Northern Territory Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules (2026)

The Northern Territory is a one-party consent jurisdiction under the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT) s.11: any participant in a private conversation may record it without disclosing that fact to the other parties.

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

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording and surveillance laws in Australia's Northern Territory under the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT), the Information Act 2002 (NT), the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), and applicable Commonwealth legislation including the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), and the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth). It does not address the recording laws of other Australian states and territories; for those, see Australia Recording Laws.

Quick Answer: Is the Northern Territory One-Party Consent?

Yes. The Northern Territory is a one-party consent jurisdiction. Under s.11 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT), the recording prohibition applies only to a person who is "not a party" to the conversation. If you are an active participant in a private conversation -- whether a phone call, a face-to-face meeting, or an internet voice call -- you may record it without telling the other parties. No advance notice is required. No consent from the other parties is needed. The Act's plain text creates what lawyers call the "participant exception": your own presence in the conversation is sufficient authorization to record it. This puts the NT alongside Queensland and Victoria as the most permissive recording jurisdictions in Australia. The maximum penalty for recording a private conversation you are not a party to is 250 penalty units ($47,250 at 2025-26 rates) or two years imprisonment. A separate publication offense under s.15 applies even to lawfully obtained recordings shared without authorization.

The Surveillance Devices Act 2007: Structure and Scope

The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT) is the primary law governing audio recording, video surveillance, tracking devices, and data monitoring across Australia's Northern Territory. It replaced the earlier Surveillance Devices Act 2000 and brought the territory's framework closer to model legislation agreed upon by Australian states and territories.

The NT operates under what lawyers call a one-party consent standard. In practical terms, that means if you are an active participant in a conversation, you can legally record it. You do not need to tell the other person. You do not need their permission. The law only prohibits recording conversations you are not part of.

This puts the Northern Territory in a small group alongside Queensland and Victoria as the most permissive recording jurisdictions in Australia. Most other states and territories require the consent of every party before a conversation can be recorded.

The distinction matters for residents of Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, and other NT communities who may need to document workplace disputes, record threatening phone calls, or preserve evidence of agreements made verbally.

Part 1: Preliminary Provisions and Definitions

Section 4 of the Act contains key definitions that determine when the law applies.

A listening device is any device capable of being used to listen to, monitor, or record a conversation or words spoken to or by a person in a conversation. This includes smartphones, digital recorders, baby monitors, and similar technology. It does not include hearing aids or devices used by people with hearing impairments.

An optical surveillance device is any device capable of being used to monitor, record visually, or observe an activity. Cameras, video recorders, and camera-equipped phones all qualify. Ordinary spectacles and contact lenses used to correct impaired vision are excluded.

A tracking device is any electronic device capable of being used to determine or monitor the geographical location of a person, vehicle, or thing. GPS trackers, location-sharing features on phones, and similar technology fall under this definition.

A data surveillance device is any device capable of monitoring or recording the input or output of information from a computer. Keyloggers and screen capture software are examples.

A private conversation is a conversation carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate the parties desire it to be listened to only by themselves. A conversation held in a public place where others could reasonably overhear it does not qualify as private.

A private activity follows the same logic. It is an activity carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate the parties desire it to be observed only by themselves. Activities in plain public view where observation is expected are not private activities under the Act.

A party to a conversation means a person by whom, or to whom, words are spoken in the course of that conversation. This definition is central to the one-party consent framework, because the recording prohibition only applies to people who are not parties to the conversation.

Part 2: Regulation of Surveillance Devices

Part 2 contains the core offenses. Each section addresses a different type of device.

Section 11: Listening Devices

Section 11 creates the primary offense for unauthorized audio recording. A person commits an offense if they:

1. Install, use, or maintain a listening device to listen to, monitor, or record a private conversation
2. Are not a party to that conversation
3. Know that the device is being used without the express or implied consent of each party to the conversation

The maximum penalty is 250 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

The critical element here is point number two. The prohibition applies only to someone who is not a party to the conversation. If you are a party to the conversation, Section 11 does not apply to you. You can record freely.

This is what makes the NT a one-party consent jurisdiction. The person doing the recording counts as the consenting party. No additional consent is required from anyone else in the conversation.

Practical Application of Section 11

Consider a Darwin resident who receives a threatening phone call from someone they previously had a business relationship with. The resident is a party to that call. Under Section 11, they can record the entire conversation without telling the caller. They have not committed any offense because they are a participant.

Now consider a different scenario. A person plants a recording device in a meeting room to capture a conversation between two colleagues. They are not in the room and not part of the conversation. This is a clear violation of Section 11.

Section 12: Optical Surveillance Devices

Section 12 mirrors Section 11 but applies to visual recording rather than audio. A person commits an offense if they:

1. Install, use, or maintain an optical surveillance device to observe, monitor, or visually record a private activity
2. Are not a party to that activity
3. Know that the device is being used without the express or implied consent of each party to the activity

The maximum penalty is the same: 250 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

The concept of "private activity" does the heavy lifting here. Filming someone in a public park where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy is generally not an offense. Placing a hidden camera in someone's home, bathroom, or changing room to observe activities they reasonably expect to be private is a serious criminal offense.

Section 13: Tracking Devices

Section 13 prohibits the installation, use, or maintenance of a tracking device to determine or monitor the geographical location of a person or an object without consent. The same maximum penalty applies: 250 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

This section is increasingly relevant in the age of GPS-enabled technology. Placing a GPS tracker on an ex-partner's vehicle without their knowledge, using a phone's location-sharing features without consent, or secretly installing location-monitoring software on someone's device all fall within this prohibition.

Exceptions exist for law enforcement officers acting in the course of their duties, particularly when the vehicle or object is in a public place.

Section 14: Data Surveillance Devices

Section 14 takes a narrower approach than the preceding sections. It regulates the installation, use, and maintenance of data surveillance devices only by law enforcement officers. The Act is silent on the use of data surveillance devices by the general public.

This means that while keyloggers, screen capture tools, and similar data monitoring software are regulated when used by police and other law enforcement personnel, there is no specific criminal prohibition under the Surveillance Devices Act for a private individual using such technology. Other laws, including Commonwealth legislation such as the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), may still apply to unauthorized computer access.

Section 15: Publication and Communication Restrictions

Even when a recording is made lawfully, sharing it is a separate legal question. Section 15 creates an offense for communicating or publishing a record or report of a private conversation or private activity.

A person commits an offense if they knowingly communicate or publish a record or report of a private conversation or activity that was obtained through the use of a listening device or optical surveillance device.

The maximum penalty is 250 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

Exceptions to the Publication Offense

Section 15 includes several important exceptions. Communication or publication is not an offense if:

• Each party to the conversation or activity gave express or implied consent to the communication or publication
• The communication or publication was no more than reasonably necessary to protect the lawful interests of the person making it
• The communication or publication was made in the course of legal or disciplinary proceedings
• The communication or publication was made by a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties
• The communication or publication was in the public interest

The "lawful interests" and "public interest" exceptions give the NT a broader safe harbor for sharing recordings than some other Australian jurisdictions. A person who records a threatening phone call and shares it with police to support a complaint, for example, would likely fall within the lawful interests exception.

Phone Calls vs. In-Person Conversations

The Surveillance Devices Act does not draw a distinction between phone calls and face-to-face conversations. The same rules apply to both. The key question is always: are you a party to the conversation?

For phone calls, if you are on the call, you can record it. This applies to landline calls, mobile phone calls, and internet-based voice calls (VoIP, WhatsApp calls, FaceTime audio). The recording medium does not matter. You can use a built-in phone recording feature, a separate recording app, or an external device.

For in-person conversations, the same principle holds. If you are present and actively participating in the conversation, you can record it. This extends to workplace meetings, negotiations, interviews, and casual conversations.

The one complication arises with cross-jurisdictional calls. If you are in the NT recording a call with someone in New South Wales (which follows an all-party consent model with exceptions), NT law governs your conduct in the territory. You have not broken NT law by recording as a participant. However, the legal position can become complicated if the recording is later used in proceedings in the other jurisdiction.

Federal TIA Act Overlay

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act) operates alongside state and territory legislation. The TIA Act prohibits intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system "without the knowledge of the person making the communication" (s.6). For practical purposes, a participant recording their own phone call falls outside the TIA Act's definition of "interception" because the person doing the recording has knowledge of the communication. The TIA Act's primary concern is carrier-level interception by third parties and the framework for law enforcement telecommunications warrants. It does not override the NT participant exception for personal recordings.

Workplace Recording in the Northern Territory

The Northern Territory has no standalone workplace surveillance legislation. New South Wales has the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005. The ACT has specific provisions for employer monitoring. The NT has nothing equivalent.

Instead, workplace surveillance in the NT falls entirely under the general provisions of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007. This creates a relatively straightforward framework.

Employee Rights

Under the one-party consent rule, employees in the NT can legally record workplace conversations they participate in. This includes:

• Performance reviews and disciplinary meetings
• Conversations with supervisors about workplace conditions
• Discussions with colleagues about employment matters
• Phone calls with clients, vendors, or other business contacts

No advance notice to the employer or other participants is required under NT law.

Employer Obligations

Employers must comply with the same rules as everyone else. They cannot install listening devices to secretly record private conversations between employees. Video surveillance cameras in the workplace must not be placed in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms, changing rooms, or private offices where the door is closed.

While the NT does not legally require employers to provide notice of workplace surveillance, best practice strongly favors having a clear surveillance policy that employees acknowledge in writing. This provides evidence of implied consent and reduces legal exposure.

The Fair Work Commission Factor

The fact that a recording is lawful in the NT does not insulate an employee from workplace consequences. The Fair Work Commission has repeatedly held that covert workplace recording undermines the trust and confidence necessary for an employment relationship.

In Karen Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2753, Deputy President Coleman held that secretly recording workplace conversations is "highly inappropriate, irrespective of whether it constitutes a criminal offence in the relevant jurisdiction." This decision reinforces the consistent FWC approach across all Australian states and territories: the legal right to record in the NT does not protect against a finding that covert recording warranted disciplinary action or dismissal.

The practical takeaway: the fact that you can record does not always mean you should. The legal right to record does not protect against the workplace consequences of being discovered doing so.

Recording Police in the Northern Territory

Recording police officers carrying out their duties in a public place is lawful in the Northern Territory. The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT) prohibits recording a private activity (s.12) or a private conversation (s.11). Police conducting patrols, executing searches, making arrests, or engaging with members of the public in visible public spaces are not engaged in a "private activity" within the meaning of s.4 of the Act. The conduct is observable by any bystander, which takes it outside the Act's definition of private.

Key rights when recording police in the NT:

• Police cannot order you to stop filming if you are in a lawful location and not interfering with their duties.
• Police cannot confiscate your device for the purpose of deleting footage.
• Police cannot demand you delete recordings.
• You must not obstruct police in the exercise of their duties. Standing nearby and filming does not constitute obstruction where there is adequate distance and no interference.

Recording inside police stations or other non-public law enforcement facilities is a different matter. In those environments, reasonable expectations of privacy and operational security concerns may apply, and specific facility rules may restrict photography.

Watch out: Even where filming police is lawful, obstructing or resisting police is a separate offense under the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT). Keep a respectful distance and do not physically interfere with any police action while filming.

Public Recording in the Northern Territory

Recording in public spaces is generally permitted because the definitions of "private conversation" and "private activity" both exclude situations where parties ought reasonably to expect that others could overhear or observe them.

Photography and video recording on public streets, in parks, at beaches, and in other openly accessible areas is legal in the NT for personal and journalistic purposes. Commercial filming in NT parks and reserves does require a permit from the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission.

Recording on private property requires the property owner's or occupier's consent. If asked to stop recording on private premises, you must comply.

Emergency Surveillance Provisions

The Act allows the use of surveillance devices without a warrant in genuine emergencies. For this exception to apply, a person must demonstrate that at the time of use, there were reasonable grounds for believing the circumstances were so serious and the matter so urgent that use of the device was in the public interest.

This is not a blanket exception. If a person relies on the emergency provision, they must provide a written report to a Judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court within two business days of beginning the surveillance. Failure to file this report is itself an offense carrying a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year.

Law Enforcement Warrants

Part 3 of the Act deals with surveillance device warrants for law enforcement. A Supreme Court Judge may issue warrants authorizing police and other law enforcement officers to use surveillance devices during investigations.

Applications for warrants are heard in closed court. The Act sets out specific requirements for what must be included in an application, the duration of warrants, and reporting obligations after surveillance is conducted.

Law enforcement officers also have a specific exception under Section 11: they may monitor or record a private conversation with the express or implied consent of at least one party if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of someone's safety.

Voyeurism and Intimate Image Offenses

The Surveillance Devices Act addresses covert recording by third parties. A separate body of criminal law addresses the distribution of intimate images and voyeuristic material.

Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT): Division 7A

Division 7A of Part VI of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) creates the offense of distributing intimate images without consent.

Under s.208AA, an "intimate image" is defined broadly to cover both still and moving images of a person engaged in a sexual act or depicted in a manner or context that is sexual. The definition is deliberately wide to capture different forms of sharing including posting on social media platforms.

Under s.208AB, distributing an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted is a criminal offense carrying a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment. The offense is indictable but may be tried summarily. Exceptions include images shared in law enforcement investigations, medical examinations, scientific research, and education contexts.

"Distribute" carries a non-exclusive definition that covers both physical and electronic sharing, including sharing without a specific or identified recipient (such as posting to a public forum).

These provisions operate alongside, not instead of, the general listening and optical device offenses in the Surveillance Devices Act. Secretly filming someone in a private activity (a Surveillance Devices Act s.12 offense) and then distributing the footage (a Criminal Code s.208AB offense) would engage both statutes.

Deepfake and AI-Generated Intimate Material

The Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024, which commenced on 3 September 2024. This federal law applies in the Northern Territory.

The Act amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) to create new offenses for using a carriage service to transmit sexual material (including AI-generated or technologically altered deepfake material) where the depicted person does not consent. Key features:

• The offense applies whether the material is unaltered or has been created or altered using technology.
• Consent is the central element: transmission without the depicted person's consent is the offense.
• "Carriage service" covers the internet, email, messaging apps, and other telecommunications services.
• Knowledge or recklessness as to the absence of consent satisfies the mental element.

The NT's Criminal Code Act 1983 Division 7A covers distribution of intimate images generally. The Commonwealth deepfake offense adds a parallel layer specifically targeting AI-generated and technologically manipulated sexual content distributed through telecommunications. Both can apply to the same conduct.

Information Act 2002 (NT) and the NT Information Commissioner

The Northern Territory's primary privacy statute for the public sector is the Information Act 2002 (NT). The Act combines freedom of information, privacy, and records management in a single statute, which distinguishes it from most other Australian jurisdictions.

The Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) in the Act govern how NT public sector agencies collect, use, store, and disclose personal information. The IPPs establish rules on: collection only for lawful purposes; storage and security; use and disclosure limits; access and correction rights; and unique identifiers. They apply to NT government departments, statutory bodies, and other public sector entities.

The Office of the NT Information Commissioner administers both the FOI and privacy provisions of the Act. Individuals who believe a NT government agency has mishandled their personal information -- including personal information collected through unauthorized recording -- can lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner.

Federal Privacy Act Overlay

The federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) do not directly apply to NT government agencies. The OAIC confirms that the Privacy Act covers federal government agencies and private sector organizations meeting the threshold (generally annual turnover exceeding $3 million), not state or territory public bodies. NT government agencies are subject to the Information Act 2002 (NT) IPPs instead. Commonwealth agencies operating in the NT (such as Centrelink and the ATO) remain subject to the federal Privacy Act regardless of location.

Private sector organizations operating in the NT that meet the turnover threshold are subject to the federal APPs and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). Complaints about those organizations go to the OAIC, not the NT Information Commissioner.

Civil Remedies: Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy

Since 10 June 2025, Australian law includes a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This Commonwealth civil remedy, introduced by Schedule 2 of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), applies across all states and territories including the Northern Territory.

When the Tort Applies

A plaintiff has a cause of action where all four elements are satisfied:

1. Privacy was invaded by either intrusion upon seclusion (surveillance, recording) or misuse of private information.
2. A person in their position would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.
3. The invasion was intentional or reckless (not merely negligent).
4. The invasion was serious.

Covert recording of a person in a private space -- their home, bathroom, bedroom, or a private meeting -- falls squarely within "intrusion upon seclusion." Recording a private conversation without participant status (a s.11 offense under the Surveillance Devices Act) would also satisfy the intrusion pathway if the other elements are met.

Remedies Available

A successful plaintiff may obtain:

• Damages for economic and non-economic loss. Non-economic loss is capped at approximately $478,550 (subject to adjustment). Exemplary damages are available in exceptional cases.
• Injunctions requiring the defendant to stop the conduct.
• Orders for destruction or return of recordings or material obtained through the invasion.

Defences

A defendant may rely on: consent (express or implied); lawful authority; public interest in journalism or public safety; and other statutory exemptions. Law enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies have specific exemptions.

Relationship to Criminal Liability

The tort is a civil cause of action separate from criminal liability under the Surveillance Devices Act. A person who unlawfully records a private conversation may face both criminal prosecution under s.11 of the Surveillance Devices Act and a civil tort claim. The two proceedings are independent.

Penalties Breakdown

The Northern Territory uses a penalty unit system for calculating fines. Under the Penalty Units Act (NT), the value of a penalty unit is adjusted annually in line with changes to the Darwin Consumer Price Index.

For the 2025-26 financial year, one penalty unit in the NT is valued at $189.

Offense	Statute	Maximum Fine	Maximum Prison
Unlawful use of a listening device	SDA 2007 (NT) s.11	$47,250 (250 PU)	2 years
Unlawful use of an optical surveillance device	SDA 2007 (NT) s.12	$47,250 (250 PU)	2 years
Unlawful use of a tracking device	SDA 2007 (NT) s.13	$47,250 (250 PU)	2 years
Unlawful communication or publication of a recording	SDA 2007 (NT) s.15	$47,250 (250 PU)	2 years
Failure to report emergency surveillance use	SDA 2007 (NT) s.16	$18,900 (100 PU)	1 year
Distributing intimate image without consent	Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) s.208AB	N/A (non-pecuniary)	3 years

These are maximum penalties. Courts consider the circumstances of each case, including the offender's intent, the degree of harm caused, and whether the conduct was part of a pattern of behavior.

How the NT Compares with Other Australian Jurisdictions

Australia has no uniform national recording law. Each state and territory maintains its own legislation, creating a patchwork of rules that can trap the unwary.

Jurisdiction	Consent Model	Key Legislation
Northern Territory	One-party	Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT)
Queensland	One-party	Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld)
Victoria	One-party	Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic)
New South Wales	All-party (with exceptions)	Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)
South Australia	All-party	Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA)
Western Australia	All-party	Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA)
Tasmania	All-party (with exceptions)	Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas)
ACT	All-party (with exceptions)	Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT)

The NT, Queensland, and Victoria form the one-party consent group. In these jurisdictions, a participant in a conversation can record without the other parties' knowledge.

The remaining jurisdictions require the consent of all parties, though most have exceptions for situations involving the protection of lawful interests, imminent threats of violence, or public interest.

One notable difference between the NT and Queensland: Queensland's Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 is significantly older and uses different terminology, though the practical effect is similar. Victoria's Surveillance Devices Act 1999 also permits participant recording but has stricter rules about sharing recordings than the NT does.

The NT's inclusion of a public interest exception for publication under Section 15 gives it one of the broader frameworks for sharing lawfully obtained recordings among the one-party consent jurisdictions.

Note: The Commonwealth statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy (commenced 10 June 2025) applies uniformly across all jurisdictions listed above. The consent model governs criminal liability; the tort governs civil liability regardless of whether a criminal offense occurred.

2025-26 Legislative Updates

In 2025, the Northern Territory Parliament passed the Housing, Transport and Surveillance Devices Legislation Amendment (Police Public Safety Officers) Act 2025. This legislation created a new category of Police Public Safety Officers (PPSOs) and amended the Surveillance Devices Act to give PPSOs surveillance powers aligned with those of existing law enforcement officers.

PPSO Squad 1 was sworn in on 23 February 2026 after completing training. The NT Police Force plans to graduate 72 PPSOs before the end of December 2026. The PPSOs conduct high-visibility patrols in public housing, on public transport, at shopping centers, and at events.

The core recording consent framework for private citizens was not changed by this amendment.

At the Commonwealth level, two significant pieces of legislation took effect after the previous version of this page was published:

• The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) commenced 3 September 2024, creating offenses for non-consensual transmission of sexual material including AI-generated deepfakes.
• The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) Schedule 2 commenced 10 June 2025, introducing the statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy applicable across all Australian jurisdictions.

Recordings as Evidence in NT Courts

The admissibility of recordings in Northern Territory courts is governed by the Evidence Act, which applies uniformly across federal and most state and territory jurisdictions.

Under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, evidence obtained improperly or in contravention of Australian law is not automatically excluded. The court retains discretion to admit such evidence if the desirability of admitting it outweighs the undesirability of admitting improperly obtained evidence.

Courts weigh several factors:

• The probative value (importance) of the evidence
• The gravity of the improper conduct used to obtain it
• Whether the improper conduct was deliberate or reckless
• The difficulty of obtaining the evidence without improper conduct
• The seriousness of the offense being tried

In family law and domestic violence matters, Australian courts have shown a willingness to admit recordings made by one party to document abuse, threats, or harassment, even in jurisdictions with stricter consent requirements than the NT. Given the NT's one-party consent framework, recordings made by a participant are lawfully obtained and face fewer admissibility hurdles.

For recordings to have maximum evidentiary value, the recording should be unedited, the original file should be preserved, and the person making the recording should be able to identify the voices and confirm when and where the recording was made.

Protecting Yourself: When Recording Makes Sense

The NT's one-party consent framework gives residents legitimate tools for self-protection. Situations where recording is both lawful and prudent include:

• Documenting threats or harassment: Recording threatening phone calls or in-person confrontations provides evidence that may be critical for obtaining a domestic violence order or supporting a police complaint.
• Preserving verbal agreements: In disputes over verbal contracts, a recording of the original agreement can resolve questions about what was actually said.
• Workplace grievances: Recording meetings where unlawful conduct (discrimination, harassment, safety violations) is discussed or demonstrated can support complaints to the Fair Work Commission or NT WorkSafe.
• Interactions with government agencies: Recording conversations with government officials, provided you are a party to the conversation, can document commitments or inconsistencies.

In each case, the recording must be of a conversation you are actively participating in. Passive monitoring of other people's conversations remains illegal under s.11.

If you believe a recording has been used to invade your privacy -- whether by an employer, a former partner, or another person -- the Commonwealth statutory tort commenced 10 June 2025 provides a civil remedy. Intrusion upon seclusion is a recognized pathway under the tort. You may seek damages, an injunction, and an order for destruction of the material.

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording and surveillance laws in the Northern Territory and applicable Commonwealth legislation. It is not legal advice and does not address your specific situation. Laws can change; verify the currency of any information before relying on it. If you need advice about a specific recording, surveillance, or privacy matter in the Northern Territory, consult a lawyer licensed in the Northern Territory. Information in this article was verified as at 15 May 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date.

Authorities Cited

1. Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT), ss.4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Legislation/SURVEILLANCE-DEVICES-ACT-2007
2. Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NT) -- Full Text PDF. https://legislation.nt.gov.au/api/sitecore/Act/PDF_History?id=21507
3. Surveillance Devices Regulations 2008 (NT). https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Legislation/SURVEILLANCE-DEVICES-REGULATIONS-2008
4. Penalty Units Act (NT); NT Attorney-General's Department penalty unit schedule. https://agd.nt.gov.au/attorney-general-and-justice/units-and-amounts/penalty-units
5. Information Act 2002 (NT). https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Legislation/INFORMATION-ACT-2002
6. Office of the NT Information Commissioner, Information Privacy Principles. https://infocomm.nt.gov.au/privacy/information-privacy-principles
7. Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03712
8. OAIC, State and territory privacy legislation. https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-legislation/state-and-territory-privacy-legislation
9. Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), ss.6-7. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02124
10. Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), Division 7A (ss.208AA-208AB). https://legislation.nt.gov.au/Legislation/CRIMINAL-CODE-ACT-1983
11. Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00078/asmade/text
12. Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) Schedule 2 (statutory tort). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00128/asmade
13. OAIC, Statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/more-privacy-rights/statutory-tort-for-serious-invasions-of-privacy
14. Karen Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2753. https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2024fwc2753.htm
15. Housing, Transport and Surveillance Devices Legislation Amendment (PPSO) Act 2025 (NT). https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Bills/Housing-Transport-and-Surveillance-Devices-Legislation-Amendment-PPSO-Bill-2025-S44
16. NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Swearing in of PPSO Squad 1 (2026). https://pfes.nt.gov.au/newsroom/2026/swearing-ppso-squad-1
17. NT Parks and Wildlife Commission, Permits for Commercial Photography and Filming. https://nt.gov.au/parks/permits-for-parks/permits-for-commercial-photos-filming-in-parks
18. Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.138. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2023C00289

---

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