Workplace Recording and Surveillance in New South Wales

New South Wales is the only Australian state with a stand-alone workplace surveillance statute. The Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) sits on top of the general Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), so an employer's cameras and an employee's own recording of a meeting can be governed by two different Acts at the same time.

Information last verified on 22 July 2026 against the consolidated Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) and Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) text. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses workplace recording and surveillance under the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW), the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), the federal Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). It does not address workplace surveillance law in other Australian states or territories; for a national comparison, see workplace surveillance and monitoring in Australia.

What Does the Workplace Surveillance Act Actually Cover?

The Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) regulates three specific kinds of employer monitoring: camera surveillance, computer surveillance (monitoring emails, internet use or other computer activity) and tracking surveillance (a device whose primary purpose is to monitor location or movement, such as a GPS unit fitted to a work vehicle). Listening devices are deliberately excluded; a note attached to the Act's definitions confirms it does not apply to surveillance by means of a listening device, and that camera surveillance regulated by this Act is also separately regulated by the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) if the camera records a private conversation. That means a single workplace camera with a microphone can sit under two different statutes at once, one for the picture and one for the sound.

The 14-Day Notice Rule for Overt Surveillance

Before any overt surveillance of an employee begins, the employer must give at least 14 days' prior written notice, though an employee may agree to a shorter period. The notice must state the kind of surveillance to be carried out, how it will be carried out, when it will start, whether it will be continuous or intermittent, and whether it will run for a limited period or on an ongoing basis (Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) s 10). If surveillance is already running when a new employee starts, or is due to start less than 14 days after they start, notice must be given before they begin work. Email notice satisfies the requirement. One narrow exception removes the notice requirement for camera surveillance at a workplace that is not the employee's usual workplace.

Covert Surveillance Needs an Authority From a Judge, Not a Magistrate

An employer must not carry out covert surveillance of an employee at work unless it is authorised by a covert surveillance authority (Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) s 19), and doing so without one carries a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units. A commonly repeated error is that this authority comes from a Magistrate. It does not: the Act's definitions section provides that "Judge" means a Judge of the Local Court (Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) s 3), a more senior judicial officer than a Magistrate. Even with an authority in hand, its scope is tightly limited. It authorises covert surveillance generally for the purpose of establishing whether an employee is involved in unlawful activity at work, subject to oversight by a named surveillance supervisor, but it never authorises surveillance to monitor an employee's work performance, and it can never authorise surveillance in a change room, toilet facility or other bathing facility (Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) s 20). A separate defence exists for covert camera surveillance used solely to protect the security of the workplace or the people in it, conditional on the employer having notified staff in writing of that security purpose before carrying it out (Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW) s 22).

Recording a Meeting or a Colleague Yourself: A Different Act Applies

None of the above governs an employee who records their own meeting or conversation with a colleague or manager. That is audio, so it falls to the general Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) s 7, the same statute discussed on the phone-calls page for New South Wales. Recording a conversation you are part of is prohibited by default, but excused where all principal parties consent, or a principal party consents and the recording protects that party's lawful interests, or (the limb most personal workplace recording relies on) the recording is simply not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing it to people who were not part of the conversation. Sharing that recording with people outside the conversation, including posting it or forwarding it around the office, is a separate matter governed by the publication offence in s 11.

A Lawful Recording Can Still Cost You Your Job

Neither statute above answers what happens to the employment relationship itself. The Fair Work Commission is not bound by the strict rules of evidence and procedure that apply in a court (Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 591), so a secretly made recording can still be put before it in an unfair dismissal case, whether or not the recording itself broke a surveillance law. In one 2024 decision the Commission treated a worker secretly recording a workplace conversation as a valid reason for dismissal (Altham-Wooding v PKDKAdventures Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2753). Separately, the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) applies to employers that are APP entities, but the employee-records exemption limits its reach for records directly related to the employment relationship, and the exemption does not extend to job applicants, contractors handling another organisation's employee records, or volunteers.

The Federal Civil Tort Sits Above All of This

A federal civil action now exists alongside every rule above. Schedule 2 to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), the statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, commenced 10 June 2025 and applies nationwide. It requires an intentional or reckless invasion of privacy where a reasonable person would have expected privacy, that the invasion be serious, and that the public interest in privacy outweigh any countervailing public interest, and it is actionable without proof of damage. A single covert workplace recording could in theory expose the person who made it to both a criminal question under the Acts above and a civil claim under this tort, though the tort is new and its application to a workplace scenario has not yet been tested in a reported decision.

This article provides general legal information about workplace surveillance and recording law in New South Wales. It is not legal advice and does not take into account your specific circumstances. For advice about a particular workplace surveillance or recording situation, consult a legal practitioner admitted in the relevant Australian state or territory.