Placeholder Content Image

Aussie drivers warned over commonly ignored road rule

<p>Aussie drivers are being reminded to follow simple road rules and etiquette when driving on a highway, with one often ignored rule costing drivers hundreds. </p> <p>Police are fining drivers caught driving in the right lane on a highway without overtaking anyone.</p> <p>A Victorian man was fined $198 and two demerit points over the weekend "after travelling 3km in the right-hand lane and passing no one,” Senior Sergeant Aaron Riches told the <em>Geelong Advertiser.</em></p> <p>Penalties also apply in other states and territories, including NSW where the penalty can be as much as $410.</p> <p>Victoria Police told <em>Yahoo News Australia </em>that this wasn't part of a crackdown, as they are always monitoring roads to ensure drivers are following the road rules. </p> <p>"Police are out and about every day, making sure people are following the road rules. Road safety is a priority for police, and we will continue to focus our efforts on ensuring those using the roads are safe," a spokesperson said.</p> <p>According to VicRoads, when travelling on a multi-lane road with a speed limit of over 80km/h, drivers must keep out of the right lane unless they are overtaking, turning right or if all lanes are congested.</p> <p>In NSW a P-plater was caught "disobeying" this rule and copped a $410 fine. </p> <p>Sydney lawyer Avinash Singh of Astor Legal said some drivers get of easy, with penalties actually reaching $2,200. </p> <p>"On a road where there is a speed limit of more than 80km/h, you must not drive in the right lane, unless you're overtaking," he said.</p> <p>Although unlikely, "you can incur a fine of up to $2,200 for disobeying this rule," he added.</p> <p>NSW Police also reminded drivers in August against ignoring "keep left signs unless overtaking" as travelling in the right lane has resulted in "an increase in collisions involving drivers overtaking other vehicles".</p> <p><em>Images: NSW Police Highway Patrol</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Could a recent ruling change the game for scam victims? Here’s why the banks will be watching closely

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeannie-marie-paterson-6367">Jeannie Marie Paterson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicola-howell-1160247">Nicola Howell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a></em></p> <p>In Australia, it’s scam victims who foot the bill for the overwhelming majority of the money lost to scams each year.</p> <p>A 2023 <a href="https://download.asic.gov.au/media/mbhoz0pc/rep761-published-20-april-2023.pdf">review</a> by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) found banks detected and stopped only a small proportion of scams. The total amount banks paid in compensation paled in comparison to total losses.</p> <p>So, it was a strong statement this week when it was revealed the Australian Financial Conduct Authority (AFCA) had <a href="https://my.afca.org.au/searchpublisheddecisions/kb-article/?id=f9f8941f-7379-ef11-ac20-000d3a6acbb4">ordered</a> a bank – HSBC – to compensate a customer who lost more than $47,000 through a sophisticated bank impersonation or “spoofing” scam.</p> <p>This decision was significant. An AFCA determination is binding on the relevant bank or other financial institution, which has <a href="https://www.afca.org.au/make-a-complaint#:%7E:text=Any%20determinations%20we%20make%20are,service%20is%20free%20to%20access">no direct right of appeal</a>. It could have implications for the way similar cases are treated in future.</p> <p>The ruling comes amid a broader push for sector-wide reforms to give banks more responsibility for <a href="https://www.fico.com/blogs/detection-prevention-tackling-scams-every-angle">detecting</a>, deterring and responding to scams, as opposed to simply telling customers to be “more careful”.</p> <p>Here’s what you should know about this landmark ruling, and what it might mean for consumers.</p> <h2>A highly sophisticated ‘spoofing’ scam</h2> <p>You might be familiar with “push payment” scams that trick the victim into paying money to a dummy account. These include the “<a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/articles/2024-01/scam-alert-re-emergence-hi-mum-scam">mum I’ve lost my phone</a>” scam and some <a href="https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/types-of-scams/online-dating-and-romance-scams">romance</a> scams.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/dragged-kicking-and-screaming-banking-giant-loses-battle-against-scam-victim-20241015-p5kide.html">recent case</a> concerned an equally noxious “bank impersonation” or “spoofing” scam. The complainant – referred to as “Mr T” – was tricked into giving the scammer access to his HSBC account, from which an unauthorised payment was made.</p> <p>The scammer sent Mr T a text message, purportedly asking him to investigate an attempted Amazon transaction.</p> <p>In an effort to respond to the (fake) unauthorised Amazon purchase, Mr T revealed security passcodes to the scammer, enabling them to transfer $47,178.54 from his account and disappear with it.</p> <p>The fact Mr T was dealing with scammers was far from obvious – scammers had information about him one might reasonably expect only a bank would know, such as his bank username.</p> <p>On top of this, the scam text message appeared in a thread of other legitimate text messages that had previously been sent by the real HSBC.</p> <h2>AFCA’s ruling</h2> <p>HSBC argued to AFCA that having to pay compensation should be ruled out under the <a href="https://download.asic.gov.au/media/lloeicwb/epayments-code-published-02-june-2022.pdf">ePayments Code</a>, a voluntary code of practice administered by ASIC.</p> <p>Under this code, a bank is not required to compensate a customer for an unauthorised payment if that customer has disclosed their passcode. The bank argued the complainant had voluntarily disclosed these codes to the scammer, meaning the bank didn’t need to pay.</p> <p>AFCA disagreed. It noted the very way the scam had worked was by creating a sense of urgency and crisis. AFCA considered that the complainant had been manipulated into disclosing the passcodes and had not acted voluntarily.</p> <p>AFCA awarded compensation covering the vast majority of the disputed transaction amount, lost interest charged to a home loan account, and $5,000 towards Mr T’s legal costs.</p> <p>It also ordered the bank to pay compensation of $1,000 for poor customer service in dealing with the matter, including communication delays.</p> <h2>Other cases may be more complex</h2> <p>In this case, the determination was relatively straightforward. It found Mr T had not voluntarily disclosed his account information, so was not excluded from being compensated under the ePayments Code.</p> <p>However, many payment scams fall outside the ePayments Code because they involve the customer directly sending money to the scammer (as opposed to the scammer accessing the customer’s account). That means there is no code to direct compensation.</p> <p>Still, AFCA’s jurisdiction is broader than merely applying a code. In considering compensation for scam losses, AFCA must consider what is “fair in all the circumstances”. This means taking into account:</p> <ul> <li>legal principles</li> <li>applicable industry codes</li> <li>good industry practice</li> <li>previous AFCA decisions.</li> </ul> <p>Relevant factors might well include whether the bank was proactive in responding to known scams, as well as the challenges for individual customers in identifying scams.</p> <h2>Broader reforms are on the way</h2> <p>At the heart of this determination by AFCA is a recognition that, increasingly, detecting sophisticated scams can be next to impossible for customers, which can mean they don’t act voluntarily in making payments to scammers.</p> <p>Similar reasoning has informed a range of recent reform initiatives that put more responsibility for detecting and responding to scams on the banks, rather than their customers.</p> <p>In 2023, Australia’s banking sector committed to a new “<a href="https://www.ausbanking.org.au/scam-safe-accord/">Scam-Safe Accord</a>”. This is a commitment to implement new measures to protect customers, including a confirmation of payee service, delays for new payments, and biometric identity checks for new accounts.</p> <p>Changes on the horizon could be more ambitious and significant.</p> <p>The proposed <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2024-573813">Scams Prevention Framework</a> legislation would require Australian banks, telcos and <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/accc-vs-big-tech-round-10-and-counting">digital platforms</a> to take reasonable steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams.</p> <p>It would also include a compulsory external dispute resolution process, like AFCA’s, for consumers seeking compensation for when any of these institutions fail to comply.</p> <p>Addressing scams is not just an Australian issue. In the United Kingdom, newly introduced <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy94vz4zd7zo">rules</a> make paying and receiving banks responsible for compensating customers, for scam losses up to £85,000 (A$165,136), unless the customer is grossly negligent.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/241558/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeannie-marie-paterson-6367">Jeannie Marie Paterson</a>, Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicola-howell-1160247">Nicola Howell</a>, Senior lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-a-recent-ruling-change-the-game-for-scam-victims-heres-why-the-banks-will-be-watching-closely-241558">original article</a>.</em></p> </div>

Money & Banking

Placeholder Content Image

Mother and son reunited after rigid aged care rules divided them

<p>An elderly woman and her disabled son are celebrating after they successfully beat a bureaucratic blockage that threatened to <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/lifestyle/family-pets/red-tape-threatens-to-remove-a-man-with-down-s-syndrome-from-his-elderly-mother" target="_blank" rel="noopener">split</a> them up for good. </p> <p>Anne Deans, 81, and her 56-year-old son, Mark, who suffers from Down's syndrome, were hoping to live together in Anne's aged care facility, but the pair were met with countless hurdles when trying to get Mark a room of his own. </p> <p>Now, Mark's sister Sharon shared the happy news that the mother and son are to be reunited.</p> <p>"We're very happy today. We've got a great result," Sharon told <a href="https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/melbourne-mum-and-son-living-with-downs-syndrome-reunited-in-aged-care-facility/ff023844-be2d-4ab8-be95-75bf91f17b4a" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>A Current Affair</em></a>.</p> <p>"I'm so grateful that people understood and they listened. That's all I ever wanted through this whole thing, was someone to listen."</p> <p>The problems began when authorities originally refused Mark's request to move into Anne's aged care facility, with federal government policy saying that aged care is "not appropriate for people under 65".</p> <p>But Mark's relatives argued that given the life expectancy of people living with Down's syndrome is 60 years, an exception should be made.</p> <p>A new assessment was done and Mark has been granted a place at the same nursing home as his mother, as Mark's other sister Michelle said, "We got what we wanted. Everything worked out perfectly, the way it's supposed to."</p> <p>After Anne received the exciting news, she said, "I'm feeling great. He's staying with Mum!"</p> <p>Sharon and Michelle hope that their experience will assist other families with unique circumstances.</p> <p>"My advice is to keep pushing," Sharon said. "Only you know your family and you have to be their voice.</p> <p>"There's a lot of difference out there and a lot of people who are individuals [and] they need to be looked at individually."</p> <p><em>Image credits: A Current Affair </em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

The surprising unknown road rule that is costing drivers

<p dir="ltr">A woman has issued a warning to Aussie drivers after being threatened with a hefty fine for a common car decoration. </p> <p dir="ltr">Janelle McEvoy, a young woman from Perth, took to TikTok to recall the moment she learned that she could be facing a fine for having an air freshener hanging from her car’s rear view mirror. </p> <p dir="ltr">“I randomly got breath tested on the way to an event this morning and the police officer told me when I get home I need to remove this hanging from my car to avoid the $100 fine and the demerit point,” she said in her TikTok video, which has since had nearly 2 million views. </p> <p dir="ltr">“Doesn’t everyone have one of these hanging from their car? Where is it supposed to go?”</p> <p dir="ltr">Thousands of people flocked to the comments on the video to share their surprise over the obscure road rule, with one person writing, “The way my jaw dropped when you showed what it was cause I bought the exact same thing not too long ago.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Another added, “That’s crazy, I have like four air fresheners and two crystal chains hanging from my car.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The rule, which varies between states, can carry fines and possibly the loss of demerit points, if a police officer deems that the driver’s vision is obstructed from whatever is hanging from the mirror.</p> <p dir="ltr">In NSW, drivers without a clear view of the road can be fined $410 fine and have three demerit points issued.</p> <p dir="ltr">In other Aussie states, the fine for obstructed vision can range between $100 and $361. </p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock </em></p>

Money & Banking

Placeholder Content Image

10 rules every good house guest follows

<p>You've been invited to stay in somebody else's house. You're instantly told "make yourself at home!" But you can't really, can you? Here's the unsaid rules of being a houseguest you just can't break. </p> <p><strong>1. Not arriving on time</strong></p> <p>Always provide your itinerary to your host before you arrive. If your flight or train is delayed, give them real-time updates. Google Map your journey in advance so you know exactly how to get to their house. It's awfully inconvenient as a host to be waiting to give a guest keys, but have them arrive two hours late because of an excuse like "I got lost".</p> <p><strong>2. Turning up empty handed</strong></p> <p>You don't need to bring much, but when staying at someone's house you need to arrive with a token of appreciation. A bottle of wine, some chocolates, or a kitsch little jar of jam you made. Turning up empty handed is expected by the host, but all good houseguests know a small gift is the right way to kick things off.</p> <p><strong>3. Keeping your shoes on</strong></p> <p>Perhaps you live in a shoes-on house when you're at home, but unless told so, you should never keep them on when staying at another's. Especially if you only see your host walking around bare foot, or in socks/slippers. Houseguests bring in extra dirt, fluff, and marks – the most conscious you can be of that, the better.</p> <p><strong>4. Turning down food</strong></p> <p>When you're staying in somebody else's home, you must eat what you are served. Hosts go to a lot of effort to make you feel welcome and cooking for you is a big part of that. If you have any dietary requirements, say so before you arrive and offer to bring a bag of shopping. Your host will probably refuse, but you've laid the groundwork for happy mealtimes for the duration of your stay.</p> <p><strong>5. Not cleaning up</strong></p> <p>Picture this: you're staying with a friend, and they're at work all day while you mooch around their house. The dishwasher is full but you don't know where anything goes in the cupboards. You pile your dirties in the sink, and your friend comes home to find them. Cue instant aggression that will forever remain unspoken. Avoid being a bad guest by cleaning up when you're a houseguest – even if you put things back in the wrong place.</p> <p><strong>6. Not asking to use laundry facilities</strong></p> <p>One of the most difficult things about travelling is getting your laundry done. When a washing machine and dryer become available, it's natural to want to jump on them. But you must ask your host first. They will always say yes – everybody understands what it's like to have to wear inside-out underwear when you've had no laundry facilities for a week – but it's just polite to ask.</p> <p><strong>7. Asking your host to quiet down</strong></p> <p>When staying in somebody else's house, there's a high chance of noises you're not used to. That could mean your host watching TV at midnight when you've got to be up early, or them talking loudly on the phone at 6AM while you're asleep. But you can't say anything about it. If you are noise-sensitive, always bring quality earplugs.</p> <p><strong>8. Bringing lovers home</strong></p> <p>We get it, maybe you're in an exciting new city and the options for a little sexy time are pinging at your phone every few minutes. But you cannot, under any circumstances, invite a new lover over to somebody's house when you're staying there. Even if you have their house to yourself, it's just a breach of respect. If you want to hook up, go to their place.</p> <p><strong>9. Leaving the bed unmade</strong></p> <p>Hosts generally accept there'll be some clean-up after you're gone. But don't leave the guest bed unmade, or your dirty sheets on it. Strip them off on your final morning, and either fold them nicely, or put them in the washing machine (this is one situation where you don't need their permission to use their laundry). Remake the bed with or without clean sheets if possible.</p> <p><strong>10. Not saying thank you</strong></p> <p>It doesn't have to be a formal written letter (though that would be nice, wouldn't it). But you must thank your hosts after you leave with a note, an e-mail, or even a text. It's something so easy to forget to do once you're gone, but ensures the host feels their hospitality has been appreciated. And if you've not broken any of the other rules, you'll definitely get invited back.</p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock</em></p> <p><em>Written by Lee Suckling. First appeared on <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Stuff.co.nz</span></strong></a>.</em></p>

Home & Garden

Placeholder Content Image

Bogus "rule" sees bus driver block Dad and daughter

<p>A father from Sydney's inner west and his toddler have been denied entry onto a bus after a confrontation with the driver over an alleged "rule" about travelling with children.</p> <p>Graham Cooke and his daughter Katie had been commuting on the 370 bus from their home in Newtown to Katie's childcare every day for a year, until one morning when the pair were confronted with a problem. </p> <p>When trying to board the bus as normal, Graham recalled to <em><a href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/dad-refused-entry-on-public-bus-after-driver-enforces-little-known-child-rule-031938462.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yahoo News</a></em> that the bus driver "aggressively" asked the dad how old his daughter was. </p> <p>When he explained that she was two-and-a-half, the dad claims the driver told him it was against the rules to have a toddler ride the bus without being in a stroller, and refused to let them onboard. </p> <p>"He immediately goes, 'no', puts his hand up, and he's like, 'you need to get off the bus. Children under three need to be in a stroller'." Cooke explained to Yahoo News.</p> <p>"He kept kind of yelling 'you need to get off the bus, I'm not driving the bus with a two-and-a-half-year-old held in your arms'," Graham said, while he tried to explain to the driver that he's done it "every day".</p> <p>Cooke then quickly looked up if such a rule existed on Transport NSW, eventually finding no evidence that young Katie had to be in a stroller to board the bus. </p> <p>When he tried to once again confront the driver to let them on, the driver responded that Cooke was holding everybody on the bus up.</p> <p>"I'm entitled to get the bus with my toddler, I'm just trying to get to work," Cooke said. After the standoff, the dad and his daughter had no choice but to get off the bus and wait for the next one, where they had no issues getting on board.</p> <p>"It was a really unpleasant experience," he said, recalling how his daughter, who ordinarily loves getting the bus, was left "upset" and cuddling into her dad.</p> <p>"She loves saying hello to bus drivers. She tends to, kind of charm everybody around pretty, pretty lovely experience," he said.</p> <p>"It upset me, because I just wanted to get to work and to be rejected on public transport in such a way. So it was a very unpleasant start to the day, and he was very aggressive and dogmatic about his view."</p> <p>After contacting Transport for NSW, the authority apologised for the incident, as a spokesperson said passengers travelling on buses with young children and prams have the choice to seat children in their care on a seat next to them, on their lap or to have them strapped into a pram where there is space on board for it to be parked safely.</p> <p>"All of our accessible buses have specific areas for prams and wheelchairs near the front of the bus, which will allow children to remain in the pram while on board if required," they said. "In that case, the front of the pram must be facing towards the back of the bus and be in firm contact with the panel, or bar behind it.</p> <p>"You'll need to fold your pram or stroller and store it in the luggage rack if there is not enough space on board the bus to safely park the pram, or if the driver asks you to.</p> <p>"In that case, you’ll need to seat the children in your care with you as it is not safe to stand and carry a child while a bus is moving."</p> <p>Responding to the statement, Cooke said, "It looks like it's completely not a rule. Parents should be able to bring their kids to daycare. A lot of daycares don't allow you to bring a stroller and leave it there."</p> <p>While the dad admits that most bus drivers are "lovely", he wants to send a message to other parents that they should know their rights travelling around on public transport.</p> <p>"It's difficult enough getting around in NSW with a toddler," he said. "It makes having a child and exploring the city pretty difficult. If you're in this situation, know your rights and that you can't be kicked off a bus just because you don't have a stroller, if you're happy enough carrying or holding your toddler."</p> <p><em>Image credits: X (Twitter)</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Surcharges are added to most purchases, but what are the rules behind these extra fees?

<div class="theconversation-article-body"> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steve-worthington-138">Steve Worthington</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a></em></p> <p>You head to the register at the cafe to pay for your lunch, swipe your card and suddenly realise you’ve been hit with an extra small but unexpected charge.</p> <p>It might be listed on your receipt as a service or merchant fee, but either way it’s because you’ve used a credit or debit card.</p> <p>With the pandemic accelerating the use of cards instead of cash – <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2023/jun/cash-use-and-attitudes-in-australia.html#:%7E:text=Cash%20payments,-The%20CPS%20suggests&amp;text=In%20value%20terms%2C%20the%20cash,cent%20by%20value%20in%202022.">only 13% of Australians use cash</a>, dropping from 27% in the last five years – these extra charges have become mainstream.</p> <p>However, as was highlighted by National Australia Bank chief executive Andrew Irvine during a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Corporations_and_Financial_Services/FinancialAbuse">parliamentary inquiry</a> into bank charges last week, they are often applied, in varying amounts, by businesses for reasons not always in line with their original purpose.</p> <p>Irvine slammed as <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/credit-card-surcharges-should-be-banned-or-regulated-nab-boss-says-20240830-p5k6jm">“outrageous”</a> a 10% surcharge he was forced to pay when he recently bought a cup of coffee at a Sydney cafe. “I don’t like the lack of transparency and lack of consistency,” he said.</p> <p>But most Australians are making these extra payments every day, without question. So how did this end up happening – and what can you do about it?</p> <h2>Card surcharges in Australia</h2> <p>At the start of this century, payments for goods and services were mainly made by cash, paper cheques, credit and debit cards.</p> <p>The first two of these options would eventually be deposited into a bank account by the merchant who ran the business. The latter two would be processed by the bank or financial institution which would charge the business a merchant service fee.</p> <p>For debit cards this might be a fixed fee. But for credit cards it would be proportionate with the value of the goods or services.</p> <p>The Reserve Bank of Australia became concerned the use of credit cards was greater than that of debit cards and <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/consultations/201106-review-card-surcharging/background.html">introduced surcharging in January 2003</a>. The intention was to lower the cost to the merchant of accepting debit cards and change customer behaviour.</p> <p>This has been achieved, as both the volume and value of paying by debit cards now exceeds the volume and value of paying by credit cards.</p> <p>However, the reality in 2024 is that card surcharges have become commonplace, and in a wide variety of payment situations.</p> <h2>It’s estimated to cost us billions</h2> <p>It is difficult to calculate the total cost of surcharging to Australian consumers since they became legal more than 20 years ago, because the rates charged vary widely.</p> <p>But at last week’s inquiry, Labor MP Jerome Laxale suggested it added up to <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/money/banking/card-surcharges-are-costing-us-billions-but-can-they-be-avoided-20240830-p5k6o8.html">A$4 billion</a> in the last year.</p> <p>Surcharges can be imposed by small to medium enterprises such as your local cafe, doctor’s surgery, your energy supplier, or when you use a card to pay your council rates.</p> <p>As an example, my rates are payable by card, with a surcharge of 1.10% for Mastercard and Visa credit, and 0.55% for eftpos and Mastercard and Visa debit cards.</p> <h2>When surcharges can be applied</h2> <p>Many merchants charge the same rate for all their card payments and some fail to alert customers to the extra fee before accepting the payment at their terminal, which they are required to do.</p> <p>Indeed, even on a receipt for payment, the surcharge can be described by the merchant as a “handling” or “merchant” fee.</p> <p>The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/pricing/card-surcharges">(ACCC)</a> regulates surcharging and demands the merchant prove a surcharge is justified.</p> <p>Furthermore, the ACCC says if there is no way for a consumer to pay without paying a surcharge – that is, they can’t pay by cash or cheque – then the business must include the surcharge in <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing/price-displays#toc-display-of-surcharges">the displayed price</a>.</p> <h2>Penalties for misuse</h2> <p>The ACCC can take merchants to court to enforce these regulations and there have been some examples of this in recent history.</p> <p>In July 2021, <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/nine-entertainment-pays-penalties-for-alleged-excessive-payment-surcharges#:%7E:text=The%20ACCC%20alleged%20that%20these,Deputy%20Chair%20Mick%20Keogh%20said.">Nine Entertainment paid penalties totalling $159,840</a>, plus $450,000 redressing customers, for charging subscribers and advertisers excessive surcharges.</p> <p>The ACCC specifies that the surcharge must not be more than it costs the merchant to use that payment type.</p> <p>As guidance to the merchants, it also offers <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/pricing/card-surcharges">the average costs for different payment types</a>: eftpos less than 0.5%, Mastercard and Visa Debit 0.5%–1% and Mastercard and Visa credit 1%–1.5%.</p> <p>However, despite the ACCC setting guidelines for the amounts that can be charged, many surcharges are above this guidance and in some cases more than 2.0% for all cards.</p> <p>Some merchants do charge different surcharging rates, depending on the cards they accept, be it eftpos, Mastercard or Visa. In theory, the surcharge rate is meant to be determined by the merchant service fee, which is negotiated between the merchant and their bank.</p> <p>Larger merchants, such as the supermarkets, department stores and energy companies, can negotiate low rates (reportedly as low as one cent a transaction). But smaller merchants with less negotiating clout will have higher service fees.</p> <p>The arrival of new payment players, such as <a href="https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/software/square-vs-stripe/">Square and Stripe</a>, has offered businesses an alternative banker of card payments, which can then use surcharging as part of their merchant service fees.</p> <h2>Surcharging overseas</h2> <p>The <a href="https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-funding/making-receiving-payments/electronic-cash-payments/index_en.htm">European Union</a> already has a long-standing ban on surcharging, while in the United States, surcharging is illegal in some states.</p> <p>Other countries, including the United Kingdom, have tried surcharging on card payments, only to abandon them as it was rorted by some merchants and became an unnecessary expense for consumers.</p> <p><a href="https://bluenotes.anz.com/posts/2023/07/anz-news-surcharge-steve-worthington-australia#:%7E:text=In%202018%20the%20UK%20Treasury,their%20hard%2Dearned%20money%E2%80%9D.">A statement</a> released by the UK Treasury when it banned the practice in 2018 described surcharges as</p> <blockquote> <p>Hidden charges for paying with a debit or credit card, which will help millions of UK consumers to avoid rip-off fees when spending their hard earned money.</p> </blockquote> <h2>What can you do about it?</h2> <p>Before surcharging was allowed by the Reserve Bank in January 2003, acceptance by merchants of payments was just another cost of doing business. And it seems many consumers have just accepted surcharges as part of their transactions.</p> <p>There are ways to avoid them, the most obvious being to use cash. Using eftpos involves charges, but they are less than those imposed on credit and debit cards.</p> <p>The Reserve Bank is working on implementing a so-called <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/debit-cards/least-cost-routing/#:%7E:text=What%20is%20least%2Dcost%20routing,'merchant%2Dchoice%20routing'.">“least-cost routing”</a> system that defaults to the lowest cost network when processing payments. Unfortunately, this is yet to be widely adopted by businesses.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/237964/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steve-worthington-138"><em>Steve Worthington</em></a><em>, Adjunct Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/surcharges-are-added-to-most-purchases-but-what-are-the-rules-behind-these-extra-fees-237964">original article</a>.</em></p> </div>

Money & Banking

Placeholder Content Image

New rules for Aussies travelling to Europe in 2025

<p>The European Union has introduced new rules for Aussie travellers planning a trip to Europe in 2025. </p> <p>The European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) program, is a new entry requirement for visa-exempt nationals from 60 nations, including Australians, which will be introduced in the first half of 2025. </p> <p>The new travel authorisation requirement will apply to 30 countries within Europe including: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.</p> <p>With a valid ETIAS travel authorisation, you can enter any of the European countries listed above as often as you want for short-term stays which is usually up to 90 days in any 180-day period.</p> <p>“However, it does not guarantee entry. When you arrive, a border guard will ask to see your passport and other documents and verify that you meet the entry conditions," the EU website states. </p> <p>The ETIAS will cost around seven Euros ($11.50) and is linked to your passport. It is valid for up to three years or until the passport expires, whichever comes first. </p> <p>If you get a new passport, you need to get a new ETIAS. </p> <p>Travellers can apply using an online application form on the ETIAS website, or apply through their app. </p> <p>Most applications are processed within minutes but some applications may take longer to process. </p> <p>“If so, you will receive a decision within four days.</p> <p>“Please note that this period could be extended by up to 14 days if you are requested to provide additional information or documentation, or up to 30 days if you are invited to an interview.”</p> <p>After the application, “you will receive an email confirming the submission of your application which will include your unique ETIAS application number: make sure you keep this number for future reference.” </p> <p>“Once your application has been processed, you will receive another email informing you about its outcome.</p> <p>“When you get your ETIAS travel authorisation please make sure your name, passport number and other information is correct: if there is any mistake, you will not be allowed to cross the border.”</p> <p>Travellers are required to always carry the same travel documents used in their ETIAS application “otherwise, you will not be allowed to board your flight, bus or ship, or to enter any of the European countries requiring ETIAS.”</p> <p><em>Image: Shutterstock</em></p> <p> </p>

Travel Tips

Placeholder Content Image

Bride and groom slammed over their “draconian wedding rules”

<p dir="ltr">A wedding planner has exposed a bride and groom she worked for who had an exhaustive list of rules for their big day.</p> <p dir="ltr">Ivy Miller shared a now viral TikTok about the couple’s “draconian” demands for their wedding day, that left many people saying they would “rather stay home” than attend the restricted day. </p> <p dir="ltr">Miller shared that the couple didn’t want any wedding guests making song requests to their DJ, with the bride and groom allegedly suggesting, “Just go to the club if you want your songs played.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The wedding planner also claimed that the couple asked guests not to ask their professional photographer to take photos of them, with the post reading, “I did not pay 10,000s of dollars for random portraits.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Instead, guests were told to join a shared photo album on a group app where they could crowd source photos from the day.</p> <p dir="ltr">Additionally, Miller said the couple did not permit any guests to bring a plus one, saying, “I’m not stressing and paying for strangers I’ve never met.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Finally, Miller’s post revealed that the couple had banned alcohol from their wedding because they wanted their guests to “actually remember” their celebrations.</p> <p dir="ltr">“No plus one? No alcohol? Is this a wedding?” questioned one TikTok user in response to the list of rules.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Sounds like a business convention rather than a wedding,” another person said of the unusual demands.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I went to an alcohol free wedding,” another commenter added. “[It was] the most boring wedding I’ve ever been to. Pretty much everyone went at eight and most of the evening guests didn’t turn up.”</p> <p dir="ltr">“Those are all the reasons people attend the wedding for,” a fourth person claimed. “I would recommend a really small wedding because that way your guests don’t end up secretly hating you.”</p> <p dir="ltr">However, other users defended the bride and groom’s requests, with one person saying, “It’s their wedding, their rules.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image credits: Shutterstock</em></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

Lawyer warns drivers over little-known road rule with $2200 penalty

<p>While some say it's just "the Aussie way", one lawyer has warned against this common act that could cost you up to $2200. </p> <p>Speaking to <em>7NEWS </em>Astor Legal principal lawyer Avinash Singh, said that there has been a spike in motorists caught flashing their high beams on the road, to alert other drivers of police. </p> <p>“I’ve received an increased number of inquiries from people who have been caught flashing their high beams, warning oncoming drivers of police,” he said. </p> <p>“Most of my clients have been caught doing this by a mobile speed camera or an RBT, which they don’t realise can catch them out on this offence.”</p> <p>Drivers caught in the act could get an on-the-spot fine of $112 and one demerit point, and a maximum penalty of $2200.</p> <p>According to the Australian Road Rules, it is considered an unlawful use of headlights on high-beam. </p> <p>“It is an offence to drive on a road with high-beam headlights on if there is another vehicle in front, travelling in the same direction within 200m; or if there is another oncoming vehicle within 200m,” Singh said.</p> <p>“Similarly, road rules state that a driver must not use any light fitted to their vehicle to dazzle, or in a way that is likely to dazzle, another road user.”</p> <p>“It is arguable that flashing your headlights to warn of police would fall into the definition of ‘hindering police’ in the execution of their duty “</p> <p>Motorists on Reddit have described headlight flashing as representing “a camaraderie between motorists” and one even called it “the Aussie way”.</p> <p>But others have argued that the act could impact the safety of other drivers. </p> <p>“Traffic laws are meant to act as a deterrent for dangerous driving, flashing a fellow motorist has the same effect the ticket is meant to but with more immediate results. It should be widely encouraged,” one commenter wrote.</p> <p>“I feel it only changes the driver’s behaviour for a few seconds, but removes the deterrent of getting a fine. So it probably makes traffic, in general, more dangerous,” another said.</p> <p><em>Image: Shutterstock</em></p> <p> </p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

My Kitchen Rules star dies at just 46

<p><em>My Kitchen Rules New Zealand </em>contestant Michael Murray has passed away at just 46. </p> <p>An extended family member, who asked not to be named, has confirmed his death on Monday afternoon. </p> <p>“It’s a shock to all those who know him,” the relative told <em>Daily Mail Australia</em>. </p> <p>No cause of death has yet been released. </p> <p>Murray, of Ngāti Maniapoto heritage, competed in the 2024 season of the popular cooking show with his cousin Piki Knap. </p> <p>According to their biography for the series, the pair grew up together in Te Kūiti, south of Auckland, and developed their love of cooking from entertaining family guests.</p> <p>Murray was a huge Jamie Oliver fan, and was comfortable in front of the camera, after spending 12 years in Mexico where he worked on  telenovela soap operas and did small stints on other shows. </p> <p>He returned to New Zealand after the pandemic. </p> <p>“My background is modelling and acting,” he told <em>The New Zealand Herald</em>.</p> <p>“I was Mr New Zealand back in 2005, and that’s what took me overseas and eventually to Mexico. Obviously, I’m not Mexican, but they thought I was Latino! </p> <p>"I did some great work there, then to come home and be a part of this whole journey with MKR is a blessing in disguise. I’ve always put my hand up to opportunity.”</p> <p>Murray's family are now dealing with the devastation of losing another loved one after Murray's aunt passed away from terminal cancer a few months after the duo started filming for MKR. </p> <p><em>Images: My Kitchen Rules NZ</em></p> <p> </p>

Caring

Placeholder Content Image

Little-known road rule that could cost you $3700

<p>An Australian solicitor has brought attention to a little-known road rule that many drivers are unaware of and could cost them between $50 and $3,700 if caught breaking this law. </p> <p>Sydney lawyer Avinash Singh said he's noticed "many Australians are unaware of the expensive consequences they could face for using their car horn incorrectly" — even if it's unintentional.</p> <p>He said that drivers need to ensure they only use their car horns when necessary, including when warning other drivers or alerting animals that their car is approaching. </p> <p>"Whether it’s beeping to greet friends or family members or out of frustration of others’ driving, honking your horn inappropriately is an offence," he told <em>Yahoo News</em>. </p> <p>"No matter what state you’re driving in, a vehicle's horn can only be used to warn other drivers or alert animals to the presence or location of their vehicle. </p> <p>"The only exception to this is if the horn is being used as part of an anti-theft device or an alcohol interlock. Drivers caught using their horn in situations outside of these could face possible imprisonment and fines of over $3,000, depending on which state they reside."</p> <p>In New South Wales drivers can cop a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units, which is currently $2,200.</p> <p>The number of penalty units for Queensland is the same as NSW, but the cost is higher at $3226.</p> <p>In the Northern Territory it's a maximum penalty of 20 units ($3,700) or imprisonment for 6 months. </p> <p>South Australia and Tasmania have a set fine of $323 and $146.25 respectively. </p> <p>For Victoria and Western Australia, drivers can cop 1 penalty unit which cost $197.59 and $50 respectively. </p> <p>In the ACT drivers caught in this act will receive an infringement penalty of $264, maximum penalty of 20 penalty units ($3,200).</p> <p><em>Image: Revenue NSW</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Boomers vs. Bikers: Teens and elderly residents face off over bike rules

<p>A tense intergenerational argument has broken out in Sydney's Northern Beaches, as a group of seniors stopped two teenagers from riding their electric bikes on a footpath. </p> <p>The incident was captured on camera by a bystander and uploaded to social media with the caption, "Battle of the beaches. E-bikes vs. elderly", before quickly going viral. </p> <p>The video shows elderly man and woman standing outside a dental centre in the suburb of Mona Vale, stopping the youths from riding any further and are seen holding the bike as the teens appear to argue for their release.</p> <p>After the video garnered much attention, hundreds of people shared their thoughts on who was in the right. </p> <p>Many appear to have taken the side of the senior citizens, but in this case, with the teen’s ages not immediately clear, both parties could have a case. </p> <p>According to the<a title="www.nsw.gov.au" href="https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-safety-and-rules/bicycle-safety-and-rules/cyclist-road-rules#:~:text=Riding%20on%20a%20footpath,under%20the%20age%20of%2016"> New South Wales Government</a>, cyclists (on both pedal or electric bikes) are not allowed to ride on a footpath. However, children under 16 can ride on the footpath unless there is a “NO BICYCLES” sign. </p> <p>In the comment section, plenty of arguments backed the case of the seniors. </p> <p>“Elderly are right; it’s a footpath, it’s dangerous. Annoying they drive fast,” one wrote.</p> <p>Another said: “Look I don’t know what happened, but yesterday (kids) similar to these guys were zooming on an E-bike at a dog park, almost hit us, no bells or anything and off the path. If you have these, just stay on the road.”</p> <p>Others, however, were quick to side with the teens, as one person wrote, “Entitled old people thinking they are the police.”</p> <p>Another added, “Boomers need to admit they are bored and have nothing to do.”</p> <p><em>Image credits: TikTok</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Bride slammed for “absolutely ridiculous” dress code rules

<p dir="ltr">A bride-to-be has gone viral for all the wrong reasons after her exhaustive list of wedding day dress code rules has divided the internet. </p> <p dir="ltr">A wedding guest took to a wedding shaming facebook group to share the list of attire rules she received alongside her invitation to the nuptials, sparking a heated debate over the “absolutely ridiculous” dress code.</p> <p dir="ltr">The specific dress code nitpicks at colour, fabric, length, print, and even the “vibe” clothes give off.</p> <p dir="ltr">The invite read: “Dress code: Formal (non-black tie) wear. Suits (preferably dark blue or dark grey, no tuxedos), ties, and dress shoes for men. No need to get creative!”</p> <p dir="ltr">“Linen is better suited for our welcome party; please wear a traditional fabric for the wedding.”</p> <p dir="ltr">“For women, tea-length dresses are great. Knee-length also works, but make sure it is not too casual (no summer floral dresses, for example) and floor-length is fine but make sure it is not an evening gala gown.”</p> <p dir="ltr">“Avoid any outrageous necklines, cut-outs, or sparkles. The idea is to be formal and glam, but not like you are on the way to a black-tie gala. Solid jewel tones generally work better than florals. No black please!”</p> <p dir="ltr">“Most importantly, please make sure to cover your shoulders and back with a cardigan or light scarf!”</p> <p dir="ltr">The huge list sparked a debate online, with some people claiming the bride is “controlling” and “entitled”, while others defended the bride and groom. </p> <p dir="ltr">“When in the hell did we start telling guests what to wear?” one person commented, “This is utterly ridiculous and if I received this invitation, it would go directly into the bin.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Another person wrote, “What is 'traditional fabric'? Am I supposed to show up in undyed wool? If we're being pedantic here, linen is pretty much the most traditional fabric in terms of historic use.”</p> <p dir="ltr">“They should just pick a uniform for the guests,” another said, while one wrote, “I honestly don't know if this type of dress or outfit exists?”</p> <p dir="ltr">Some claimed they would go against the dress code on purpose, as one person wrote, “I'd show up in an above-the-knee black floral number with cold shoulder cut outs and a sparkling neckline. For fun, it would be made out of linen.”</p> <p dir="ltr">However, a few people were quick to defend the bride and groom.   </p> <p dir="ltr">“They could be getting married in a church, mosque, or synagogue - where this is a requirement. I would rather an invite tell me this than show up and not have known. Telling people gives people the opportunity to RSVP no if it's an issue,” one wrote.</p> <p dir="ltr">“To me this isn't exactly unreasonable,” another said. “It's not some huge list of dos and don'ts or very specific colours that must be adhered to or avoided. It helps guests who have no idea what to wear.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image credits: Facebook / Shutterstock</em></p>

Beauty & Style

Placeholder Content Image

“Too chaotic for me”: Bride and groom slammed for “unreasonable” wedding rules

<p dir="ltr">A bride and groom has been slammed online for giving their wedding guests an extensive list of rules they must abide by on their big day.</p> <p dir="ltr">The list of 15 demands was shared on Reddit, where social media users tore the newlyweds to shreds with their “unreasonable” rules. </p> <p dir="ltr">The post racked up thousands of comments on the Wedding Shamers subreddit, with one person writing, 'If someone sent this to me, I would simply just not go.' </p> <p dir="ltr">The rules included that guests needed to remember their opinions on the wedding are “irrelevant” while also banning attendees from “sitting down all night” or making their own big announcements.</p> <p dir="ltr">The first rule urged guests to remember that this was the bride and groom's big day, “not yours”, while also telling guests, “Do not get in the photographer's way.” </p> <p dir="ltr">They also made a strict dress code, writing, “the attire is BLACK and/or GOLD not red, blue, green and definitely NO WHITE!”</p> <p dir="ltr">“Do not rearrange the seats, we have a seating chart for a reason.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The rules continued, “If you didn't put out any money for the wedding, keep your "should've, could've, would've" to yourself. Your opinion is irrelevant.”</p> <p dir="ltr">But the couple did not stop there as they also urged guests to pace themselves when drinking and banned “big announcements or proposals.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Next up, it read, “If you can't handle or dislike the music being played, simply go home. This is a celebration, not a funeral.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The lovebirds then instructed their friends and family to use their own personalised hashtag when posting photos on social media.</p> <p dir="ltr">Rounding out the demands, the final five read, “Do not sit down all night. No outside liquor. If caught, you will be escorted out.”</p> <p dir="ltr">“Refer back to rule number one. The bride and groom said what they said! Turn ALL the way up!”</p> <p dir="ltr">The post was soon flooded with comments with many insisting that the couple had taken it too far.</p> <p dir="ltr">One person wrote, “What kind of list is this? Too chaotic for me.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Another person added, “Yeah, I would not be going to that wedding. Sounds like too much drama.”</p> <p dir="ltr">On the other hand, there were a few commenters who understood the need for issuing such strict guidelines and defended the couple.</p> <p dir="ltr">One person wrote, “They're not asking for anything out of order. They're just stating what should be obvious, but they probably have seen from their family and friends past behaviour, that it NEEDS to be addressed.” </p> <p dir="ltr">“Is it a little tacky? Yes, but the only people that will be bothered by any of it are the ones that would have been an issue.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image credits: Reddit / Shutterstock</em></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

New rules to crack down on dodgy taxi practices

<p>New technology is being rolled out on Wednesday, which will make it more difficult for taxi drivers to overcharge their customers. </p> <p>The country's largest taxi payment provider, Cabcharge, is introducing a new system which will link  cab drivers' payment terminals with their meters. </p> <p>The move has been made in attempt to crack down on dodgy taxi practices. </p> <p>Under the current system the two are not connected, so dishonest drivers may disregard the distance and fee on the meter and input a higher sum on their payment terminals, charging customers more money. </p> <p>The crack down has been approved Australia's most extensive taxi network which includes operators such as 13cabs, Silver Service and Black & White Cabs. They are also encouraged to display a sticker that says "We proudly accept Cabcharge."</p> <p>Speaking to<em> 2GB </em>on Monday, Nick Abrahim the CEO of NSW Taxi Council said that the technology was "welcomed news", which will help strengthen customer trust. </p> <p>"We want people, whether they're going to a sporting event or a concert or whatever it is, not even to worry about the transport issues. We want them to go out and make sure they're having a good time," he said. </p> <p>"The majority of drivers are out there, they want to do the right thing they want to look after passengers, but we know there are a handful of those drivers that unfortunately think they can flout the law and get away from it... [this] sends a strong message to that handful of drivers."</p> <p><em>Image: Shutterstock</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

How much sport will you be able to watch for free under proposed new Australian broadcast rules?

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hunter-fujak-290599">Hunter Fujak</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-rowe-16403">David Rowe</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a></em></p> <p>Watching sport on television and other screens is integral to the <a href="https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A57259">cultural lives of many Australians</a>.</p> <p>This is why, in 1995, the anti-siphoning scheme was introduced to ensure sport “<a href="http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9780203758397">events of national importance and cultural significance</a>” would not be captured exclusively by pay TV at the expense of free-to-air coverage.</p> <p>There have been enormous <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429402265-5/television-tony-bennett-modesto-gayo-david-rowe-graeme-turner">changes in television</a> since and this analogue-era legislation is increasingly out of step with the modern digital media landscape.</p> <p>Critically, under current definitions, streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon fall outside a scheme restricting subscription broadcasters like Foxtel.</p> <p>The federal government <a href="https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labor-will-support-local-tv-free-sport-in-the-streaming-age">promised</a> before its election in 2022 to review the anti-siphoning scheme. Its subsequent <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7132">Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023</a> is designed to close the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/streaming-platforms-will-soon-be-required-to-invest-more-in-australian-tv-and-films-which-could-be-good-news-for-our-screen-sector-198757">regulatory gap</a>” that has emerged within media law since Netflix’s launch in Australia in 2015.</p> <p>The Senate referred the bill to its Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Its report has just been released and will help shape Australians’ access to sport media content.</p> <h2>The importance of prominence</h2> <p>“Prominence” refers to the discoverability of individual media applications, such as Netflix or 9Now, on the user homepage of smart televisions.</p> <p>The federal government is troubled by overseas services like YouTube and Amazon being immediately visible on smart televisions through commercial licensing agreements, effectively “burying” Australian free-to-air TV.</p> <p>Public service broadcaster SBS, for example, <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/anti-siphoning-prominence-laws-australia-free-to-air-tv-channels/87bc8ddd-4120-4542-864e-2c84a781411e">claimed</a> during Senate hearings that one television manufacturer demanded both a placement fee and a 15% share of revenue to feature on the television’s homepage.</p> <p>Prominence is crucial in sport because anti-siphoning legislation is based on the principle that, although in <a href="https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/03/06/tv-habits-australia">general decline</a>, free-to-air TV is still the most effective, <a href="https://accan.org.au/files/Reports/ACCAN%20Research%20Snapshot%20How%20Australians%20Watch%20TV.pdf">low-cost, readily-accessed</a> vehicle for delivering premium sport to a majority of Australian households.</p> <h2>Anti-siphoning</h2> <p>While often criticised by <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/anti-siphoning-scheme-review">subscription media companies and many sports</a> as anti-competitive, anti-siphoning legislation is significantly responsible for the continued abundance of free major sport on our televisions.</p> <p>In a portent of the risks ahead, <a href="https://www.cricket.com.au/news/3807634/amazon-prime-video-secures-icc-broadcast-rights-in-australia-t20-odi-world-cup-world-test-championship-2024-27">International Cricket Council</a> World Cups will disappear from free-to-air television between 2024 and 2027, after the world governing body signed an exclusive four-year deal with streaming platform Amazon.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-boss-flies-to-us-for-talks-with-media-companies-20220425-p5ag16.html">AFL</a> also reportedly met Amazon in 2022 as part of its media rights negotiations.</p> <p><a href="https://theconversation.com/regardless-of-the-rules-sport-is-fleeing-free-tv-for-pay-and-it-might-be-an-avalanche-154640">Loopholes</a> in the scheme are also being increasingly exploited. This problem was exposed in 2018 when <a href="https://www.cricket.com.au/news/3296093/tvs-antisiphon-list-and-cricket-explained">Australian one-day international cricket matches</a> went behind a paywall, despite being listed as free-to-air events.</p> <p>As <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/streaming/nrl-calls-for-technologically-neutral-overhaul-to-sport-broadcasting/news-story/31fc06ab986e12c7e6f720df33d23ad1">Foxtel</a> told the Senate hearing, both Nine (Stan) and Ten (Paramount+) are now hybrid networks, able to move acquired sports from free-to-air broadcast to behind a streaming paywall.</p> <p>At present, free-to-air networks cannot be compelled to acquire the rights to any sport, broadcast them if they do, or refrain from on-selling them to a pay platform.</p> <h2>What are the implications for sport and other viewers?</h2> <p>The majority Senate report broadly supported the federal government’s existing <a href="https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/rowland/media-release/exposure-draft-prominence-regulations-released">exposure draft</a>.</p> <p>Regarding prominence, this means free-to-air channel “tiles” will be highly visible when you turn on a new smart TV. A 12-month phased implementation of a prominence framework was recommended by the committee – and would only apply to new televisions.</p> <p>The committee also broadly accepted the draft bill’s anti-siphoning provisions, which will affect what and where sport is viewed by fans.</p> <p>First, the listed events will be expanded by 30% and incorporate more women’s and parasports. They include the AFLW and NRLW finals, NRLW State of Origin, and the Summer Paralympic Games.</p> <p>To provide counterbalancing benefits to subscription broadcasters, sport events not acquired by a free-to-air broadcaster will become more quickly available to subscription platforms (12 months before an event starts, rather than six months before). This provides subscription platforms with greater lead-in times to plan, organise and promote their content schedules.</p> <p>The most controversial recommendation related to the scope of anti-siphoning laws, affecting how Australian viewers can access sport in the medium term.</p> <p>It supported the government’s position, on grounds of excessive competitive advantage, that anti-siphoning should only apply to terrestrial broadcasting. This excludes digital rights for live streaming through broadcast video on demand apps such as 9Now, Seven+, iView and SBS On Demand.</p> <p>Commercial free-to-air broadcasters called this a “<a href="https://www.mediaweek.com.au/industry-reacts-to-prominence-and-anti-siphoning-findings/">nightmare scenario</a>”, as they <a href="https://www.freetv.com.au/access-to-local-tv-services-and-free-sport-under-threat-unless-laws-are-strengthened/">estimate</a> 50% of households will be watching TV online by 2027.</p> <p>For viewers without televisions connected to aerials, this could make major sport events on free-to-air TV unavailable. Although terrestrial TV is still the most <a href="https://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/jdmp_00098_1">universally available screen sport vehicle</a>, aerials are no longer routinely installed in new housing developments.</p> <p>Research by the <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/television-research">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a>, though, indicates that free-to-air network claims about disappearing TV aerials are somewhat exaggerated. Nonetheless, as modernisation was a central justification for the anti-siphoning reforms, the strategic compromise over broadcast video on demand apps will inevitably be scrutinised.</p> <p>Notably, in a dissenting minority report, the Greens were unhappy the bill did not go far enough in either prominence or anti-siphoning. They reserved their right to reject it unless suitably amended to guarantee global corporations could not capture Australian sports rights.</p> <h2>What happens next?</h2> <p>The amended bill must pass through Parliament to become law, and its final shape and the fate of any amendments are as yet unknown.</p> <p>While it is widely, though not universally, acknowledged action is needed to protect free screen sport viewing, intense disagreement remains among competing interest groups over what is to be done now and in the future.</p> <p>To safeguard their viewing interests, Australian sport fans will need to watch these formidably technical debates as closely as their favourite sport contests.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226499/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hunter-fujak-290599">Hunter Fujak</a>, Senior Lecturer in Sport Management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-rowe-16403">David Rowe</a>, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-sport-will-you-be-able-to-watch-for-free-under-proposed-new-australian-broadcast-rules-226499">original article</a>.</em></p>

TV

Placeholder Content Image

Dad kicked off Jetstar flight for breaking cardinal rule

<p>A dad has been kicked off a Jetstar flight after snapping a picture of his family boarding the plane from the tarmac. </p> <p>Jimmy Mitchell was with his wife Pauline and their two children as they went to board their flight from Sydney to Brisbane, where they were embarking on a cruise. </p> <p>As the family were boarding the plane from the tarmac, Jimmy quickly took a picture of his kids and his wife who were walking up the rear stairs of the plane. </p> <p>According to Jimmy, who is a seasoned traveller, he didn't hear an announcement be made that passengers were prohibited from taking photos on the tarmac because the plane was refuelling. </p> <p>He was eventually able to board the flight after being confronted by cabin crew, but described the debacle as “one of the most traumatic experiences” he’s had.</p> <p>In a viral TikTok, he alleged that while he was taking the photo, a cabin crew member called him an “idiot”. He said that when she tried to get his attention to put the device away it left him embarrassed and shocked. </p> <p>“This is the worst experience I’ve ever had flying,” he said in the clip.</p> <p>“I try and get on the plane, I take a photo of my kids as they get on the plane, in flight mode, and the lady calls me an idiot,” he said.</p> <p>After he confronted the staff member, Mr Mitchell claims he was told he won’t be allowed to board the flight.</p> <p>“I turned around in disbelief because I was half way up the stairs at this point. I basically stormed over to her and I was like, ‘Are you serious? What did you just call me?’</p> <p>“She was basically saying ‘you can’t take photos on the tarmac, you can’t take photos on the tarmac’.”</p> <p>The pair allegedly went back and forth before the father-of-two, known for his travel content, was rejected from boarding the plane. </p> <p>“If she had literally just said anything else, like ‘get off your phone’, I would have done it.”</p> <p>“Apparently, they made an announcement, but I had noise cancelling headphones, Pauline (wife) told me after the fact – I didn’t hear it, there was no notifications about it, there was no signage, no nothing."</p> <p>“All she had to do was say something constructive. ‘Get off your phone,’ ‘you can’t have your phone out’ and I would have been like ‘sorry’, but she screams across the tarmac calling me an idiot.”</p> <p>“I can see how she maybe felt I was being intimidating because I am a big guy and I am a loud guy. She turns around to me and goes ‘you almost assaulted me, get off the tarmac, you’re not getting on this plane’.”</p> <p>Mr Mitchell then walked back inside the terminal where he awaited further instructions, and was later able to board the flight “after cooler heads prevailed” but wants the airline to apologise to him and his family over the “stressful” situation.</p> <p>“The way they treated Pauline and the kids and not allowing me to communicate with them what was going on, was completely unacceptable,” he said.</p> <p>The debacle has sparked a huge debate on his TikTok and Instagram over who is in the wrong.</p> <p>“Wow … that’s insane! So sorry that happened to you!” one person wrote.</p> <p>“Take it further and don’t let them get away with what they have done,” a second person said.</p> <p>However, others were quick to comment that as a seasoned traveller, Jimmy should've been well versed in the rules of not taking photos on the tarmac.</p> <p><em>Image credits: TikTok</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Why do airlines charge so much for checked bags? This obscure rule helps explain why

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jay-l-zagorsky-152952">Jay L. Zagorsky</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/boston-university-898">Boston University</a></em></p> <p>Five out of the six <a href="https://www.oag.com/blog/biggest-airlines-in-the-us">biggest U.S. airlines</a> have <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/05/delta-is-the-latest-airline-to-raise-its-checked-bag-fee.html">raised their checked bag fees</a> since January 2024.</p> <p>Take American Airlines. In 2023, it cost US$30 to check a standard bag in with the airline; <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2024/02/20/american-airlines-bag-fees-mileage-earning/72669245007/">today, as of March 2024, it costs $40</a> at a U.S. airport – a whopping 33% increase.</p> <p>As a <a href="https://www.bu.edu/questrom/">business school</a> <a href="https://www.bu.edu/questrom/profile/jay-zagorsky/">professor who studies travel</a>, I’m often asked why airlines alienate their customers with baggage fees instead of bundling all charges together. <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/4/16/8431465/airlines-carry-on-bags">There are</a> <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/2023/06/21/bag-fees-will-stay-a-while-cruising-altitude/70338849007/">many reasons</a>, but an important, often overlooked cause is buried in the U.S. tax code.</p> <h2>A tax-law loophole</h2> <p>Airlines pay the federal government <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-49/subpart-D">7.5% of the ticket price</a> when <a href="https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/tax/library/aircraft-club-nov-2023-air-transport-excise-tax-rates-for-2024.html">flying people domestically, alongside other fees</a>. The airlines dislike these charges, with their <a href="https://www.airlines.org/dataset/government-imposed-taxes-on-air-transportation/">trade association arguing</a> that they boost the cost to the consumer of a typical air ticket by around one-fifth.</p> <p>However, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-49/subpart-D/section-49.4261-8">specifically excludes baggage</a> from the 7.5% transportation tax as long as “the charge is separable from the payment for the transportation of a person and is shown in the exact amount.”</p> <p>This means if an airline charges a combined $300 to fly you and a bag round-trip within the U.S., it owes $22.50 in tax. If the airline charges $220 to fly you plus separately charges $40 each way for the bag, then your total cost is the same — but the airline only owes the government $16.50 in taxes. Splitting out baggage charges saves the airline $6.</p> <p>Now $6 might not seem like much, but it can add up. Last year, passengers took <a href="https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1">more than 800 million trips on major airlines</a>. Even if only a fraction of them check their bags, that means large savings for the industry.</p> <p>How large? The government has <a href="https://www.bts.dot.gov/topics/airlines-and-airports/baggage-fees-airline-2023">tracked revenue from bag fees</a> for decades. In 2002, airlines charged passengers a total of $180 million to check bags, which worked out to around 33 cents per passenger.</p> <p>Today, as any flyer can attest, bag fees are a lot higher. Airlines collected over 40 times more money in bag fees last year than they did in 2002.</p> <p>When the full data is in for 2023, <a href="https://www.bts.dot.gov/baggage-fees">total bag fees</a> will likely top $7 billion, which is about $9 for the average domestic passenger. <a href="https://viewfromthewing.com/the-real-reason-airlines-charge-checked-bag-fees-and-its-not-what-you-think">By splitting out the cost of bags</a>, airlines avoided paying about half a billion dollars in taxes just last year.</p> <p>In the two decades since 2002, flyers paid a total of about $70 billion in bag fees. This means separately charging for bags saved airlines about $5 billion in taxes.</p> <p><iframe id="88MYD" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/88MYD/2/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe></p> <p>It seems clear to me that tax savings are one driver of the unbundling of baggage fees because of a quirk in the law.</p> <p>The U.S. government doesn’t apply the 7.5% tax to <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-49/subpart-D/section-49.4261-3">international flights that go more than 225 miles</a> beyond the nation’s borders. Instead, there are fixed <a href="https://www.airlines.org/dataset/government-imposed-taxes-on-air-transportation">international departure and arrival taxes</a>. This is why major airlines charge $35 to $40 <a href="https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/baggage/checked-baggage-policy.jsp">for bags if you’re flying domestically</a>, but don’t charge a bag fee when you’re flying to Europe or Asia.</p> <h2>Do travelers get anything for that money?</h2> <p>This system raises an interesting question: Do baggage fees force airlines to be more careful with bags, since customers who pay more expect better service? To find out, I checked with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which has been <a href="https://www.bts.gov/content/mishandled-baggage-reports-filed-passengers-largest-us-air-carriersa">tracking lost luggage for decades</a>.</p> <p>For many years, it calculated the number of mishandled-baggage reports per thousand airline passengers. The government’s data showed mishandled bags peaked in 2007 with about seven reports of lost or damaged luggage for every thousand passengers. That means you could expect your luggage to go on a different trip than the one you are taking about once every 140 or so flights. By 2018, that estimate had fallen to once every 350 flights.</p> <p>In 2019, the government <a href="https://www.bts.gov/topics/airlines-and-airports/number-30a-technical-directive-mishandled-baggage-amended-effective-jan">changed how it tracks</a> mishandled bags, calculating figures based on the total number of bags checked, rather than the total number of passengers. The new data show about six bags per thousand checked get lost or damaged, which is less than 1% of checked bags. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t show improvement since 2019.</p> <p>Is there anything that you can do about higher bag fees? Complaining to politicians probably won’t help. In 2010, two senators <a href="https://www.nj.com/business/2010/04/us_senators_present_bill_to_ba.html">tried to ban bag fees</a>, and their bill went nowhere.</p> <p>Given that congressional action failed, there’s a simple way to avoid higher bag fees: <a href="https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/packing-expert-travel-world-handbag/index.html">travel light</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/opinion/carry-on-packing-airlines-lost-luggage.html">don’t check any luggage</a>. It may sound tough not to have all your belongings when traveling, but it might be the best option as bag fees take off.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225857/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jay-l-zagorsky-152952">Jay L. Zagorsky</a>, Associate Professor of Markets, Public Policy and Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/boston-university-898">Boston University</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-airlines-charge-so-much-for-checked-bags-this-obscure-rule-helps-explain-why-225857">original article</a>.</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Our Partners