Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Spoonley, Distinguished Professor, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

A year after the 2023 census, changes were already taking place in New Zealand’s population that meant the data was in danger of being superseded.

Fertility was continuing to decline, the number of immigrants arriving was beginning to climb, there was an exodus of New Zealand citizens, Māori made up more of the population and Asian communities were continuing to grow.

Eighteen months on, we need to revise the picture again. As is often the case with New Zealand, a period of supercharged population growth fuelled by immigration has been followed by a slump.

In the year to February 2024, StatsNZ was reporting immigrant arrivals at an all-time high of 253,200, with a net gain for the year of 130,900.

This surge produced population growth for the 2023 year of 2.3%, compared to the average for all OECD countries of 0.7% . Migration made up more than 85% of this population growth, with natural increase (births minus deaths) the lesser factor.

In 2023, only two OECD countries, Canada and Iceland, exceeded New Zealand’s population growth. Other countries actually saw population decline, notably Germany and Japan.

The latest data shows a major reversal in both immigration numbers and therefore population growth. In the year to September 2025, arrivals were down at 138,900, and the net gain was 12,400.

Population growth was tracking at 0.7%, so the same as the overall average for the OECD.

More are leaving – or not staying

Not only are there fewer arrivals, but the number leaving New Zealand has spiked.
Overall, departures are now tracking at 126,400, up 10% on the year before.

What is concerning are the number of New Zealand citizens leaving. For the 12 months to September 2025, 72,700 left, with an overall net loss of 46,400.

The last time we saw such figures was at the back end of the Global Financial Crises in 2011-12. Then, 72,401 New Zealand citizens left, with an overall net loss of 44,385.

But non-New Zealand citizens are also leaving in greater numbers. The 2025 figure is up by 17% on the year before.

It’s most likely that economic circumstances, combined with the opportunities available elsewhere (especially on the other side of the Tasman), are a major contributor to these outflows.

Stagnation, even depopulation

This drop in immigrant numbers, combined with migrant departures, has reinforced an important dynamic – migration is crucial to both the population growth of the country but also that of cities and regions.

In the year to June 2025, natural increase now makes a more significant contribution to population growth (21,000 per year), while net migration is now down at little more than 12,000 per year.

Population growth is now confined largely to the regions with major cities –Auckland, Waikato and Canterbury. Wellington and Taranaki are experiencing population stagnation (no growth), while Nelson, Marlborough, Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay have seen population decline.

Selwyn District remained the fastest growing( 2.4%), while Hamilton was the fastest-growing city (1.4%).

But this is a bit misleading. If Auckland is divided into local boards, then Papakura leads annual growth in New Zealand (2.6%). Henderson-Massey and Howick are also growing at close to 2% per annum.

Overall, low migration means little growth, no growth or population decline for many of New Zealand’s regions and centres. The centres that are growing benefit from both natural increase combined with ongoing immigrant arrivals, albeit at much reduced levels.

Hamilton, for example, has recently gained from immigration (up by 1,900) and natural increase (up by 1,500) despite around 800 people leaving for other parts of New Zealand.

Auckland as the source of internal migration

It’s become a common narrative that people are pouring out of Auckland and contributing to population growth in the rest of the country. There was some truth to this, especially as we emerged from the COVID years and remote working became a thing.

Between 2018 and 2023, 135,000 people left Auckland for other regions. The largest number went to Waikato, followed by Northland and Canterbury.

In the year to June 2023, the net loss from internal migration as people left Auckland for other centres and regions was 11,200. Now that outflow has decreased significantly and is currently tracking at 3,200, a drop of over 70%.

Anticipating what will happen from here is something of a fraught exercise. What we can say is that the elements contributing to population growth, stagnation or depopulation remain volatile.

Paul Spoonley received funding from MBIE to look at New Zealand’s future population as part of a project labelled Nga Tangata Iho Mairangi.

– ref. Growing, going, gone: latest numbers show NZ now at risk of population stagnation – https://theconversation.com/growing-going-gone-latest-numbers-show-nz-now-at-risk-of-population-stagnation-269778

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ihsan Yilmaz, Deputy Directory (Research Development), Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation & Research Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Deakin University

Warnings this week from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) about sabotage threats marked an important shift in tone.

And they raise important questions about how the Australian government should respond.

Breaking from past practice, ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess said
Chinese state-linked hackers have scanned, mapped and in some cases infiltrated Australian critical infrastructure.

According to Burgess, these groups are no longer focused on stealing information. They are preparing to disrupt or shut down key systems in a future crisis.

For many years, ASIO avoided naming specific countries in public. For the first time, Burgess described Chinese hackers trying to gain access to telecommunications, energy and transport networks. He said high-impact sabotage is now a real threat.

The new message names the state actor directly, as well as the potential for devastating consequences.

The many forms of hard and soft power

To understand why this matters, consider how China’s activities abroad have changed over time.

Past debates in Australia often centred on China’s soft power, or the ability to win influence through “attraction and persuasion”, and sharp power. This involves using covert influence, political pressure and media manipulation to shape public opinion without using force.

Burgess described something different. This threat does not involve persuasion or interference in debate. It is about the ability to disable telecommunications, shut down water systems, interrupt electricity supplies or damage the financial system.

This is preparation to use coercion during a crisis. One can imagine a scenario where Australia’s ability to respond to a blockade or invasion of Taiwan is hampered by a shutdown of critical infrastructure.

Burgess is therefore right to highlight the seriousness of the threat. China has shown that control of digital systems is central to geopolitical competition. Maintaining access to foreign infrastructure is a strategic advantage. As Australia becomes more reliant on digital networks, weaknesses in those systems become national security concerns.

The risk of digital authoritarianism – at home

There is, however, a second issue that deserves attention. In responding to foreign cyber threats, Australia risks adopting some of the very same digital tools used in authoritarian states such as Russia and China.

Research on digital authoritarianism shows that many authoritarian governments use control of digital networks to manage their own populations. They monitor citizens, limit information and use technology to enforce political order.

Burgess’ warning suggests this model is being exported. The aim is to control digital life at home, but also to gain the ability to interfere with digital systems overseas if needed.

In recent years, Australian governments have proposed measures that go well beyond traditional cybersecurity. These include mandatory age checks for social media, strict online limits for minors and expanding the duties of technology companies to assist with national security goals.

These proposals are framed as necessary for public safety. Yet they show a willingness to extend state power deeper into digital life.

Earlier analysis of sharp power in Australia showed the country’s institutions can be both robust and unusually willing to grant the state wide authority.

Burgess’ speech at a business conference reinforces this trend. He addressed government agencies but also corporate boards, telling them national security is now their responsibility, as well.

Much of Australia’s critical infrastructure is owned or operated by private companies. Expecting these companies to act as extensions of national security policy risks blurring the line between public and private roles.

We need to protect democratic norms

This shift is not necessarily improper, but it does carry risks. A defining feature of digital authoritarianism is the merger of state security priorities with corporate behaviour. If this boundary weakens, Australia could slowly move toward practices it has long opposed.

It is possible to strengthen national resilience without taking this path. A democratic society can defend its networks and deter cyber threats while maintaining openness and accountability.

Burgess is correct that Australia faces a serious and evolving challenge. China’s cyber operations reflect wider geopolitical changes. But an effective response requires protecting both infrastructure and democratic norms.

Australia needs a balanced and sophisticated response.

Stronger cyber defences are necessary, but they must come with clear limits on state power, transparent rules for data access and protections for speech.

China’s cyber operations, which are part of a wider strategic contest, are indeed a serious threat. But if Australia reacts by expanding security powers without restraint, it risks weakening the freedoms it aims to defend.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The threat of sabotage from China is growing. That’s not an excuse to erode Australians’ freedoms – https://theconversation.com/the-threat-of-sabotage-from-china-is-growing-thats-not-an-excuse-to-erode-australians-freedoms-269715

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie M. Cairns, Research Fellow in Canid and Wildlife Genomics, UNSW Sydney

From village dogs to toy poodles to mastiffs, dogs come in an astonishing array of shapes, colours and sizes. Today there are estimated to be about 700 million dogs living with or around humans.

To many of us, dogs are loyal companions, working partners, and beloved family members – and the histories of our species are deeply woven together. But how did this incredible diversity come to be – and how far back does this relationship with humans go?

Two new studies published today in Science provide some answers. One, led by Allowen Evin from the University of Montpelier, draws on ancient skeletal remains. The other, led by Shao-Jie Zhang from the Kunming Institute of Zoology, draws on the study of DNA from ancient Eastern Eurasian dogs.

Together, these studies suggest the story of dogs and their relationship with humans is older and more complex than once thought.

The origins of modern dog diversity

The study by Evin and her colleagues used 643 dog and wolf skulls spanning the past 50,000 years to address the origins of modern dog diversity.

Her team’s analysis suggests the distinctive “dog-like” skull shape first arose around 11,000 years ago, during the Holocene epoch, the time since the most recent ice age. They also found substantial physical diversity in dog skulls from the same period.

This means the wide range of shapes and sizes dogs have today isn’t solely a product of the intense selective breeding programs that became popular in the last few centuries. Some of that variation emerged millennia earlier.

The team re-analysed the skull shapes of all 17 known dog or wolf skulls from the Late Pleistocene, a geological period from 129,000 to 11,700 years ago. Some skulls were 50,000 years old.

They found all of these Pleistocene skulls were essentially wolf-like in shape, including some previously identified as early dogs.

Importantly, this suggests that while the split between wolves and dogs likely occurred during the Pleistocene, the skull shape of early dogs didn’t start to change until closer to the Holocene – that is, 11,000 years ago. However, some Holocene dog skulls still retained wolf-like features.

This research suggests early dogs were much more diverse than previously thought. This diversity may have laid the groundwork for the extreme variations in size and shape of the dogs we have today.

Travelling companions

Earlier genomic studies have uncovered four major dog lineages that likely originated about 20,000 years ago: Eastern (East Asian and Arctic) and Western (Europe and Near East) dogs.

The origins of these ancient dog lineages are still being untangled. However, studying shifts in the ancestry of dogs through time and between different regions can help us better understand both the origins of dogs and the movement of Neolithic (new stone-age) humans.

The new study by Zhang and his colleagues used 73 ancient dog genomes spanning the last 10,000 years to explore how humans and dogs moved across Eastern Eurasia through time.

Analysis of these ancient dogs identified multiple shifts in the ancestry of dogs in Eastern Eurasia at times that correlate with the movement of specific human groups (hunter-gatherers, farmers and pastoralists). This suggests that as different human cultural groups moved across Eurasia, their dogs often moved with them, carrying their unique genetic signatures.

There was some discrepancy between human and dog population ancestry in some parts of Asia. For example, Eastern hunter-gatherers from Veretye and Botai, who were more closely related to Western Eurasian humans, had largely Eastern (Arctic) dogs rather than the Western dogs observed with other Western Eurasian cultures at the time.

This means dogs may have been a key part of cultural exchange or trade between different human cultures or communities. It may also illustrate complexities in the evolution of dogs that we are yet to understand.

The work by Zhang and his team presents compelling evidence that in Eastern Eurasia thousands of years ago dogs played an indispensable role in human societies as crucial “biocultural packages” that moved with humans. In other words, humans took their companions with them on their journeys (and perhaps traded them), rather than simply acquiring new dogs after moving.

These findings highlight the long-term, complex and intertwined relationship between dogs and humans that spans more than 10,000 years.

The genetic ancestry of dogs can act as a living record of ancient human migrations, trade networks and cultural exchanges. Studies on ancient dogs may also help us understand the environmental factors that contributed to the evolution of dogs, and their relationship with humans.

Reshaping our understanding of dogs

Together, these new studies profoundly reshape our understanding of how dogs became so diverse and how they have related to humans along the way.

Both studies underscore that the incredible diversity in modern dogs is not an entirely recent phenomenon. The genetic and morphological foundations for this variation were laid thousands of years ago, shaped by natural selection, human selection and diverse environments, long before the structured breeding of the past few centuries.

Future studies investigating the physical diversity and ancestry of dogs through time could deepen our understanding of the complex origins and spread of dogs across the globe. Whatever their origins, this research deepens our appreciation for the unique and ancient bond between humans and dogs that was almost as diverse as canines themselves.

Kylie M. Cairns receives funding from the Australian Dingo Foundation, the Australia and Pacific Science Foundation, the ACT government and donations from the general public. She is a director of the Paddy Pallin Foundation and provides scientific advice to the Australian Dingo Foundation and the New Guinea Highland Wild Dog Foundation. She also serves as co-coordinator of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) dingo working group which is part of its Species Survival Commission (SSC) Canid Specialist Group.

Melanie Fillios receives funding from The Australia and Pacific Science Foundation.

– ref. Dogs 10,000 years ago roamed with bands of humans and came in all shapes and sizes – https://theconversation.com/dogs-10-000-years-ago-roamed-with-bands-of-humans-and-came-in-all-shapes-and-sizes-269398

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bernice Hua Ma, Research Fellow, Health Economics Group, School of Population and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was set up in 2013 to help Australians with disability live more independently, and participate more in work and community life.

The scheme was not meant as a substitute for health care, let alone to save health dollars.

But in certain circumstance, we show it can.

We’ve published the first study with large-scale data to shed light on how the NDIS rollout affected participants’ use of the health system.

As debates continue about the cost and sustainability of the NDIS, here’s what we found.

There’s a blurred line

The NDIS provides personalised funding for people with disability to access non-clinical supports. This can include access to transport, speech therapists or accommodation, for example.

But in practice, the line between non-clinical support and health care can be blurry.

For example, some therapies delivered by a psychologist can be funded through the NDIS or Medicare.

This raises an important issue of whether the NDIS has changed how people with disability use the health system.

If some health care shifts to the NDIS, use of Medicare-funded health services may decrease.

But if access to services improves through the NDIS – for example, by providing transport to medical appointments – this might allow people with disability to address previously unmet health needs, increasing use of the health system.

As national discussions continue about the cost and sustainability of the NDIS, we need to understand whether the scheme reduces or increases pressure on other sectors, in particular the stretched health system.

What we did

Our study used anonymous data from hundreds of thousands of people enrolled in the NDIS. We then linked that data to use of prescriptions on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and medical services on the Medicare Benefits Schedule.

We examined visits to GPs, specialists, mental health services, allied health services, as well as mental health prescriptions. We did this up to 18 months after entry into the scheme.

We compared NDIS participants living in areas where the NDIS was rolled out early to participants where it was rolled out later. We assumed differences after the rollout were due to the NDIS.

What we found

The NDIS was not expected to influence services that only medical doctors can provide. Our results reflect this. We show use of the NDIS did not significantly affect visits to GPs, specialists, or mental health prescriptions.

However, the NDIS reduced subsidised mental health services (such as those provided by psychologists) by 13% per person per quarter. Another way of expressing this is there were 0.0348 times fewer uses of mental health services per person over the same time period.

For allied health services (such as speech therapists or occupational therapists) there was an 8% reduction or 0.0165 fewer uses per person per quarter.

The reductions in mental health or allied health services may seem small. But the impact becomes clearer when scaled up nationally and in dollar amounts.

For mental health services alone, let’s assume an average cost of A$250 per session, including a Medicare rebate of $98.95. This means an out-of-pocket cost of $151.05 per session.

After the NDIS rollout, we calculated this translates to an estimated $10.6 million decrease in Medicare expenditure and $16.3 million in out-of-pocket costs a year. That’s $26.9 million a year among about 700,000 NDIS participants.

What can explain our findings?

Our findings suggest mental health and allied health supports funded through the NDIS may be replacing some therapies that were previously accessed through Medicare.

The reduction in the mental and allied health services is more likely to suggest a substitution rather than an improvement of health. This is because we would expect changes in health conditions to be associated with changes in the first point of contact in the health system, usually the GP, yet we found no such changes.

One reason for the substitution could be that the NDIS usually provides broader, fully covered services tailored to individual needs.

Previously, individuals relied on mental health treatment plans or chronic disease management plans from Medicare, which offered limited visits and often incurred out-of-pocket costs.

Our findings suggest the expanded coverage and personalised nature of NDIS-funded supports make these a more attractive option for participants.

Read more:
‘Thriving Kids’ could help secure the future of the NDIS. But what will the program mean for children and families?

We don’t yet know whether these shifts of mental or allied health services to the NDIS benefits participants more so than access via Medicare, or impacts the total government expenses for those services.

We also don’t know whether the total use of mental and allied health services – either funded by the NDIS or Medicare – increases or decreases. That’s because we didn’t have data when we conducted our research on the types of services NDIS participants use.

How can we use our findings?

Some people see the rising costs of the NDIS as a “blowout”. Some see the scheme as an investment, delivering benefits across different sectors. This includes in employment for participants and caregivers, or early interventions for children with developmental concerns to save supports down the track.

Our study offers the first clear evidence of how the NDIS interacts with health care, showing where the social support the NDIS provides may ease pressure on other services.

As governments consider the future of the scheme, understanding these cross-sector effects will be key to building a sustainable NDIS that delivers support where it is needed most.

We’d like to acknowledge Dennis Petrie and Gang Chen, co-authors of the paper mentioned in this article.

Bernice Hua Ma previously worked for the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), which administers the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme). The research mentioned in this article is unrelated to her previous work with the NDIA, and opinions expressed are the author’s own.

Samia Badji previously received funding from several government organisations such as the NDIA, Department of Social Services and the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

– ref. The NDIS shifts almost $27m a year in mental health costs alone, our new study suggests – https://theconversation.com/the-ndis-shifts-almost-27m-a-year-in-mental-health-costs-alone-our-new-study-suggests-269097

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Farrell, Associate Professor (Green Infrastructure) School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne

It sounds like a gardener’s holy grail: beautiful and practical plantings that can turn cities into green spaces with benefits for people and biodiversity.

Our Australia-first collaborative research has made this dream a reality. Woody meadows have transformed urban spaces in Australian cities by adding green beauty and colour in public spaces at a much lower cost than other approaches.

Ours is a collaborative research project that engages with urban land managers, designers and horticultural crews to research and trial woody meadows under real-world conditions. Their popularity reflects the huge demand to green our urban places in a cost-effective way.

After ten years of success, failure and constant experimentation, we can now share our insights into how woody meadows can be both beautiful and hardy.

What is a woody meadow?

A uniquely Australian concept, woody meadows are diverse, naturalistic plantings of native groundcover, shrubs and small trees. They are designed for maximum visual and ecological function, and are robust to heat and drought. A beautiful corridor for nature, they can cool cities and reduce stormwater runoff into waterways. They differ from naturalistic meadow-like plantings popular in Europe and America, which only contain flowering herbs and grasses.

Woody meadows mimic the structure of natural shrubland communities and include wattles, grevilleas, melaleucas, goodenias and correas for year-round flowering. They are planted densely into low-nutrient materials such as crushed scoria or sandstone (which exotic species don’t like). This promotes rapid canopy coverage and requires less weeding, fewer chemicals and lower maintenance costs.

Woody meadow plants are managed by coppicing – hard pruning to around 15 centimetres every two to four years. This maintains diversity and ensures dominant plant species don’t take over. It also mimics disturbances such as fire and storm damage and stimulates dense new growth and lots of flowers.

We have tested more than 300 Australian plant species and shown most species can resprout after coppicing. This means that plants can be tailored for different climates and site conditions without high risk of failure.

From little things…

Ten years ago, we planted two small plots of native plants in inner Melbourne. We wanted to find a novel and low-cost approach to urban greening.

From this single pilot project, the concept of woody meadows has grown exponentially. Our partners include transport agencies, water authorities, cemeteries, government agencies and councils. They have shared their successes and failures through a growing national Woody Meadow Network, established as part of this project.

There are now more than 30,000 square metres of woody meadows in 59 urban locations across southern Australia. These meadows are part of major infrastructure projects including Melbourne’s level-crossing removal project, Sydney’s metro rail project, and the East Subiaco redevelopment in Perth.

Australian cities are investing millions of dollars in urban green spaces. This has wide-ranging benefits for health and wellbeing, biodiversity, reducing pollution and tackling urban heating. But maintaining urban vegetation is expensive, leading to overly simple plantings that are dull and provide few benefits.

Living laboratories

The popularity of woody meadows reflects the huge demand for cost-effective ways to green urban areas.

Each meadow serves as a living laboratory, with data on plant performance and maintenance informing future designs. Historically, most public landscapes have been designed without considering maintenance, so involving horticultural crews and bringing their expertise into the design of woody meadows has been crucial to their success.

Installation costs for woody meadows are comparable to business-as-usual plantings of low-diversity, low-functioning monocultures such as massed plantings of strappy leaf plants such as Lomandra or Dianella species or shrubs. But they require 75% less maintenance over time. Their adaptable design has overcome barriers to planting in hostile urban sites and transport corridors.

Plant it yourself

If you are keen to plant a woody meadow of your own, we have condensed 15 years of research and testing into free Woody Meadow Guidelines outlining how to design, install and maintain them.

New woody meadow plantings can be registered on our website so we can continue to gather data on what works best.

Claire Farrell receives funding from the Australian Research Council and research partners associated with the Woody Meadow Project.

Rachael Bathgate receives funding from the Australian Research Council (LP13010073) and research partners associated with the Woody Meadow Project.

– ref. We planted two woody meadows a decade ago to see what would thrive. Now the concept is popular across Australia. – https://theconversation.com/we-planted-two-woody-meadows-a-decade-ago-to-see-what-would-thrive-now-the-concept-is-popular-across-australia-269611

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Bussey, Research Fellow, Early Childhood and Teacher Education, Deakin University

There has been a lot of focus on the need to teach older children about consent. But parents should not wait until kids are teenagers to talk about appropriate touching or how everyone has the right to say what happens to their body.

In fact, the earlier parents talk about this with their kids, the better.

This way, consent becomes a normal, everyday part of life. Importantly, it also helps to keep kids safe from abuse as they learn what is and isn’t OK when it comes to their bodies.

You can start teaching little ones about consent even before they can talk. Here’s how you can do this during everyday care.

Read more:
7 ways to teach little kids about body safety before they can talk

Try not to rush

Nappy changes can easily be seen by parents as a task to rush through and just “get done”.

But this can be a time to help children learn about consent and how their bodies work.

Toileting is something young children will take charge of in the future. What happens before learning how to use the toilet should not be a mystery.

Be clear about what’s going on

At the start of a nappy change, ensure your child knows what is happening. Get down to their level and say, “you need a nappy change” and then pause so they can take this in.

Then you can say, “do you want to walk/crawl with me to the change table, or would you like me to carry you?”

Observe their facial expressions and body language to check if they understand what is happening. Aim to be positive, gentle and responsive to your child.

Don’t distract your child

Children are often encouraged to be distracted in nappy changes, to focus their attention on something else. For example, a well-meaning parent signs a song to them or gives them a rattle to hold.

But it’s important children notice when someone is touching their most intimate parts.

Even in early infancy, children can respond to consistent verbal cues. So try to use similar language and follow regular nappy changing routines that involve children in conversation. For example, “can you please lift up your bottom so I can slide your nappy out?”

These habits plant the seed of the idea that a child has the right to say what happens to their body.

Be kind to yourself

Of course some nappy changes may need to be more rushed or in an odd place. Perhaps you are late for work or you need to pull over on the side of the road to deal with an urgent poosplosion.

The habits we outline above may also seem to add more work to the already demanding parental load. So try and do them as often as possible and be kind to yourself if every nappy change isn’t a perfect moment of connection, you are supporting a small child after all.

Use the proper terms

While you are doing this, use the correct anatomical terms – vulva, penis, anus. Parents may feel uncomfortable doing this and think more childish names should be used. But this keeps children safe as it means they can then inform trusted adults about their experiences with all the people who care for them.

Use these same principles when you are changing their clothes or giving them a bath.

Give kids simple choices

Away from the change table, look for ways to provide opportunities for children to have choice and a sense of agency and autonomy in everyday life situations. This helps nurture their independence and can reduce power struggles. Some examples of this could be,

do you want to wear your blue or your yellow shirt today?“

do you want apple or pear?

do you want to go to the park or for a walk around the block?

Recognise their body language

In previous pieces, experts have noted how you should not force your kids to hug other adults or relatives if they don’t want to.

But parents can also be aware of their own behaviour – how your child is reacting when you’re picking them up or giving them a hug.

Sometimes you may have no choice (for example, picking a child up before crossing a busy road). But where possible, use children’s body language and cues to take their views into account.

Katherine Bussey receives funding from Department of Education, Victorian Government for other research projects. She is affiliated with Infant and Toddler Advocacy Network Australia (ITANA), a not-for-profit organisation.

Nicole Downes has previously received funding from the Department of Education for other projects.

– ref. Nappy changes are not just a chore to rush through. You can use them to teach consent – https://theconversation.com/nappy-changes-are-not-just-a-chore-to-rush-through-you-can-use-them-to-teach-consent-269509

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fei Gao, Lecturer in Taxation, Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney

Tech giants could soon have a new multimillion-dollar motivator to negotiate deals with Australian media companies to pay for news, after details of Labor’s proposed news bargaining incentive were finally revealed this week.

On Thursday, Treasury released a new consultation paper on the mechanism, which was first announced late last year.

It is designed to pressure large digital platforms, including Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram), Google and ByteDance (owner of TikTok) into paying Australian publishers for using their content.

Under the proposed model, any digital platform earning more than A$250 million in annual revenue from Australia from search or social media services would face a charge equivalent to 2.25% of this revenue.

But platforms could reduce this charge by negotiating or renewing commercial deals with Australian news outlets. Every dollar paid to publishers would reduce the amount payable by $1.50. That means it would always be cheaper to fund journalism directly than pay the charge.

However, its design looks a lot like a “digital services tax” on big US tech companies. US President Donald Trump has put such measures in his sights, making it a bold move for Australia.

Why big tech needed a nudge

The proposed new model sits on top of the existing news media bargaining code introduced by the Morrison government in 2021.

This code worked at first. Despite threats to remove search from Australia, Google eventually reached agreements with many publishers.

Meta eventually signed deals, too, albeit after briefly removing news from Facebook in Australia during a standoff. These payments became a crucial funding source for Australian media.

However, the code had a key structural weakness: it relied on platforms choosing to participate. Platforms can opt out, simply by not renewing commercial contracts with the news outlets and removing local news content.

In early 2024, Meta announced it would not renew its Australian news agreements.

The company argued news provided little commercial value. Without this revenue, many smaller Australian media would require large alternative sources of funding.

The government needed a mechanism that did not depend on voluntary cooperation. So, the news bargaining incentive was born, creating a financial consequence for refusing to pay.

Taxing digital profits

From a tax perspective, the proposed incentive resembles what’s called a digital services tax.

Digital services taxes are already used in the United Kingdom, France and several other jurisdictions to collect tax from large digital platforms.

These taxes generally apply only to very large multinational platforms, focusing on digital advertising and user-based platform services. They use revenue, rather than profit, as the tax base. Their rates typically fall between 3% and 5%.

Australia has considered a digital services tax before. In 2018, Treasury released a discussion paper exploring an interim digital turnover tax aimed at the biggest global platforms.

But successive governments paused the idea and instead backed international efforts to reallocate a portion of multinational tech companies’ profits to the countries where their users are located.

Called “Amount A”, this measure formed an important part of “pillar one” of an OECD-led global tax deal, which was supposed to be implemented globally in 2023.

A digital services tax in all but name

The proposed news bargaining incentive closely mirrors a digital services tax, applying a percentage charge to the Australian revenue of large digital platforms.

Most of that revenue comes from digital advertising, which is the central target of these taxes globally. The effective rate of 2.25% is also broadly in line with the typical digital services tax range.

The key political difference is where the money goes. A digital services tax sends revenue only to the government, while the Australian government’s proposal allows platforms to pay news publishers directly.

This gives Canberra a line of defence that this policy is about media competition, rather than taxation.

A bold move for Australia

The geopolitical context is now particularly important. In January, the Trump administration formally withdrew the United States’ support for the OECD’s global tax deal.

Trump has consistently described digital services taxes as “discriminatory” measures targeting American companies. He has also previously authorised trade investigations and tariff threats against countries that pursued them.

Australia is already on the radar. The US Trade Representative has placed elements of Australia’s digital regulation under review for potential unfair trade practices.

Even though Australia has not introduced a digital services tax, any measures that resemble one – or shift revenue away from US technology firms – are politically sensitive.

This means the news bargaining incentive must navigate a delicate political space. On paper, it is a competition and media funding mechanism. In substance, it functions very much like a tax to redirect tax revenue back to where users are located.

If Washington views the measure as a digital services tax in disguise, Australia could face diplomatic friction at a time when US trade policy has become significantly more unpredictable.

Fei Gao does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Labor’s news bargaining incentive looks a lot like a digital services tax. Will Trump notice? – https://theconversation.com/labors-news-bargaining-incentive-looks-a-lot-like-a-digital-services-tax-will-trump-notice-269703