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

Under section 6 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), Victoria's recording offence is defined so that it only catches someone recording a private conversation they are not part of. If you are a participant, the prohibition does not extend to you at all, though sharing the recording afterward is separately restricted by section 11.

Can You Record a Private Conversation in Victoria?

Yes, if you are a party to it. Section 6(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) prohibits using a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation "to which the person is not a party," without the express or implied consent of each party. Read that element carefully: the prohibition is written to require that the recorder not be a party to the conversation. If you are speaking or being spoken to, you are a party, and section 6 simply does not apply to you. Nothing needs to excuse your conduct, because the offence was never drafted to reach it.

This is a different legal mechanism from a state that prohibits participant recording and then carves out an exception for it. In Victoria, describe it as the prohibition not extending to a conversation you are part of, not as "the Act creates an exception for participants." That distinction matters because it shapes how courts and lawyers analyse the provision, and because Victoria groups with Queensland and the Northern Territory on this specific question (recording your own conversation), even though the three states differ substantially elsewhere, including on whether video is regulated the same way. 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. The Australia recording consent checker applies this state-by-state framework to a specific situation and states whether recording is likely lawful.

Why the Drafting Technique Matters

The difference between Victoria's approach and, say, New South Wales' is not just labelling. In Victoria, "not a party" is an element of the offence itself, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can occur. If the prosecution cannot establish that the recorder was not a party to the conversation, the case fails at that element, regardless of anything else. In New South Wales, Tasmania and the ACT, by contrast, the baseline prohibition catches a participant's recording outright, and it is the defendant who must establish that a statutory exception (such as the personal-use limb) applies. In Western Australia and South Australia, the same defendant-must-establish-the-exception structure applies, but with a narrower list of exceptions available. Practically, this means a Victorian participant facing a complaint about their own recording is in a stronger position than a participant in the jurisdictions that rely on exceptions (New South Wales, Tasmania, the ACT, Western Australia and South Australia): there is no exception to argue, because the conduct was never captured by the offence.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses recording law in Victoria, Australia, under the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic), and applicable Commonwealth legislation including the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as amended by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth). It does not address the law of other Australian states in detail; for a full state-by-state comparison, see the Australia recording laws hub.

The Surveillance Devices Act 1999: Structure

The Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) is Victoria's primary law governing listening devices, optical surveillance devices, tracking devices, and data surveillance devices. It draws a sharp distinction between device types: audio recording, video recording, location tracking, and data monitoring each sit under separate provisions with their own tests and exceptions, so the answer to "can I record this" depends on exactly what device and target are involved.

Key Definitions (Section 3)

A private conversation is one "carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be heard only by themselves." A conversation is not private if the parties "ought reasonably to expect that it may be overheard by someone else"; a loud argument on a busy footpath would not meet the threshold.

A private activity is "an activity carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be observed only by themselves." The Act expressly excludes activities carried on outside a building, and activities where participants should reasonably expect observation.

A listening device is any device capable of recording, monitoring or listening to a conversation, including phones, dedicated recorders, and cameras with audio capability. An optical surveillance device covers cameras and video recorders used to observe or record visual activity. A tracking device is an electronic device whose primary purpose is to determine the geographical location of a person or an object.

A party to a conversation is a person by or to whom words are spoken in the course of it. Simply being present is not enough; you must actually be speaking or being spoken to. Someone silently listening in at the next table does not become a party by overhearing.

Section 6: Listening Devices

Section 6(1) is the provision that determines whether your own audio recording is lawful. The offence requires that the recorder is not a party to the conversation and that the recording lacks the express or implied consent of each party. If you are a party, neither element applies to you: you do not need consent, and you do not need to notify anyone.

Exceptions That Apply to Non-Parties

Section 6 does provide narrow routes for someone who is not a party to lawfully record a conversation:

• Consent of every party: if all participants expressly or impliedly consent, a non-party may record.
• Law enforcement: a law enforcement officer acting in the course of duty may record with the consent of at least one party where the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to protect someone's safety, or may act under a warrant.
• Warrant authorisation: a Supreme Court judge may issue a surveillance device warrant for a listening device in a criminal investigation (magistrates can issue warrants for tracking devices only).

For an ordinary bystander who is not a party, the practical answer is straightforward: recording is not permitted unless everyone involved agrees.

Section 7: Optical Surveillance Devices

Section 7 governs cameras and video recorders, and it is built on the same structure as section 6, not a stricter one. It prohibits installing, using or maintaining an optical surveillance device to record or observe a private activity to which the person is not a party, without each party's express or implied consent. A participant to the activity is outside section 7 in exactly the way a participant to a conversation is outside section 6. Audio and optical recording in Victoria are structurally identical; this is not the case in every Australian state (New South Wales, for example, uses an entirely different trespass-based test for optical devices).

The practical limitation is the definition of "private activity" itself: because it excludes anything carried on outside a building or anything the participants should reasonably expect to be observed, filming in streets, parks, shopping centres, and other open public areas generally falls outside section 7 regardless of party status.

Exceptions and Restricted Areas

• Activities outside buildings or otherwise in public view fall outside the "private activity" definition and are not restricted by section 7.
• Body-worn cameras: following amendments in 2017, police officers and ambulance officers may use body-worn cameras overtly in the course of duty, including incidental capture of private activity during that overt use.
• Part 2A (section 9B) separately prohibits an employer from using an optical surveillance device or listening device to observe or record workers in a workplace toilet, washroom, change room or lactation room. Worker consent is not an exception; the only exceptions are a warrant or emergency authorisation, a law of the Commonwealth, and a liquor licence condition.

Section 8: Tracking Devices

Section 8 prohibits knowingly installing, using or maintaining a tracking device to determine a person's geographical location without their express or implied consent. The same maximum penalties apply as for sections 6 and 7. For a device that tracks an object, the consent needed is that of a person in lawful possession or lawful control of the object. The exceptions in section 8(2) are limited to tracking under a warrant or emergency authorisation, under court and corrections orders (Serious Offenders Act orders, parole orders, community correction orders, prison Governor's orders and bail electronic monitoring), and under a law of the Commonwealth. There is no exception for parents or guardians, and no exception for officers acting without a warrant.

Section 11: Publishing or Sharing a Recording

Section 11 is where the "the prohibition doesn't reach me as a recorder" analysis stops helping. Even a recording made entirely lawfully under section 6, because you were a party to it, cannot simply be shared. Section 11 makes it an offence to knowingly communicate or publish a record or report of a private conversation or private activity obtained through a listening device, optical surveillance device, or tracking device, with the same maximum penalties as unlawful recording.

Watch out: "Victoria is permissive for participants" describes only the act of recording. It does not mean anything goes once you have the recording. Sharing it, posting it online, or forwarding it to a third party engages section 11 separately, and none of the exceptions below apply automatically just because the recording itself was lawful.

Exceptions to the Publication Restriction

1. Consent of every party to the original conversation or activity.
2. Protection of a lawful interest: sharing that is "no more than is reasonably necessary" to protect the lawful interests of the person sharing it. How courts apply that test depends on the facts.
3. Legal or disciplinary proceedings: disclosure during court, tribunal, or formal disciplinary processes.
4. Public interest: sharing that is no more than is reasonably necessary in the public interest.

Worked Example: Where the Section 6 Position Runs Out

Consider a Victorian who records a heated argument with a business partner because they are a party to it. Section 6 does not touch that act of recording at all. If that person then posts the audio to social media to embarrass the other party, section 11 applies in full force, and none of the four exceptions above is available on those facts: there was no consent, no legal proceeding, no lawful interest the post was reasonably necessary to protect, and reputational point-scoring is not a public interest. The same recording that carried zero criminal exposure at the point of capture can carry a full 240-penalty-unit, two-year exposure at the point of publication. This is the single most common way a lawful Victorian recording turns into an unlawful one, and it is worth treating the two acts, recording and sharing, as entirely separate legal questions rather than assuming that lawful recording implies lawful sharing.

Recordings as Evidence in Victorian Courts

Victoria has adopted the uniform Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), based on the same model as the Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995. Section 138 gives a court a discretion, not an automatic rule, to exclude evidence obtained improperly or in contravention of Australian law. The court weighs the probative value and importance of the evidence against the gravity of the impropriety, whether it was deliberate or reckless, and the difficulty of obtaining the evidence lawfully, among other factors.

Because section 6 places a participant's own recording outside the Surveillance Devices Act entirely, a Victorian participant's recording of their own conversation generally does not raise a section 138 problem in the first place: there was no impropriety to weigh, because there was no contravention. The harder evidentiary questions in Victoria tend to arise from a non-party's recording, or from a lawfully made recording that was then shared in breach of section 11 before being tendered. For the general Australia-wide position on how courts treat improperly obtained recordings, including in the five other jurisdictions with a different starting point, see Secret Recordings as Evidence in Australian Courts.

Other Recording Scenarios in Victoria

The section 6 and section 7 analysis above covers the general rule, but several common scenarios raise their own wrinkles worth flagging briefly, with full detail on the dedicated national pages linked below.

Home CCTV and doorbell cameras. A camera capturing a driveway, yard or footpath is generally outside section 7's "private activity" definition, but a microphone on the same device is judged separately under section 6's "private conversation" test, which does not share the same outdoor carve-out. A hushed conversation captured on an otherwise empty footpath can still be a private conversation. See CCTV and Home Security Camera Laws in Australia and Doorbell Camera and Neighbour Privacy in Australia for the full analysis, including how this plays out with a neighbour's boundary fence.

Dash cams. Video of the road and other traffic is unrestricted in Victoria, as in every state. In-cabin audio of passengers is the real question, and because Victoria is a Group 1 state, a driver who is a party to the in-cabin conversation is outside section 6 regardless of whether the passengers know the dash cam is recording audio. Publishing that footage re-engages section 11. See Dash Cam Laws in Australia.

Drones. Drone privacy in Victoria is governed by the same section 7 "private activity" test as any other camera, on top of CASA's separate aviation safety rules, which are not a privacy regime. See Drone Privacy Laws in Australia.

Phone Calls

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 a phone call in Victoria involves both state and federal law. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) prohibits intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system, and applies uniformly across Australia. Section 6(1) of the TIA Act defines interception as listening to or recording a communication "without the knowledge of the person making the communication." A participant recording their own call, already received at their end, is generally understood to fall outside that definition, because the federal Act's target is third-party interception in transit, not a party's own recording.

For a Victorian resident recording their own call: the state offence in section 6 does not apply because you are a party; the federal interception offence does not apply for the same reason it does not reach a participant generally; and section 11 still restricts sharing the recording afterward.

The 2025 Federal Privacy Tort

Since 10 June 2025, Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), inserted by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), provides a statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy across Australia. A non-consensual recording, particularly by a non-party, may constitute an intrusion upon seclusion. A plaintiff must show an invasion by intrusion or misuse of information, a reasonable expectation of privacy, intentional or reckless conduct, seriousness, and that the privacy interest outweighs any countervailing public interest. Remedies include injunctions and damages, including for emotional distress, with non-economic-loss and exemplary damages combined capped at the greater of $478,550 and the maximum damages for non-economic loss in defamation proceedings, which is $520,000 from 1 July 2026. This civil remedy runs alongside, not instead of, the criminal provisions of the Surveillance Devices Act.

Interstate Calls

Calling someone in another state can bring both jurisdictions' laws into play. A Victorian calling a New South Wales resident can rely on Victoria's participant position for their own conduct, but the New South Wales side of the conversation is governed by New South Wales' own broader personal-use exception, a different (though often similarly permissive) test. Where jurisdictions differ this much, telling the other party you are recording remains the most reliable practice for interstate calls.

Workplace Recording

What an Employee Can Do

Because section 6 does not reach a participant, an employee who is a party to a workplace conversation, a performance review, a disciplinary meeting, a salary discussion, may record it without telling their employer or colleagues, provided the conversation qualifies as "private" under the Act.

What an Employee Cannot Do

Section 11 still restricts what happens next. An employee who records a meeting and then emails the file to a colleague, posts it publicly, or sends it to a journalist has very likely committed a separate offence unless a narrow exception applies. The lawful-interests exception may protect sharing a recording with a lawyer for advice about a workplace dispute, but the sharing must be no more than is reasonably necessary to protect that interest.

For the Australia-wide position on employer notification, covert surveillance authorities, and how each state's rules differ, see Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring in Australia.

The Fair Work Commission's View

State law permitting a recording does not protect an employee from workplace consequences. Depending on the circumstances, the Fair Work Commission can treat a covert workplace recording, even one that is entirely lawful under the Surveillance Devices Act, as a breach of the employee's duty of good faith and fidelity capable of supporting a valid dismissal. Employer policies that expressly prohibit recording can reinforce this outcome even where the recording itself broke no law.

Employer Surveillance of Employees

Employers may install CCTV in general office areas, but section 9B prohibits an employer from using optical surveillance or listening devices to observe or record workers in workplace toilets, washrooms, change rooms and lactation rooms. Victoria does not currently have a standalone workplace-surveillance notification statute, though that is under active review (see below).

The 2025 Workplace Surveillance Inquiry

The Legislative Assembly's Economy and Infrastructure Committee tabled its final report into workplace surveillance on 13 May 2025, with 29 findings and 18 recommendations, concluding Victorian law had not kept pace with keylogging, wearable trackers, biometrics and AI monitoring tools. In November 2025 the Victorian Government gave in-principle support to 15 of the 18 recommendations, which would (if enacted) require employers to justify surveillance as reasonable, necessary and proportionate; give advance notice, likely 14 days, before surveillance begins; maintain a written surveillance policy; restrict covert surveillance to cases with reasonable grounds to suspect unlawful conduct, subject to court oversight; and strengthen biometric data protections. No legislation has been introduced as of this article's verification date. On 20 July 2026 the Premier announced that Labor will introduce workplace surveillance laws (employers telling workers when they are monitored, consulting staff, and covert surveillance only where unlawful activity is suspected); that is a commitment, not enacted law. The 2026 Victorian election may affect the timeline.

Recording Police

Recording a police officer performing duties in a public place is generally lawful in Victoria: a public street, park, or open area does not put the officer inside a "private activity" under section 3, so filming does not engage section 7. Police may ask a person to stop recording but generally lack authority to confiscate a device or prevent filming unless the person is obstructing or hindering police, a separate offence under section 51(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) (police officers are "emergency workers" for that section). Where a police interaction happens in a private space, such as inside a home during a search, the analysis changes: the section 6 participant position still covers a participant's own audio, but optical recording of other people present may require their consent.

Since amendments in 2017, police and ambulance officers may use body-worn cameras overtly, including where they incidentally record a private conversation or activity. For the Australia-wide position, including states where the "ought reasonably expect to be overheard" carve-out does not apply the same way, see Recording the Police in Australia.

Intimate Images and Voyeurism

Victoria layers three separate bodies of law over ordinary covert recording where intimate images are involved.

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 53R-53T

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act 2022 (Vic) moved intimate image offences into the Crimes Act 1958 as indictable offences, applying to conduct from 30 July 2023:

• s 53R producing an intimate image contrary to community standards: maximum 3 years.
• s 53S distributing an intimate image contrary to community standards: maximum 3 years.
• s 53T threatening to distribute an intimate image: maximum 3 years.

Watch out: recording someone in a change room, bathroom or bedroom without consent is usually a breach of section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act (the person recording is not a party to that private activity) and potentially producing an intimate image under s 53R of the Crimes Act 1958, carrying a further 3-year maximum.

Federal Deepfake Offence

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (Cth) commenced 3 September 2024, criminalising sharing non-consensual sexually explicit material, including AI-generated or digitally altered images and video, via a carriage service. The base offence carries a maximum of 6 years; an aggravated offence, including where the sharer also created or altered the material, carries 7 years. The Act's note says the material can include images, videos or audio depicting a person that have been edited or created using digital technology, including artificial intelligence.

Federal Civil Tort

The federal statutory tort described above also applies to non-consensual production of intimate images, in addition to the Crimes Act offences.

Penalties

Corporations face up to 1,200 penalty units for the same offences. For the 2026-27 financial year (from 1 July 2026), one Victorian penalty unit equals $209.10, putting the maximum individual fine at approximately $50,184 and the maximum corporate fine at approximately $250,920. Penalty unit values are indexed on 1 July each year; check the current rate before relying on a dollar figure. These penalties apply per offence, so a person who unlawfully records a conversation and then publishes it faces liability for two separate offences.

How Victoria Compares

Victoria groups with Queensland 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. That grouping does not extend to video. Victoria regulates optical surveillance under section 7 using the same private-activity test as its audio provision; Queensland has no general optical surveillance law at all, and the Northern Territory regulates it under section 12 using the same participant-based test Victoria uses. So of the three Group 1 states, Victoria and the Northern Territory behave the most alike on video, while Queensland stands apart.

The practical difference between Victoria and a Group 3 state is significant. A Melburnian can record a conversation they participate in without needing to justify it. A resident of Perth or Adelaide doing the same thing must fit a listed exception, such as consent, a recording reasonably necessary to protect a lawful interest, or a public-interest ground (which works differently in each of the two states), a materially higher bar than Victoria's position, where nothing needs to be shown at all. Compare this directly against Western Australia Recording Laws and South Australia Recording Laws for the narrow-exception structure, or New South Wales Recording Laws for the closest thing to a Victoria-style outcome achieved through a different legal mechanism, a broad personal-use exception rather than an offence that never applies to a participant.

All eight jurisdictions share one thing: publishing or sharing a recording without meeting an exception is an offence everywhere, and since 10 June 2025 the federal statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy applies uniformly as an additional civil layer regardless of which state's criminal law is in play. For the complete state-by-state breakdown, penalties table, and the video-versus-audio axis explained in full, see the Australia recording laws hub.

Recording in Public Places

Victoria does not prohibit recording in public spaces generally. Because the Act's protections turn on "private conversations" and "private activities," filming or photographing in streets, parks, public transport and other openly accessible areas does not trigger the Act. How footage is later used can still engage other laws, including the stalking offence in section 21A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 and OVIC

The Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic) governs how Victorian public sector organisations, including state departments, councils and public hospitals, collect, use, disclose and protect personal information. It does not directly govern private citizens recording conversations, but it shapes how public sector employers may monitor staff or the public. The Information Privacy Principles it establishes require collection only for a lawful purpose, disclosure of why information is collected, and no secondary use without consent or legal basis.

The Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC) administers the Act, investigates complaints, and has published guidance that an organisation recording a call should tell the person at the start as a matter of fair collection practice. OVIC has broadly supported the 2025 workplace surveillance inquiry's recommendations, including extending privacy protections beyond the public sector.

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
• Western Australia Recording Laws
• South Australia Recording Laws

This guide is part of our Australia law guides.

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information about recording laws in Victoria, Australia, and applicable Commonwealth legislation. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic), the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic), the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), and the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) as verified against primary sources in July 2026 and rechecked in October 2026. Laws change; for advice about your specific situation, consult a legal practitioner admitted in Victoria.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I record a conversation in Victoria without the other person knowing?

Yes, if you are a party to the conversation. Section 6 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) is defined so it only catches recording by someone who is not a party, so a participant is outside the offence, not covered by an exception to it. Sharing or publishing the recording afterward is a separate matter restricted by section 11, with limited exceptions for lawful interests, legal proceedings, and the public interest.

Is it legal to film someone in public in Victoria?

Generally yes. The Surveillance Devices Act only restricts optical surveillance of a private activity, defined to exclude activity carried on outside a building or where participants should reasonably expect to be observed. Filming in public streets, parks and other open areas does not fall under the Act, though using footage to harass, stalk or defame someone can engage other laws.

Can my employer record me at work in Victoria?

Employers can install CCTV in general office areas, but section 9B prohibits an employer from using cameras or listening devices to observe or record workers in workplace toilets, washrooms, change rooms and lactation rooms, and worker consent is not an exception. Audio recording of a private conversation requires the employer to be a party to it or have consent from all parties. Victoria has no standalone workplace surveillance notification law yet, though the Victorian Government gave in-principle support in November 2025 to reforms that would require advance notice and a written policy; no legislation has been introduced as of this article's verification date.

What happens if I share a recording I made of a private conversation?

Sharing or publishing a recording of a private conversation is a separate offence under section 11, carrying up to 240 penalty units (2026-27: about $50,184) or two years imprisonment. Exceptions apply where all parties consent, sharing is reasonably necessary to protect a lawful interest, it occurs in legal or disciplinary proceedings, or it serves the public interest.

Do Victoria's recording laws apply to phone calls?

Yes, alongside federal law. Under Victorian law, you can record a phone call you are a party to. The federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) prohibits intercepting calls in transit, but recording your own received call as a participant is generally understood to fall outside that definition. For interstate calls, both states' laws can be relevant, so telling the other party remains the safest approach.

Can I film police officers in Victoria?

Yes, in most circumstances. Police on duty in a public space are not engaged in a private activity under the Surveillance Devices Act, so filming them does not require consent. Officers may ask you to stop but generally cannot confiscate your device or lawfully prevent filming unless you are obstructing their duties. Recording audio of a conversation with police is also covered by section 6 if you are a party to it.

Are there laws against recording intimate images in Victoria?

Yes. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 53R-53T make it an indictable offence to produce, distribute, or threaten to distribute an intimate image contrary to community standards, each carrying up to 3 years imprisonment, for conduct from 30 July 2023. The federal Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024, in force since 3 September 2024, adds a further offence for sharing AI-generated or digitally altered sexual material without consent via a carriage service, with penalties up to 7 years.

Can I sue someone for recording me without consent in Victoria?

Possibly, in addition to any criminal complaint. Since 10 June 2025, Schedule 2 of the federal Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), inserted by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024, provides a statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy. A non-consensual recording that intrudes on seclusion can ground a civil claim if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, the conduct was intentional or reckless, and the invasion was serious. Remedies include injunctions and damages, with non-economic-loss and exemplary damages combined capped at the greater of $478,550 and the defamation cap for non-economic loss ($520,000 from 1 July 2026).

What is the difference between Victoria and New South Wales recording law?

Both states usually let a participant record their own conversation, but they reach that result through different legal mechanisms. In Victoria, section 6 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 is defined so it never applies to a participant in the first place. In New South Wales, section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 prohibits participant recording outright but then excuses most of it through a broad personal-use exception. The practical outcome is similar for most ordinary personal recording, but the legal burden differs: a Victorian participant has no exception to establish, while a New South Wales participant must be able to point to one of the section 7(3) limbs if challenged.

Can I record a video call or Zoom meeting in Victoria?

The audio component of a video call is analysed the same way as a phone call: a participant may record it under section 6, and a participant recording at their own end is generally treated as outside the federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), because the communication has already reached them (s 5F). Recording the visual component of a video call is analysed under section 7 in the same way as any other optical recording, though a screen-shared video call is unlikely to involve a private activity in the way the Act contemplates.

Does the Victorian participant exception apply to recording a child or family member at home?

Section 6 applies the same way regardless of the relationship between the parties. If you are a party to a private conversation with a family member, you may record it. Recording someone else's conversation, such as a conversation between two other family members you are not part of, falls outside the participant position and needs consent from all of them or another exception under section 6.