Almost never, and that is a legal choice rather than a technical one: section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) carries a maximum of 500 penalty units for a corporation that records a private conversation.
Skai Solutions answers restaurant phones in Australia and New Zealand, which means private conversation law is something we have to get right rather than skim. This page gives you what the surveillance statute actually says about audio, why the Privacy Act probably does not cover your venue, where cameras should and should not point, and why the rule for your phone line runs the opposite way to the rule for your cameras.
Almost always no, and when a venue turns audio off it is usually following the law rather than saving disk space. Most commercial cameras sold here either ship with the microphone disabled or have it disabled by the installer, because audio moves the camera out of one legal regime and into a much harsher one.
Video of a public dining room is, broadly, the easy case. Sound is not. The moment a camera captures what two people at table nine are saying to each other, it has recorded a private conversation, and private conversations are governed by state surveillance statutes that were written about listening devices long before anyone put a microphone in a dome camera.
Liquor and food rules are national in flavour but surveillance is purely a state matter, so there is no single Australian answer. New South Wales is the clearest drafted and the most quoted, so take it as the worked example and check your own state before you act.
Section 7(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), as published, says that "A person must not knowingly install, use or cause to be used or maintain a listening device" either to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation the person is not a party to, or to record a private conversation the person is a party to.
The maximum penalty attached to that section is the number worth knowing before you order a camera with a microphone in it.
| Who | Maximum penalty under s 7, Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) |
|---|---|
| A corporation | 500 penalty units |
| Any other person | 100 penalty units and/or 5 years imprisonment |
We are quoting that in penalty units rather than dollars on purpose. The dollar conversion is set by other legislation and we could not reach a government source for the current figure on 8 October 2026, so rather than publish a number we cannot link we are leaving it as the Act states it. If you want the dollar figure, ask your lawyer or your state regulator, not a vendor page.
Note what the section does and does not reach. It is about conversations, not sound. A camera that picks up the espresso grinder and the general noise of a room has not recorded a private conversation. A camera over a two person booth, or in a staff room, or at a counter where people read out card numbers and phone numbers, very easily has.
Usually not, and this is the part that surprises operators, because it runs the opposite way to what everyone assumes.
A business with an annual turnover of A$3 million or less is exempt from parts of the Privacy Act 1988, according to the Queensland government's summary of the privacy laws read on 8 October 2026. The exceptions that pull a small business back in are narrow: health service providers, businesses that sell databases containing private information, and any business that chooses to opt in to the regulator's register.
Most independent restaurants and cafes in this country turn over less than A$3 million. So the federal privacy regime that people worry about mostly does not apply to them, while the state surveillance statute that nobody has heard of absolutely does. A single venue cafe can be outside the Privacy Act and still be committing an offence under its state's surveillance act with one microphone left switched on. That is the actual legal position and it is almost the reverse of the common assumption.
Being outside the Privacy Act is also not the same as having no obligations. Staff have employment law protections. Customers can complain to the state regulator. And a venue that hands footage to the wrong person has a problem regardless of which statute names it, in the same way that the food complaint process has consequences well before any regulator is involved.
Four steps, cheapest first, and the first one costs nothing.
Turn the microphones off. Not down. Off, in the recorder's configuration, and then test it by playing back a clip. Installers routinely leave audio enabled because the default is on. This single step removes the entire s 7 exposure for the camera side of your system.
Point them at property, not at people's mouths. Till, back door, safe, cellar, delivery bay, car park. Those are the places where footage is actually useful when something goes missing. A camera over the dining tables generates a lot of recording and solves very little.
Keep them out of the places that are never defensible. Toilets and change areas, obviously. The staff room is the one venues get wrong: it looks like back of house but it is where private conversations happen, and a camera there is the complaint you will actually receive.
Sign it, and write down who can look. A notice at the entrance. A named person who can pull footage, a reason required, and a retention period after which it is gone. If you also roster staff around those cameras, the same discipline our roster rules page describes applies: write the policy down, because an unwritten rule defaults to whatever the floor assumes.
We have a direct interest in this one, so here is the position stated plainly rather than hinted at.
A phone call is the same legal regime as a camera microphone, because it is also a private conversation. But the Act treats a party to the conversation differently from an eavesdropper, and that distinction is the whole basis on which any venue can lawfully record its own line.
Section 7(3) of the NSW Act permits a principal party to record a private conversation where all principal parties consent, or where one principal party consents and the recording is reasonably necessary to protect that party's lawful interests, or is not intended to be communicated or published to anyone who was not a party to it. A venue answering its own phone is a principal party to that call. That is why "this call may be recorded" exists as a sentence, and why it is said at the start rather than the end.
So the practical rule for a restaurant is the opposite of the camera rule. On the camera, switch the microphone off. On the phone, you may record, provided a party consents, the notice is given up front, and the recording is kept for a reason you could state out loud. Skai Solutions answers calls as a party to them and says so on the call, and a venue setting this up should expect about five days to go live and should read the notice wording itself rather than accept a default. Our answering machine message page covers the same ground for the greeting a venue records in its own voice, and how to answer the phone at a restaurant covers what should follow it.
Worth separating the two systems in your head. A camera records what happened in the room after the fact, while the phone decides whether a booking happened at all. What an AI receptionist for a hospitality venue does with the second of those is set out on its own page.
A venue that is buying cameras to solve a staffing problem should spend the money on the staffing problem. Footage tells you what happened; it does not change what happens. If the real issue is that nobody is on the floor at seven, a camera records the empty floor faithfully and nothing improves.
A venue that will not commit to the admin should also not start. Cameras without a notice, without a named custodian and without a retention period create a liability where there was none, and the cost of getting that wrong is not the hardware.
And a venue hoping cameras will stop walkouts or disputes at the table is usually buying the wrong tool for a problem that starts on the phone. Most of the trouble a dining room has on a Friday was created hours earlier by a booking nobody wrote down, which is the argument our restaurant no shows page sets out with the numbers.
The commonest reason a venue goes looking for its footage is an unpaid table. Our page on a customer leaving without paying covers what makes a police report worth filing and what a walkout really costs once you run it through a 6.65% margin.
Do restaurant security cameras have audio?
Most do not. Commercial cameras are usually supplied or installed with the microphone disabled, because recording sound moves the system from the comparatively settled rules about video into state surveillance law about private conversations. Any camera with a live microphone over a table or in a staff room is very likely recording private conversations.
Is it illegal to record audio in a restaurant in Australia?
Surveillance is a state matter so there is no single national answer, but the drafting is similar across states. Section 7(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) prohibits knowingly installing, using or maintaining a listening device to record a private conversation, whether or not the person is a party to it, subject to exceptions. The maximum penalty is 500 penalty units for a corporation, or 100 penalty units and up to 5 years imprisonment for any other person.
Does the Privacy Act apply to a small restaurant's CCTV?
Usually not. A business with annual turnover of A$3 million or less is exempt from parts of the Privacy Act 1988, and most independent venues sit below that. The exceptions are health service providers, businesses that sell databases of private information, and businesses that opt in to the regulator's register. Being outside the Privacy Act does not remove state surveillance law, employment obligations or the consequences of mishandling footage.
Can a restaurant record its phone calls?
Yes, on a different basis from a camera, because the venue is a party to its own calls. Section 7(3) of the NSW Act permits a principal party to record where all principal parties consent, or where one principal party consents and the recording is reasonably necessary to protect that party's lawful interests or is not intended to be published to non parties. In practice that means saying the call may be recorded at the start of the call, not the end.
Can you put a camera in a restaurant staff room?
It is the worst placement in the building. A staff room looks like back of house but it is where private conversations happen, which is exactly what surveillance statutes are written about, and it is the placement most likely to produce a complaint. Point cameras at the till, the back door, the safe, the cellar and the delivery bay instead.
How long should a restaurant keep CCTV footage?
There is no hospitality specific retention period, so the venue sets one and writes it down. The discipline that matters is having a stated period after which footage is deleted, a named person who can retrieve it, and a reason required before anyone does. Keeping footage indefinitely with no policy is the arrangement that causes problems.