Video Recording Rental Inspections in Australia: What Property Managers Need to Know (2026)

Body cameras, smartphone video walk-throughs, and 360-degree video inspections have become more common in Australian property management over the last few years. The appeal is clear: a video record of an inspection captures condition context that still photos cannot — the overall impression of a room, how existing damage sits in space, whether a tap is dripping or an appliance is making a noise.

But video introduces a layer of legal complexity that still photography does not. The moment a camera records audio — as almost every smartphone and action camera does by default — you've moved from property documentation into territory governed by state-based surveillance device legislation. These laws are separate from residential tenancy law, the penalties are more serious, and most property managers don't realise there's a distinction.

This guide covers what the law actually says and what a practical, low-risk approach looks like for a PM who wants to use video in their inspection workflow.

When a property manager photographs or video-records a rental inspection, they're operating under at least two distinct bodies of law simultaneously.

The first is residential tenancy legislation: each state's Residential Tenancies Act, which governs the landlord-tenant relationship and sets the rules for inspections — who can enter, with how much notice, how often, and for what purpose. Compliance with this legislation gives you the right to be in the property conducting the inspection.

The second — and the one most PMs don't think about — is state-based surveillance device legislation. Every Australian state and territory has its own Act covering listening devices, optical surveillance devices, and tracking devices. These laws predate the smartphone era and were not written with rental inspections in mind, but they apply to them regardless.

The short version: tenancy legislation determines your right to be in the property and conduct the inspection. Surveillance device legislation determines what you can record while you're there. They are independent frameworks, and compliance with one does not guarantee compliance with the other.

Every Australian state prohibits recording private conversations without the consent of the parties involved. The specific Acts differ — Queensland's Invasion of Privacy Act 1971, NSW's Surveillance Devices Act 2007, Victoria's Surveillance Devices Act 1999, Western Australia's Surveillance Devices Act 1998, and equivalent legislation in every other state and territory — but the core prohibition is consistent: if your device records audio of a private conversation without the knowledge and consent of the parties, you are likely committing an offence.

This matters for rental inspections in a specific way: if a tenant is present during the inspection and your camera or phone is recording audio while they speak, you may be capturing a "private conversation" as defined by your state's surveillance legislation. The fact that you have a lawful right to be in the property for the inspection does not create an exemption from these Acts.

In Queensland specifically, the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 prohibits the use of a listening device to record a private conversation without the consent of all parties. The maximum penalty is 40 penalty units or two years' imprisonment. Similar penalties apply under equivalent Acts in NSW, Victoria, WA, SA, Tasmania, the ACT, and the NT.

This prohibition does not necessarily apply to a silent video walkthrough of an empty property where no conversations are captured. But a body camera running while you walk through with a tenant present, a phone propped in "video" mode in the kitchen while you discuss maintenance items, or any device that captures audio of a tenant speaking — all of these create real risk.

The safest position: treat any device that records audio in the presence of a tenant during an inspection as requiring explicit, written, prior consent from that tenant before you begin recording. If you cannot get that consent, disable the audio or don't record.

The legal picture is somewhat clearer for video recordings that capture no audio. Most Australian state surveillance device legislation is primarily directed at audio surveillance — listening devices and the recording of private conversations — with video-only surveillance carrying fewer direct prohibitions in non-private spaces.

That said, "non-private" is the key phrase. Filming areas where tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy — bedrooms, bathrooms, change areas — without consent can create exposure under state criminal codes even without audio. In Queensland, for example, Criminal Code section 227A prohibits visual recording of people in private places without consent. Similar provisions exist in other states.

For a property walk-through of common areas and the structure of the lot itself — walls, floors, ceilings, kitchen appliances, outdoor spaces — silent video recording is a lower-risk proposition when tenants are not present. You are documenting property condition, not capturing people in private circumstances.

"Lower risk" is not "no risk", however. In practice, tenants are often present during inspections, and even a video that incidentally frames personal items, documents, or family photographs raises its own privacy considerations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), even without audio.

A tenant who is present during an inspection does not automatically consent to being filmed. The right to enter the property for a scheduled inspection is distinct from any right to video-record the tenant.

If a video walk-through captures clear footage of a tenant — their face, their belongings, their documents — that footage becomes personal information as defined by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The Australian Privacy Principles require that personal information be collected for a legitimate purpose, used only for that purpose, and stored securely. Even where the primary purpose of the footage is property documentation, footage that incidentally captures the tenant creates obligations around use, storage, and disclosure.

The cleanest approach: if you plan to video-record an inspection, let the tenant know in writing before the inspection — specify the purpose (property condition documentation), who will have access to the footage, and how long it will be retained. Some agencies include a video recording clause in the routine inspection notice. This notification does not amount to consent under surveillance device legislation if audio is being captured, but it reduces the risk of the tenant later claiming they were unaware, and it is consistent with your Privacy Act obligations.

The legislation differs across jurisdictions, but the practical position is consistent across all eight Australian states and territories.

New South Wales — Surveillance Devices Act 2007. Prohibits installing, using, or maintaining a listening device to record a private conversation without consent of all parties. Optical surveillance devices also have restrictions around covert use in private premises.

Victoria — Surveillance Devices Act 1999. Recording a private conversation using a listening device without consent is an offence. Video surveillance provisions apply differently but covert use in private premises creates risk.

Queensland — Invasion of Privacy Act 1971. Prohibits recording private conversations using a listening device without all-party consent. No specific optical surveillance offence under this Act, but Criminal Code section 227A covers visual recording in private places.

Western Australia — Surveillance Devices Act 1998. Covers both listening and optical surveillance devices with consent requirements for use in private premises.

South Australia — Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (which replaced the earlier Listening and Surveillance Devices Act). Covers audio and visual surveillance with consent requirements.

Tasmania — Listening Devices Act 1991. Focused primarily on audio recording of private conversations without consent.

Australian Capital Territory — Listening Devices Act 1992. Covers recording of private conversations without all-party consent.

Northern Territory — Surveillance Devices Act, covering listening and other surveillance devices with consent requirements.

In all jurisdictions the practical message is the same: audio recording without the consent of all parties is a criminal offence, not merely a civil breach. When in doubt about your state's specific rules or how they apply to a particular situation, your state's Real Estate Institute — REIA, REIQ, REIV, REIWA, REISA, REINT, REIT, or REIACT — is the right first port of call.

Property managers who want to use video documentation in their inspection workflow can take several steps to reduce legal exposure.

Notify tenants in advance. If you plan to video-record an inspection, include this in the written inspection notice. State the purpose (property condition documentation), who will have access to the footage, and how it will be stored. This is not consent under surveillance legislation if audio is involved, but it is consistent with Privacy Act obligations and demonstrates good faith.

Obtain written consent for any audio recording. This can be a brief clause in the inspection notice itself or a separate consent form signed by the tenant before the inspection. For agencies that video inspections routinely, a one-time consent clause at the start of each tenancy (in the lease or a separate property management authority) provides cleaner documentation than seeking consent inspection by inspection.

Disable audio when consent is not in place. Many inspection workflows that use video do not actually require audio. A silent walk-through of each room for condition documentation purposes can be equally effective and eliminates the surveillance device exposure entirely. Most smartphones and action cameras can have audio recording disabled in settings.

Apply additional caution in bedrooms, bathrooms, and laundry rooms. These areas involve heightened privacy expectations. Some agencies use photos only in these spaces and video only in common areas — a practical policy that reduces exposure under both surveillance legislation and the Criminal Code provisions in several states.

Store footage appropriately. Inspection video records should be held with the same security as condition report photographs: accessible only to relevant agency staff, protected against unauthorised access, and retained only as long as reasonably needed for property management purposes. Publishing or sharing footage beyond the immediate parties is a separate compliance obligation.

The reason most professional inspection software — including ConditionHQ — is built around structured photo capture rather than video is partly practical and partly legal. Photos are easier to organise room by room and item by item, easier to annotate with specific condition notes, and easier to include in formatted condition reports distributed to landlords and tenants.

But they also sidestep the surveillance device complexity almost entirely. A photo attached to a specific item in a condition report — "Main bedroom: mark on wall above power point, existing, approx 3 cm diameter" — is unambiguously property documentation. A video of the same room that incidentally captures the tenant, records audio conversation, or sweeps across personal belongings occupies more complicated legal territory.

For agencies considering video inspection tools, the compliance work is real and ongoing: obtaining audio consent before each inspection or setting up a consent clause at lease commencement, notifying tenants in writing, storing footage appropriately, and training staff on what to avoid in front of the camera. For agencies using structured photo documentation with timestamped metadata, those obligations are simpler.

This does not mean video has no place in property management. Video of a dripping tap, a running noise from an air conditioner, mould progression, or appliance malfunction can be compelling evidence in a maintenance or bond dispute. But adding video to an inspection workflow adds legal obligations that adding photos does not — and those obligations vary by state in ways that matter.