Search

One last chance for grandma on the brink of deportation

Mary Ellis, 74, who has lived in Australia for the last 40 years and is facing deportation, has made a last-ditch bid to stay Down Under. The grandmother recently appeared on <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/grandma-faces-deportation-after-40-years-in-australia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Current Affair</a> and begged the Department of Home Affairs to let her stay in the country. At the time, she refuted the Home Affairs' claim that she had misrepresented her continuous residence in the country, after they alleged that she left Australia three times under an alias between 1983 and 1986, and that her late husband Martin Ellis was actually called Trevor Warren. The crucial qualification for an absorbed citizenship is that she would only be eligible if she was in Australia from April 2, 1984, and had not left the country since. The grandmother claimed that she arrived in Australia in December 1981, and hasn't left since, saying that she had also paid taxes in Australia, held a Medicare card, pension card and an Australian driver's licence. She was also nominated for the NSW Volunteer of the Year award last year, for her charitable acts. The DailyMail reports that there are no "compassionate grounds" on which the Immigration Minister could intervene in her bid to attain an absorbed citizenship. However, under the Migration Act, the minister could decide to intervene in Ellis' case if he thinks "it is in the public interest." Now, Ellis and her migration agent Schneider have requested in writing for the minister to intervene. Requests for Federal Immigration Minister Andrew Giles to intervene must address specific grounds in doing so, and state why her staying would be in the public interest. Images: Instagram/ Nine

Legal

Why prices are so high – 8 ways retail pricing algorithms gouge consumers

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-tuffley-13731">David Tuffley</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> The just-released report of the inquiry into <a href="https://pricegouginginquiry.actu.org.au/">price gouging and unfair pricing</a> conducted by Allan Fels for the Australian Council of Trades Unions does more than identify the likely offenders. It finds the biggest are supermarkets, banks, airlines and electricity companies. It’s not enough to know their tricks. Fels wants to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission more power to investigate and more power to prohibit mergers. But it helps to know how they try to trick us, and how technology has enabled them to get better at it. After reading the report, I’ve identified eight key maneuvers. <h2>1. Asymmetric price movements</h2> Otherwise known as <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/25593733">Rocket and Feather</a>, this is where businesses push up prices quickly when costs rise, but cut them slowly or late after costs fall. It seems to happen for <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988323002074">petrol</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105905601730240X">mortgage rates</a>, and the Fels inquiry was presented with evidence suggesting it happens in supermarkets. Brendan O’Keeffe from NSW Farmers told the inquiry wholesale lamb prices had been falling for six months before six Woolworths announced a cut in the prices of lamb it was selling as a “<a href="https://pricegouginginquiry.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/InquiryIntoPriceGouging_Report_web.pdf">Christmas gift</a>”. <h2>2. Punishment for loyal customers</h2> A <a href="https://theconversation.com/simple-fixes-could-help-save-australian-consumers-from-up-to-3-6-billion-in-loyalty-taxes-119978">loyalty tax</a> is what happens when a business imposes higher charges on customers who have been with it for a long time, on the assumption that they won’t move. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has alleged a big <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-qantas-might-have-done-all-australians-a-favour-by-making-refunds-so-hard-to-get-213346">insurer</a> does it, setting premiums not only on the basis of risk, but also on the basis of what a computer model tells them about the likelihood of each customer tolerating a price hike. The insurer disputes the claim. It’s often done by offering discounts or new products to new customers and leaving existing customers on old or discontinued products. It happens a lot in the <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/utilities-loyalty-costing-australians-billions-2024">electricity industry</a>. The plans look good at first, and then less good as providers bank on customers not making the effort to shop around. Loyalty taxes appear to be less common among mobile phone providers. Australian laws make it easy to switch <a href="https://www.reviews.org/au/mobile/how-to-switch-mobile-carriers-and-keep-your-number/">and keep your number</a>. <h2>3. Loyalty schemes that provide little value</h2> Fels says loyalty schemes can be a “low-cost means of retaining and exploiting consumers by providing them with low-value rewards of dubious benefit”. Their purpose is to lock in (or at least bias) customers to choices already made. Examples include airline frequent flyer points, cafe cards that give you your tenth coffee free, and supermarket points programs. The purpose is to lock in (or at least bias) consumers to products already chosen. The <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/customer-loyalty-schemes">Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> has found many require users to spend a lot of money or time to earn enough points for a reward. Others allow points to expire or rules to change without notice or offer rewards that are not worth the effort to redeem. They also enable businesses to collect data on spending habits, preferences, locations, and personal information that can be used to construct customer profiles that allow them to target advertising and offers and high prices to some customers and not others. <h2>4. Drip pricing that hides true costs</h2> The Competition and Consumer Commission describes <a href="https://pricegouginginquiry.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/InquiryIntoPriceGouging_Report_web.pdf">drip pricing</a> as “when a price is advertised at the beginning of an online purchase, but then extra fees and charges (such as booking and service fees) are gradually added during the purchase process”. The extras can add up quickly and make final bills much higher than expected. Airlines are among the best-known users of the strategy. They often offer initially attractive base fares, but then add charges for baggage, seat selection, in-flight meals and other extras. <h2>5. Confusion pricing</h2> Related to drip pricing is <a href="https://www.x-mol.net/paper/article/1402386414932836352">confusion pricing</a> where a provider offers a range of plans, discounts and fees so complex they are overwhelming. Financial products like insurance have convoluted fee structures, as do electricity providers. Supermarkets do it by bombarding shoppers with “specials” and “sales”. When prices change frequently and without notice, it adds to the confusion. <h2>6. Algorithmic pricing</h2> <a href="https://pricegouginginquiry.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/InquiryIntoPriceGouging_Report_web.pdf">Algorithmic pricing</a> is the practice of using algorithms to set prices automatically taking into account competitor responses, which is something akin to computers talking to each other. When computers get together in this way they can <a href="https://www.x-mol.net/paper/article/1402386414932836352">act as it they are colluding</a> even if the humans involved in running the businesses never talk to each other. It can act even more this way when multiple competitors use the same third-party pricing algorithm, effectively allowing a single company to influence prices. <h2>7. Price discrimination</h2> Price discrimination involves charging different customers different prices for the same product, setting each price in accordance with how much each customer is prepared to pay. Banks do it when they offer better rates to customers likely to leave them, electricity companies do it when they offer better prices for business customers than households, and medical specialists do it when they offer vastly different prices for the same service to consumers with different incomes. It is made easier by digital technology and data collection. While it can make prices lower for some customers, it can make prices much more expensive to customers in a hurry or in urgent need of something. <h2>8. Excuse-flation</h2> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/how-excuseflation-is-keeping-prices-and-corporate-profits-high">Excuse-flation</a> is where general inflation provides “cover” for businesses to raise prices without justification, blaming nothing other than general inflation. It means that in times of general high inflation businesses can increase their prices even if their costs haven’t increased by as much. On Thursday Reserve Bank Governor <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/inflation-is-cover-for-pricing-gouging-rba-boss-says-20240215-p5f58d">Michele Bullock</a> seemed to confirm that she though some firms were doing this saying that when inflation had been brought back to the Bank’s target, it would be "much more difficult, I think, for firms to use high inflation as cover for this sort of putting up their prices." <h2>A political solution is needed</h2> Ultimately, our own vigilance won’t be enough. We will need political help. The government’s recently announced <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/review/competition-review-2023">competition review</a> might be a step in this direction. The legislative changes should police business practices and prioritise fairness. Only then can we create a marketplace where ethics and competition align, ensuring both business prosperity and consumer wellbeing. This isn’t just about economics, it’s about building a fairer, more sustainable Australia.<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/223310/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-tuffley-13731">David Tuffley</a>, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Image credits: Getty Images 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-prices-are-so-high-8-ways-retail-pricing-algorithms-gouge-consumers-223310">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

The 4 biggest gift-giving mistakes, according to a consumer psychologist

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/julian-givi-1395671">Julian Givi</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/west-virginia-university-1375">West Virginia University</a> A good gift can elicit a surge of happiness and gratitude in the recipient. It also feels great to give, <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-point-of-holiday-gifts-173306">with psychologists finding</a> that the joy of giving a gift is more pronounced than the pleasure of receiving one. Unfortunately, there are times when you receive a gift and you have to force a smile and fake your gratitude. I’m a consumer psychologist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wjAq_TcAAAAJ&hl=en">who specializes in gift-giving research</a> – in particular, gift-giving mistakes. Here are four of the most common ones. <h2>1. Prioritizing the big reveal</h2> One way givers can err is by focusing too much on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416656937">the moment the recipient will open the gift</a>. Givers want their gift to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/675737">desirable</a>. They hope <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015">to surprise</a> the recipient and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2733341">put a smile</a> on their face. A chocolate fondue fountain might meet these criteria – it’s quirky and sure to elicit curiosity and smiles from onlookers. However, when people receive a gift, they care less about the moment the bow comes off, and instead think about the weeks and months ahead. People want gifts that are <a href="https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1023703/volumes/v45/NA-45">useful</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/675737">reliable</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.015">meet their needs</a>. How often would a chocolate fondue fountain realistically be used? Compare that to a new coffee maker, which could see action every day. Sure, it isn’t a novelty – and probably won’t elicit “oohs” and “ahhs” on Christmas Day – but the recipient will be quite happy to have it on hand when their alarm rings each morning. <h2>2. Unique and new are overrated</h2> Another factor that can lead givers to go wrong involves unwritten rules for what constitutes good gift-giving practices. Givers often focus on these rules more than they should. For example, they may <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.023">avoid giving the same gift</a> to someone in back-to-back years because this goes against the norm of giving a unique gift each year. Givers also often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604x23428">refrain from giving used products</a> as gifts because this violates the unspoken rule that a gift should be brand new. In contrast, recipients are quite open to gifts that violate these norms. If someone loves a certain type of wine, they’re <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.023">more than happy to receive it</a> in subsequent years. And if one digital camera is lightly used but possesses several innovative features, while another is new but has fewer features, people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604x23428">are happy to receive the used one</a>. <h2>3. Being risk-averse</h2> Givers can make missteps when they avoid gifts that they see as too risky. Consider sentimental gifts, like a scrapbook or a nostalgic memento. Studies have shown that recipients <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.06.002">love these gifts</a>; they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000036">elicit happiness for extended periods of time</a>. Givers, however, tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.06.002">shy away from sentimental gifts</a> because they see them risky – sure, they could be a home run, but they could also whiff. Doubts can creep into shoppers’ heads as they consider sentimental gifts: What if it comes across as sappy? What if the recipient thinks I’m being cheap? And so people tend to opt for <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105774081730044X">safer, superficial gifts</a> that they assume will be at least somewhat well-liked. Or, to continue with the baseball analogy, givers are happy to take the sure single. As another example, consider material goods versus experiences. When giving gifts, people often opt for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy010">tangible objects over experiences</a> because material goods are on the safer side – almost everyone could use a new appliance or a new shirt. Experiences are trickier; they require a bit more of an understanding of who the recipient truly is – not everyone loves going to see the symphony. Yet recipients tend to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1281">more open to experiences than givers anticipate</a> – and these gifts <a href="https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1017575/volumes/v42/NA-42">are actually more likely to make people happier</a> than material goods. <h2>4. Does the thought really count?</h2> Givers can also err by wanting their gift to appear especially thoughtful. Of course, recipients appreciate thoughtfulness – but not when it comes at the expense of receiving something that’s actually useful. This plays out when givers are shopping for multiple people. They’ll often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/674199">choose unique gifts for each recipient</a>, rather than give the same gift to everyone, because a distinct gift for each person will make them feel as though they put more time and effort into gift selection. People do this even if they realize that some recipients will be receiving less desirable gifts. You’ll also see this happen with <a href="https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1020146/volumes/v43/NA-43">gift cards</a>. Givers often choose specific gift cards – to a particular clothing store or restaurant, for example – that reflect the interests or tastes of the recipient. But recipients are more open to gift cards that give them more flexibility and freedom – think an Amazon or Visa gift card. That way, they can decide whether to splurge on a new sweater, dine out at their favorite restaurant – or do both.<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/195169/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/julian-givi-1395671">Julian Givi</a>, Assistant Professor of Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/west-virginia-university-1375">West Virginia University</a> Image credits: Getty Images 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/the-4-biggest-gift-giving-mistakes-according-to-a-consumer-psychologist-195169">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Rebecca Loos claims Beckham is "playing the victim" over affair scandal

Rebecca Loos, the woman at the centre of the alleged <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/woman-at-the-centre-of-alleged-beckham-affair-breaks-silence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affair scandal</a> with iconic football legend David Beckham, has recently shared her thoughts on the new Beckham docuseries, which was released on Netflix. Loos, now 47 and residing in Norway with her husband and two children, expressed her concerns regarding the way the affair was handled in the docuseries, which was produced in collaboration with Beckham's production company. In the early 2000s, Loos gained notoriety for her claims of a romantic involvement with David Beckham during his time as a football superstar. In the docuseries, the Beckhams primarily discussed the media frenzy that ensued following Loos' revelations in 2003, but skirted around the specifics of the affair itself. It was during that tumultuous period that Loos had declared her connection with the football player while working as his personal assistant, even suggesting that the Beckhams had been dealing with marital issues before her involvement came to light. At the time, the celebrity couple vehemently denied any wrongdoing and even considered legal action against Loos. Victoria Beckham, 49, revealed in the docuseries, "It was the most unhappy I have ever been in my entire life," while David Beckham, 48, tearfully stated, "Victoria is everything to me. To see her hurt was incredibly difficult… what we had was worth fighting for." Loos, however, took issue with David's statement. In a <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12657157/rebecca-loos-affair-david-beckham-netflix.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">candid interview with the Daily Mail</a>, she expressed her frustration: "The [worst] bit for me is that he says he didn't like seeing his wife suffer. That bothered me. Because he's the one that's caused the suffering. He can say whatever he likes, of course, and I understand he has an image to preserve, but he is portraying himself as the victim and he's making me look like a liar, like I've made up these stories. He is indirectly suggesting that I'm the one who has made Victoria suffer." Loos also argued that the docuseries had thrust the affair back into the spotlight, an issue that many had forgotten about since the news first broke 20 years ago, thereby further impacting her reputation. She emphasised, "Yes, the stories were horrible, but they're true. He talks in the documentary about this ultimately being his private life, shutting it down. I think it's one thing to keep your private life to yourself. It's another thing to mislead the public." She suggested that David could have chosen to acknowledge that it was not one of his proudest moments or characterised it as a challenging period and moved on from the subject. However, she felt that he continued to phrase his statements in a way that indirectly shifted the blame onto her. "If you don't want to take responsibility for things because of your family and your children, that's absolutely fine," Loos commented, "But he specifically made it look like… my fault, that he had nothing to do with this." Loos, after the 2003 allegations, embarked on a path as a media personality, participating in various English and Dutch TV shows. In 2008, while filming the Dutch TV show 71 Graden Noord, she crossed paths with her future husband, Norwegian doctor Sven Christjar Skaiaa. After becoming pregnant, the couple decided to relocate to Norway in 2009. Today, she works as a yoga teacher and a massage therapist in Norway while raising her two sons and only occasionally making media appearances. Images: Instagram

Woman at the centre of alleged Beckham affair breaks silence

Rebecca Loos has decided to speak out amidst the wave of criticism she's facing in light of her <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/david-and-victoria-beckham-open-up-about-alleged-affair" target="_blank" rel="noopener">alleged affair with David Beckham</a>. The former model, now 46, is pushing back against the 'disturbing' remarks being made about her on social media, which have resurfaced following the release of the Netflix series about Beckham. On October 6, a fan expressed their support for Loos amid the renewed attention and online harassment she's enduring. They voiced their disgust at some of the comments they had seen, stating, "Some of the comments on here are disgusting!!!" They went on to offer words of encouragement, saying, "Stay strong. You have a beautiful life with your gorgeous family, which, unlike others, doesn't have to involve Netflix!!!" Loos responded to this supportive message on Instagram, expressing her gratitude and resilience, stating, "Thank you 🙏🏼 am taking in the nasty comments with as much humour as I can," and ending her comment with a heartfelt red heart emoji. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx2cV7zMX2U/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx2cV7zMX2U/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by REBECCA LOOS (@rebeccaloosofficial)</a> </div> </blockquote> Numerous other users also came forward to support Loos on her most recent Instagram post, where she was pictured practicing yoga with the reflective caption: "Letting go and finding strength in the mountains of life." One individual commented, "I have always admired your strength Rebecca! Keep being strong!" while another person hoped she was doing well and encouraged her not to let the negativity of others affect her soul. Another fan commented on the renewed criticism and social media attacks on a woman they don't even know, urging people to "do better." Back in 2004, Loos was accused of having an affair with Manchester United star David Beckham while she was working as his personal assistant. At the time, Beckham had been married to Spice Girls singer Victoria Beckham since 1999, and the allegations became a significant media sensation. On October 4, Netflix released the documentary series Beckham, which delves into the football player's career and marriage, including addressing the rumours of his infidelity in the early 2000s. Both David and Victoria Beckham discuss the impact of tabloid rumors on their marriage during the series. Victoria, in an individual interview for the series, admitted, "It was the most unhappy I have ever been in my entire life," and she shared how challenging it was, especially because they felt pitted against each other. David also acknowledged the difficulty of that period, emphasising Victoria's importance in his life and how hard it was to see her hurt but doubling down on their determination to overcome it together. Images: Instagram

Legal

David and Victoria Beckham open up about alleged affair

David and Victoria Beckham have chosen to open up about the "unhappiest" period of their lives, in their highly-anticipated Netflix documentary. The power couple candidly spoke about David's alleged affair in 2003, where he was accused of cheating with his former personal assistant Rebecca Loos after they were spotted leaving a night club in Spain. The rumours spread just after David was transferred from the Manchester United club to Real Madrid . David called the claims “ludicrous” at the time, and now his wife Victoria has also shared her heartache during that time, describing it as the "unhappiest in her life". Ahead of the release of the four-part documentary series, director Fisher Stevens revealed how "unpleasant" it was for him to ask the couple such personal questions. "It wasn't pleasant, but we got into it," he said. "For me, I approached it as, "How did your marriage stay together?" and you'll see how he responds," he added. Producer John Battsek also told The Sunday Times that the couple "signed up” to a nothing off-limits contract, and were happy to discuss tougher subjects. “There was no, “You will not ask that or do that,’" he said "Fisher and I thought that might be the case, but we were clear from the start that we would only do this if we could go in any direction we wanted. And we did," he added. Aside from the alleged affair, the couple also opened up about their first date and are clearly still smitten with each other. “The fact I went to the games really was to - some might say I stalked him, I would say see him," she joked about their first meeting at a charity football match in 1997. She also added that she was immediately attracted to the football star when she spotted him chatting with his parents before the game. “When I saw him in the footballers’ lounge, all the other footballers were at the bar, and he was standing and talking to his parents, and I’m very close to my family, and I loved that side to him.” David's recollection of their first meeting was a bit more simple: “I just fancied her”. The couple have been married since 1999 and have four kids together - sons Brooklyn, 24, Romeo, 21, Cruz, 18, and a daughter Harper, 12. Image: Kevin Winter/Getty Images

Relationships

"I will die sorry": Phillip Schofield breaks his silence on his career-ending affair

Former This Morning host Phillip Schofield has broken his silence over his affair with a colleague 30 years his junior in an interview with The Sun. And while the disgraced British television star shared that he had been left feeling “utterly broken and ashamed” over the whole ordeal, he stressed that any rumours of grooming were not true. “I did not,” he told the publication, after a week of the social media rumour mill running riot. “I did not [groom him].” “I know the photos of us circulating on Twitter look shocking, but I’m not a groomer,” Phillip insisted. He noted that “there are accusations of all sorts of things”, but claimed that had never been an abuse of power, as “we’d become mates … but of course I understand that there will be a massive judgement, but bearing in mind, I have never exercised that anywhere else.” According to Phillip, the two remain friends. And although the ex-show runner had been 30 years younger than him at the time of their affair, he added that the relationship had only begun after the man was 20 years old, when “something just happened between us that changed everything.” “I assume somebody, somewhere, assumed something was going on, correctly” he shared, “and didn't say anything. “At the time I did not think about it possibly ruining my career. I really probably only thought about it when I saw the rumour mill, and saw it growing. “Then I saw the link with the drama school photo [from] all those years before, and thought, ‘this looks shocking’.” However, as Phillip said, he hadn’t lied in order to protect his own career, but instead because the other man in the affair hadn’t wanted “his name in public. He wanted his own life.” Phillip explained that “the lies grew bigger and bigger and bigger”, and that it was starting to have a deep effect on both of them. “It got to the stage where it was out of control,” he said, “and for whatever cost, it had to stop. “I have massive guilt, and regret. I’ve made a mistake, I’ve had an affair at work.” “I think my greatest apology must go to him,” Phillip revealed. “It has brought the greatest misery into his totally innocent life, his totally innocent family, his totally innocent friends. “It has brought the greatest grief to them.” He added that the pair hadn’t spoken since the story broke - and that he also no longer speaks to his former friend and co-host Holly Willoughby - but that when things began to spiral out of control, he’d “paid for his lawyers to independently work on his behalf. “I am deeply sorry and I apologise to him because I should have known better. I should have acted the way I have always acted. I should not have done it. “I’m sorry. And I will forever be sorry. I will die sorry. I am so deeply mortified.” Images: Getty

News

“What a legend”: Groom exposes new wife’s affair during wedding speech

A groom has exposed his new wife after finding out she had been having an affair with his best man during a speech at their wedding. The scorned groom handed out intimate photos and explicit videos of his wife and the best man together before announcing he would be “leaving now”, dropping the microphone and then walking off with his family, who had been pre-warned. On The Unfiltered Bride podcast, wedding planners Georgina and Beth spoke about the shocking story. Georgina said although his family knew, he wanted to go ahead with the wedding so that the bride would have to pay for all the food. They posted a snippet of their podcast on TikTok, which quickly went viral. Georgina said on the podcast, “I've got another story to tell you. I can't tell you who told me because I'm not really allowed to tell the story, but f**k it I'm going to tell the story anyway. So there was a wedding and they did the wedding, bride and groom got married, lovely ceremony, drinks reception, sat down for wedding breakfast, had their food, speeches after food.” “Father of the bride does his thing, groom stands up and says, ‘Just before I properly get started, there's some envelopes coming round now. If you could all open them up. Yeah those are pictures of the bride f*****g the best man so I'll be leaving now.’ Dropped the microphone and him and all his family knew about it and left because they wanted the bride to have to pay for the food.” Beth then asked, ”So the bride paid for everything?” To which Georgina replied, “The bride's family paid for everything.” The video sparked numerous reactions. “My mouth actually dropped. OMG!!!” one person said. “I don’t blame him at all!! I’d do the same 😂😂” another added. “But WHY did he still marry her?” a third asked. “I admire the patience of the groom and family to get through the whole thing without slipping up once. 😅” another added. Image credit: Shutterstock

Relationships

King Charles cuts ties with TV host over affair revelations

King Charles has cut all ties with UK television host Phillip Schofield, after he lied about having an affair. Schofield has been dumped from his hosting gig at This Morning, which he has been the face of for 21 years, after he admitted he had an affair with a much younger man who worked at the ITV network. The 61-year-old resigned from the network after lying about the “consensual on-off relationship", admitting in a statement that the affair was "unwise" but stressed it was "not illegal". He added that he was "deeply sorry" for having lied to his wife and to ITV about his relationship with the man reportedly 30 years his junior and who he first met as a teenager. “Contrary to speculation, whilst I met the man when he was a teenager and was asked to help him to get into television, it was only after he started to work on the show that it became more than just a friendship,” he said in his recent statement. In light of the affair, Schofield has been dropped by The Prince's Trust, after being an ambassador for several years. A spokesperson from the King's charity told <a title="The Telegraph" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/30/phillip-schofield-dropped-princes-trust-this-morning-affair/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Telegraph</a> UK that it was mutually agreed it was "no longer appropriate to work together". "In light of Phillip's recent admissions, we have agreed with him that it is no longer appropriate to work together," a Prince's Trust spokesperson said. All references to Schofield have been removed from the charity's website and also his own page. It previously read, "Outside of work, Phillip is an ambassador for the charity The Prince's Trust, dedicating time to further the work of supporting vulnerable young people in the UK". The Prince's Trust was created in 1976 by then-Prince Charles to help young disadvantaged people in the UK, with the hugely successful charity helping more than one million young people by providing them with business grants, education and training. Following the bombshell revelation of Schofield's affair, ITV said it had investigated the allegations of his affair "several times" from early 2020, but said it didn't find any evidence. It's been a trying time for the ex-presenter with his brother Timothy recently being jailed for 12 years over child sex offences. Image credits: Getty Images

News

Does Australia need new laws to combat right-wing extremism?

At the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2IUKaWXKw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Press Club</a>, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil flagged that Labor would propose <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/08/clare-oneill-warns-counter-terror-laws-may-need-to-change-to-better-handle-rightwing-extremism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">changes to Australia’s counter-terrorism laws</a>. She cited an increase in diverse threats beyond religious fundamentalism, a trend towards lone-actor, low-sophistication attacks, and more <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/asio-chief-flags-alarming-increase-in-children-lured-to-extremism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">younger people being radicalised</a>. Specifically, she referred to the threat of right-wing extremism, which in 2021 was <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7269257/ideologically-motivated-terror-now-taking-up-half-of-asio-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approaching 50% of ASIO’s caseload</a>. She did not suggest the laws will be “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/08/clare-oneill-warns-counter-terror-laws-may-need-to-change-to-better-handle-rightwing-extremism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overhauled</a>”. However, O'Neil hinted that changes to criminal law could target specific ways that extreme right-wing groups organise themselves compared to groups such as al-Qaeda or Islamic State. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, Australia has enacted at least 96 counter-terrorism laws, amounting to <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/4287735/02-Hardy-and-Williams-34.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more than 5,500 pages of legislation</a>. So do we need any more laws, or changes to existing laws, to combat right-wing terrorism? <h2>Australia’s counter-terrorism laws</h2> Australia has the <a href="https://theconversation.com/before-9-11-australia-had-no-counter-terrorism-laws-now-we-have-92-but-are-we-safer-166273" target="_blank" rel="noopener">largest collection of counter-terrorism laws</a> in the world. This reflects a strong belief in legality: that powers and offences should be written into the statute books and not be left to arbitrary executive power. But it also shows how readily Australian governments have responded to evolving threats with ever-increasing powers. Our counter-terrorism laws contain countless criminal offences and powers of surveillance, interrogation and detention. As an example, a <a href="https://theconversation.com/control-orders-for-kids-wont-make-us-any-safer-49074" target="_blank" rel="noopener">control order</a> can require a child as young as 14 to obey a curfew and wear an electronic monitoring bracelet to protect the public from a terrorist act or prevent support for terrorism. Most of the offences and powers rely on a broad statutory definition of terrorism. A “terrorist act” means harmful conduct or a threat that aims to: (1) advance a political, religious or ideological cause; and (2) intimidate a government or section of the public. Importantly, this definition is ideologically neutral – as are all the laws. They do not mention Islamist or right-wing terrorism. The laws apply equally to these and other terror threats, no matter the ideology. A white supremacist who prepares or commits a terrorist act faces life imprisonment in the same way as a religious fundamentalist. <h2>What changes might be made?</h2> We won’t know the details of Labor’s proposed changes until next year. The government might ask parliament to tweak the definition of a “terrorist organisation” in Division 102 of the federal <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Criminal Code</a>. A terrorist organisation is one that is directly or indirectly preparing a terrorist act (or that advocates a terrorist act). Various offences stem from this definition. It is a crime, for example, to recruit for a terrorist organisation or be a member of one. The Australian government maintains a <a href="https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/what-australia-is-doing/terrorist-organisations/listed-terrorist-organisations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">list of proscribed (banned) terrorist organisations</a>. Of the 29 currently listed, only three adhere to far-right ideology. This reflects a longer history of Islamist terrorism, though Australia has also <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/176216-australia-catching-up-with-proscription-of-far-right-groups/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lagged our closest allies</a> in banning right-wing extremist groups. Some features of these groups can make banning them difficult. Their membership structures, ideological demands and support for violence can be less clear compared to groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State, which have committed and encouraged terrorist acts all around the world. Right-wing extremist groups <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/05/far-right-and-anti-racism-groups-face-off-in-melbourne-flashpoint" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hold divisive rallies</a>, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-far-right-are-capable-recruiters-and-have-found-fertile-ground-thanks-to-covid-20210921-p58tn7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exploit protests</a>, spread racist sentiment and encourage hatred against minorities – but most of these acts do not constitute terrorism. Expanding the definition of a terrorist organisation could capture right-wing extremist groups that are dangerous to society but do not obviously engage in or support terrorist acts. Another possibility is that Labor could seek to ban Nazi and other hate symbols that such groups commonly use. New legislation in Victoria, which comes into force at the end of this month, makes it an <a href="https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/591323bs1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offence</a> punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment to publicly display the Nazi swastika (Hakenkreuz). The state offence will not apply to the <a href="https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hundreds of hate symbols used by right-wing extremists</a>, but it sends an important message that neo-Nazi ideology holds no place in Australian society. It provides a legal mechanism to counter threats of right-wing extremism in a way that the federal counter-terrorism laws currently do not. <h2>Are changes needed?</h2> Australia’s counter-terrorism laws are already extensive and apply to all types of terrorism, so no obvious strategic gaps need to be filled. If a criminal offence or power is needed to combat terrorism, Australia already has it and more. Minor changes to Division 102 could target specific features of right-wing extremism compared to Islamist terrorism. Federal laws could supplement emerging state laws by outlawing hateful symbols used by right-wing extremists and other terrorist groups. However, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-28/banned-neo-nazi-groups-set-sights-on-australia/100030072" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more right-wing groups</a> could be proscribed under the laws as they currently stand. Decisive action to ban internationally recognised right-wing extremist groups, combined with a national inquiry into hate crime law and its <a href="https://tacklinghate.org/blogs/new-research-defining-and-identifying-hate-motives-bias-indicators-for-the-australian-context/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reporting</a>, would send a strong message. Australia’s extensive counter-terrorism laws need not be further expanded. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-australia-need-new-laws-to-combat-right-wing-extremism-196219" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Twitter

Legal

"It's daunting": A Current Affair and Today show hosts finally confirmed

After several weeks of rumours and speculation, the new host of A Current Affair has finally been announced. In September, Tracy Grimshaw announced she would be <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/news/news/tracy-grimshaw-s-huge-news" target="_blank" rel="noopener">leaving the show</a> after 17 long years in the hosting chair, with her last day at the program recapping her <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/entertainment/tv/tracy-grimshaw-s-most-memorable-hosting-moments" target="_blank" rel="noopener">most memorable moments</a>. Now, it has been confirmed that the prestigious hosting spot will be filled by Ally Langdon. After appearing on the Today Show alongside co-host Karl Stefanovic since January 2020, Langdon admits the new role is "daunting", but is excited for the challenge. She said, "It is such an incredible honour to be joining the A Current Affair team. A show I love, respect and have been watching since I was in school and Jana Wendt was host." "I won't lie – it's daunting to be stepping into the role that Tracy has so brilliantly navigated for the past 17 years, with such warmth and compassion. I hope to bring my own warmth and compassion to the show as we continue to tell great stories that matter to our amazing viewers." A Current Affair was created and originally hosted by Langdon's late father-in-law Mike Willesee and she will be its sixth host. Nine's Director of News and Current Affairs, Darren Wick, said, "Ally is a natural fit to lead A Current Affair into a new era. She was raised in the country and has a deep commitment to family, friends and community." "She's passionate, curious and razor sharp – loyal to her colleagues, dedicated to her craft and determined to fight for her viewers. We're very excited to see what Ally will bring to ACA in 2023 and for many, many years beyond." Ally is set to start hosting ACA in 2023. Leaving a chair empty at the Today Show with her departure, Langdon will be replaced by 60 Minutes reporter Sarah Abo. "I am thrilled to be joining the wonderful and hard-working team at Today, who manage to inform the nation every morning while also having a lot of fun," said Abo. "I have been incredibly fortunate to work alongside some of the country's finest journalists at 60 Minutes and travel the nation and world bringing stories to Australian audiences. It is an absolute privilege to meet so many inspirational people and help tell their stories. I can't wait to put everything I've learned from those amazing experiences into my new role at Today. "The 3am alarm will be an adjustment, but I'm looking forward to keeping Karl on his toes. I know Ally will make a success of the move to ACA and I can't wait to watch her in the chair." Image credits: Nine

News

Kyle “confirms” new host of A Current Affair

Kyle Sandilands could not hold his tongue any longer and has revealed that Ally Langdon will be replacing Tracey Grimshaw as host of A Current Affair. The radio shock jock was speaking to Grimshaw on his show just two days before she leaves the show after 17 years as the face of the news program. He told Grimshaw that he had a conversation with Today Show co-host Karl Stefanovic who all but confirmed that Langdon will be replacing Grimshaw. “I feel like I know, because I've been speaking to [Karl] Stefanovic,” he said. “Well, let me just tell everyone it is Ally. I don't mean to bust Channel Nine's bubble.” Sandilands claims that Stefanovic didn’t ask him to keep quiet about it and that he thought it was okay to share the news. “Maybe that was a personal chat? I don't know... But he didn't ask me not to say anything.” Grimshaw however remained coy about who will be replacing her in the top chair but said everything could be out as early as next week. “I can't possibly give you a hint, but you'll know very soon,” she said. “I wouldn't be surprised if you know next week.” The news comes a week after Sandilands grilled Langdon about her new position about a noticeable disappearance from the breakfast show. “Are you doing A Current Affair or not?” Sandilands asked. “Well, I'm going to do the Today show, I'm going to do A Current Affair, I'm going to coach the Wallabies and I reckon Dan Andrews might offer me a ministry,” she responded. This did not stop Sandilands who told Langdon to answer the question. “Let's stop the speculation. Are you doing A Current Affair? Just tell us!” Langdon remained tightlipped and would not budge. Watch this space. Images: Facebook

A Current Affair reveal shortlist for host replacement

Bosses at the Nine Network are just weeks away from announcing the new host of A Current Affair, with two powerhouse women battling it out for the top spot. After Tracy Grimshaw <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/tracy-grimshaw-s-huge-news" target="_blank" rel="noopener">made the announcement</a> in September that she would be leaving the show after 17 years in the hosting chair, a flood of predictions for her replacement rolled in online. Now, the Sunday Telegraph has reported that the network is trying to choose between 60 Minutes reporter Sarah Abo and 2GB radio host and former Today host Deborah Knight for the coveted role. It had previously been reported that Georgie Gardner, Leila McKinnon, Carrie Bickmore, Sarah Harris, Stan Grant and Melissa Doyle were being considered to replace Grimshaw, with Allison Langdon also expressing interest in the role. Grimshaw, 62, shared the news of her departure in an emotional speech at the end of her show last month. “Normally right about now we’d be telling you what to expect tomorrow night but lately I’ve personally been thinking longer term, and I have some news that I wanted you to hear from me before you hear it from anyone else,” Grimshaw told viewers in early September. “I’ve decided to finish up with A Current Affair this year." I've basically been a shift worker for 26 years, driving to work before dawn for nine years on the Today Show, and the past 17 years driving home after dark here on A Current Affair and it's time for less of that daily obligation." Image credits: Nine

This law makes it illegal for companies to collect third-party data to profile you but they do anyway

A little-known provision of the Privacy Act makes it illegal for many companies in Australia to buy or exchange consumers’ personal data for profiling or targeting purposes. It’s almost never enforced. In a published <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4224653" target="_blank" rel="noopener">research paper</a>, I argue that needs to change. “Data enrichment” is the intrusive practice of companies going behind our backs to “fill in the gaps” of the information we provide. When you purchase a product or service from a company, fill out an online form, or sign up for a newsletter, you might provide only the necessary data such as your name, email, delivery address and/or payment information. That company may then turn to other retailers or <a href="https://www.oracle.com/au/cx/advertising/data-enrichment-measurement/#data-enrichment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data brokers</a> to purchase or exchange extra data about you. This could include your age, family, health, habits and more. This allows them to build a more detailed individual profile on you, which helps them predict your behaviour and more precisely target you with ads. For almost ten years, there has been a law in Australia that makes this kind of data enrichment illegal if a company can “reasonably and practicably” request that information directly from the consumer. And at least <a href="https://consultations.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper/consultation/view_respondent?_b_index=60&uuId=926016195" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one major data broker</a> has asked the government to “remove” this law. The burning question is: why is there not a single published case of this law being enforced against companies “enriching” customer data for profiling and targeting purposes? <h2>Data collection ‘only from the individual’</h2> The relevant law is Australian Privacy Principle 3.6 and is part of the federal <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2022C00199" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Privacy Act</a>. It applies to most organisations that operate businesses with annual revenues higher than A$3 million, and smaller data businesses. The law says such organisations: <blockquote> must collect personal information about an individual only from the individual […] unless it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so. </blockquote> This “direct collection rule” protects individuals’ privacy by allowing them some control over information collected about them, and avoiding a combination of data sources that could reveal sensitive information about their vulnerabilities. But this rule has received almost no attention. There’s only one published determination of the federal privacy regulator on it, and that was against the <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AICmr/2020/69.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian Defence Force</a> in a different context. According to Australian Privacy Principle 3.6, it’s only legal for an organisation to collect personal information from a third party if it would be “unreasonable or impracticable” to collect that information from the individual alone. This exception was intended to apply to <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles-guidelines/chapter-3-app-3-collection-of-solicited-personal-information#collecting-directly-from-the-individual" target="_blank" rel="noopener">limited situations</a>, such as when: <ul> <li>the individual is being investigated for some wrongdoing</li> <li>the individual’s address needs to be updated for delivery of legal or official documents.</li> </ul> The exception shouldn’t apply simply because a company wants to collect extra information for profiling and targeting, but realises the customer would probably refuse to provide it. <h2>Who’s bypassing customers for third-party data?</h2> Aside from data brokers, companies also exchange information with each other about their respective customers to get extra information on customers’ lives. This is often referred to as “data matching” or “data partnerships”. Companies tend to be very vague about who they share information with, and who they get information from. So we don’t know for certain who’s buying data-enrichment services from data brokers, or “matching” customer data. Major companies such as <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202075050&ref_=footer_iba" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon Australia</a>, <a href="https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-privacy-notice-privacy-policy?id=4260&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=705-53470-19255-0&campid=5337590774&customid=&toolid=10001#section4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">eBay Australia</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/?subpage=1.subpage.4-InformationFromPartnersVendors" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Meta</a> (Facebook), <a href="https://www.viacomcbsprivacy.com/en/policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10Play Viacom</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/en/privacy#twitter-privacy-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a> include terms in the fine print of their privacy policies that state they collect personal information from third parties, including demographic details and/or interests. <a href="https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US#infocollect" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Google</a>, <a href="https://preferences.news.com.au/privacy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">News Corp</a>, <a href="https://www.sevenwestmedia.com.au/privacy-policies/privacy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Seven</a>, <a href="https://login.nine.com.au/privacy?client_id=smh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nine</a> and others also say they collect personal information from third parties, but are more vague about the nature of that information. These privacy policies don’t explain why it would be unreasonable or impracticable to collect that information directly from customers. <h2>Consumer ‘consent’ is not an exception</h2> Some companies may try to justify going behind customers’ backs to collect data because there’s an obscure term in their privacy policy that mentions they collect personal information from third parties. Or because the company disclosing the data has a privacy policy term about sharing data with “trusted data partners”. But even if this amounts to consumer “consent” under the relatively weak standards for consent in our current privacy law, this is not an exception to the direct collection rule. The law allows a “consent” exception for government agencies under a separate part of the direct collection rule, but not for private organisations. <h2>Data enrichment involves personal information</h2> Many companies with third-party data collection terms in their privacy policies acknowledge this is personal information. But some may argue the collected data isn’t “personal information” under the Privacy Act, so the direct collection rule doesn’t apply. Companies often exchange information about an individual without using the individual’s legal name or email. Instead they may use a unique advertising identifier for that individual, or <a href="https://help.abc.net.au/hc/en-us/articles/4402890310671" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“hash” the email address</a> to turn it into a unique string of numbers and letters. They essentially allocate a “code name” to the consumer. So the companies can exchange information that can be linked to the individual, yet say this information wasn’t connected to their actual name or email. However, this information should still be treated as personal information because it can be linked back to the individual when combined with other <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2017/4.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">information about them</a>. <h2>At least one major data broker is against it</h2> Data broker <a href="https://www.experian.com.au/business/solutions/audience-targeting/digital-solutions-sell-side/digital-audiences-ss" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Experian Australia</a> has asked the government to “remove” Australian Privacy Principle 3.6 “altogether”. In its <a href="https://consultations.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper/consultation/view_respondent?_b_index=60&uuId=926016195" target="_blank" rel="noopener">submission</a> to the Privacy Act Review in January, Experian argued: <blockquote> It is outdated and does not fit well with modern data uses. </blockquote> Others who profit from data enrichment or data matching would probably agree, but prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. Experian argued the law favours large companies with direct access to lots of customers and opportunities to pool data collected from across their own corporate group. It said companies with access to fewer consumers and less data would be disadvantaged if they can’t purchase data from brokers. But the fact that some digital platforms impose extensive personal data collection on customers supports the case for stronger privacy laws. It doesn’t mean there should be a data free-for-all. <h2>Our privacy regulator should take action</h2> It has been three years since the consumer watchdog recommended <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20platforms%20inquiry%20-%20final%20report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">major reforms</a> to our privacy laws to reduce the disadvantages consumers suffer from invasive data practices. These reforms are probably still years away, if they eventuate at all. The direct collection rule is a very rare thing. It is an existing Australian privacy law that favours consumers. The privacy regulator should prioritise the enforcement of this law for the benefit of consumers. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-law-makes-it-illegal-for-companies-to-collect-third-party-data-to-profile-you-but-they-do-anyway-190758" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Legal

Readers Respond: In light of Tracy Grimshaw's announcement, who would you like to see in the big chair at A Current Affair?

Earlier this week, Tracy Grimshaw announced she will <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/news/news/tracy-grimshaw-s-huge-news" target="_blank" rel="noopener">no longer be presenting A Current Affair</a> to enjoy a much needed break. Grimshaw has been the face of the show for a whopping 17 years and shocked audiences when she announced she is stepping down at the end of the year and going on an extended break. Now, whoever replaces her has BIG shoes to fill and we wanted to ask our readers who they would want to see in the ACA chair next. Check out some of your responses below. ShaRoss Coles - Melissa Doyle. Wendy Mulholland - Good luck Tracy, enjoy the next stage of your life. I think you did a great job. Definitely not Lisa Wilkinson as a replacement! Jo Soper - Debra Knight, Silvia Jeffries or Layla McKinnon. All these women would be great. Janet Payne - All the best Tracy! Deb Knight would be great. John Wells - Don’t care as long as it’s not Lisa Wilkinson. Jenny Taylor - Debra Knight does a good job on the weekend ACA. Max Margie Mallard - DEB. KNIGHT. The only one. Bruce Croker - The wonderful GEORGIE [Gardner]. Kim Anderson - Sylvia Jeffries!! John Smith - A male please. Love Tracy but time for a bloke. Share your suggestions <a href="https://www.facebook.com/oversixtys/posts/pfbid0z4Bkvdx2r37tSVe6SNzJgNt3h188S8kasAngXVDvAFBSLDZAEsJsEvS3arpF2m1El" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Top tips for avoiding scams

Falling victim to a clever scam artist is something we all fear! With these top tips we show you how to avoid getting ripped off. Statistics show that unfortunately older Australians are often the target of scam artists looking to make a quick buck off someone else’s hard-earned cash. They’ve had help. With technology evolving and more people going online to pay bills, communicate with friends and family, and to find love, there have been a number of reported cases of people sending money overseas or elsewhere never to see it again. However, there are ways to outsmart those who would try to trick you out of your retirement savings. What to look out for Financial fraud can come in any form. It can be an email from a stranger asking for a donation to a charitable cause or a phone call promising a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity. However, as the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it’s because it probably is. According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) SCAMwatch site, a one-stop information shop on how to recognise, avoid and report scams, almost everyone will be approached by a scammer at some stage in their life. That’s a scary pronouncement, but one that’s very much evident in the growing number of stories of people who have fallen victim to a scam. While some scams are easy to spot, others appear to be genuine offers or bargains. There’s a number of different types of scams too, from investment and superannuation scams to ones involving your bank or credit card. It can even look as innocent as a supermarket customer satisfaction survey. At the end of last year, the ACCC spread the news of a fake Woolworths’ customer satisfaction survey, which asked shoppers for their bank account details in exchange for a $150 gift voucher. Scammers sent the survey out mostly via social media or email, and asked people to complete all of the questions before saying they could claim their voucher. However, when people did try and claim the voucher, they found it was fake. “Scammers impersonate well-known businesses to get their hands on your personal details,” ACCC deputy chair Delia Rickard said at the time. “Once you have unknowingly sent your details to a scammer, they can steal your money – and possibly even your identity.” Warning signs Scams can target people of all backgrounds, ages and income levels. The reason many people fall victim to a scam is because they look like the real thing. They could look like a legitimate business email or letter, with logos, contact details and genuine information that could be targeting a specific need or desire. It’s not until you dig a little deeper that you find something is not right. Scammers can also manipulate you by “pushing your buttons”, according to the ACCC, to get an automatic response. This is not based on you personally but on how society works as a whole. It’s not until after you have acted in the way they want that you find something is wrong. The best way to spot a scam is to be vigilant and cautious, especially when it comes to giving out personal details over the internet or the phone. Most scams will need you to do something before they can work. It may ask for your bank or credit card details, or for you to send money based on a promise of significant financial reward that turns out to be false. Some scams also rely on you to agree to deals without getting advice first or to buy a product without properly looking into it. Don’t be a victim The first step in protecting yourself against scams and other forms of financial fraud is to be aware that it can happen. Some people hold certain perceptions that make them more susceptible to being scammed, such as the belief that all companies or organisations are legitimate or that all internet sites are legitimate. Both are myths. Consumer protection agencies try to weed out dodgy operators before they have an impact, but sometimes one can slip through the net. Most of these fake sites will be taken down after a few days, but that is still long enough for someone to have bought into a dodgy deal or to have provided their bank details to a scammer. The second step is to be cautious and protective of your personal details. This includes your contact details and bank or credit card details. Always seek independent advice before agreeing to any sort of money commitment and remember there are no get-rich-quick schemes. Check your bank statements regularly and if you see a transaction that you’re not sure about or cannot explain, contact your bank or credit union. Also, keep your bank cards and personal identity number safe and secure. Be cautious and question everything. It’s the best approach to make sure you don’t become a scam victim. Image: Getty Images

Money & Banking

A Current Affair reporter charged with assaulting woman

<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; color: #323338; font-family: Roboto, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"> <div class="new-reply-component" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 8px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; opacity: 1; pointer-events: all;"> </div> </div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> Seb Costello, a 35-year-old reporter for the Nine Network's A Current Affair program, plans to contest assault charges that have been laid against him, following an alleged incident in February that took place in Richmond, Victoria. Costello faces two charges of unlawful assault and a spokeswoman for Victoria Police has confirmed in a statement: “It’s alleged the man was involved in an altercation with a 23-year-old man and 22-year-old woman in an unnamed laneway near Boyd Street about 9.30am”. “The Richmond man will be charged on summons with two counts of unlawful assault and will appear at the Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Collingwood. There were no injuries during the incident.” In a follow-up statement, Costello has said, “These matters are before the court and will be vigorously contested.” More recently, Costello had also made an official statement with Victoria Police regarding a clash with former AFL player manager Ricky Nixon, who appeared to elbow Costello in the face. This incident required Costello to seek medical attention. Image: Instagram </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div>

News

New panel places the voice of aged care consumers at the centre

The voice of aged care consumers and their families is vitally important for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to hear and understand. This is the message from Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, Janet Anderson, as the Commission establishes its first ever Consumers and Families Panel. “People receiving aged care, and their experience of that care, are central to the Commission’s purpose - ensuring their wellbeing underpins all of our efforts,” Ms Anderson said. “They must be front and centre of everything aged care providers do, and also in the work of the Commission, placing the needs of those receiving care at the forefront at all times.” To better understand what’s important to people who use aged care services, the Commission is establishing a Consumers and Families Panel made up of people receiving Australian Government funded aged care services, their family members and representatives. The Commission wants the panel to reflect the diversity of people who access aged care across Australia. “It is very important that the panel is as diverse as the people who use Australian Government funded aged care,” Ms Anderson said. “We are inviting anyone living in residential aged care or receiving home care or using Commonwealth- funded aged care services in the community to share their ideas and opinions with us. We’re also interested in hearing from family members and carers of aged care recipients, and people who are considering using aged care services within the next 12 months.” The Consumers and Families Panel will help the Commission, as the national aged care regulator, in its work overseeing the quality of aged care services and resolving complaints about these services. “It will improve the way we regulate aged care services and resolve complaints and help make sure that the information we produce is fit for purpose and easy to understand for everyone,” Ms Anderson said. The Commission will invite panel members to share their ideas and opinions about things such as: <ul> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> issues that are of most concern to people receiving care that the Commission should know about </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> how the Commission can reach people better </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> how people can be better supported to interact with the Commission </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> videos or other resources prepared by the Commission. </li> </ul> Panel members will be able to provide input and engage in different ways, including by email or telephone, or by taking part in online or in-person meetings. The CEO of the Older Persons Advocacy Network (OPAN), Craig Gear OAM, welcomes the Commission’s new Consumers and Families Panel. “Older people must be consulted at every step of the aged care journey to ensure their rights, needs and preferences are being met,” Mr Gear said. “The Consumers and Families Panel will enable older people and their families to better engage with, and inform, the aged care regulator. Their lived experience is critical to ensuring all older people receive the care and services they deserve.” People wishing to be part of the Commission’s Consumers and Families Panel can register their interest via the Commission’s website at: <a href="http://www.agedcarequality.gov.au/consumer-panel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.agedcarequality.gov.au/consumer-panel</a> or call the Commission on 1800 951 822. For more information about the Commission and its work, please visit the Commission’s website at: <a href="http://www.agedcarequality.gov.au" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.agedcarequality.gov.au</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Retirement Life

Why you need to get your passport sorted NOW

Aussies are facing another block in the road … or air … as minimum passport renewal times increase to three months. After two years of no travelling due to the pandemic, Aussies are taking every advantage they can to enjoy either a European summer or jet set overseas to see family. But it hasn't been smooth sailing at the Australian Passport Office thanks to the “unprecedented” demand for the necessary documentation. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trading (DFAT) has asked travellers to be patient and apply as early as possible to ensure they get their passport on time. On the DFAT website travellers are told it will take up to six weeks to get a passport. However, people have been waiting much longer, with some even paying the priority fee of $225 and still waiting longer than necessary. People took to Twitter to call out the DFAT for the delay in passports, with the office apologising for the delays. “I have been waiting for 8 weeks for my daughters’ passports, it’s ridiculous,” someone wrote. “Called @dfat Australian Passport Office at 7:59. Closed. Called back at 8:00. High call volumes and they can’t take the call. Been trying for 2 days. How to follow up on a passport that hasn’t come within the 6 week period?” someone asked. “@DFATVic @dfat I can’t believe the Australian Passport Office has taken over 2 months to renew my passport and hasn’t communicated with me in any way! I can’t get a hold of anyone and I am leaving the country in 3 weeks. This is ridiculous. Truly ridiculous,” another slammed. Image: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

ACCC says consumers need more choices about what online marketplaces are doing with their data

Consumers using online retail marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon “have little effective choice in the amount of data they share”, according to the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/serial-publications/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-2025/digital-platform-services-inquiry-march-2022-interim-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">latest report</a> of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) Digital Platform Services Inquiry. Consumers may benefit from personalisation and recommendations in these marketplaces based on their data, but many are in the dark about how much personal information these companies collect and share for other purposes. <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/concerning-issues-for-consumers-and-sellers-on-online-marketplaces" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb</a> said: <blockquote> We believe consumers should be given more information about, and control over, how online marketplaces collect and use their data. </blockquote> The report reiterates the ACCC’s earlier calls for amendments to the Australian Consumer Law to address unfair data terms and practices. It also points out that the government is considering <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposals for major changes to privacy law</a>. However, none of these proposals is likely to come into effect in the near future. In the meantime, we should also consider whether practices such as obtaining information about users from third-party data brokers are fully compliant with existing privacy law. Why did the ACCC examine online marketplaces? The ACCC examined competition and consumer issues associated with “general online retail marketplaces” as part of its <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">five-year Digital Platform Services Inquiry</a>. These marketplaces facilitate transactions between third-party sellers and consumers on a common platform. They do not include retailers that don’t operate marketplaces, such as Kmart, or platforms such as Gumtree that carry classified ads but don’t allow transactions. The ACCC report focuses on the four largest online marketplaces in Australia: Amazon Australia, Catch, eBay Australia and Kogan. In 2020–21, these four carried sales totalling $8.4 billion. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, Catch and Kogan facilitate transactions between third-party buyers and sellers. <a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-york-usa-november-1-2018-1219079038" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shutterstock</a></figcaption></figure> According to the report, eBay has the largest sales of these companies. Amazon Australia is the second-largest and the fastest-growing, with an 87% increase in sales over the past two years. The ACCC examined: <ul> <li>the state of competition in the relevant markets</li> <li>issues facing sellers who depend on selling their products through these marketplaces</li> <li>consumer issues including concerns about personal information collection, use and sharing.</li> </ul> Consumers don’t want their data used for other purposes The ACCC expressed concern that in online marketplaces, “the extent of data collection, use and disclosure … often does not align with consumer preferences”. The Commission pointed to surveys about <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20Policy%20Research%20Centre%20%28CPRC%29%20%2818%20August%202021%29.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian consumer attitudes to privacy</a> which indicate: <ul> <li>94% did not feel comfortable with how digital platforms including online marketplaces collect their personal information</li> <li>92% agreed that companies should only collect information they need for providing their product or service</li> <li>60% considered it very or somewhat unacceptable for their online behaviour to be monitored for targeted ads and offers.</li> </ul> However, the four online marketplaces analysed: <ul> <li>do not proactively present privacy terms to consumers “throughout the purchasing journey”</li> <li>may allow advertisers or other third parties to place tracking cookies on users’ devices</li> <li>do not clearly identify how consumers can opt out of cookies while still using the marketplace.</li> </ul> Some of the marketplaces also obtain extra data about individuals from third-party data brokers or advertisers. The <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3432769" target="_blank" rel="noopener">harms from increased tracking and profiling</a> of consumers include decreased privacy; manipulation based on detailed profiling of traits and weaknesses; and discrimination or exclusion from opportunities. Limited choices: you can’t just ‘walk out of a store’ Some might argue that consumers must not actually care that much about privacy if they keep using these companies, but the choice is not so simple. The ACCC notes the relevant privacy terms are often spread across multiple web pages and offered on a “take it or leave it” basis. The terms also use “bundled consents”. This means that agreeing to the company using your data to fill your order, for example, may be bundled together with agreeing for the company to use your data for its separate advertising business. Further, as my research has shown, there is <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3905693" target="_blank" rel="noopener">so little competition on privacy</a> between these marketplaces that consumers can’t just find a better offer. The ACCC agrees: <blockquote> While consumers in Australia can choose between a number of online marketplaces, the common approaches and practices of the major online marketplaces to data collection and use mean that consumers have little effective choice in the amount of data they share. </blockquote> Consumers also seem unable to require these companies to delete their data. The situation is quite different from conventional retail interactions where a consumer can select “unsubscribe” or walk out of a store. Does our privacy law currently permit all these practices? The ACCC has reiterated its earlier calls to amend the Australian Consumer Law to prohibit unfair practices and make unfair contract terms illegal. (At present unfair contract terms are just void, or unenforceable.) The report also points out that the government is considering proposals for major changes to privacy law, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-proposed-privacy-code-promises-tough-rules-and-10-million-penalties-for-tech-giants-170711" target="_blank" rel="noopener">these changes</a> are uncertain and may take more than a year to come into effect. In the meantime, we should look more closely at the practices of these marketplaces under current privacy law. For example, under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A03712" target="_blank" rel="noopener">federal Privacy Act</a> the four marketplaces <blockquote> must collect personal information about an individual only from the individual unless … it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so. </blockquote> However, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3905693" target="_blank" rel="noopener">some online marketplaces</a> say they collect information about individual consumers’ interests and demographics from “<a href="https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-privacy-notice-privacy-policy?id=4260&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=705-53470-19255-0&campid=5338596835&customid=&toolid=10001#section4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data providers</a>” and <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202075050&ref_=footer_iba" target="_blank" rel="noopener">other third parties</a>. We don’t know the full detail of what’s collected, but demographic information might include our age range, income, or family details. How is it “unreasonable or impracticable” to obtain information about our demographics and interests directly from us? Consumers could ask online marketplaces this question, and complain to the <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-complaints" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Office of the Australian Information Commissioner</a> if there is no reasonable answer.<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/182134/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-kemp-402096" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Katharine Kemp</a>, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UNSW Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/accc-says-consumers-need-more-choices-about-what-online-marketplaces-are-doing-with-their-data-182134" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Technology

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

One last chance for grandma on the brink of deportation

Why prices are so high – 8 ways retail pricing algorithms gouge consumers

The 4 biggest gift-giving mistakes, according to a consumer psychologist

Rebecca Loos claims Beckham is "playing the victim" over affair scandal

Woman at the centre of alleged Beckham affair breaks silence

David and Victoria Beckham open up about alleged affair

"I will die sorry": Phillip Schofield breaks his silence on his career-ending affair

“What a legend”: Groom exposes new wife’s affair during wedding speech

King Charles cuts ties with TV host over affair revelations

Does Australia need new laws to combat right-wing extremism?

"It's daunting": A Current Affair and Today show hosts finally confirmed

Kyle “confirms” new host of A Current Affair

A Current Affair reveal shortlist for host replacement

This law makes it illegal for companies to collect third-party data to profile you but they do anyway

Readers Respond: In light of Tracy Grimshaw's announcement, who would you like to see in the big chair at A Current Affair?

Top tips for avoiding scams

A Current Affair reporter charged with assaulting woman

New panel places the voice of aged care consumers at the centre

Why you need to get your passport sorted NOW

ACCC says consumers need more choices about what online marketplaces are doing with their data

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

One last chance for grandma on the brink of deportation

Why prices are so high – 8 ways retail pricing algorithms gouge consumers

The 4 biggest gift-giving mistakes, according to a consumer psychologist

Rebecca Loos claims Beckham is "playing the victim" over affair scandal

Woman at the centre of alleged Beckham affair breaks silence

David and Victoria Beckham open up about alleged affair

"I will die sorry": Phillip Schofield breaks his silence on his career-ending affair

“What a legend”: Groom exposes new wife’s affair during wedding speech

King Charles cuts ties with TV host over affair revelations

Does Australia need new laws to combat right-wing extremism?

"It's daunting": A Current Affair and Today show hosts finally confirmed

Kyle “confirms” new host of A Current Affair

A Current Affair reveal shortlist for host replacement

This law makes it illegal for companies to collect third-party data to profile you but they do anyway

Readers Respond: In light of Tracy Grimshaw's announcement, who would you like to see in the big chair at A Current Affair?

Top tips for avoiding scams

A Current Affair reporter charged with assaulting woman

New panel places the voice of aged care consumers at the centre

Why you need to get your passport sorted NOW

ACCC says consumers need more choices about what online marketplaces are doing with their data

Our Partners

Join Over60