GRIPES

[rgmwa]

Good idea. They pay for what will ultimately benefit them and you keep your pension money. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 hours ago, Marty_d said:

I have always considered life insurance a scam.

As you say Peter, if you've been paying premiums for 45 years and you've worked out you could still save the amount of the payout in 7 years, imagine how much you would have now if you'd never paid them anything.

I understand this point of view, but that is not what life insurance is for. It is not an investment (although admittedly, it is often sold as an investment or, I think in Aus, term life policies have an investment component - but even then, it is not really a good investment). 

 

It is designed to cover your lost ones in your younger periods of life, when you have debt and possibly a young family, should you aas the income earner die (usually unexpectedly).  It is designed to provide the cash benefit for them to pay off the debt and maybe live off an annuity to approximate lost income. Again, it is a premium on the risk they have to payout; in the same way you pay your car insurance but if you never have a crash, you don't get the market value of your car when you hang up you licence, nor do you get some payout at the end. 

 

In itself, it is not a scam, but it is fair to say they way it is marketed to become a scam.  And that is because it is marketed as an investment to payout on a foreseeable death when it is likely no one needs the money, rather than the unforeseen risk of an early death. 

 

From your perspective, Peter, the above is good advice if it guarantees a payout on  your reasonably foreseeable death (ie. not accidental).. May want to check the policy to be sure.. because it will be a big disappointment if the policy excludes non-accidental death. 

 

Although too late for yourself, the normal advice would be to set up a diminishing value insurance policy that reduces over time in accordance with your reduction in debt (mortgage) over time.. If you remortgage or take on more debt your policy should allow you to adjust the payout (and the premium will adjust accordingly). In theory, as the payout reduces, the premium reduces as well... and when the mortgage is paid off, there may be a residual payout available to cover creating an annuity for income. 

 

You should use the reducing premiums to sink into proper investments where you can allocate to funds that more meet your investment needs. That has no of the exclusions of a life insurance policy and its payout is usually guaranteed (if its performance isn't - i.e. there is usually something left even if it was a bad investment). 

 

 

[old man emu]

Why was only one company prepared to insure a young pilot? Because their perceived risk of a claim was higher than for the average non-pilot of the same age. The company calculated its risk and from that set an amount for the premium. Whether or not that premium amount changes over the years depends mainly on the increasing age of the client.

 

There are two classes of product that are sold by insurance companies. The first is "insurance". This product returns an agreed sum to the insurer if, and only if, an specified event occurs. Your house, car and CTP policies are insurance policies. These policies have a fixed period for which loss from a stated event occurs. There are so many events that an be insured against that I could not hope to list them all here. However there is another type of product.

 

The other product is "assurance". This is a product that pays out for a specific reason based on the life of the insured. One product is "Whole of Life". With this type of product, the insurer agrees to pay a set amount upon the death of the insured. Since this product will have a life of many years, the premiums are based on the expected life span of the insured and the sum to be paid out. Basically, teh insurer hopes that the insured will live to an old age, by which time the total of premiums will equal the amount insured. The insurer takes a hit if the insured dies young. Meanwhile, the insurer is receiving money regularly which can be invested and the profits of those investments taken by the insurer. Assurance policies can also be taken out by companies on the lives of employees whose death would adversely affect the company's operations

 

A similar product is an Endowment" policy. This type of policy is an agreement to pay the insured an agreed amount at the end of a specified period, say ten to twenty years. The annual premium is simply the amount agreed upon divided by the number of years. There is also a bit tacked on to cover a death benefit if the insured dies within the period.  This type of policy was popular with grandparents to provide a gift to grandchildren when th child reached adulthood.

 

Superannuation policies are a sort of assurance policy in which the premium mainly goes into investment, but there is a bit used for death and disability events. The proceds of superannuation are paid out as a lump sum which can be used to puchase an annuity (pension), or not. But most of you are well aware of that.

 

 

[octave]

On 30/07/2026 at 1:01 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

I didn't suggest concealing it.. but if people honestly didn't know they are unwittingly a British citizen, it will be a non issue.. 

 

He does know that he has British citizenship by inheritance; if asked, he would have to answer truthfully.  

 

On 30/07/2026 at 1:01 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

So, on applying foe the ETA, a refusal would be provided if they knew one was a citizen if the applicant did not.

So a trip for my son to the UK would involve him, in your opinion applying for an ETA and if that is refused then he would have to start the onerous process of applying for a UK passport, which in his case would involve all sorts of documents including my and my wife's birth certificates and more.

 

On 30/07/2026 at 1:01 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

Apparently Aussies now need a UK ETA or similar  as when I presented my Aus passport at the Melbourne

Yes Aussie who do not hold British citizenship.  I would need a British Passport to travel to England and my son would require a  UK passport an NZ passport, and if he were to spend a few days in Aus would require an Aus passport as well, a total of about $700 worth.

 

You seem to imply my gripe is a little petty or a "storm in a teacup" simply because he may be able to travel in the UK without giving away the fact that he is also a UK citizen.

 

Whilst many people may be doing this real people are being affected.

 

UK passport changes leave Australians with dual citizenship scrambling before border rules kick in

 

Teenage Girl Spends 6 Weeks Stuck Abroad Due to New Passport Rule, Her Dad Says

 

More than a million Brits risk being caught out by new passport rule launched this year – with kids stranded abroad

 

The common theme

Most of these people were already British citizens. Their mistake wasn't failing to obtain citizenship—it was assuming they could continue travelling on their other passport as they had done previously.

The February 2026 changes caught many people because:

• they had never applied for a British passport,
• they didn't realise their children automatically held British citizenship,
• or they had travelled for years using only their Australian, American or European passport.

The UK Home Office has stated that from 25 February 2026, British dual nationals generally must travel with a valid British passport (or, in limited cases, a passport containing a Certificate of Entitlement), otherwise they risk being refused boarding.

Given your earlier questions about travelling on an Australian passport, these examples illustrate that the airlines are enforcing the rule before passengers even reach the UK border.

 

On 30/07/2026 at 1:01 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

Australia has had this requirement for time immemorial so I don't see the issue. It is a cost of multiple citizenship.

Yes, I am aware of that. My gripe is not about the UK but the need for 3 passports .   There simply must a better way. 

 

Sorry if you think I am it is in your words "It's mountain out of molehill stuff.." but it came as news to me and going by newspaper reports IT IS catching people out

[Jerry_Atrick]

58 minutes ago, octave said:

He does know that he has British citizenship by inheritance; if asked, he would have to answer truthfully.  

Yep.. I was referring to people who don't know they have British citizenship.. There is no need to trawl through family history to work it out. 

 

58 minutes ago, octave said:

So a trip for my son to the UK would involve him, in your opinion applying for an ETA and if that is refused then he would have to start the onerous process of applying for a UK passport, which in his case would involve all sorts of documents including my and my wife's birth certificates and more.

I had exactly the same issue with my son 20 years ago when travelling to  Australia -  and it was a stress I didn't need as my father was imminently dying at the time. I don't see the problem of the UK requiring it if Australia does. That is my point. 

 

It became a problem because it was a recent requirement and people didn't know about it and were caught out.

 

Is it a faff? Yes. Most people plan their trips in advance and have plenty of time to get it. And it is a darned sight cheaper than the Aussie one, as well. But in the scheme of things, it is a molehill. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I don't see the problem of the UK requiring it if Australia does. That is my point. 

I am not saying UK bad Australia good. In the case of my son it is 3 different countries demanding that he have their passport at great monetary and administrative burden.  I am merely suggesting that perhaps rather than applying and paying for  3 different passport could not we have a system where you have primary citizenship and perhaps noted in you passport secondary citizenships?

 

There is a differnece between  inherited Australian citizenship in that it is a right you actively must claim, whereas British citizenship is something you get automatically, and should you not want it you have to renounce it. 

 

There are also other complexities.  During the conversation I had with my son and his colleagues his business partner pointed out that although she is a child of a British parent she was not autamatically a British citizen but her brother was because of this:

 

"While Australia's rules are relatively straightforward, British nationality law is deeply affected by when you were born and historical gender discrimination. For example, if you were born before 1983 to a British mother and a foreign father, you did not automatically inherit citizenship at birth. You must instead go through a retroactive registration process to correct this historical imbalance. [1]"

 

It does feel like it would be easier if inherited British citizenship was an opt-in system and not automatic.

[Jerry_Atrick]

That is a citizenship thing rather than a passport thing. 

 

With the exception of the discriminatory component, certainly before Brexit and even since Brexit, most would consider that a benefit rather than a problem. Free access to the UK to be able to work as well if you want, and as a result, visa-less access to Europe and relatively easy ability to transfer to Europe if you want to work. Now they say, like Australia, if you're a citizen, you need a UK passport. If, as an Aussie, you don't realise you are as British subject and you travel on your ETA, and they don't realise you're a British subject, there is no issue - not even at law, because no doubt a strict liability offence, an honest and reasonable belief in the fact you weren't a British subject would render it not an offence. 

 

In terms of cost, the UK passport through normal route is 1/2 the price of an Aussie one. They last 10 years... so, it is £10 a year (they are £100). The requirement to provide proof of citizenship is only on the first issue of the passport, as it is required for the first issue of any Aussie on an Aussie passport. And even with your suggestion, you would have to prove to the passport issuing authority all of your citizenships - as you acquire them.. Or even if you lumped them up into one application if you had them all at the first issue of your passport, they would charge a fee for validating your citizenship in each country, and there would be a fee from that other country as rthey would charge for registering you on their database of citizens with foreign passport holders.  And no doubt similar costs would occur on renewals. So, I don't see a massive cost saving, either. 

 

I don't disagree with you in that there should be a better way. I just think the reporting of it was way out of proportion to the problem it really is. Ergo, I think they were making a mountain out of a molehill, with the exception for those people that got caught out while the change came in.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

16 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

If, as an Aussie, you don't realise you are as British subject and you travel on your ETA, and they don't realise you're a British subject, there is no issue - not even at law, because no doubt a strict liability offence, an honest and reasonable belief in the fact you weren't a British subject would render it not an offence. 

I think the issue is not so much about being prosecuted but being prevented from travelling by the airline

According to AI

 

The bigger issue is airlines, not customs officers

Someone saying "customs won't know" is focusing on the wrong stage.

The problem often happens before boarding.

Airlines use UK government systems to check whether passengers have permission to travel. If the system indicates the person is British and should not be using an ETA, the airline may refuse boarding because they are responsible for carrying properly documented passengers.

4. It is also a question of future consequences

Someone might get away with travelling on an Australian passport for years. Then:

• they have a child,
• they apply for a British passport,
• they move to the UK,
• they need consular help,
• they renew documents.

At that point, their British citizenship status becomes relevant.

 

 

 

I don't think my bringing this up is petty or making a mountain out of a molehill. The biggest problem is people are unaware of it and there are numerous cases of people caught out. The law is what it is but that does not make it sensible.

[Jerry_Atrick]

22 minutes ago, octave said:

Airlines use UK government systems to check whether passengers have permission to travel. If the system indicates the person is British and should not be using an ETA, the airline may refuse boarding because they are responsible for carrying properly documented passengers.

Exactly how are they going to do that? Unless the airlines have access to British government records that the British government doesn't have access to, it is hardly going to be an issue. Dive a little deeper and:

 

They have to get an ETA. The ETA process will check if they are a known citizen. The airline has no way of determining separately that they are potentially a citizen, nor do they need to. 

 

What could go wrong? In between the ETA given and travel, the UK government somehow determine the person is a citizen and update their database in time. But they may also do that because the person goes onto a criminal or terrorist list - even if mistaken identity.

 

And the chances of that are, again, making a mountain out of a molehill.. Unless you want absolute perfection in a system... 

 

And I forgot to mention, the exact same can happen to travellers to Australia - the ETA can be subsequently revoked because Australia  found out the Brit is an Aussie citrizen (or some other reason).  (that is effectively what happens). 

 

 

 

Edited 55 minutes ago by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

By whatever means, people have been prevented from travelling or had their travel delayed.  It may not be many people all up but it HAS happened as per articles I have linked to, or are they false news.

 

So, to be clear, your advice to someone in my son's situation, "she will be right mate"   The fact is HE NEEDS 3 PASSPORTS to stay withinn the law: the fact that only a few people at this stage have been detected is hardly the point. 

I regret raising this interesting (or so I thought) point.

[Jerry_Atrick]

45 minutes ago, octave said:

By whatever means, people have been prevented from travelling or had their travel delayed.  It may not be many people all up but it HAS happened as per articles I have linked to, or are they false news.

Yes.. at the time it was implemented.. I am sure they could have provided a transition period or something so there would be exceptions granted where travel had already been arranged... [edit] Sadly, this was one of Kier Starmer and his cabinet's deficiencies; they were technocrats and not politicians so when they went for full enforcement, they didn't really think beyond the rule itself [/edit] I am not disputing that. But the press was also trashing Britain for brining it in at all.. as if on an ongoing basis basis it is a big deal. but Australia does it and has been for years. And they are technically breaching international law as a passport is an identification document, and not a right to enter. If a government positively identifies its own citizens, it has to take them in (to get around it they can recind citizenship, but not if it will make them stateless - that would be a big step in the course of normal people being caught out). 

 

 

Let me ask you a question.. Your son is a citizen of three countries.. Up until Britain required him to have a passport to travel to Britain, he required a passport for two of the countries to travel to them. But adding one more suddenly makes the molehill a mountain according to the press? No one seemed to be complaining beforehand. That is my point.. as I said, I agree there has to be a better way, but the way the press were spinning it, the British requirement was this massive ongoing burden for life, when already two countries he is a citizen of - and lets face it where each off citizens of the other an automatic right of residency (subject to being good citizens) - and if they happened to be citizens of both countries, they still need two passports to travel between them? 

 

If it is that much of a burden that your son doesn't want the extra passport then he can:

• On a one time basis only, formally rescind his UK (and may as well at the same time, Aussie so he doesn't need an Aussie passport, but can still take up residence in Aus at any time); or
• If it really is that big a deal, just not visit the UK (given how many people trash it, it is a wonder anyone wants to visit at all).
• Or, if he is not a regular visitor to the UK, don't get a third one until he is about 8 weeks or so (to be on the safe side - it takes about 2 weeks now) from travelling.
• Or, he could just rescind his Aussie citizenship and that would take him back to two passports (and therefore back to molehill territory).

 

Given it is likely to cost similar to have citizenship stamped in three passports as having three passports, I am struggling to see what the big deal is about having three passports, except if one is really disorganised.  

 

As a pretty experienced traveller, I would prefer separate passports as I get to choose which one to enter other countries on, which can have benefits. The Aussie passport was not great to travel in Europe during the Shengen years, for example; The British passport was good in the middle east, believe it or not. 

 

But, let's break this down..

If you don't know whether or not you're a British Citizen:

• Apply for British ETA (preferably before buying tickets). 
• ETA says yes; you are good to go. No big deal.
• ETA says no because you're a British Citizen, get passport, book your tickets and you no longer need to faff about with an ETA and you get through the immigration queues much faster at Heathrow (or wherever) than non UK/EU citizens (yes, unlike EU countries, Britain still lets EU people in through the citizen  route)

It actually makes it easuer than those god awful queues. Well done.

 

If you know or suspect you're a British Citizen by descent:

- Get British passport

- Avoid the queues

 

 

And the mountain you are telling me is your son now needs three passports?

 

 

 

Jeez.. really?

Edited 7 minutes ago by Jerry_Atrick