Drone Privacy Laws in Australia: What CASA Doesn't Cover

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulates drone flight safety in Australia, not privacy. A drone filming a private activity is instead governed by state surveillance-device law, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner where it applies, and the new federal statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy.

This article covers CASA's role as Australia's aviation safety regulator, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner's jurisdiction over drone-related privacy complaints, state and territory surveillance-device law as it applies to drones, and the Commonwealth statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. It does not cover the detailed operating conditions for commercial drone certificates or airspace authorisations, which are set by CASA and change over time; consult casa.gov.au directly for current operating rules.

CASA Regulates Where You Can Fly, Not Whether You Can Film Someone

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is Australia's aviation safety regulator, and its drone rules under CASR Part 101 are built to keep aircraft and people safe, not to protect anyone's privacy. CASA's published rules for lower-risk recreational flying, generally described as the excluded category, work around a small set of conditions: a weight threshold, keeping the drone within visual line of sight, a maximum altitude, a minimum distance from people not involved in the flight, avoiding populous areas, flying only in daylight, and operating one drone at a time. Registration also applies to many recreational drones based on weight. The exact weight, altitude, distance and registration figures are published on casa.gov.au and are updated periodically, so this article describes the shape of the rules rather than restating specific thresholds as fixed. What CASA's role does not include is deciding whether a drone was allowed to film you. That question is answered elsewhere.

Who Actually Handles a Drone Privacy Complaint

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is direct on this point: a security camera or a drone operated by an individual acting in a private capacity is not covered by the Privacy Act, though state or territory laws may still apply. The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) binds organisations and government agencies, not private individuals, under ss 7B and 16. A neighbour flying a recreational drone over their own backyard, in a personal capacity, is outside the OAIC's jurisdiction entirely, however intrusive the flight feels. The Privacy Act does reach an organisation or agency operating a drone, for example a business using one for marketing, and a complaint about that kind of operator can go to the OAIC. The small business exemption, currently excluding turnover under $3 million, remains in force, so some commercial operators fall outside the Privacy Act too. For most residential drone disputes between neighbours, the OAIC is not the answer; the next two avenues matter more.

Does Your State Regulate a Drone Filming a Private Activity?

In Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT, a drone filming a private activity is not covered by the state's core surveillance Act at all, leaving the federal tort and narrower laws such as nuisance or harassment as the practical options.

New South Wales' Trespass Test: A Drone That Never Lands May Escape s 8

New South Wales stands apart from every other optical-provision state. Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) s 8 does not ask whether a drone filmed a private activity; it asks whether the device was installed through trespass on, or interference with, premises or a vehicle. A drone that hovers in the airspace above a neighbour's backyard, filming down into it, without landing on their land or physically interfering with anything on it, may not meet that trespass test at all, even though the footage captured is exactly the kind of private backyard activity the optical provisions in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory are built to catch. This is genuinely counterintuitive: the same flight that would likely breach the private-activity test interstate can sit outside the NSW Act because of how, not what, it filmed. It does not mean such a flight is lawful in NSW; it means s 8 is the wrong tool to challenge it, and the federal statutory tort, discussed next, becomes the more relevant option.

The New Federal Privacy Tort Is the Main Civil Route Against a Neighbour's Drone

Since 10 June 2025, a Commonwealth statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy has existed under Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Schedule 2, and unlike the Australian Privacy Principles it applies to individuals, not only organisations. Clause 7(1) requires a plaintiff to establish an invasion of privacy by intruding on seclusion or misusing information; that a person in their position would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy; that the invasion was intentional or reckless, since negligence is not enough; that it was serious; and that the public interest in privacy outweighed a countervailing interest such as freedom of expression under cl 7(3). Under cl 7(2), the tort is actionable without proof of damage. Clause 11 bars aggravated damages, allows damages for emotional distress, allows exemplary damages only in exceptional circumstances, and caps combined non-economic and exemplary damages at the greater of $478,550 or the equivalent defamation-law maximum. Clause 14 sets a three-year limitation from the invasion, or one year from awareness, whichever is earlier.

The tort's first published application was interlocutory only. In Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396, the District Court found serious questions to be tried on intimidation, defamation and the statutory tort after private photographs were published online, and granted urgent injunctions. That is not a final ruling on liability or quantum, and no case has yet tested the tort specifically against a drone operator.

CASA's Recreational Drone Rules, in Brief

Beyond the privacy question, flying a drone at all is subject to CASA's operating rules, which exist for airspace and public safety rather than privacy. CASA's excluded category for smaller recreational drones generally requires the operator to keep the aircraft within visual line of sight, stay under a set altitude, keep a set distance from people not involved in the flight, avoid flying over crowds, fly only in daylight, and operate only one drone at a time. Registration requirements apply to many recreational drones depending on weight. These figures change periodically and are published in full on casa.gov.au, so check the current rules there before flying. None of these operating conditions, on their own, answer whether a flight breached anyone's privacy; that question is answered by the frameworks above.

This article provides general legal information about drone regulation and privacy law in Australia. It does not constitute legal advice and does not account for your individual circumstances. Statutes and cases referenced were verified against primary sources as at 19 July 2026 and are subject to amendment; CASA's operating rules in particular change periodically and should be checked directly at casa.gov.au. For advice on a specific drone flight or complaint, consult a legal practitioner admitted in the relevant Australian state or territory.

Related reading: the Australia recording laws hub links to a dedicated page for each state and territory, and the flagship guide to recording a conversation in Australia sets out the three-group framework referenced above. The CCTV and home security camera laws guide and doorbell camera and neighbour privacy guide cover the same private-activity questions for fixed cameras, the dash cam laws in Australia guide covers audio and video from a vehicle, and the Australia data privacy laws overview covers the Australian Privacy Principles that bind organisations.