Recording a Meeting in Queensland: Does an AI Note-Taker Change the Rules?

Key Takeaways

• A Queensland participant may record a meeting without telling the others (s 43(2) of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld)).
• Sharing the recording or an AI summary outside the meeting needs a s 45 exception, usually consent.
• New South Wales requires the consent of all principal parties before a participant records, so announce the recording where interstate callers join.
• A note-taker's transcript is personal information the vendor holds, and the Privacy Act's collection, notice and overseas disclosure rules apply where the Act covers you.
• A secret recording by an employee can be a valid reason for dismissal.

1. 1.What the Queensland Act prohibits, and what it leaves alone
2. 2.What changes when someone on the call is in Sydney or Melbourne
3. 3.The note-taker is a participant, and so is its vendor
4. 4.Staff who record, and staff who are recorded
5. 5.What to do this week
6. 6.Where your tool, your clients and their States decide it
7. 7.Frequently Asked Questions

In Queensland a person who takes part in a conversation may record it without telling anyone else, because the offence in s 43 of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld) (Queensland Act) is aimed at people who are not parties, but a separate section restricts what a party may do with the recording, the other eastern States apply different rules to the same call and an AI note-taker brings in a vendor who keeps the transcript. Astris Law in Brisbane wrote this guide for a business whose people record meetings, and it takes those layers in turn.

What the Queensland Act prohibits, and what it leaves alone

Section 43(1) makes it an offence to use a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation, with a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units or two years' imprisonment; at the Queensland penalty unit of $172.70 from 1 July 2026 the fine is $6,908. A listening device under s 4 is anything capable of recording a private conversation as it takes place, so a transcription bot qualifies, and s 43(2) carves out a person who is a party to the conversation. A private conversation is one spoken in circumstances that show the speakers want it heard only by themselves, and it excludes words spoken where a speaker ought reasonably to expect they may be overheard, recorded, monitored or listened to by some other person who does not have a speaker's consent.

The restriction that matters in practice is s 45. A party who recorded a private conversation must not communicate or publish to anyone else any record made by the device or any statement prepared from it, and the penalty is the same. In broad terms the exceptions are:

• communication to another party, or with the express or implied consent of all the other parties;
• communication in the course of legal proceedings;
• communication no further than is reasonably necessary in the public interest, in the performance of a duty or to protect the person's lawful interests; and
• communication to a person with such an interest in the conversation that it is reasonable in the circumstances.

A Queensland participant may therefore record, and may share the result only within those exceptions.

What changes when someone on the call is in Sydney or Melbourne

A participant's right to record without consent is a Queensland rule, and the other eastern States take different positions. Under s 7(1)(b) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) a participant commits an offence by recording a private conversation unless all the principal parties consent (s 7(3)(a)), or one principal party consents and the recording is either reasonably necessary to protect that party's lawful interests or is not made to communicate or publish the conversation to non-parties (s 7(3)(b)). The High Court's decision on the equivalent South Australian exception in Potter (A Pseudonym) v The King [2026] HCA 25 arose from domestic violence and licenses nothing about routine business recording. Under s 6(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) a participant may record, but s 11(1) prohibits communicating or publishing a record or report of the conversation unless a s 11(2) exception, much like Queensland's, applies.

No reported Australian decision appears to have settled which Act applies when the recorder is in Brisbane and the person recorded is in Sydney. Announcing at the start that the meeting is being recorded and transcribed, saying what will be done with the transcript and obtaining everyone's agreement is the New South Wales consent exception, supports the consent exceptions to the Queensland and Victorian sharing prohibitions and is what the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) recommends for fairness under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act), though none of that has been tested in a reported case. The civil side of recording someone without consent is in our guide to the statutory privacy tort.

The note-taker is a participant, and so is its vendor

A note-taker that joins a call and transcribes it live is a listening device. Where the business is a party s 43 is not engaged, but the summary is a statement prepared from the record, so forwarding it outside the meeting is a s 45 question, and whether handing the audio to the vendor is itself a communication to another person has not been tested.

The vendor then holds personal information, and the OAIC's guidance on commercially available AI products, first published on 21 October 2024, treats recordings and AI transcripts of a business meeting as collected personal information. Under Australian Privacy Principle (APP) 3 the collection must be reasonably necessary and by lawful and fair means. Whether participants were told and agreed goes to fairness, and the OAIC recommends obtaining consent before the meeting starts, since nobody knows in advance what will be discussed. The privacy policy and APP 5 notices should mention the tool, and where the vendor processes the transcript overseas APP 8 requires reasonable steps to ensure the recipient handles it in line with the APPs unless an exception such as informed consent applies. Our Privacy Act compliance guide covers who the Act binds. The exposure draft Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026, released on 31 August 2026 with consultation closed on 18 September 2026, would treat AI-generated and inferred information as collected in its own right. As at early October 2026 no Bill had been introduced.

What the vendor may do with the transcript sits in its terms, and the main platforms differ on where audio is processed, whether meeting content trains their models and how long transcripts are kept. Where the Privacy Act covers your business, a breach at the vendor can be a notifiable breach of yours as well; our data breach response page sets out what follows.

Staff who record, and staff who are recorded

A recording that is lawful under the Queensland Act can still be a reason for dismissal. In Schwenke v Silcar Pty Ltd t/a Silcar Energy Solutions [2013] FWCFB 9842 a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) refused permission to appeal from a finding that an employee's secret recording of a performance meeting was a valid reason for dismissal, being contrary to his duty of good faith and undermining trust. In Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2753 a secret recording was a valid reason under s 387(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) even though the employer learned of it only after deciding to terminate. A policy forbidding covert recording by staff has that reasoning behind it, although whether a dismissal is unfair still depends on the other matters in s 387.

Queensland has no workplace surveillance statute, so a Queensland employer transcribing its own meetings relies on being a party, on the notice it gives and on the Privacy Act where it applies. No reported Commission decision appears to deal with an employee who refuses an AI note-taker, so put the requirement in a written policy.

What to do this week

1. Pull the current terms of the tool you use and save a dated copy.
2. Decide who may record or admit a note-taker, and that nobody records covertly.
3. Settle the words said at the start of every recorded meeting, namely that it is being recorded and transcribed by a named tool, that the business keeps the transcript and that anyone who objects should say so then.
4. Fix where transcripts live, who can open them and when they are deleted. Keep any recording connected with a dispute and do not forward it without advice.
5. Write those points into a one-page policy and circulate it before the next recorded meeting.

Where your tool, your clients and their States decide it

Three things that no general guide can read decide whether your current practice is a problem: the terms of the tool you actually run, where your regular callers sit and whether the Privacy Act reaches your business. Those are questions about your meetings rather than about the law in general, and the useful answer comes from reading the vendor terms against the way your people actually use the tool. If you want that done before the next recorded meeting, Jamie Nuich at Astris Law can be reached on (07) 3519 5616.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it legal to record a Zoom or Teams meeting in Queensland without telling the other people?

If you are a participant, recording is not an offence under s 43 of the Queensland Act, and sharing the recording or a transcript outside the meeting is restricted by s 45. If any participant is in New South Wales, assume that Act may apply and obtain the consent of all principal parties first, because no reported decision has settled which State's Act governs an interstate call.

Can I send the AI summary of a meeting to someone who was not in it?

In Queensland a summary is a statement prepared from the recording, so sending it outside the meeting needs a s 45 exception, most often the consent of the other parties. Consent obtained at the start of the meeting is the cleanest answer.

Can an employee be dismissed for secretly recording a meeting with their manager?

Yes. A recording that is lawful under the Queensland Act can still be a valid reason for dismissal. In Schwenke v Silcar the Fair Work Commission treated an employee's secret recording of a performance meeting as contrary to the duty of good faith, and in Altham-Wooding v PKDK Adventures a secret recording was a valid reason even though the employer learned of it after deciding to terminate. Whether the dismissal is unfair still turns on the other matters in s 387 of the Fair Work Act.

Does the Privacy Act apply to the transcript an AI note-taker keeps?

Where the Privacy Act covers your business, the recording and the transcript are personal information you have collected, so the collection must be reasonably necessary and fair, your privacy policy and collection notices should mention the tool and APP 8 applies where the vendor processes the transcript overseas. A breach at the vendor can be a notifiable breach of yours as well.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. While we take reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, we make no representations or warranties as to its completeness, currency or reliability. We accept no liability for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from the use of, or reliance on, this website's content. You should always seek professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances before acting on any information in this article. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.