (Surveillance Devices) Act 2010 (ACT): law-enforcement use of surveillance devices under warrant. [UNVERIFIED: the operative detail of this Act was not independently reviewed in this pass; it is referenced here only to complete the description of the ACT's overall surveillance law structure.]

This is different from states with a single consolidated surveillance devices Act (NSW, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory). It has not been replaced by an ACT omnibus Surveillance Devices Act as of 21 July 2026.

Federal Privacy Act 1988 Overlay

The Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 applies to private sector organisations and Commonwealth government agencies operating in the ACT. Large private sector employers in the ACT with an annual turnover above $3 million, as well as all Commonwealth agencies, must comply with the 13 Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) under that Act.

The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) amended the Privacy Act 1988, with the majority of amendments commencing 11 December 2024. Those amendments include strengthened enforcement powers for the OAIC and new provisions relating to online platforms and children's privacy.

The OAIC remains the responsible regulator for the federal Privacy Act. ACT residents with complaints about private sector organisations or Commonwealth agencies should contact the OAIC rather than the ACT Privacy Commissioner.

Evidence Rules: Admissibility of Recordings

Part 3 of the Listening Devices Act addresses admissibility of recordings as evidence in court proceedings.

Section 9 provides that references to "giving evidence" of a private conversation include producing a record of that conversation.

Section 10 establishes the general rule: evidence of a private conversation obtained through the unlawful use of a listening device is not admissible in court. Neither is evidence obtained as a direct consequence of such a conversation.

Exceptions exist. The evidence may be admissible if:

• The recording was made by a party who had consent of each principal party
• The recording was made by a party to protect their lawful interests
• Each principal party consents to the evidence being given
• The proceedings are for an offence under the Listening Devices Act itself
• The person also obtained knowledge of the conversation from other sources not involving the listening device

The court also retains a general discretion. Even where the evidence was illegally obtained, a judge may admit it if the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained through illegal means. In practice, this balancing test is most commonly applied in criminal proceedings where the recording captures evidence of serious offences.

How the ACT Compares to Other Australian Jurisdictions

Australia does not have a single national recording law. There are, in practice, three distinct groups of jurisdictions, and the ACT sits in the middle group, alongside NSW and Tasmania.

The ACT, together with Tasmania and Queensland, is also one of the jurisdictions with no general optical/video surveillance statute; the ACT's Workplace Privacy Act 2011 fills part of that gap, but only inside the workplace.

The Practical Effect

In practice, the ACT's recording framework and NSW's and Tasmania's produce a similar real-world result: making a private recording purely for your own reference is usually lawful, while sharing it with people outside the conversation is where most offences actually occur. This is a materially different result from Western Australia and South Australia, where no personal-use basis exists at all, and from Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory, where a participant is outside the prohibition from the outset and no exception analysis is needed.

Voyeurism, Intimate Image Abuse, and Deepfakes

Intimate Observations: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Section 61B

The Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), current as of republication R155 (23 February 2026), contains section 61B covering "Intimate observations or capturing visual data." This offence fills part of the optical surveillance gap left by the Listening Devices Act 1992's audio-only scope.

Section 61B addresses covert visual observation or capture of a person in circumstances involving their genital or anal region or the breasts of a female person, without consent and in circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as in a bathroom, bedroom, or changing room).

The maximum penalties under section 61B are:

• Basic offence: 200 penalty units, imprisonment for 2 years, or both
• Aggravated offence: 250 penalty units, imprisonment for 3 years, or both

Intimate Image Abuse: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Part 3A

Part 3A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), comprising sections 72A through 72H, addresses intimate image abuse. Key provisions include:

• Section 72A: Definitions, including the definition of "intimate image" (still or moving image showing a person's genitalia, anal region, or female/transgender female breasts)
• Section 72B: Meaning of "distribute" (broadly defined to include sending, transmitting, exhibiting, or making available by any means, whether or not another person actually views the image)
• Section 72C: Non-consensual distribution of intimate images
• Section 72D: Distribution of an intimate image of a young person

Penalties under Part 3A range from 2 years imprisonment for the basic distribution offences to 15 years imprisonment for the most serious offences involving young persons, depending on the nature of the conduct and aggravating circumstances.

Federal Deepfake Law: Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth)

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) (No. 78 of 2024) commenced 11 December 2024. It operates federally across all Australian jurisdictions including the ACT.

The Act amends Part 10.6 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The new provisions cover the non-consensual transmission of sexually explicit material using a carriage service, including material that has been created or altered using technology such as artificial intelligence. The material need not be real; deepfakes (AI-generated or manipulated sexual images) are expressly covered.

The key offences and penalties are:

• The basic offence: Using a carriage service to transmit sexual material where the depicted person does not consent and the sender knows or is reckless as to that lack of consent. Maximum penalty: 6 years imprisonment.
• The aggravated offence: Applies where (1) the offender created or altered the material using technology, or (2) the offender has a relevant history of prior civil penalty orders under the Online Safety Act 2021. Maximum penalty: 7 years imprisonment.

For ACT residents, this federal law operates alongside the ACT Crimes Act 1900 Part 3A intimate image abuse offences. A person who creates a deepfake of an ACT resident and shares it online may face both federal and territory charges.

Penalties Summary Table

Note: for corporations under the LDA 1992, the penalty unit value is $810, making the maximum corporate fine $40,500 per offence. The penalty unit value for individuals is $160, confirmed against Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s.133.

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about the Australian Capital Territory's recording laws as at 21 July 2026. It is not legal advice and does not address your individual circumstances. ACT law is governed primarily by the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT), the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT), the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), the Workplace Privacy Act 2011 (ACT), and applicable Commonwealth legislation. If you need advice about your specific situation, consult a legal practitioner admitted in the Australian Capital Territory.

Related Articles

• Australia Recording Laws (hub)
• New South Wales Recording Laws
• Tasmania Recording Laws
• Queensland Recording Laws
• Victoria Recording Laws
• Western Australia Recording Laws
• South Australia Recording Laws
• Northern Territory Recording Laws

Last updated: 2026-07-21. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-07-21.