Tasmania Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Exceptions and Penalties (2026)

Tasmania prohibits recording a private conversation, including your own, without consent. But section 5(3) of the Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas) 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. Violations carry criminal penalties of up to two years imprisonment or 40 penalty units (approximately $8,200 AUD at the 2025-26 rate of $205 per unit).

Information last verified on 2026-07-21 against the consolidated Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas) text on legislation.tas.gov.au. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Tasmania's recording consent laws under the Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas) and related state legislation, the Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (Tas), and applicable federal overlays (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), and Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth)). It does not cover other Australian states in depth; for a national overview see Australia recording laws.

---

Quick Answer: Can I Record My Own Conversation in Tasmania?

Usually yes, but the statute does not say so directly. Section 5(1) of the Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas) prohibits using a listening device to record a private conversation, and it applies that prohibition to a participant recording their own conversation just as it does to an outsider recording someone else's. Read alone, section 5(1)(b) would make almost all covert personal recording illegal.

Section 5(3) then softens that prohibition with an exception that applies if:

• (a) all principal parties to the conversation consent, expressly or impliedly; or
• (b) a principal party consents, and the recording either (i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of that party's lawful interests, or (ii) is simply not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation to people who were not parties to it.

Paths (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 path (ii) alone. That is why most everyday personal recording in Tasmania is lawful in practice even though the headline rule looks like a blanket prohibition.

"Principal party" is defined broadly and covers everyone who speaks or is spoken to during the conversation. A person who is present but does not speak is not a principal party.

The Listening Devices Act 1991 covers audio only. Tasmania has no equivalent optical-surveillance statute, discussed in detail below. For phone calls, the same section 5 standard applies; federal telecommunications law under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) adds a parallel layer, but the state Act is what actually governs whether a participant may record their own call.

---

The Listening Devices Act 1991: Tasmania's Core Recording Law

Tasmania's rules on recording conversations sit inside a single piece of legislation: the Listening Devices Act 1991 (Act No. 21 of 1991). The Act has been in force for over three decades and remains the primary law governing the use of listening devices across the state.

The Act does not cover optical surveillance or GPS tracking. Those activities fall under the Police Powers (Surveillance Devices) Act 2006 (Tas), which gives law enforcement agencies the authority to use surveillance technology under warrant. For everyday residents and businesses, the Listening Devices Act 1991 is the statute that matters.

The Act was most recently amended by the Justice and Related Legislation (Further Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2023 (No. 33 of 2023), which commenced on 27 November 2023 and made changes to sections 2, 5A, and 5B. [UNVERIFIED: the substantive content of the 2023 amendments to sections 5A and 5B has not been independently confirmed in this pass; do not assume they altered the core section 5 consent framework, which has been read directly from the current consolidated text and is accurately described in this article.]

What Counts as a "Listening Device"

Section 3 of the Act defines a listening device as "any instrument, apparatus, equipment or device capable of being used to record or listen to a private conversation simultaneously with its taking place." This is a broad definition. It covers smartphones, digital voice recorders, hidden microphones, computer software that captures audio, and any other technology that can record or transmit a conversation as it happens.

Devices used by people with hearing impairments are specifically excluded. Hearing aids and similar assistive devices do not fall within the definition.

What Counts as a "Private Conversation"

Section 3 defines a private conversation as words spoken by one person to another in circumstances that "may reasonably be taken to indicate that any of those persons desires the words to be listened to only" by themselves, or by themselves and another person who has the consent of all of them to listen.

This definition turns on what the circumstances indicate the speakers wanted, not on physical location alone. A whispered conversation in a crowded restaurant can qualify as private. A shouted argument on a quiet suburban street might also qualify if the participants clearly did not intend for others to hear.

Tasmania's definition is narrower on its face than several other states' equivalents. Queensland's Invasion of Privacy Act 1971, for instance, expressly excludes from "private conversation" any circumstances where a party "ought reasonably to expect" the words may be overheard by someone else, and NSW and Victoria's definitions carry similar language. Tasmania's section 3 definition has no such express exclusion. In practice, a conversation the parties conducted with no apparent desire for privacy (a public announcement, a market vendor calling out prices, a loud dispute in a crowded public space) is still likely to fall outside "private conversation" on the ordinary words of the Tasmanian definition, because the circumstances would not "reasonably indicate" a desire that the words be heard only by specific people. But the reasoning is not identical to, and cannot simply be imported from, the other states' "ought reasonably expect to be overheard" case law. Treat any claim that a given Tasmanian public conversation is automatically outside the Act with more caution than the equivalent claim in Queensland, NSW or Victoria. This divergence is discussed further in the Recording Police section below.

---

Consent Requirements: The Prohibition and Its Exception

Section 5 of the Listening Devices Act 1991 sets out the core prohibition. A person must not use, or cause or permit to be used, a listening device to:

• Record or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party
• Record a private conversation to which the person is a party

Both actions are illegal without meeting one of the exceptions in section 5(3). This means you cannot record someone else's conversation, and you also cannot record your own conversation without meeting one of the paths below.

How the Section 5(3) Exception Works

Section 5(3) provides two ways a participant's own recording can be lawful:

Path 1: All principal parties consent. If every principal party to the conversation gives express or implied consent to the use of the listening device, the recording is lawful.

Path 2: One principal party consents, plus a qualifying condition. If at least one principal party consents to the recording, the recording is lawful if either:

• The recording is "reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests" of the consenting party (path 2(i)), or
• The recording is "not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation" to persons who are not parties to the conversation (path 2(ii)).

Paths 2(i) and 2(ii) are alternatives, connected by "or" in the statute; a recording only needs to satisfy one of them. Path 2(ii) is the one most personal recording relies on. It means a Tasmanian resident who is part of a conversation can record it without telling the other parties, provided the recording is kept for their own reference and never shared with a non-party, whether or not there is any "lawful interest" at stake. Path 2(i) additionally covers recordings made to document a genuine, existing threat, dispute or safety concern, such as a landlord's unlawful threats, a supervisor's discriminatory statements, or a creditor's unlawful debt-collection conduct, even where the recorder does intend to eventually show the recording to a lawyer, a regulator or a court, since path 2(i) has no "no publication" condition of its own (publication is separately restricted by sections 9 and 10, discussed below).

---

Where the Exception Does Not Apply

Path 2(ii) fails where the recording is made specifically to share with people outside the conversation from the outset, for example recording a routine workplace performance review to post online, or recording a neighbour dispute intending to circulate it on social media, without any genuine lawful interest to fall back on under path 2(i). Recording a domestic disagreement purely out of general mistrust, with no specific dispute or threat and no intention of keeping it strictly private, sits in a similarly uncertain position.

The publication rule interacts with both paths. Even where the recording itself is lawfully made, sections 9 and 10 of the Act separately restrict what can be done with it. Section 10 prevents parties from freely publishing even their own lawfully made recordings without meeting a further exception. Sharing the recording with a solicitor for legal advice, or tendering it in court proceedings, is permissible. Broadcasting it publicly or sharing it on social media without a qualifying purpose could itself constitute an offence under sections 9 and 10, even where the original recording was lawful.

Watch out: Making a lawful recording and then posting it online is a two-step legal risk. Step 1 is whether the recording was lawfully made under section 5. Step 2 is whether communicating or publishing it is separately lawful under sections 9 and 10. Both must be satisfied independently, and a recording that was lawful to make under path 2(ii) precisely because you did not intend to share it loses that basis the moment you do share it.

---

Audio-Only Scope: Tasmania Has No Optical Surveillance Statute

The Listening Devices Act 1991 governs only devices that capture spoken words, specifically devices capable of recording or listening to a private conversation "simultaneously with its taking place." It does not regulate optical surveillance devices (cameras), tracking devices, or data surveillance devices.

This is a larger gap than in most other Australian jurisdictions. Tasmania has no general civilian optical or video surveillance statute at all. States such as New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory each have a dedicated optical-surveillance offence alongside their audio provisions; Tasmania and the ACT do not, and neither does Queensland.

The practical consequence is that in Tasmania:

• Recording a public event or street scene on video (without audio capturing a private conversation) does not engage the Listening Devices Act 1991, and there is no separate civilian optical-surveillance Act to engage instead.
• Security cameras recording video without audio in business premises are not covered by the LDA.
• Adding audio capability to a security camera that captures private conversations does engage the Act, under the ordinary section 5 analysis above.

Visual recording that intrudes on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy in a genuinely private setting is instead addressed by the narrower Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas) ss.13A-13C, covered in the Voyeurism section below. These provisions are not a general optical-surveillance regime; they are targeted at observation and recording of a person's body or a private act, not general video surveillance.

The Police Powers (Surveillance Devices) Act 2006 (Tas) does regulate the use of optical, tracking, and data surveillance devices, but only by law enforcement acting under warrant. It does not impose consent requirements on civilians.

---

Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations

The Listening Devices Act 1991 draws no distinction between phone calls and face-to-face conversations. The same section 5 rules apply to both. If two people are speaking on the phone and the conversation qualifies as private, recording it without meeting section 5(3) is an offence.

Phone calls raise an additional layer of regulation at the federal level. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) prohibits intercepting communications passing over a telecommunications network without the knowledge of a party to the communication, while the communication is in transit. This federal law operates alongside Tasmania's state legislation.

A party recording their own phone call at their own handset is generally not "intercepting" it for TIA Act purposes, because they have knowledge of their own communication and the recording is made at the point of receipt, not in passage over the network. This is why the TIA Act is the wrong framework for the question "can I record my own phone call"; Tasmania's Listening Devices Act 1991 and its section 5(3) exceptions are what actually govern that question.

Interstate Calls

When a phone call crosses state lines, the laws of both jurisdictions may apply. If a person in Tasmania calls someone in Queensland (where a participant recording their own conversation is outside the offence entirely), the Tasmanian caller is still bound by Tasmania's Listening Devices Act. Recording that call without meeting one of Tasmania's section 5(3) paths could violate Tasmanian law, even though the same recording would be lawful under Queensland's structure.

The general legal principle is that the stricter law governs the person acting in the stricter jurisdiction. A Tasmanian caller cannot escape the Listening Devices Act simply by placing a call to a more permissive state.

---

Workplace Recording in Tasmania

Tasmania does not have a standalone workplace surveillance statute. States like New South Wales have the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005, which specifically regulates cameras, computer monitoring, and tracking in employment settings. Tasmania has no equivalent.

This means workplace recording in Tasmania falls under the general provisions of the Listening Devices Act 1991. An employer who installs hidden microphones to record employee conversations is using a listening device to record private conversations and must satisfy section 5(3) like any other recorder.

Employers do have some latitude for monitoring that falls outside the Act's scope. Computer monitoring, email surveillance, and internet usage tracking are not covered by the Listening Devices Act because they do not involve recording oral conversations. For organisations with annual turnover above $3 million, these activities are governed by the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and subject to oversight by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). Smaller employers fall under general employment law principles.

Public-sector employers in Tasmania (government departments, councils, state bodies) are also subject to the Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (Tas) for how they handle information about employees. The Tasmanian Ombudsman can investigate complaints about agency recording or monitoring practices.

The Fair Work Commission has taken a dim view of covert workplace recordings in unfair dismissal cases. The Commission has stated that secret recording "strikes directly at the heart of the employment relationship and undermines the necessity of trust and confidence needed" between employer and employee. A covert recording may be admissible in some circumstances, but the act of making it can itself be treated as relevant to a misconduct finding against the employee who made it.

Employees who believe they need to record a workplace conversation for their own protection can consider path 2(ii): a recording kept privately, never shared outside the conversation, does not need a "lawful interest" justification at all. Where the recording is intended for use in a dispute, path 2(i) requires that it be genuinely necessary to document illegal conduct, safety violations, or similarly serious matters; recording a routine disagreement with a supervisor purely out of general caution is unlikely to meet that threshold, though it may still be covered by path 2(ii) if kept private.

---

Recording in Public Places

The Listening Devices Act 1991 only applies to private conversations. Conversations that occur in circumstances that do not "reasonably indicate" a desire for the words to be heard only by specific people are not covered.

Photographing and filming in public places is generally lawful in Tasmania, since there is no general optical-surveillance statute to engage at all (see above). The critical question for anything involving sound is whether the audio component of a recording captures a private conversation.

A person filming a street scene with ambient sound is unlikely to run afoul of the Act. Pointing a directional microphone at two people having a quiet conversation on a park bench, even though they are physically in a public place, could still capture a private conversation and trigger the Act's protections, since Tasmania's test turns on what the circumstances indicate the speakers wanted, not simply on whether the location was a public one.

Do not assume a public setting automatically defeats "private conversation" in Tasmania the way it more reliably would in Queensland, NSW or Victoria. Those states' statutes contain an explicit exclusion for circumstances where a party "ought reasonably to expect" to be overheard; Tasmania's definition has no equivalent express carve-out (see "What Counts as a Private Conversation" above). The outcome in most ordinary public settings will likely be the same in practice, because loudly conducted or clearly public exchanges will rarely "reasonably indicate" a desire for privacy either way, but a fact pattern that would clearly fall outside the Act in Queensland cannot be assumed to fall outside it in Tasmania without checking the specific circumstances against Tasmania's own wording.

---

Recording Police in Tasmania

Residents in Tasmania generally have the right to photograph and film police officers performing their public duties in a public place; there is no general optical-surveillance statute restricting this at all (see above).

The audio question is less certain than in some other states. A police officer acting in an official capacity in a public setting, such as making an arrest, issuing a direction, or interacting with members of the public on a street, will often not be engaged in a "private conversation" under Tasmania's section 3 definition, because the circumstances of a public, official interaction do not typically "reasonably indicate" a desire that the words be heard only by specific people. That is a reasonable inference on the ordinary wording of the Act.

But this conclusion rests on the general definition, not on an explicit public-interaction exclusion, because Tasmania's Act does not have one. In states with an express "ought reasonably expect to be overheard" exclusion (Queensland, NSW, Victoria), the same conclusion follows more directly from the statute's text. In Tasmania, a genuinely private exchange between an officer and a member of the public, conducted quietly and with an apparent desire for privacy (for example, a sensitive conversation with a vulnerable person, or an interview conducted somewhere private), could plausibly still qualify as a "private conversation" even though a police officer is one of the parties. Treat the public/official-duties scenario as the ordinary and usually safe case, and the quieter, more sensitive interaction as one that needs its own assessment.

The lawful interests basis under section 5(3)(b)(i), or the no-publication basis under 5(3)(b)(ii), is available regardless: recording evidence of potential police misconduct for your own reference, without publishing it to non-parties, is likely to be excused by path 2(ii) even in a genuinely uncertain "private conversation" scenario.

A few practical rules apply regardless of legality:

• Recording must not obstruct police from performing their duties; obstruction is a separate offence.
• Filming from a distance that does not interfere with police activity is the safest approach.
• If an officer directs you to stop filming in a lawful exercise of police powers, comply and seek legal advice before challenging the direction.

Watch out: Even if recording a police interaction is lawful under the LDA 1991, sharing or publishing that recording without care can engage sections 9 and 10 of the Act. If the interaction involved a private conversation, publication restrictions apply.

---

Penalties for Illegal Recording

The Listening Devices Act 1991 sets out criminal penalties for violations.

Recording and Listening Offences (Section 5)

Using a listening device to unlawfully record or listen to a private conversation carries a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units or imprisonment for two years, or both. For corporations, the maximum fine is 500 penalty units.

As of 2025-26, one penalty unit in Tasmania is $205 AUD, as published by the Department of Justice Tasmania. This puts the maximum individual fine at approximately $8,200 AUD and the maximum corporate fine at approximately $102,500 AUD.

Communication and Publication Offences (Sections 9-10)

Section 9 makes it an offence to knowingly communicate or publish a private conversation that was obtained through unlawful use of a listening device. Section 10 restricts even lawfully recorded conversations from being published without meeting certain conditions, including having the consent of the parties or needing the publication for the protection of lawful interests.

Penalties for communication and publication offences mirror the recording penalties: up to 40 penalty units or two years imprisonment for individuals, and up to 500 penalty units for corporations.

Possession of Unlawful Recordings (Section 11)

Section 11 prohibits possessing a record of a private conversation obtained through unlawful use of a listening device. Merely having the recording in your possession is an offence, even if you did not make it yourself. Exceptions exist for recordings received through lawful communication or with the consent of all parties.

Prosecution Requirements

Section 24 requires the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before any prosecution can be brought under the Act. This acts as a filter against trivial or vexatious complaints. Section 23 imposes a two-year limitation period for prosecutions.

---

Voyeurism and Visual Recording: Police Offences Act 1935 ss.13A-13C

Because the Listening Devices Act 1991 covers audio only, and Tasmania has no general optical-surveillance statute, a narrower set of provisions governs intrusive visual recording in Tasmania. Sections 13A, 13B, and 13C of the Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas) address observation and recording that breach privacy expectations, operating alongside, not as part of, the LDA 1991. These sections were inserted by Act No. 39 of 2007 (commenced 21 November 2007) and amended by Act No. 15 of 2014.

Section 13A: Observation or recording in breach of privacy makes it an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent where:

• The person is in a private place or engaging in a private act, and a reasonable adult would expect privacy; or
• The recording is of the person's genital or anal region when covered only by underwear or bare, made for that purpose.

The penalty for a section 13A offence is a fine of up to 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both (approximately $10,250 AUD at the 2025-26 rate).

Section 13B: Publishing or distributing a prohibited visual recording makes it an offence to distribute or publish a prohibited visual recording while knowing, or having reasonable grounds to believe, that the recording was made in circumstances covered by section 13A. The same penalty applies: 50 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment.

Section 13C: Possession of a prohibited visual recording extends liability to possession alone. Holding a prohibited visual recording with reason to believe its nature is an offence on the same penalty scale.

These provisions cover the primary scenarios associated with voyeurism, upskirting, and non-consensual intimate image (NCII) distribution at the state level, but they are narrower than a general optical-surveillance offence: ordinary video of a public scene, or of a private activity that does not involve a person's body in the way section 13A describes, falls outside them.

Watch out: A video recording that includes both visual content of a person in a private place (potentially captured under s.13A) and audio of a private conversation (captured under the LDA 1991) can simultaneously engage both regimes. Both sets of penalties can apply independently.

---

Deepfakes and the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth)

A federal law applies across all of Australia, including Tasmania: the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) (No. 78 of 2024), which commenced 11 December 2024. The Act amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) to create new offences for the non-consensual transmission of sexual material, including material created or altered by artificial intelligence.

The primary offence targets using a carriage service (which includes the internet, mobile networks, and messaging apps) to transmit sexual material of another person without their consent, or in circumstances where the person is reckless as to whether consent exists. The maximum penalty is 6 years imprisonment.

An aggravated offence carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, applying where the offender created or altered the material using technology before transmitting it, or has a relevant history of prior civil penalty orders under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth).

Important limitations of the federal Act:

• The Act covers only transmission via a carriage service. Creating or possessing a deepfake sexual image without transmitting it is not an offence under this Act.
• "Sexual material" under the Act includes unaltered recordings, edited material, and material entirely generated by technology (such as AI deepfakes) that realistically but falsely depict the person.

This federal law complements but does not replace Tasmania's state-level provisions under the Police Offences Act 1935 ss.13A-13C. Non-consensual visual recording and distribution may be prosecuted under both regimes depending on the circumstances.

---

Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (Tas) and the Ombudsman

The Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (Tas) (PIPA 2004) establishes a framework for how public-sector bodies in Tasmania handle personal information. It does not apply to private businesses generally. The covered entities are:

• Tasmanian state government departments
• Local councils
• Statutory bodies and authorities
• The University of Tasmania
• Tasmania Police
• State-owned companies
• Private organisations that have entered into a personal information contract with a Tasmanian public authority

PIPA 2004 establishes 10 Personal Information Protection Principles (PIPPs) governing collection, use, disclosure, quality, security, and access. PIPP 1, for example, requires public authorities to collect personal information only by lawful and fair means and only where reasonably necessary for their functions. Recording a person without their knowledge would raise questions under PIPP 1 and PIPP 4 (use and disclosure limitations).

The Tasmanian Ombudsman administers PIPA 2004. A person who believes a public authority has breached a PIPP can lodge a complaint with the relevant agency first. If not satisfied with the agency's response, they may then complain to the Ombudsman. The complaint must be made within 6 months of the alleged breach (or a longer period the Ombudsman allows). The Ombudsman may investigate, make findings, and issue recommendations. The Ombudsman does not have the power to award damages but can require agencies to change their practices.

Interaction with the federal Privacy Act 1988: Private-sector organisations with annual turnover above $3 million, and all health service providers regardless of turnover, are subject to the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and regulated by the OAIC. In practice, Tasmania Police and state departments primarily operate under PIPA 2004, while federal agencies operating in Tasmania are governed by the federal regime.

---

Federal Privacy Act 1988 and TIA Act 1979

Two federal statutes overlay Tasmania's state recording laws for specific circumstances.

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) apply to private-sector organisations with annual turnover above $3 million, health service providers of any size, and federal government agencies.

For a Tasmanian business that audio-records customer calls, both the state LDA 1991 (consent requirement) and the federal Privacy Act (data handling obligations) apply. The OAIC enforces the Privacy Act and can investigate complaints and, in some circumstances, award compensation.

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)

The TIA Act 1979 (Cth) is a separate federal statute that prohibits intercepting communications passing over a telecommunications network without authorisation while they are in transit. As explained above, a person recording their own phone call at their own handset generally does not "intercept" it for TIA Act purposes; Tasmania's Listening Devices Act 1991 is the operative law for that question.

---

Admissibility of Recordings as Evidence

Section 14 of the Act addresses whether unlawfully obtained recordings can be used in court. The general rule is that evidence derived from an illegally recorded private conversation is inadmissible.

However, exceptions apply. Courts may admit evidence from unlawful recordings in proceedings involving serious indictable offences or serious narcotics offences, if the court considers it appropriate. All principal parties to the conversation can also consent to the evidence being used.

This creates a practical consequence for anyone considering a covert recording for litigation purposes. Even if you believe the recording proves your case, a court may exclude it if the recording was made in violation of the Act. Section 5(3) becomes critical here: a recording made under path 2(i) or 2(ii) is not unlawfully obtained and should be admissible on the ordinary operation of the Act.

Courts in Australia have shown willingness in some contexts to admit unlawfully obtained evidence where its probative value clearly outweighs the prejudice, but in Tasmania the statutory inadmissibility rule in the LDA 1991 is the starting point, and it must be displaced by one of the Act's explicit exceptions rather than a general judicial discretion.

---

Civil Liability for Unlawful Recording

The Listening Devices Act 1991 does not contain a standalone civil damages provision. Unlike New South Wales's Surveillance Devices Act 2007, Tasmania's LDA 1991 focuses on criminal liability and evidential exclusion.

A person who has been unlawfully recorded in Tasmania may pursue civil remedies through the following pathways:

Breach of confidence. Australian equity recognises a cause of action for breach of confidence where information imparted in circumstances of confidence is disclosed without authorisation. An unlawfully made recording and its subsequent distribution can found a breach of confidence claim, entitling the plaintiff to an injunction and potentially damages.

PIPA 2004 Ombudsman complaint. Where the recording was made by a public-sector body covered by the Personal Information Protection Act 2004 (Tas), a complaint to the Tasmanian Ombudsman is available.

Privacy Act 1988 complaint to OAIC. Where the recording was made by a private-sector organisation covered by the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), a complaint to the OAIC is available.

Exclusion of evidence. In civil proceedings, section 14 of the LDA 1991 excludes evidence derived from unlawful recordings. While not a damages remedy, this exclusion can fundamentally weaken the other party's case.

---

Law Enforcement and Warrants

Police officers in Tasmania can obtain warrants to use listening devices under both the Listening Devices Act 1991 and the Police Powers (Surveillance Devices) Act 2006 (Tas).

Under the Listening Devices Act, a magistrate may issue a warrant authorising the use of a listening device if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect a prescribed offence has been, is about to be, or is likely to be committed, and that the use of the listening device is necessary for the investigation. Warrants are valid for a maximum of 60 days. Telephone warrants issued in urgent circumstances under section 18 are limited to 24 hours.

After using a listening device under warrant, police must furnish a report to the Attorney-General and the Chief Magistrate within three months, detailing how the device was used and which persons were affected.

The Police Powers (Surveillance Devices) Act 2006 (Tas), which commenced on 1 January 2009, provides a more comprehensive framework for law enforcement use of optical surveillance devices, tracking devices, and data surveillance devices in addition to listening devices.

---

How Tasmania Compares to Other Australian States

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

Tasmania, together with the ACT and Queensland, is also one of the only jurisdictions with no general optical/video surveillance statute at all.

State Comparison Table

Tasmania sits toward the lower end on penalties but, like NSW and the ACT, its personal-use exception means most private recording is lawful in practice. Its legislation is among the oldest in the country, predating the more comprehensive surveillance devices frameworks adopted by NSW, Victoria, and South Australia.

---

Practical Guidelines for Tasmania

Based on the provisions of the Listening Devices Act 1991, here are practical steps for anyone who needs to record a conversation in Tasmania.

Keep it private if you can. If you plan to keep a recording strictly for your own reference and never show it to anyone outside the conversation, path 2(ii) generally covers you without needing anyone's consent or a specific "lawful interest."

Know the lawful interests exception. If you plan to use the recording as evidence or share it with a third party (a lawyer, a regulator, a future employer), you need either consent from all principal parties, or a genuine lawful interest under path 2(i). Document why you believed the recording was necessary at the time.

Do not share recordings carelessly. Even a lawfully made recording can become the basis for a criminal charge if it is published or communicated in ways that violate sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Keep recordings secure and share them only with legal counsel, law enforcement, or others who have a legitimate reason to receive them.

Understand the interstate problem. If you are calling someone in another state, or if someone from another state calls you, multiple laws may apply. When in doubt, follow the stricter rule.

Visual recording is not covered by the LDA, but check the Police Offences Act. If you are recording video only (no audio capturing a private conversation), the LDA 1991 does not apply and there is no separate optical-surveillance Act in Tasmania, but the Police Offences Act 1935 ss.13A-13C do apply if the recording involves a person in a private place or captures intimate content.

Do not assume a public setting automatically makes a conversation non-private. Tasmania's definition of "private conversation" lacks the explicit public-exposure exclusion that NSW, Victoria and Queensland have; assess the actual circumstances rather than relying on location alone.

Consult a lawyer before relying on the exceptions in a genuinely uncertain case. The lawful interests exception and the private-conversation definition both involve judgment calls that courts may view differently. Legal advice before making a covert recording is far cheaper than defending a criminal charge afterward.

---

---

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information about recording laws in Tasmania, Australia. It is not legal advice. The law described reflects legislation in force as of 21 July 2026. Recording laws involve complex fact-specific determinations; the same recording may be lawful in one set of circumstances and unlawful in another. Consult a legal practitioner admitted in Tasmania for advice on your specific situation. Do not rely on this article as a substitute for professional legal advice.

---

Related Articles

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

---

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