Refusing inspection when leaving Bunnings

i am not responsible for doing the job of employees at any store, and i never show my reciept to anyone when leaving Bunnings, Kmart, Coles, woolworths or any Store… theyve tried, ive refused and walked out, Policy or not, they have no legal right and they know it, i never say a word, do not respond but simply walk out It’s Corporate Paranoia that i will have no part in. Because of my actions, these stores now let me leave without any conditions because they know i do not tolerate their nonsense. if they ever accuse me of shoplifting when ive paid for products i would take them to court. In Australia these Stores have no Legal right, they can ask but I can refuse and there is nothing they can do about it. If more consumers done the same thing this pathetic practice would end.

Hi @ryanau, welcome to the community.

There is something they can do which can have significant ramifications for those which chose to ignore the conditions of entry. They can refuse entry to their stores in the future. This means that if a person who has been refused entry enters the store, police can be called and the person charged with trespass.

Being charged with trespass means one will have a criminal record which may impact on job prospects and ability to travel overseas. This is because trespass offences will show up as a disclosable court outcome (DCO) on the results of their police check.

There are often media reports of individuals where access to a store has been refused (or they are banned) for some reason.

Being confrontational with (which includes deliberately ignoring personnel) or aggressive to retail personnel at exit places retail staff under stress and can also lead to other criminal actions should the encounter escalate through the actions of an individual.

While one might think they can ignore conditions of entry or be somewhat confrontational/agressive on exiting a store, it isn’t a right to do such and could put such individuals in ‘hot water’ as far as the law is concerned.


… which dovetails nicely and cycles nicely back to … Facial recognition at retail stores - we need your help (and other similar topics).

Depending on what the nature of the confrontation was, your trespass may go undetected unless FR is widely (or universally) used.

That said, I agree that whatever your disagreement with the store is, there are ways of handling it that are not aggressive and with minimal confrontation … and that is to be preferred.


I wholeheartedly agree with businesses using face recognition to deal with problem shoppers who seem to want to pick a fight with staff, or are shoplifters.

Do note @ryanau that there may well be someone following you around noting what you do in their shop, and noting whether you actually pay before leaving. It will be on camera.


Most people do not seem to understand that shops are not in fact public spaces. They are private premises into which the owners invite people provided those people comply with the ‘rules of the house’. These rules may include bag searches on the way in and/or out and any other terms and conditions of entry the owners wish to apply. These terms and conditions are always posted at the doorway and by entering you agree to all of them. I have witnessed and do not understand the rudeness and arrogance of shoppers who refuse to comply with the terms and conditions of entry and treat the staff trying to do their jobs with contempt such as ryanau describes. The shops DO have the legal right to impose whatever conditions of entry they choose. The fact that they are not very onerous is because the owners want people to visit and of course spend money. But we all have the option of shopping elsewhere or these days shopping online if we think the conditions of entry are an affront to us.


No, I think most people DO understand the normal behaviours in shopping and in every day life.
I have no time at all for the ‘sovereign citizen’ types who think that businesses have no rights to put conditions on the behaviours of customers.


Except they don’t - when the government (the parliament) decides that the condition of entry is unreasonable.

The current contested condition is “facial recognition”. It’s not illegal now for a business to do it (provided that it really is signposted) but there is certainly a push on the government to make it illegal.

So if a would-be shopper decided not to cooperate with facial recognition that could be regarded as legitimate activism in order to nudge the business in the right direction. :wink:

You don’t have to use too much imagination to realise that there are many limits on what conditions of entry can be imposed.

Where the government has imposed that limit you are always free to disagree with the government and to campaign for change. Where the government has chosen not to impose a limit you are always free to disagree with the government and to campaign for change.

except when we don’t.

Indeed. Post pandemic I expect online shopping to resume its long-term trend upwards (after an unrealistic and temporary large blip upwards during the pandemic).

Apart from the pure online shopping plays there are also semi-online options such as “click and collect” and “home delivery” that may avoid unpleasant interactions with the store’s conditions of entry. :wink:

1 Like

Retail personnel are being abused, and in some cases assaulted by customers who refuse to adhere to store entry conditions:

The union has also reported increase in abuse towards retail staff due to cost of living pressures and belief by some, possibly stemming from media reports, that retailers are ‘ripping off’ their customers.

There is no excuse to abuse or assault retail personnel.


Until you understand the machinations of operations regarding door greeters job to checkbags and other items, please be pleasant and know that there a many theives out there who think its their right to steal stuff, and its these people that eventually increase the prices of the products you want to buy at Bunnings. My job is made so much easier if you are compliant and it is a condition of entry.


Yes, on the large “Conditions of Entry” sign, in plain English, obvious at every entrance of every retail store! And remember, Bunnings was one of the retailers which failed to make it clear it was recording and tracking customers via facial recognition technologies; so it’s unfair to claim that customers’ actions demonstrate informed consent.
It’s the way of the world though - power determines what happens. If a commoner robs a store to feed themselves or their drug addiction - criminal charges, court and punishment are highly likely. Not so for the “decision-makers” of macro offences, as exemplified by robo-debt and banks charging dead customers.

1 Like

Unfortunately they did, again on their Conditions of Entry signage:

I am possibly like most others who don’t read the conditions of entry, and assume they are industry standard ones.

Fortunately there are others with keen eyes and discover changes to entry conditions and let others know. We are also fortunate to have Choice which has actively campaigned against facial recognition use in retailers.


Yes they are there, noting there is a community topic specific to FR and store signage. With respect to Bunnings

Aside from my typo it was possible to enter a Bunnings through the main entrance and not pass or sight one of their informative signs. Whether that has changed since, others might care to continue that discussion in the topic specific to FR.

One might also note that the entry foyer at Bunnings can be packed full of goodies and very large print signage promoting the bargain prices. Aside from dodging other customers out of control trolleys full of oversized product it can be too easy to not notice the relatively inconspicuous red traffolyte sign above eye height on the opposite wall. Do I really need another wheel barrow, it’s a great price, a cute green and so much newer than the other 3 I still have. Distractions for sure.