In short
Whether you can record a meeting or call you are part of depends on which Australian state or territory you and the other people are in. Three jurisdictions — Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory — generally let a party to a private conversation record it.
The others start from the consent of everyone in the conversation, with limited exceptions for protecting your lawful interests or, in some, recordings not made to be shared with outsiders.
The safe course in every state is the same: tell people you are recording at the start and get their agreement. This guide gives each state's Act and main rule, then the Commonwealth and privacy layers on top. For how this compares with other countries, see is it legal to record a meeting?
The rule in each state and territory
Checked 25 September 2026, from the Acts themselves where the official text could be retrieved, and otherwise from government legal-information services named below. "Principal party" means a person who speaks or is spoken to in the conversation.
| Jurisdiction | Act | Can a party record without everyone's consent? |
|---|---|---|
| New South Wales | Surveillance Devices Act 2007, s 7 | Generally no. A principal party may record with their own consent only where it is reasonably necessary to protect their lawful interests, or where the recording is not made to communicate or publish to non-parties (s 7(3)). |
| Victoria | Surveillance Devices Act 1999, s 6 | Yes. The offence covers conversations "to which the person is not a party". Publishing the recording is separately restricted (s 11). |
| Queensland | Invasion of Privacy Act 1971, s 43 | Yes. The offence does not apply where the person using the device is a party to the conversation (s 43(2)(a)). Publishing is separately restricted (s 45). |
| Western Australia | Surveillance Devices Act 1998, s 5 | Generally no. Exceptions include all principal parties consenting, and a principal party's consent where recording is reasonably necessary to protect their lawful interests (s 5(3)); there is also a public-interest provision. |
| South Australia | Surveillance Devices Act 2016, s 4 | Generally no. Exceptions cover protecting a person's lawful interests and, under s 6, the public interest. Use and publication are restricted separately. |
| Tasmania | Listening Devices Act 1991, s 5 | Generally no, with exceptions like NSW's: a principal party may record where it is reasonably necessary to protect their lawful interests, or where it is not made to communicate or publish to non-parties (s 5(3)). |
| Australian Capital Territory | Listening Devices Act 1992, s 4 | Generally no, with exceptions like NSW's: lawful interests on reasonable grounds, or a recording not made to communicate or publish to non-parties (s 4(3)). |
| Northern Territory | Surveillance Devices Act 2007, s 11 | Yes. The offence covers conversations "to which the person is not a party". Publishing is separately restricted. |
Sources: the Queensland, Tasmanian, ACT and Northern Territory Acts from the official legislation registers (Queensland, Tasmania, ACT, Northern Territory); Victoria from Victoria Legal Aid's LawHub; South Australia from the Law Handbook published by the Legal Services Commission of South Australia; NSW and Western Australia from the Acts as published on the NSW and WA registers.
Three things the table cannot show
- "Lawful interests" is narrow and unsettled. Courts have accepted it in some cases, such as a genuine fear for safety, and not in others. It is not a general licence to record work meetings.
- "Private conversation" has a definition. In most Acts it turns on whether the circumstances suggest the speakers want it heard only by the people present. A work meeting behind a closed door or on an invitation-only call usually looks private; a public talk usually does not.
- Making and sharing are separate. In Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory, a recording you lawfully made can still be unlawful to communicate or publish. Sending it to a colleague who was not there is a form of communicating it.
The Commonwealth layer: calls over a network
The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 prohibits intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system. It is aimed at interception by people who are not parties to the call. How it applies to a participant recording a phone or internet call on their own device is not something this guide can settle; if your recording is of phone calls in particular, that is a reason to ask a lawyer rather than rely on the state rule alone.
The privacy layer
The Privacy Act 1988 and its Australian Privacy Principles apply to many businesses and most Australian Government agencies, though, as of September 2026, not to most small businesses with annual turnover of $3 million or less. Reform of that exemption has been proposed, so check the OAIC's current position if you run a small business. Where it applies, a recording and its transcript are personal information: the organisation must tell people it is collecting it, use it for the purpose it was collected for, keep it secure and not keep it longer than it needs to. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner publishes guidance on the APPs.
Workplace surveillance has its own statutes in some states, such as the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW), which govern an employer monitoring staff rather than a participant recording a meeting. If you are the employer, check them.
Calls that cross borders
A video call can have people in Melbourne, Sydney and Singapore at once. Each participant may be protected by the law where they are. You do not need to work out which rule wins if you follow the strictest one: say at the start that you are recording, what for, and give people the chance to object. How to ask for consent to record has wording that works on a call and in an invite. For calls with US participants, one-party and two-party consent lists the states that require everyone's agreement.
A routine that works in every state
- Check your organisation's policy and any client contract.
- At the start of the meeting, say you would like to record for your notes, and ask whether that is all right.
- If anyone objects, do not record. Take notes by hand.
- Do not send the recording to people who were not in the meeting; share notes instead.
- Decide how long you will keep the audio, and delete it on that schedule.
How Notey fits into this
Notey does not change what the law requires; it changes how many places a recording ends up.
- Audio is kept on your Mac and transcribed there with Apple's on-device speech recognition. It is not uploaded to be transcribed.
- Recording, transcription and search need no account and no network.
- AI notes send transcript text, never audio, and only when you ask or when a meeting ends with write-ups turned on. The privacy policy names the processor.
- Nothing is saved until you press Allow on the floating button when a call starts, and a red dot with an elapsed timer shows whenever audio is being kept. That indicator is visible to you, not to the call, so asking the room is still the step that matters.
Frequently asked questions
Is Australia a one-party consent country?
Not as a whole. Recording private conversations is governed by each state and territory, and they differ. In Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory a party to a conversation can generally record it; elsewhere the Acts start from everyone's consent, with exceptions.
Can I record a work meeting in New South Wales?
The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) generally requires the consent of all principal parties. There are narrow exceptions, such as where recording is reasonably necessary to protect your lawful interests, but relying on them is a matter for legal advice. Asking everyone at the start is the plain route.
Can I share a recording of a conversation I was part of?
Most of the Acts treat communicating or publishing a recording as a separate offence, even in states where making it was lawful. Sharing it outside the people who were in the conversation needs care.
What if the people on the call are in different states?
Each participant may be protected by their own state's law. Following the strictest rule that could apply, which means getting everyone's agreement, avoids the question.