Queensland Recording Laws: When You Can Record a Private Conversation (2026)

Under section 43 of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), Queensland's recording offence only catches someone using a listening device to record a private conversation who is not a party to it. A participant is outside the offence entirely. Queensland has no general law regulating video recording at all, though a 2020 law reform proposal to change that remains unenacted.

Information last verified July 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Queensland state recording law under the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) and the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), plus the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). It does not address the recording laws of other Australian states. For a national comparison, see the Australia recording laws hub.

Can You Record a Private Conversation in Queensland?

Yes, if you are a party to it. Section 43(1) of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) prohibits using a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation. Section 43(2) then exempts "a person who is a party to the private conversation." The effect is that a participant is entirely outside the prohibition; there is nothing to excuse because the offence is drafted around a person who is not a party. Queensland groups with Victoria and the Northern Territory on this specific question, though its overall statutory scheme is quite different: Queensland is the only one of the three with no general video-surveillance law.

The distinction matters for how you describe the rule: it is not that Queensland "creates an exception for participants," it is that the offence, by its terms, never reaches a participant. Recording a conversation you are not part of remains a serious offence, and the federal telecommunications regime can still apply to how a phone call specifically is captured, regardless of your party status. For the full picture of how all eight Australian states and territories split on this question, see Is It Legal to Record a Conversation in Australia? and the Australia recording laws hub.

Why the Drafting Technique Matters

Queensland reaches the same practical outcome as Victoria and the Northern Territory through a slightly different drafting technique. Section 43(1) creates the baseline offence first, and section 43(2) then exempts a person who is a party to the conversation, worded as a proviso to the offence rather than folded into its elements the way Victoria's "to which the person is not a party" and the Northern Territory's equivalent wording are. As a general principle of statutory interpretation, a provision worded as an exemption or proviso can place a practical burden on the person relying on it to raise and point to the facts that bring them within it, whereas an element drafted directly into the offence must be proven by the prosecution. For an ordinary Queensland participant this distinction rarely matters in practice, since "I was a party to my own conversation" is not usually a contested fact, but it is worth knowing that Queensland's mechanism sits structurally closer to the exemption-based drafting used in Group 2 than to the element-based drafting Victoria and the Northern Territory use, even though the practical result for a participant, freedom from the offence, is the same across all three Group 1 states.

The Invasion of Privacy Act 1971: Queensland's Core Framework

Unlike every other Australian state and territory, which has replaced its listening-device law with broader "surveillance devices" legislation, Queensland still relies on the 1971 Act. The Act is current in its 1 July 2024 version.

What Is a Listening Device?

Section 4 defines a "listening device" as "any instrument, apparatus, equipment or device capable of being used to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation simultaneously with its taking place." This is technology-neutral and captures phones, dedicated recorders, landline recording adapters, wearables, and concealed devices. The definition requires simultaneous capture; the Act does not govern access to stored communications, which the federal TIA Act addresses separately.

What Is a Private Conversation?

The Act does not exhaustively define "private conversation," but section 4 provides that a conversation ceases to be private where "either of those persons ought reasonably to expect the words may be overheard, recorded, monitored or listened to by some other person." Courts weigh the location, the relationship between participants, the content, and whether others are present or in earshot. A conversation in an open-plan office where colleagues could overhear is less likely to be private than one in a closed room; a public park conversation within earshot of passers-by is unlikely to qualify.

Section 43: The Offence and the Participant Position

Section 43(1) creates the baseline offence, maximum 40 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment. Section 43(2) provides that the prohibition does not apply "where the person using the listening device is a party to the private conversation," and separately exempts Commonwealth customs and security officers, police acting under legislative authority, and public safety entity officers (Queensland Ambulance Service, Queensland Police Service, Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, Rural Fire Service Queensland, Marine Rescue Queensland, and the State Emergency Service) using government network radio in emergencies.

Section 44: Publication by a Non-Party Recipient

Section 44 makes it an offence to communicate or publish the substance of a private conversation obtained through the unlawful use of a listening device, targeting anyone who spreads the fruits of someone else's unlawful recording, whether or not they made it themselves. Maximum penalty: 40 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment.

Section 45: Publication by the Party Who Recorded It

Even a party who lawfully recorded a conversation under s 43(2) faces restrictions on what they do with it next. Section 45 makes it an offence to communicate or publish the substance of the recording to someone who was not a party to the original conversation, unless:

• all parties to the conversation give express or implied consent,
• publication occurs during court or tribunal proceedings,
• publication is reasonably necessary in the public interest,
• disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect a party's lawful interests,
• disclosure is made to a person who has a reasonable interest in the conversation, or
• disclosure is reasonably necessary in the performance of a duty.

The lawful-interests exception is frequently invoked by employees disclosing recordings of workplace misconduct; courts assess whether the recording and disclosure are proportionate to the interest asserted.

Section 46: Admissibility

Section 46 generally prohibits using knowledge derived from an unlawfully obtained recording in civil or criminal proceedings, subject to exceptions where a party consents or the evidence is adduced in proceedings under the Act itself. It is not an absolute bar: courts retain a discretion under the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and the common-law Bunning v Cross approach (Queensland has not adopted the uniform Evidence Act) to admit improperly obtained evidence where the desirability of admitting it outweighs the way it was obtained.

Section 49A: Corporate Liability

Where a corporation commits an offence under ss 43-46, each executive officer who authorised it, or who knew or ought reasonably to have known of it and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it, is also guilty and liable to the same penalty.

Worked Example: Where the Participant Position Runs Out

A Brisbane employee who is a party to a disciplinary meeting may record it under section 43(2) without telling anyone. If that employee then forwards the audio file to a journalist to embarrass their employer, section 45 applies in full force, and none of its exceptions is obviously available: there is no consent from the employer, no legal proceeding underway, no clearly established pre-existing lawful interest, and reputational point-scoring is not a public-interest disclosure. The recording that carried zero criminal exposure at the point of capture can carry a full 40-penalty-unit, two-year exposure at the point of disclosure. Treat recording and sharing as two separate legal questions rather than assuming one covers the other.

Recordings as Evidence in Queensland Courts

Queensland has not adopted the uniform Evidence Act used by the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory. Instead, Queensland courts apply the common-law Bunning v Cross discretion alongside the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and the specific admissibility bar in section 46 of the Invasion of Privacy Act discussed above. The Bunning v Cross approach weighs broadly similar factors to section 138 of the uniform Act: the seriousness of the impropriety, whether it was deliberate, the cogency and importance of the evidence, and the nature of the offence or proceeding. Because section 43(2) places a participant's own recording outside the Act entirely, a Queensland participant's recording of their own conversation generally raises no admissibility problem in the first place; the harder questions arise from a non-party's unlawful recording, or from a lawfully made recording shared in breach of section 45 before being tendered. For the general Australia-wide position, including the states that have adopted the uniform Act, see Secret Recordings as Evidence in Australian Courts.

Other Recording Scenarios in Queensland

Home CCTV and doorbell cameras. Because Queensland has no optical surveillance statute, a home security camera or doorbell camera capturing video only raises no general recording-law issue in Queensland the way it would in a state with an optical provision; the relevant constraint instead becomes the narrower Criminal Code voyeurism-type offences at section 227A, which only bite in specific circumstances involving a private place or a person's genital or anal region, not ordinary driveway or footpath footage. A microphone on the same device is a different matter: audio is still governed by section 43, so a hushed conversation captured by a doorbell camera's microphone can still be a private conversation you are not a party to. See CCTV and Home Security Camera Laws in Australia and Doorbell Camera and Neighbour Privacy in Australia for the full national picture, including how states with an optical provision treat the same footage differently.

Dash cams. Video of the road is unrestricted. In-cabin audio of passengers is analysed under section 43 in the ordinary way: a driver who is a party to the in-cabin conversation is outside the offence. See Dash Cam Laws in Australia.

Drones. Because Queensland has no general optical surveillance law, drone video is not independently restricted by state privacy legislation the way it is in a state with an optical provision; CASA's aviation safety rules apply regardless, but those are a safety regime, not a privacy one. See Drone Privacy Laws in Australia.

No Optical Surveillance Law

Queensland has no equivalent of the video-surveillance offences found in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory or the ACT. The Invasion of Privacy Act deals only with listening devices. Visual-only recording (a camera capturing images without sound) of people in public or semi-public spaces is largely unregulated by this Act, subject to the narrower Criminal Code offences discussed below.

The Unenacted Surveillance Devices Bill

In February 2020, the Queensland Law Reform Commission published Report No. 77, recommending the Invasion of Privacy Act be repealed and replaced by a modern Surveillance Devices Act covering audio, visual, tracking and data surveillance in one framework, retaining a participant exception for audio consistent with the current position. Public consultation on a staged implementation closed in May 2023. As of this article's verification date, the Queensland Parliament has not enacted the proposed Act. The 1971 Act remains in force, and the video-surveillance gap remains open. This status was confirmed by a search of publicly available reporting, not an exhaustive check of the Queensland Parliament's bills register; readers relying on this for a live matter should check the Queensland Parliament Bills page directly.

What Would Actually Change if the Bill Were Enacted

The draft Bill is worth understanding on its own terms, because it would not simply bolt a video provision onto the existing Act; it would restructure the whole framework along lines already used in Victoria and the Northern Territory. Three changes stand out for a Queensland reader. First, the draft retained the participant exception for audio recording, meaning the core answer to "can I record my own conversation" would not change even if the Bill passed. Second, it would introduce, for the first time, a general prohibition on visual surveillance of a private place, closing the exact gap discussed above: a hidden camera in an ordinary room, not just a bathroom or bedroom triggering the Criminal Code, would become independently regulated. Third, it would add dedicated workplace surveillance provisions, something Queensland currently lacks entirely, likely bringing Queensland closer to the notice-based model already used in New South Wales. None of this is in force. Until it is, Queensland residents should assume the current 1971 Act, with no general video provision, is the operative law.

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld): Targeted Visual Offences

Although Queensland lacks a general optical surveillance prohibition, the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) contains targeted offences for privacy-invasive visual recording.

Section 227A: Observations or Recordings in Breach of Privacy

It is a misdemeanour to observe or visually record another person where a reasonable adult would expect privacy, without their consent, maximum 3 years imprisonment. Section 227A(1) covers observing or recording a person in a private place (bedroom, bathroom, toilet, changing room) engaged in a private act. Section 227A(2) covers observing or recording another person's genital or anal region without consent regardless of location, covering conduct sometimes called "upskirting." The consent definition in s 227A(3) was amended by the Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld), effective 23 September 2024, to align with the affirmative consent framework.

Section 227B: Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Recordings

Distributing a "prohibited visual recording" of a person without consent, in a way that would reasonably cause distress, is an offence carrying up to 3 years imprisonment, regardless of whether the original recording was made with consent. Actual distress does not need to be proven, only that a reasonable person would expect it. Courts may order removal, destruction or deletion of the images; failure to comply is a further offence carrying up to 2 years.

Section 223: Distributing Intimate Images Without Consent

Distributing an intimate image of another person without consent, in a way that would reasonably cause distress, carries up to 3 years. A child under 16 cannot give consent for this purpose, and intent to cause distress is not required, only that a reasonable person would expect it. A defence exists for genuine artistic, educational, legal, medical, scientific or public-benefit purposes where it was reasonable to act.

Federal Deepfake Offence

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) commenced 11 December 2024, creating federal offences for transmitting sexually explicit material, digitally created or altered, using a carriage service, where the sender knows or is reckless as to whether the person depicted consented. The base offence carries up to 6 years; an aggravated offence (a repeat offender, or someone who created or altered the material) carries up to 7 years. Visual material only; audio-only deepfakes are outside this Act's scope. Queensland residents sharing such material can face prosecution under both this federal scheme and the state intimate-image provisions above.

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) and the Federal Privacy Act

The Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) sets the Queensland Privacy Principles governing how Queensland government agencies and local governments handle personal information, including recordings, but applies only to the public sector, not private individuals or organisations. The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles apply instead to private-sector organisations with annual turnover above $3 million, plus certain health, credit-reporting and other prescribed entities regardless of size.

Federal Statutory Tort (from 10 June 2025)

Schedule 2 of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) introduced a statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, commenced 10 June 2025. A plaintiff must establish invasion by intrusion upon seclusion or misuse of information, a reasonable expectation of privacy, intentional or reckless conduct, and seriousness (weighing the public interest in privacy against countervailing interests such as free speech or law enforcement). A non-consensual audio or video recording, including producing an intimate image without consent, may constitute an intrusion upon seclusion independently of any Invasion of Privacy Act liability. Remedies include damages (including for emotional distress), injunctions, declarations, and orders for a public apology; the limitation period is generally the earlier of one year from awareness or three years from the invasion. The tort does not require proof of damage, a significant change from the Queensland common-law position, which has not recognised intrusion upon seclusion as a standalone cause of action.

For the full Australia-wide analysis of the federal telecommunications layer, including video-conferencing platforms and interstate calls, see Can You Record a Phone Call in Australia?.

Recording in Healthcare, Legal and Financial Settings

The section 43(2) participant position applies without a carve-out for professional context, so a patient who is a party to a consultation, a client who is a party to a meeting with an accountant, or a person who is a party to a call with an insurer may record it under the same rule that applies to any other private conversation. The professional on the other end has no veto under the Invasion of Privacy Act itself.

That does not mean professional context is irrelevant. A healthcare provider, law firm, or financial services business that itself wants to record calls or consultations, for quality assurance, training, or file-keeping, must either be a party to the conversation (which it usually is) or obtain consent from everyone involved if a third party such as a supervisor is silently listening in without participating. Businesses covered by the federal Privacy Act, generally those with turnover above $3 million, or health service providers regardless of size, also need to consider the Australian Privacy Principles when they create, store, and later use a recording that identifies a patient or client, separately from the Invasion of Privacy Act question of whether the recording itself was lawfully made. A recording can be entirely lawful under section 43 and still trigger separate obligations under the Privacy Act once it is stored as a record containing personal information.

Federal Telecommunications Law: The Network Override

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) prohibits intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system, and operates alongside and, where both apply, ahead of the Invasion of Privacy Act. The key distinction is between recording a conversation after it has been converted to audible sound, governed by Queensland law alone, and intercepting a communication at the point it passes over the network, a federal offence under the TIA Act regardless of party status. Because of this, the generally accepted method of recording a phone call in Queensland is an external device capturing audio after it reaches the speaker (a separate recorder near the handset, or the phone on speaker with a separate recording device), not a tool that interfaces directly with the carrier's network.

Recording a Zoom, Teams, Google Meet or similar video call raises the same TIA Act question for its audio component. The practical consensus is that a platform's own built-in recording function, which captures media at the endpoint rather than the network layer, is not "interception." Queensland's participant position under the Invasion of Privacy Act applies to the audio component of a video call the same way it applies to a phone call. Prudent practice is to announce the recording at the start regardless.

Penalties

Audio Recording and Publication Offences (Invasion of Privacy Act 1971)

As of 1 July 2025, one Queensland penalty unit equals $166.90 under the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2025 (Qld), making the maximum fine for a 40-unit offence $6,676. Penalty units are indexed annually. Courts may also order forfeiture of a device used in an offence.

Visual Recording Offences (Criminal Code 1899)

Federal Deepfake Offence

Civil Liability

Beyond the federal statutory tort described above, Queensland courts have not recognised a standalone common-law tort of privacy, but a non-consensual recording may support claims in breach of confidence (where the recording captures information imparted in a relationship of confidence, such as doctor-patient or employer-employee), defamation (where publication contains false statements of fact), or harassment under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) or the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in an employment context.

Queensland's own courts have engaged with privacy interests short of a full tort. In Grosse v Purvis [2003] QDC 151, the Queensland District Court recognised a privacy interest in the context of sustained surveillance and stalking, awarding damages notwithstanding the absence of a formally recognised tort of invasion of privacy at the time. That decision predates the federal statutory tort by more than two decades and was not itself a recording case in the surveillance-device sense, but it illustrates that Queensland courts have been willing to find a remedy for serious, sustained intrusion even before Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 existed. The federal tort now provides a clearer, statutory route to the same kind of claim, without needing to establish the more improvised reasoning Grosse v Purvis relied on.

Recording In-Person Conversations

For a face-to-face conversation, the section 43(2) participant position applies directly: you may record without notifying others, provided the conversation qualifies as "private." Even a lawful recording cannot be shared with third parties without meeting a s 45 exception, and in employment contexts a lawful recording can still constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal.

Recording Police

No Queensland or Commonwealth law makes it a standalone offence to film or record police performing duties in a public place. The section 43(2) participant position means a person interacting with police, being questioned or searched, may record that interaction. Filming police is lawful provided it does not obstruct an officer in the execution of duty, an offence under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld); staying at a reasonable distance and not interfering is the practical rule. Where police give a lawful direction to move on, compliance is required; a person cannot remain in a restricted area solely to keep recording. Under s 29(2)(a) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), police may seize a device if they reasonably suspect it holds evidence of an offence, but cannot confiscate a phone merely because it captured lawful footage. The s 45(3) lawful-interests exception supports disclosing a recording of police misconduct to a complaint authority or legal representative. For the Australia-wide position, including the "ought reasonably expect to be overheard" carve-out and where it does not apply, see Recording the Police in Australia.

Workplace Recording

An employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it without informing other participants, a direct consequence of s 43(2); Queensland has no dedicated workplace surveillance statute modifying this.

Legality does not remove consequence. The Fair Work Commission has consistently held that covertly recording workplace conversations, even where lawful under state law, can constitute a fundamental breach of the employment relationship and a valid reason for dismissal. In Zhang v Royal Automobile Association of South Australia [2019] FWC 5663, the Commission found the recording "fatally damaged" the employment relationship, a valid reason for dismissal, and declined to admit the recording into evidence. In Chandler v Bed Bath N' Table [2020] FWC, the Commission accepted a recording into evidence and it assisted the applicant's case, but the disclosure of the covert recording was itself found a valid reason for dismissal, and reinstatement was refused because the secret recording had destroyed the necessary trust. In Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures [2024] FWC, the Commission rejected an unfair dismissal application after finding the employee had secretly recorded her employer during a rostered-hours dispute, describing this as "contrary to her duty of good faith and fidelity." In Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCCA, a Western Australian matter whose balancing reasoning is cited in Queensland proceedings, the Federal Circuit Court declined to admit an unlawfully recorded conversation, weighing that it was a partial fragment, other evidence was available, and it had been withheld until late in proceedings.

Employers relying on general law, since Queensland has no workplace surveillance statute, may monitor computer and internet activity on work systems, review work-system email, and deploy CCTV in common areas with appropriate notice. Employer audio recording of employees, such as monitoring call centre calls, requires either consent or clear prior disclosure to avoid breaching s 43(1). An employer who deploys a listening device to record a conversation between employees, without being a party to it and without a s 43(2) exception applying, commits the s 43(1) offence itself. For the Australia-wide position on employer notification obligations and covert surveillance authorities in states that regulate them, see Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring in Australia.

Voyeurism and Image-Based Abuse Summary

Combined with the federal deepfake provisions, Queensland has a multi-layered framework targeting image-based abuse: s 227A (observation/recording), s 227B (distribution of prohibited visual recordings), s 223 (distribution of intimate images), and the federal Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024. Queensland Police Service operates a dedicated reporting pathway at police.qld.gov.au/safety-and-preventing-crime/sharing-of-intimate-images.

How Queensland Compares to Other Australian States

Queensland groups with Victoria and the Northern Territory on the single question of whether a participant's own recording is caught by the offence: in all three it is not, though as explained above Queensland reaches that result through an exemption rather than an offence element. That grouping does not extend to video: Queensland is the only one of the three, and the only Australian jurisdiction at all, with no general optical surveillance law.

Queensland's absence of an optical surveillance law puts it in an unusual position: a Queenslander has more freedom to record a private conversation as a participant than most of the country, but less statutory protection than most of the country against being filmed by someone else in circumstances a Victorian or South Australian resident could rely on section 7 or section 5 to challenge. The only statutory protection against covert video in Queensland comes from the narrower Criminal Code provisions discussed above, which require a private place or a genital or anal region, not simply a private setting generally. Compare directly against Tasmania Recording Laws and the Australian Capital Territory Recording Laws page, the only other two jurisdictions with no general optical provision, and Western Australia Recording Laws for a state that regulates video but applies a much narrower exception to audio. For the full comparison across all eight jurisdictions, see the Australia recording laws hub.

Cross-Border Recording

Where a conversation crosses jurisdictional lines, for example a Queensland resident recording a call with someone in Victoria or New South Wales, the state law of the place where the recording device is located generally governs the act of recording. A Queensland-based recorder relies on s 43(2). The federal TIA Act applies nationally regardless of which state either party is in, so the network-level interception prohibition binds both parties equally. Practical guidance for cross-border calls: record using an external device at your end, not a tool that interfaces with the network directly.

Related Australia Recording Law Guides

• Australia Recording Laws: National Overview: the full three-group comparison across all eight states and territories
• Is It Legal to Record a Conversation in Australia?
• Recording Someone Without Consent in Australia
• Can You Record a Phone Call in Australia?
• Recording the Police in Australia
• Secret Recordings as Evidence in Australian Courts
• Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring in Australia
• CCTV and Home Security Camera Laws in Australia
• Doorbell Camera and Neighbour Privacy in Australia
• Dash Cam Laws in Australia
• Drone Privacy Laws in Australia
• New South Wales Recording Laws
• Victoria Recording Laws
• Australian Capital Territory Recording Laws

This guide is part of our Australia law guides.

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information about Queensland recording laws. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) as at 1 July 2024, the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) as amended to September 2024, and federal statutes including the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as amended by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) and the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth), as verified against primary sources in July 2026. The law may change after this date, including the possible enactment of a new Surveillance Devices Act. For advice about your specific situation, consult a legal practitioner admitted in Queensland.

About the Author

[PLACEHOLDER: author roster pending]