I think you will find that is different. The law I referred to is to cover conversations secretly recorded , usually on smart phones.Commish. I don,t know that the law stops the recording being published, just makes it inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.
I'm getting old... forgot that the Listening Devices Act 1984 was rolled into the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 Anywho's, in NSW at least:-
listening device means any device capable of being used to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a conversation or words spoken to or by any person in conversation, but does not include a hearing aid or similar device used by a person with impaired hearing to overcome the impairment and permit that person to hear only sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear. maintain, in relation to a surveillance device makes it unlawful for a person to use a listening device to record a private conversation to which the person is not a party. This prohibition seems appropriate on a public policy basis in order to protect privacy and confidentiality of the general public.
In addition to this prohibition, the SDA makes it unlawful to ‘record a private conversation to which the person is a party.’ Without qualification, this prohibition would seem to go too far in preventing the use of covertly recorded conversations that may need to be relied on in order to prove a party’s legal position. In that regard, there is an exception to the rule that parties can avail themselves of if required.
Exception to the rule
Aside from certain operations involving law enforcement officers, there is one main exception to when a recording of a private conversation can be used, without the consent of all parties to the conversation.
The SDA allows for a ‘private conversation’ to be used in circumstances where a principal party to the conversation (being a person by whom words are spoken, and can be the person using the recording device) consents to the recording, and where ‘it is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interest of that party.’
Hence, what the Uber driver did was illegal. I suppose the Uber driver could argue implied permission in that Karl had his phone on speaker and therefore did not care whether the Uber driver could hear or not. Not sure that that implied knowledge would extend to allowing the recording of the conversation though.
Given that Hack resides in the northern extremity of NSW and I assume so does his mate, then the recording as outlined would have been in line with the "Exception To The Rule. As far as the Magistrate not wanting to or refusing to hear the evidence. Very strange as Magistrates are compelled to hear any form of evidence is available and able to be presented.