With increasing community concern about security and public safety, the use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) by councils across Australia has increased over the past decade with little fanfare. That is, until one Queensland Council attached listening devices to around a third of the city's cameras, sparking public debate about privacy and the legality of the audio component.

Most major cities have sophisticated CCTV or security camera systems. Cameras are typically placed in busy, high-traffic areas or tourism hotspots and are usually monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week by licensed operators from a central control room.

McCullough Robertson Partner, Alex Hutchens, says the legal aspects of audio-enabled security cameras are complicated.

"Public surveillance networks are considered a valuable resource by public and private business and are sometimes used by police and other agencies to enhance public safety outcomes," Alex says.

"Sometimes they are linked to police and private security operators and this can increase the effectiveness of the system as they enable quick responsesto incidents as well as prosecution in certain circumstances.

"Public support for the systems is high, particularly when they are strategically placed in areas where anti-social behaviour, alcohol fuelled violence and criminal activity are most likely to occur.

"The use of video surveillance often involves the collection of 'personal information' which in relation to the Queensland public sector, is covered by the Information Privacy Act 2009.

"Critically, councils must ensure that they have appropriate signage in place to discharge their 'notification of collection' requirements under that legislation."

Images from security cameras can only be kept for set periods of time and their use is subject to both state and commonwealth legislation. Critically, the CCTV network cannot operate as covert system; their presence and location must be clearly signed and anyone seeking access, including government agencies, must apply for release under the Right to Information Act 2009 or the Information Privacy Act 2009.

Shoalhaven Council in NSW was penalised under the equivalent State legislation because it failed to comply with privacy laws in connection with the use of surveillance technology.

"The addition of listening capability raises potential issues under audio surveillance legislation," Alex says.

"The Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 essentially prohibits the recording or monitoring of a private conversation. In addition to fines, such information is inadmissible in court proceedings.

"Again, appropriate signage is an essential part of the compliance strategy, because the definition of a 'private conversation' excludes conversations held where a person ought reasonably to expect the conversation may be overheard – for instance, in a park where the use of audio surveillance devices is clearly sign posted."

Councils considering introducing new or enhancing existing CCTV or public surveillance networks, particularly with the addition of audio capability, should seek legal advice before investing in a potentially expensive or non-compliant system.