Can corporations impose legally enforceable restrictions on peoples rights under Australian law?

Some year ago I did a course at Griffith University on the Gold Coast entitled Law and Ethics for the health professional.
The course was largely based on what the QC teaching the course called Law of Torts.
Which describes basic principles of rights and responsibilities.
During that course I was informed that under Australian law with the singular limited exception of music industry contracts, that the rights of Australian citizens can not be limited by any legal mechanism. That any contract containing elements that would impose such restrictions is not legally enforceable. Obviously this would apply to EULA.

So my question is are peoples rights being undermined by corporations because people don’t demand they be upheld or is there some legal mechanism?

The law is hierarchical.
Where conflicts seem to appear the law follows that hierarchy.
In Australia politicians while required to swear allegiance to the Queen of England are also required to swear to serve the Australian people before all others.
So I ask whether a law made violating that oath is still a law?

1 Like

What are these, rights of which you speak? If it is about the Sony Playstation was it really necessary to start a new thread on a matter that seems to have run its course?

2 Likes

Hey @rewrisk, could you clarify whether you mean ‘human rights’ or ‘civil rights’?
To dive deeper, if you mean human rights, are these implied rights or are they up backed up by law? For example, Australia does not have a bill of rights and our constitution does not give us a right to freedom of speech. There are however laws which impose restrictions on implied rights to freedom of speech such as anti-discrimination law.

To answer your question with a fairly common subject here, a number of consumer protection agencies exist within Australia because corporations and businesses do undermine peoples’ consumer rights - intentional or not and at varying levels of business structure. This isn’t to say people aren’t demanding for these rights to be upheld. Organisations such as CHOICE and the ACCC exist for this very reason.

Could you provide an example? I’m not sure of any laws that intentionally violate this oath. Australians hold varying view points, opinions and desires. One could claim that in most cases you are always serving the Australian people.

2 Likes

I’m not an expert in law.
I provided the background I have in relation to my understanding of this specifically to avoid questions.
I’m looking for information, clarification.
Perhaps I did not articulate that adequately?

I hoped to provide that with my response. I believe stipulating between implied rights and civil rights is important to you finding your answer

This may be a question better suited for a different forum, in the hopes to stay on topic and for you to find the appropriate information from experts in law. Our Expert Advice category exists to provide answers to questions on consumer issues.

3 Likes

There is already some useful feedback to your general question.

Perhaps the context of what was said in the presentation was poorly conveyed. It was about legal concerns in Medical Practice and not consumer law. Law is a complex topic which is why it takes a lifetime for a select few to achieve the status of a QC, now known in Australia by the title of SC (Senior Counsel).

There are several useful sources on Australian law - generalisations, and not specific advice. EG Wikipedia

The point of this question is it’s relevence to any law being made which undermines a citizens rights. In particular where there is no benefit to people generally, but may be beneficial to some individuals?

Not certain of your meaning as per presentation.
Mine or the QC’s?
(It was a full semester course, not a single lecture event)

The course was structured so that we would gain a basic understanding of the principles in law. Principles relevant to any person, followed by those more specific to professionals followed by those more specifically in the health care industry.
For example one initial case discussed was one in which a persons finger was found in a can of soft drink?
This was used to provide one example of the concept of reasonable expectations, as in it is reasonable to assume the can of soft drink you purchase will not have someone’s severed finger in it.
This also goes to reasonable responsibility.
Towards the end of the course the cases considered were more specific to health professionals.

Depending on one’s view, any law in a democratic society like Australia could be seen as restrictive on one freedoms and associated rights. An individual can’t do as one pleases at any time,

One could argue that these restrictions are about meeting the general community expectations withing the society we live.

There are been some individuals which have disagreed with these legal restrictions on their rights and have established pseudo-kingdoms thinking they can avoid Australian laws. They find out over time that this is not possible as Australian laws bind all individuals within Australia, including foreigh visitors and workers. Such is an Australian sovereign and legal right.

3 Likes

After a full semester course perhaps the expertise is something you already possess?

Australian law is Australian law.
If any of us believe a Corporation is imposing a condition on us as an individual, which is not in accordance with Australia law - we are at liberty to test that as individuals through the Australian Courts in accordance with Australian law. Most often the law does not generalise, but respond to each instance case by case.

If the legal situations require, the courts will provide an appropriate determination and add to common law. Perhaps what the course presenter was trying to say is that a corporation cannot impose a condition that removes a consumers right to seek legal resolution in Australia in respect of any contracted condition.

I’m not a lawyer. Perhaps you could write to the QC/SC that presented the course with your question seeking clarification. It might assist all of us to know what the reply is and help all of us to better understand Australian Law.

2 Likes

“Could argue”???
Off topic.
The quote is out of context.
Oh and I believe the Ross river precinct is still a thing?

I believe this thread needs more focus. Please give us a good example of “corporations impose legally enforceable restrictions on peoples rights” in Australia. Then you might consider telling us how this came about and what you think might be done about it.

6 Likes

Since the point of the thread is to provide a generalised discussion of this topic your assertion can only be incorrect.
The quote is also out of context, this is not the intention of the discussion.

Since legally a person has a right to any engage in any action not prohibited the answer to your question is practically infinite. As to all rights enshrined in law, listing such would also be far beyond a reasonable request.
But since the thread is intended as a generalised discussion of the topic raised the question is an irrelevant distraction from the topic and therefore malicious spam.
So let me ask you a question.
Are you employed to damage and derail honest discussion on this platform or is that just a hobby?

To usefully consider a problem we need to be clear that it actually exists. If there is no instance of it there is nothing to discuss unless you go in for hypotheticals. You say you have studied law a little so tell us a real case and how the facts of that case relate to Australian law as you understand it, we are not after an expert Legal Opinion, just your opinion. You must have some reason in the back of your mind to bring the subject up.

I am not trying to derail this thread - quite the reverse actually.

1 Like

Hi @rewrisk.

Choice and its moderators have been very open to posts which seem to be slightly off the topic of the original post. Sometimes such posts are casual banter amongst regular forum members. Others may be ‘thought bubbles’ stimulated by the topic in question…or to address questions which may indirectly arise from discussion in the thread…preempting thoughts and questions readers of the thread may have.

Often posts which are not strickly on topic have also lead to new consumer issues, and ultimately new threads been formed where it is likely the issue will stimulate broader discussion.

There is no deliberate intention of most forum members to create ‘distractions’ or ‘spam’ and the moderators actively review posts, not only with other forum members to assist consumer issues which arise, but to also ensure that the terms and conditions of the forum are also met.

Generally forums members are also very generous in their attempts to resolve issues that other forums members may have. They will often ask questions to gain further information to the isue at hand. This is so that they can provide a targeted response and sometime to allow them to research information which may not be easy to find. While this can seem like a little intrusive, this can assist in preparing responses which hopefully adds value to the forums content. It is slso worth noting that if a member provides incorrect information, other forums members often are quick to respond with corrected and factual information.

I hope that this clarifies and provides context to some posts which are often made.

This approach which has been accepted by Choice strengthens the value of the forum to Choice, its members and the broader community who may also enjoy its content.

4 Likes

Again you quote out of context making your question seem reasonable when in the context of the entire conversation it clearly is not.

The assumption that people have no rights under the law is ridiculous.

I did not make any such assumption. Specifically I did not assume there were no rights, I questioned if there were any cases where corporations impose legally enforceable restrictions on people’s rights - which is quite a different thing. I have asked you this several times now and you are yet to provide any example. I don’t think you are going to answer so let us leave it at that.

1 Like

I appreciate that can be the case but when it clearly is not?

That is not how I read this???