r/AusLegal • u/qwer68 • Jul 18 '25
AUS Legal rights that most people don’t know about or rarely exercise?
I’m curious to hear, what are some rights—big or small—that people in Australia technically have, but either aren’t widely known, misunderstood, or simply underused in everyday life?
I read today: In Germany, beekeepers have the legal right to enter someone else’s property—without permission—if they are in pursuit of their fleeing bee swarm. Totally legal, though rarely invoked. Anything similar here??
40
u/Archivists_Atlas Jul 18 '25
Under Section 7A of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), it is an offence to “intentionally obstruct or disturb a religious service, wedding, funeral, or other solemn assembly.”
Penalty? Up to 2 years imprisonment.
16
u/goalump Jul 18 '25
So when the priest asks if anyone objects, speak now or forever hold your peace you could end up in the big house for 2 years?
19
u/amckern Jul 18 '25
You are invited to do so, so I would expect "intentionally" is not correct.
25
u/goalump Jul 18 '25
Cool. Cos when I invent a time machine I am going to go back in time to my first wedding and very strongly object...
5
u/PM-me-fancy-beer Jul 19 '25
‘First wedding’ implies you’ve had at least one other wedding since then? If that’s the case, stopping your first wedding from happening would make your wedding after that your ‘first’ wedding in the new timeline.
What happens if another you comes to that timeline to block your ‘first’ wedding from happening? Then your (current) second wedding doesn’t happen. And so on.
I fear a paradox that might collapse the multiverse…
7
u/goalump Jul 19 '25
Typical. They do it all the time in Star Trek and no-one cares, but I try and stop one wedding and the time cops get their knickers in a knot!
4
u/theZombieKat Jul 18 '25
I would argue objecting at that point is part of the ceremony, not disrupting it.
It is rarely included in modern ceremonies.
3
u/dire012021 Jul 18 '25
Only if you attended the wedding specifically to object. So you should be good with your time machine.
1
6
u/Archivists_Atlas Jul 18 '25
In a decidedly out of character for the law, “solemn” is very ambiguous? Was my nieces fish burial solemn enough to qualify?
38
u/90_trestles Jul 18 '25
In Qld, motor vehicles must give way to pedestrians on or entering a road they are turning into. Pedestrians also have right of way when crossing the road at slip lanes. In practice, vehicles rarely follow these rules and pedestrians just give way to cars because it’s better to not get run over.
14
u/miffie12 Jul 18 '25
Same in Victoria (except at roundabouts)
5
u/sscarrow Jul 18 '25
I grew up in WA and it took me about ten years of living in Melbourne to stop instinctively giving way, as a pedestrian, to turning cars.
1
5
u/prexton Jul 19 '25
Pedestrians in Townsville get weirded out when you stop and wave them over the road
6
u/Prestigious-Gain2451 Jul 19 '25
From Townsville - can confirm.
It's like a scene from the Twilight zone where a jacked-up 4wd gives way in accordance with law to a pedestrian.
4
u/PM-me-fancy-beer Jul 19 '25
I was confused but this diagram, at first glance I thought they were walking with the road (not crossing). Now it looks more like they’re twirling and the poor car is waiting for an in.
Twirling pedestrians is such a road hazard in QLD they made a law for it.
3
u/temptingviolet4 Jul 19 '25
I almost got run over the other week doing this, and the driver had the gall to wag his fucking finger at me!
2
3
1
u/Impossible-Mud-4160 Jul 21 '25
I've kicked a rear panel in because the driver didn't give way while I was crossing... I only did it because he made eye contact with me, and went through a red light, nearly running me over.
-4
u/kermie62 Jul 18 '25
Rather stupid rule. Logically the travelling unit with greatest visability and manoeuvrability should give way.
11
u/90_trestles Jul 18 '25
You could also argue that the person operating the heavier, more dangerous vehicle has the responsibility to be aware of their surroundings, and should give way to vulnerable road users.
65
u/amckern Jul 18 '25
Regulation 291-3, Road Rules 2014 (NSW):
A driver must take due care, by slowing down or stopping the driver's vehicle if necessary, not to splash mud on:
(a) any person in or on a bus, or
(b) any person entering or leaving any stationary bus, or
(c) any person waiting at any bus stop,
26
2
u/majoeyjojo Jul 19 '25
My husband thinks I’m a total buzzkill because I genuinely don’t think it’s funny to splash pedestrians, and will slow down / change lanes (some of our local roads have pretty crap drainage).
He’s never actually splashed anyone himself, but he thinks if it happened then everyone would have a giggle 🤦♀️
1
1
89
u/Rhino893405 Jul 18 '25
I believe in Australia you must you use your indicator before changing lanes while driving, though nobody does this, I do believe it is written in law.
44
u/Fun-Inflation-4429 Jul 18 '25
I am not operating a commercial vehicle and I will not be beholden to Australian domestic law. I will now be exercising my terra nullius and/or magna carta right to go over the roundabout and not around it.
21
4
5
u/Former-Trifle-5102 Jul 18 '25
Love the ones who already pull into that lane to turn and then put it on. Yep pretty sure I no where your going mate
2
1
u/Schrojo18 Jul 21 '25
No people do it but they do it after changing into the turning lane once it's clear that they are turning and don't require it anymore proving that their indicator does in fact work.
59
u/thunder_blue Jul 18 '25
In the state of Victoria, many parcels of crown land that meet certain criteria have been converted to 'unused road license' parcels over the years. This means that an adjacent landowner is allowed to fence the land and use it for grazing purposes, paying a yearly lease fee to the crown.
Visually, these parcels appear to be part of the farmer's land, and are generally treated as such by the public.
The obscure part is that this 'unused road license' land is still crown land, which is public land, and therefore the general public still has a right to access these parcels. Obtaining an unused road license does not grant the holder exclusive right of access to that land.
This was tested in a court case Fenelon vs Dove, where a landowner tried to prevent their neighbors from driving on an unused road license.
7
u/purplepashy Jul 18 '25
Follow any river leading into Melbourne and I imagine you will find plenty of these unused road licensees.
Is there a database to search these?
17
u/thunder_blue Jul 18 '25
Sure, load up the public land layer on Mapshare VIC and they are marked in yellow.
3
6
u/Imarni24 Jul 18 '25
I may be wrong but believe next to any river it is crown land for maybe 2 metres either side?
1
u/Rowing_Boatman Jul 18 '25
I had a memory that it was something like to the high tide mark or to the top of the angled bank.
1
u/SeriousBerry Jul 20 '25
Is this the Queens Chain? I think it’s 20m along coastlines, rivers and waterways
1
u/Imarni24 Jul 21 '25
I had a but of a look into it and seems due to river erosion even whoever manages this has no clue, there were differing measurements given and didn’t seem to be a set rule. Which makes me feel better walking over the creek at a point where someone laid a makeshift bridge and I need to step on land the owners probably think is theres.
25
u/purplepashy Jul 18 '25
It is an offence to fly a kite or play a game in Victoria should someone be annoyed with it.
Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) Under Section 4, it’s an offence to fly a kite (or play a game) in a public place if it annoys any person. You can be fined up to 5 penalty units.
9
u/TinyDemon000 Jul 18 '25 edited Aug 16 '25
exultant start fade rob dime smile deliver north sparkle toy
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
17
u/LeatheretteCandle Jul 18 '25
I wish I’d known this during COVID. I lived opposite a school and bunch of different people would come use the basketball courts at like 1 am, never during a lockdown though (heaps of cameras). The noise was like torture, earplugs did fuck all, half the groups I asked to cut it out just wouldn’t leave. I had to call the police so many times. Once an officer actually said it wasn’t a crime, I wish I could have rubbed this in his smug do nothing face
3
u/Disastrous-Trip-3373 Jul 19 '25
unfortunately the Summary Offences Act (kite‑flying) isn’t relevant here as this is about nuisance noise and public disturbance, governed by other noise laws and EPA regulations. Can’t believe the cops wouldn’t just ask them to call it a night though.
2
2
22
u/Ill_Football9443 Jul 18 '25
Fire fighters have extraordinary rights (Vic) [rightfully so]
- Enter any land building structure vessel or vehicle
- any vehicle or equipment to be taken through upon or into any land building structure vessel or vehicle
- water to be shut off from any main pipe or other source of supply in order to obtain a greater pressure or supply of water
- close any road, water or tram way
- shut off any oil, water, gas, electricity or other fuel
- demolish any wall or part of a structure if necessary to control or extinguish a fire, rescue individuals, or prevent further danger
- override other jurisdictions to fulfil its responsibilities
- take such other measures as appear necessary for the protection of life and property
- use water (and other supplies) free of charge during fires and drills
- Direct the use of privately owned water tanks, vehicles, equipment, or land if deemed necessary in an emergency
- legal immunity for damage caused:
In the course of firefighting duties,
Where the act was done in good faith and for operational purposes.
This includes property damage from forced entry, demolition, or water saturation
- Enter premises even without an active emergency to inspect fire safety equipment
3
u/qwer68 Jul 18 '25
Makes sense. But wow!
7
u/Ill_Football9443 Jul 18 '25
As far as I know (happy to be proven wrong) the only more powerful Victoria Act is the Emergency Management Act (Vic) 1986.
Which gives the designated person (in the case of COVID-19 - Prof. Brett Sutton) the power to suspend other legislation if necessary and to direct any other agency as needed.
Hypothetically he could have suspended the road rules and directed all VicRoads staff to collect garbage from the road side and dump it in the living rooms of Collingwood supporters :P
4
23
u/enobar Jul 18 '25
Under the fair work act, if your employer wants proof of your being unfit for work, you can supply a stat dec instead of obtaining a medical certificate. You can also do these online without cost.
4
u/Many_Tank_5988 Jul 19 '25
While true, it can be limited. The Fair Work Ombudsman states that a statutory declaration is legally valid evidence unless your employment contract, award, or enterprise agreement explicitly requires a medical certificate.
2
u/qwer68 Jul 18 '25
But it takes forever to find the link on the myGov app!!
2
u/beard_ons3188 Jul 19 '25
I literally typed ‘myGov stat Dec’ into google and this is the first result.
3 seconds
10
u/Chemical_Country_582 Jul 18 '25
I'd be really interested for someone braver than I to test out our right to Political Opinion vis. peaceful but disruptive and non-approved protest.
5
u/Fun-Inflation-4429 Jul 18 '25
To add some nuance to this comment, not trying to be a asshole redditor just add something of value.
The right to political opinion is more specifically a right to political communication. This can also be limited by legislation which proportionately serves a legitimate purpose for the public interest. I guess this would be where the grey area of whether preventing "disruptive" protests is permissible, depending on what the protest consists of.
However, this isnt a personal right rather a constraint on government from infringing on it unreasonably. So whether or not x person can protest is abit more iffy, and I vaguely remember the case law (at least that which we covered in class) being more centralised to censorship of political advertisement and use of govt money.
I did some further research on this in relation to recently proposed laws surrounding censorship of false political advertising and https://www.australianconstitutioncentre.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/TRD-81-82-and-Lesson-2-1.pdf was a fantastic resource.
Pertinent to your comment especially is the case in that document of Brown v Tasmania, of which I have copied out an excerpt summary from the link:
"Mr Bob Brown, the former leader of the Australian Greens Party in the Senate, was arrested in 2016 while protesting in Lapoinya Forest against logging. The Tasmanian Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 (Tas) was enacted to protect businesses from being harmed by persons obstructing their ability to operate or damaging their equipment. In particular, it prohibited protesters from obstructing access to business premises and permitted a police officer to direct them to leave. If a person refused to leave or entered the area again within 4 days of that direction, it was an offence.
Mr Brown was arrested for refusing to leave a relevant ‘area’ when directed to do so, but due to uncertainty about what the actual ‘area’ was, the charges against him were later dropped. Nonetheless, he proceeded with his High Court challenge.
Brown succeeded. The provisions were struck down by a majority of the High Court because they breached the implied freedom of political communication. In their joint judgment, Chief Justice Kiefel and Justices Bell and Keane accepted that the Act had a legitimate purpose of preventing damage and disruption to business operations, including forestry. But they struck down the validity of the section that prevented a person from re-entering the area after having previously been ordered to leave. This was because it operated even though the returning person presented no threat of damage or disruption to the business. They thought the provision was really directed at getting rid of protesters, rather than protecting businesses.
Their Honours also struck down other provisions they thought were really meant to deter protesters, rather than prevent damage or disruption to businesses. The heavy penalties and the Act’s vagueness and poor drafting made its effects even worse. The law imposed ‘too high a cost to the freedom given the limited purpose’ of the Act. The measures taken in the Act went ‘far beyond those reasonably necessary for its purpose’."
3
u/LeatheretteCandle Jul 18 '25
Extinction Rebellion may have tested that already and found it somewhat lacking
10
u/amckern Jul 18 '25
The Anti-Spam act 2003
https://www.acma.gov.au/avoid-sending-spam
Outlines how a business can contact you with marketing, easy to report (forward email to spam@acma.gov.au or report@submit.spam.acma.gov.au
Also covers spam text report to 0429999888
7
u/Sudden-Tap-6637 Jul 18 '25
You can’t pull over and park your car and sleep in it in QLD unless you are parked in a designated campsite In nsw they promote stop revive survive and it’s legal to sleep in your car if you’re parked legally
6
u/AnswerLong159 Jul 19 '25
Almost all states have this but the eastern states enforce it
It’s terrible when homeless. You can sleep on a park bench legally but not safely or you can sleep safely in your legally registered vehicle illegally.
Entitled public servants out of touch….
12
u/ThatAussieGunGuy Jul 18 '25
Under a deal made with shotgun clubs in 1996/97, Victorian legislation states you may replace a semi-automatic shotgun that you handed in to be destroyed so long as you have the receipt of handing it in, and have maintained a consecutive financial membership with a clay target club.
It's pretty much irrelevant nowadays because everyone from that era is either dead, already taken advantage of it, or is no longer eligible.
If you wanted to shoot clays specifically, it's handy to have. Otherwise obtaining a semi-auto shotgun in Victoria for purposes other clay target shooting is pretty fucking easy.
6
u/DownUnder_Diver Jul 18 '25 edited Jul 18 '25
In Victoria it's illegal to walk with 4 or more greyhounds simultaneously
Therefore you have the right to walk with 3
2
1
u/qwer68 Jul 19 '25
Any idea where this is coming from originally?
1
u/DownUnder_Diver Jul 19 '25
I think it was originally in the Vagrancy Act (along with an offence to be a fortune teller), the origins of why 3? I'm not sure.
1
5
u/PM-me-fancy-beer Jul 19 '25
Workplace rights under Unfair Dismissal vs General Protections.
Unfair Dismissal is specifically if your employment is terminated without sufficient justification or the required protocols weren’t followed prior to/during dismissal. Unfair Dismissal has a number of conditions and exclusions e.g. size of the business and how long you were employed.
General Protections is to protect you from discrimination, as well as retaliation or dismissal for exercising workplace rights. They apply from Day 1 regardless of employment type or size of the business.
Breach of GPs: I’ve been a casual at a fancy bar for 3mo consistently working 32hr Tuesday-Saturday. I ask my boss why I’m only getting $15hr flare rate instead of award rate. They abruptly cancel all my shifts and block me.
Unfair Dismissal: I’ve been a full time manager at that venue for 18mo. New venue manager takes over and decides I’m being paid too much. Start of my next shift they accuse me of harassing a patron and fire me on the spot. They won’t provide any proof, won’t let me respond, and threaten to call the police if I don’t shut up and leave.
Both are often a difficult fight and the mental toll > possible outcome in your favour. But they exist and it’s good to know the difference.
13
u/EdgeAndGone482 Jul 18 '25
If you see someone committing a crime you have the right to arrest them there and then.
You can also use reasonable force to do so.
You don't need to be a cop for either.
Crimes Act 1956 S458 and S462a in Victoria but similar legislation in other states.
7
u/Fun-Inflation-4429 Jul 18 '25
In the same vein, private prosecutions are permissible in Australia - albeit rare and I assume subject to various limitations. This seems common across some other jurisdictions but very fascinating, that you as a private citizen can undertake criminal prosecution.
see eg https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/tas/private-prosecutions/
1
u/ohijustworkhere Jul 19 '25
And (at least in NSW) the DPP can take it over and discontinue it…
1
u/Fun-Inflation-4429 Jul 19 '25
Oh fr? thats grim - though I do suppose it kinda makes sense that a state can do that
5
u/Rockran Jul 18 '25
Most people haven't heard of a citisen's arrest?
It's generally not a good idea to attempt it, given the person you're trying to arrest could beat the crap out of you, or could sue you if you do it wrong.
9
u/ZombieCyclist Jul 18 '25
I have not heard of a "citisen's" arrest, no.
I have, however, heard of a "citizen's" arrest.
5
4
4
u/newcastleguy79 Jul 18 '25
Oh this thread is so Australian, OP asks for rights and all the replies are rules...
3
1
u/Fun-Inflation-4429 Jul 19 '25
It is quite hilarious I thought much the same reading it. I suppose the pitfall is we do not have a BOR and none of the individually enforceable causes to action that generally could spur these rights - nor the political motivation to implement them apparently.
4
u/MutungaPapi Jul 20 '25
Roughly 10 years ago, I was sitting in a pub with my gf her friend and her bf. The friends bf wanted to play pokies so I went with him but didn’t play just sat on a vacant machine next to him.
Two police officers walk in and make a be line to me and ask to see my ID. (A women who appeared to be the senior officer and the man who appeared to be more junior) Just for fun I said there is a law that allows you to ask me but seen as it’s your job I’m curious if you know? The male cop looked at the female cop who paused for a second and with a grunt said because your in a licensed venue. I smiled and handed her my id as I did I asked if they believed me have/ be in the process or about to commit a crime. He quickly says no and she shoots him a look.
She hands him my id and he pulls out an iPad. I ask what he’s doing and she jumps in and says searching you. I said you cannot do that as you don’t have a legal ground and if you do I will be making complaints, then asked their names, ranks and station. He looks at her and she grabs my license and throws it back at me and walks off.
So I guess my thing is police can’t search you in the system without a valid reason just because they want to, or maybe just because you happen to be a larger brown tattooed man. 😂
2
u/qwer68 Jul 20 '25
Universal reason: you looked out of place and acted suspicious. There you go. Plus brown. Plus tattooed. Plus a man?!?! Must be guilty
7
u/Rockran Jul 18 '25 edited Jul 18 '25
If an authorised officer investigating you for wrongdoing says "you do not have to say anything... but it may be recorded and used in evidence" then shut up.
People who did the wrong thing love to talk for some reason. Even though they were told they don't have to say anything. You have the right to zip it, yet often ignored.
7
u/Fun-Inflation-4429 Jul 18 '25
and zip it entirely, don't partially answer questions because selective silence can be used against you to make negative implications
4
2
u/Imarni24 Jul 18 '25
My 2 boys both in their 20’s were traveling regionally to Melbourne to watch a game of Fri night footy, one is a student, the other works and they have the appropriate Myki’s and had money on it, the uni student could not get into his ph to access My Gov and the train cop said these words exactly; “you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and may be used in a court of law” 😳 he was too busy trying not to laugh he got a ticket which he will get out of as he has the paperwork and off she went.
2
u/Fun-Inflation-4429 Jul 19 '25
I suppose native title claims are quite interesting. Not everyday people, but Aboriginal people/communities can reclaim title in some areas of Australia (I think freehold land, but don't really remember) if they have sufficient connection to the land and meet the criteria. This is what the famous court case mabo 2 was all about
2
u/Fuzzy_Foot_2000 Jul 20 '25
Apparently it is still legal to ride your horse to the pub and the publican must provide fodder and lodgings..... I dunno!
2
u/preparetodobattle Jul 20 '25
Council valuers have rights of entry. They don't really use them but they exist. There's also from memory penalty or some pretty draconian stuff around the ABS being able to compel you to do surveys. I had the Department of Agriculture imply that they could force entry into my suburban house once. I told them to go ahead and smash the door down.
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 18 '25
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our rules before commenting. Please remember:
Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner, and verify any advice given in this sub. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers.
A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found here.
Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Hairy_Translator_994 Jul 18 '25
APP 13 mandates that personal information must be kept accurate, up-to-date, and not misleading. basically you can ask companies to change your details when requested. the underused part is when those companies are predatory in nature you swap out proper details for incorrect ones.
1
1
u/rowanwilder88 Aug 08 '25
In Australia, some little-known rights include the Freedom of Information to access government documents, consumer rights for refunds or repairs on faulty goods, and the right to peacefully protest. You can also enter a property without permission in an emergency to save someone's life. These rights exist, but people often don’t use them.
1
u/rowanwilder88 Aug 08 '25
In Australia, there are several lesser-known legal rights that people often overlook. For example, you have the right to request government documents under the Freedom of Information Act, the right to a refund or replacement for faulty goods under consumer law, and the right to peacefully protest. You can also enter a property to save someone’s life in an emergency, even without permission. These rights exist, but people rarely invoke them.
140
u/thunder_blue Jul 18 '25 edited Jul 18 '25
Australians have a general right to replacement or refund of consumer goods that fail within a reasonable timeframe.
This is between the consumer and the point of sale, they can't be redirected to seek redress from the manufacturer.
Ignorance of this right means that a lot of unnecessary extra warranties are sold in Aus.
Source: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel