Should it still be legal for Australians to smack their children?
Queensland could become the first Australian state to outlaw corporal punishment in a move that could pave the way to a national ban.
Physical punishment is no longer legal in Australian schools, but parents and guardians are still free to strike, pinch, push or slap their children.
The lack of legal protection puts Australia behind 69 other countries including New Zealand, France and Sweden, as well as South Sudan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Congo.
The Queensland Law Reform Commission is reassessing the state's protection of physical punishment in a wider review of Queensland's criminal code.
Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has opposed any change, saying it was "not for the state government to provide advice to a family about how to provide discipline and structure".
Director of the ACU Institute of Child Protection Studies Daryl Higgins said it was "stunning" Australia still allowed corporal punishment, given the overwhelming evidence that it was both ineffective and harmful.
"The truth is, many Australians still don't think it's wrong and don't think it should be illegal," Professor Higgins said.
Professor Higgins led a recent national study of 8500 people to find out how prevalent corporal punishment was in Australia.
"Among Australians aged 16-24 we found nearly six in 10 (58.4 per cent) had experienced corporal punishment in their childhood," he said.
"Across all 8500 participants the rate was 62.5 per cent, so that's a minuscule reduction in the youngest generation."
The research also asked parents about their use and opinion of physical force.
"Nearly 54 per cent of parents said they had used corporal punishment," Professor Higgins said.
"But we also looked at beliefs, and just over a quarter (26.4 per cent) of Australian parents said they thought corporal punishment was necessary to raise children."
Professor Higgins said changing the law was the only way to change those attitudes.
Corporal punishment is illegal in schools in every Australian state except Queensland, where it is prohibited by education department policy.
It is also illegal in early childhood settings.
It isn't illegal in alternative and foster care in the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria, and it's also legal in juvenile detention in ACT and WA.
But it's legal for parents and caregivers in every state and territory.
While the laws differ between jurisdictions, they all protect physical punishment under the right of "reasonable chastisement or discipline".
Professor Higgins said the law effectively provided parents with a defence against what would otherwise be assault.
Most states don't define what "reasonable" force involves, but NSW says it is "unreasonable" to strike a child to the head or neck, or hard enough that the harm "lasts more than a short period".
Professor Higgins said the NSW definition demonstrated the brutality of the current laws.
"If you were thinking about stopping violence against women would you want to go down the path of saying it's OK for husbands to hit their wives as long as they don't hit above the neck?" he said.
"It's beyond belief when you apply it to other contexts, but when it comes to children we feel that parents are sacrosanct."
Professor Higgins led a recent study reviewing decades of corporal punishment research.
"In all the research globally, the only positive outcome that's consistently found in the research is immediate compliance. The child stops the behaviour in the moment," he said.
"It doesn't help the child understand what they've supposedly done wrong, or help them to internalise and change their behaviour.
"It doesn't build empathy, self-regulation or behavioural control, so really any of the things that matter."
Instead, the research showed physical punishment led to depression, low self esteem, and potentially the use of violence by the children themselves.
"Inevitably when you see physical punishment being used it's actually the adult who's out of control. Not the child," Professor Higgins said.
"Calm, self-regulated parenting is the fundamental premise for basically every single evidence-based parenting program."
He said child protection advocates had tried many times to get corporal punishment outlawed.
"My colleagues and I wrote to the NSW Attorney General recently and what we heard back was 'this has been reviewed and the protections are sufficient'," he said.
Professor Higgins said there was nothing standing in the way of legal change, other than "political and public will".
He said he couldn't understand the lack of action.
"The only logical reason I can think of is a society we don't value children as much as we value adults," he said.
"We don't even have a minister for children - we've got a minister for pretty much everything you can think of, but not one for children."
But Professor Higgins said the potential Queensland reforms were a glimmer of hope.
"It's really pleasing the Queensland Law Reform Commission is actually taking this seriously," he said.
"I think they will lead the way in Australia in changing the safety of children."
Queensland could become the first Australian state to outlaw corporal punishment in a move that could pave the way to a national ban.
Physical punishment is no longer legal in Australian schools, but parents and guardians are still free to strike, pinch, push or slap their children.
The lack of legal protection puts Australia behind 69 other countries including New Zealand, France and Sweden, as well as South Sudan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Congo.
The Queensland Law Reform Commission is reassessing the state's protection of physical punishment in a wider review of Queensland's criminal code.
Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has opposed any change, saying it was "not for the state government to provide advice to a family about how to provide discipline and structure".
Director of the ACU Institute of Child Protection Studies Daryl Higgins said it was "stunning" Australia still allowed corporal punishment, given the overwhelming evidence that it was both ineffective and harmful.
"The truth is, many Australians still don't think it's wrong and don't think it should be illegal," Professor Higgins said.
Professor Higgins led a recent national study of 8500 people to find out how prevalent corporal punishment was in Australia.
"Among Australians aged 16-24 we found nearly six in 10 (58.4 per cent) had experienced corporal punishment in their childhood," he said.
"Across all 8500 participants the rate was 62.5 per cent, so that's a minuscule reduction in the youngest generation."
The research also asked parents about their use and opinion of physical force.
"Nearly 54 per cent of parents said they had used corporal punishment," Professor Higgins said.
"But we also looked at beliefs, and just over a quarter (26.4 per cent) of Australian parents said they thought corporal punishment was necessary to raise children."
Professor Higgins said changing the law was the only way to change those attitudes.
Corporal punishment is illegal in schools in every Australian state except Queensland, where it is prohibited by education department policy.
It is also illegal in early childhood settings.
It isn't illegal in alternative and foster care in the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria, and it's also legal in juvenile detention in ACT and WA.
But it's legal for parents and caregivers in every state and territory.
While the laws differ between jurisdictions, they all protect physical punishment under the right of "reasonable chastisement or discipline".
Professor Higgins said the law effectively provided parents with a defence against what would otherwise be assault.
Most states don't define what "reasonable" force involves, but NSW says it is "unreasonable" to strike a child to the head or neck, or hard enough that the harm "lasts more than a short period".
Professor Higgins said the NSW definition demonstrated the brutality of the current laws.
"If you were thinking about stopping violence against women would you want to go down the path of saying it's OK for husbands to hit their wives as long as they don't hit above the neck?" he said.
"It's beyond belief when you apply it to other contexts, but when it comes to children we feel that parents are sacrosanct."
Professor Higgins led a recent study reviewing decades of corporal punishment research.
"In all the research globally, the only positive outcome that's consistently found in the research is immediate compliance. The child stops the behaviour in the moment," he said.
"It doesn't help the child understand what they've supposedly done wrong, or help them to internalise and change their behaviour.
"It doesn't build empathy, self-regulation or behavioural control, so really any of the things that matter."
Instead, the research showed physical punishment led to depression, low self esteem, and potentially the use of violence by the children themselves.
"Inevitably when you see physical punishment being used it's actually the adult who's out of control. Not the child," Professor Higgins said.
"Calm, self-regulated parenting is the fundamental premise for basically every single evidence-based parenting program."
He said child protection advocates had tried many times to get corporal punishment outlawed.
"My colleagues and I wrote to the NSW Attorney General recently and what we heard back was 'this has been reviewed and the protections are sufficient'," he said.
Professor Higgins said there was nothing standing in the way of legal change, other than "political and public will".
He said he couldn't understand the lack of action.
"The only logical reason I can think of is a society we don't value children as much as we value adults," he said.
"We don't even have a minister for children - we've got a minister for pretty much everything you can think of, but not one for children."
But Professor Higgins said the potential Queensland reforms were a glimmer of hope.
"It's really pleasing the Queensland Law Reform Commission is actually taking this seriously," he said.
"I think they will lead the way in Australia in changing the safety of children."
Queensland could become the first Australian state to outlaw corporal punishment in a move that could pave the way to a national ban.
Physical punishment is no longer legal in Australian schools, but parents and guardians are still free to strike, pinch, push or slap their children.
The lack of legal protection puts Australia behind 69 other countries including New Zealand, France and Sweden, as well as South Sudan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Congo.
The Queensland Law Reform Commission is reassessing the state's protection of physical punishment in a wider review of Queensland's criminal code.
Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has opposed any change, saying it was "not for the state government to provide advice to a family about how to provide discipline and structure".
Director of the ACU Institute of Child Protection Studies Daryl Higgins said it was "stunning" Australia still allowed corporal punishment, given the overwhelming evidence that it was both ineffective and harmful.
"The truth is, many Australians still don't think it's wrong and don't think it should be illegal," Professor Higgins said.
Professor Higgins led a recent national study of 8500 people to find out how prevalent corporal punishment was in Australia.
"Among Australians aged 16-24 we found nearly six in 10 (58.4 per cent) had experienced corporal punishment in their childhood," he said.
"Across all 8500 participants the rate was 62.5 per cent, so that's a minuscule reduction in the youngest generation."
The research also asked parents about their use and opinion of physical force.
"Nearly 54 per cent of parents said they had used corporal punishment," Professor Higgins said.
"But we also looked at beliefs, and just over a quarter (26.4 per cent) of Australian parents said they thought corporal punishment was necessary to raise children."
Professor Higgins said changing the law was the only way to change those attitudes.
Corporal punishment is illegal in schools in every Australian state except Queensland, where it is prohibited by education department policy.
It is also illegal in early childhood settings.
It isn't illegal in alternative and foster care in the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria, and it's also legal in juvenile detention in ACT and WA.
But it's legal for parents and caregivers in every state and territory.
While the laws differ between jurisdictions, they all protect physical punishment under the right of "reasonable chastisement or discipline".
Professor Higgins said the law effectively provided parents with a defence against what would otherwise be assault.
Most states don't define what "reasonable" force involves, but NSW says it is "unreasonable" to strike a child to the head or neck, or hard enough that the harm "lasts more than a short period".
Professor Higgins said the NSW definition demonstrated the brutality of the current laws.
"If you were thinking about stopping violence against women would you want to go down the path of saying it's OK for husbands to hit their wives as long as they don't hit above the neck?" he said.
"It's beyond belief when you apply it to other contexts, but when it comes to children we feel that parents are sacrosanct."
Professor Higgins led a recent study reviewing decades of corporal punishment research.
"In all the research globally, the only positive outcome that's consistently found in the research is immediate compliance. The child stops the behaviour in the moment," he said.
"It doesn't help the child understand what they've supposedly done wrong, or help them to internalise and change their behaviour.
"It doesn't build empathy, self-regulation or behavioural control, so really any of the things that matter."
Instead, the research showed physical punishment led to depression, low self esteem, and potentially the use of violence by the children themselves.
"Inevitably when you see physical punishment being used it's actually the adult who's out of control. Not the child," Professor Higgins said.
"Calm, self-regulated parenting is the fundamental premise for basically every single evidence-based parenting program."
He said child protection advocates had tried many times to get corporal punishment outlawed.
"My colleagues and I wrote to the NSW Attorney General recently and what we heard back was 'this has been reviewed and the protections are sufficient'," he said.
Professor Higgins said there was nothing standing in the way of legal change, other than "political and public will".
He said he couldn't understand the lack of action.
"The only logical reason I can think of is a society we don't value children as much as we value adults," he said.
"We don't even have a minister for children - we've got a minister for pretty much everything you can think of, but not one for children."
But Professor Higgins said the potential Queensland reforms were a glimmer of hope.
"It's really pleasing the Queensland Law Reform Commission is actually taking this seriously," he said.
"I think they will lead the way in Australia in changing the safety of children."
Queensland could become the first Australian state to outlaw corporal punishment in a move that could pave the way to a national ban.
Physical punishment is no longer legal in Australian schools, but parents and guardians are still free to strike, pinch, push or slap their children.
The lack of legal protection puts Australia behind 69 other countries including New Zealand, France and Sweden, as well as South Sudan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Congo.
The Queensland Law Reform Commission is reassessing the state's protection of physical punishment in a wider review of Queensland's criminal code.
Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has opposed any change, saying it was "not for the state government to provide advice to a family about how to provide discipline and structure".
Director of the ACU Institute of Child Protection Studies Daryl Higgins said it was "stunning" Australia still allowed corporal punishment, given the overwhelming evidence that it was both ineffective and harmful.
"The truth is, many Australians still don't think it's wrong and don't think it should be illegal," Professor Higgins said.
Professor Higgins led a recent national study of 8500 people to find out how prevalent corporal punishment was in Australia.
"Among Australians aged 16-24 we found nearly six in 10 (58.4 per cent) had experienced corporal punishment in their childhood," he said.
"Across all 8500 participants the rate was 62.5 per cent, so that's a minuscule reduction in the youngest generation."
The research also asked parents about their use and opinion of physical force.
"Nearly 54 per cent of parents said they had used corporal punishment," Professor Higgins said.
"But we also looked at beliefs, and just over a quarter (26.4 per cent) of Australian parents said they thought corporal punishment was necessary to raise children."
Professor Higgins said changing the law was the only way to change those attitudes.
Corporal punishment is illegal in schools in every Australian state except Queensland, where it is prohibited by education department policy.
It is also illegal in early childhood settings.
It isn't illegal in alternative and foster care in the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria, and it's also legal in juvenile detention in ACT and WA.
But it's legal for parents and caregivers in every state and territory.
While the laws differ between jurisdictions, they all protect physical punishment under the right of "reasonable chastisement or discipline".
Professor Higgins said the law effectively provided parents with a defence against what would otherwise be assault.
Most states don't define what "reasonable" force involves, but NSW says it is "unreasonable" to strike a child to the head or neck, or hard enough that the harm "lasts more than a short period".
Professor Higgins said the NSW definition demonstrated the brutality of the current laws.
"If you were thinking about stopping violence against women would you want to go down the path of saying it's OK for husbands to hit their wives as long as they don't hit above the neck?" he said.
"It's beyond belief when you apply it to other contexts, but when it comes to children we feel that parents are sacrosanct."
Professor Higgins led a recent study reviewing decades of corporal punishment research.
"In all the research globally, the only positive outcome that's consistently found in the research is immediate compliance. The child stops the behaviour in the moment," he said.
"It doesn't help the child understand what they've supposedly done wrong, or help them to internalise and change their behaviour.
"It doesn't build empathy, self-regulation or behavioural control, so really any of the things that matter."
Instead, the research showed physical punishment led to depression, low self esteem, and potentially the use of violence by the children themselves.
"Inevitably when you see physical punishment being used it's actually the adult who's out of control. Not the child," Professor Higgins said.
"Calm, self-regulated parenting is the fundamental premise for basically every single evidence-based parenting program."
He said child protection advocates had tried many times to get corporal punishment outlawed.
"My colleagues and I wrote to the NSW Attorney General recently and what we heard back was 'this has been reviewed and the protections are sufficient'," he said.
Professor Higgins said there was nothing standing in the way of legal change, other than "political and public will".
He said he couldn't understand the lack of action.
"The only logical reason I can think of is a society we don't value children as much as we value adults," he said.
"We don't even have a minister for children - we've got a minister for pretty much everything you can think of, but not one for children."
But Professor Higgins said the potential Queensland reforms were a glimmer of hope.
"It's really pleasing the Queensland Law Reform Commission is actually taking this seriously," he said.
"I think they will lead the way in Australia in changing the safety of children."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Liberal Party women's network some forgot even existed
A bigger problem for the network might be its messenger. Senator Jane Hume, who co-authored the 2022 election review, is its chair. But Hume, a frontbencher during Peter Dutton's leadership, is firmly on the out, and was dumped from new opposition leader Sussan Ley's ministry. Hume had a patchy performance during the recent election campaign, where she made inflammatory comments about 'Chinese spies' helping Labor and was at the centre of the Liberals' botched 'back to the office' pitch. The Liberals didn't respond to questions about whether she'd remain as chair, and the senator didn't return our calls. But the MGN network chair is a job Hume hasn't lost. She was appointed by outgoing party president John Olsen, and told CBD from the UK that she was looking at the British Conservatives' mechanisms to successfully improve female representation in the 2010s. Joshing around Hillel Fuld, the controversial Israeli tech bro influencer, blogger, vlogger, and father of five, will not be able to speak in person at the Magen David Adom Australia medical fundraisers in Melbourne and Sydney. The pesky feds have stepped in and cancelled his visa. For those who came late, the Department of Home Affairs decided Fuld's history of Islamophobic remarks had the potential to 'incite discord' and 'would or might be a risk to the good order of the Australian community', according to a leaked copy of its decision to revoke his visa. Loading Fuld attracts sympathy among some in the Jewish community because his brother was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist. However, it's fair to say some thought he was an unusual choice for MDA Australia, fundraising for Israel's national emergency medical ambulance and blood bank service, which has about 1000 employees but nearly 30,000 volunteers and is a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Fuld will appear via video link, but handily, MDA Australia has lined up additional talent, 'a great speaker and a great friend of MDA Australia', as the charity's Glynis Lipson told CBD. Step forward Josh Frydenberg, the former deputy leader of the Liberal Party and ex-federal treasurer, who these days is enjoying civilian life as chairman of Goldman Sachs' Australian business. Frydenberg told CBD he was not endorsing Fuld, but was certainly endorsing MDA and its charity work. It's bound to be quite the address. As CBD, who was present during Frydenberg's address at investor James Baillieu's rebel literary garden party during the Sorrento Writer's Festival, Josh can really turn it up to 11. Crashing in Interesting to note that Israeli MP Sharren Haskel has been weighing into the Fund visa controversy, telling The Australian newspaper: 'The banning of high-profile Israelis from Australia must stop. This is no way for an ally to act.' Haskel is the deputy foreign minister of Israel and closely attuned to Australian politics. Possibly because her senior adviser is none other than former Victorian state Liberal MP Tim Smith, whose career ended in a literal car crash when he drove his Jaguar into a suburban fence after getting on the turps a little too enthusiastically back in 2021. Ever zealous, Smith has attempted to generate interest in Haskel by reaching out to some of his old Melbourne Facebook contacts and suggesting that they like Haskel's Facebook page. Cute.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Schoolkids don't need smartphones: A Sydney mum's ban on her teenager having a phone should not baffle educators
A 13-year-old boy is being teased by classmates. Not for his clothes, his grades, or his hairstyle - but because he doesn't have a smartphone. Sydney mother of three and primary school teacher, Monica Cura, made the decision years ago to hold off. No screen time before age five. An iPad at nine, purely for schoolwork. And phones? That's a firm not yet. 'It wasn't even something we discussed,' Ms Cura told me. 'It just didn't occur to us to give him one. He'll get one when he can afford to buy it himself. Until then, there's no need.' Her stance is clear, consistent, and deeply rational: her son doesn't need a phone, she can't adequately monitor one, and frankly, he's still a child. But apparently, that makes Ms Cura, and her son, a target. 'He does get comments from other kids' she said. 'His friends call him 'iPad boy' because that's what he uses at home to talk to them.' What's more disturbing is that the comments aren't just coming from other kids. 'Teachers have made comments to him suggesting it was odd that he didn't have a phone," she told me. 'His sporting coach pulled my husband aside to ask why he wasn't on the team group chat with the other children'. This is where the story stops being quirky and starts being concerning. Because when adults are reinforcing the idea that every child should have a smartphone, and subtly shaming those who don't, we've lost our way. As a child psychologist, I hear stories like hers far too often. What used to be a considered parenting decision - to delay giving a child a phone - has now become something a parent feels they must defend. Ms Cura's son isn't isolated or unsafe. He trains at an elite level in soccer, catches public transport independently, and communicates with friends at home via his iPad - with appropriate boundaries in place. And yet, he's being made to feel like an outsider, not just by his peers, but by the very adults meant to support his wellbeing. 'He doesn't even nag us about it,' Ms Cura said. 'He knows where we stand. He did try to make a case - he said he needs it for training updates or because he catches the bus. But we get the emails too. 'And he can actually walk to school if he wants. He just thought maybe that excuse would convince us.' But she and her husband held firm. 'We've had parents come up to us and say, 'Wow, that's amazing, I wish I'd done that.' Others have said they gave their kids phones and now regret it.' I see the clinical consequences of early, unrestricted smartphone access every week. Kids who are anxious, distracted, emotionally volatile. Children as young as 10 exposed to violent pornographic content. Pre-teens addicted to dopamine-driven social media feedback loops. And parents bewildered at how fast they lost control. As of 2023, 37 per cent of Australian children under the age of 12 own a smartphone, an increase from 22 per cent in 2018. According to a global OECD report, Australian teenagers average 49 hours a week on digital devices, placing them among the heaviest users worldwide. Notably, 12 per cent of Australian teenagers spend over 80 hours weekly on screens. That's the equivalent of a full-time job - plus overtime - spent staring at a screen. For a generation still forming its identity, attention span, and social skills, this level of exposure isn't just excessive; it's developmentally catastrophic. Smartphones aren't neutral tools. They're highly sophisticated devices designed to hold adult attention - let alone that of a still-developing brain. From a neurological standpoint, the prefrontal cortex, responsible for impulse control, planning, and risk assessment, continues developing into the mid-20s. Children and early teens are simply not equipped to self-regulate their usage, navigate social comparison, or resist the pull of addictive algorithms. Giving them unfiltered access to that kind of power is, quite literally, developmentally mismatched. And yet culturally, we're doing exactly that - en masse. The problem isn't just that kids want phones. It's that adults have normalised this want as a need. Teachers ask why a child doesn't have a phone, instead of asking why so many do. Coaches expect group chats with 13-year-olds, instead of communicating with parents. We act like having a device is a developmental milestone, rather than a lifestyle choice. Ms Cura, to her credit, has stood her ground. 'We just don't see why he needs one,' she said. 'They're on screens all the time at school. Homework's online. That's already enough. Outside of that, they need to be looking around, being present. But instead you see kids and adults walking around with their heads down, staring at screens.' She's right. The presence of a phone changes the entire ecology of a child's world. It alters how they interact with peers, with parents, with boredom, with the physical world itself. And often, it robs them of things that are developmentally essential - creativity, stillness, resilience, even real friendship. Some parents justify early phone use for safety. Ms Cura doesn't buy it. 'People say, 'Oh, they need it to get picked up from school.' But there are phones that just receive calls,' she said. 'There are other ways to manage that. You don't need a smartphone with access to everything.' She's right again. The real reason most kids have phones isn't necessity. It's convenience. It's conformity. It's because the rest of us gave in. But Ms Cura's story shows something powerful: you cansay no. You can delay. And your child will not combust. They may, in fact, turn out better for it. We need more parents like her, not fewer. Parents who don't outsource boundaries to the crowd. Who understand that development doesn't speed up just because society has. And who are willing to put up with the teasing, the eye-rolls, and the awkward silences because they care more about raising a whole child than a popular one. And if you're a parent holding out, or wanting to, let this story be your reminder: you're not crazy. You're just ahead of the curve. Clare Rowe is a Sky News contributor.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Simmering United States-China trade tensions send nuclear stocks soaring, Global X ETFs' Scott Helfstein reveals
Australian uranium miners have been on a tear since the calamity of United States President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' spooked investors and sent stocks around the globe plummeting. Uranium mining is a cyclical industry, one which fluctuates along with the business cycle, and was devastated by the turmoil from President Trump's trade war before strongly rebounding. Global X ETFs' head of thematic solutions Scott Helfstein told Sky News' Business Now the uranium sector's rebound was a sign of strength in the the wider economy. 'What we're actually seeing in the last few weeks, since we have moved past peak US-China tensions, we're seeing cyclical areas like copper miners, uranium miners, industrials start to rally and come back,' he said. 'That is a sign of good secular growth or expectations for good secular growth.' He noted while there was a 'sense of negative sentiment' among investors, underlying economic factors were stable. 'The hard economic and fundamentals from a corporate and a GDP (gross domestic product) perspective have remained really strong,' Mr Helfstein said. Uranium miner Paladin Energy has surged more than 50 per cent since the early April wipeout from "Liberation Day". Boss Energy has added more than 80 per cent, Deep Yellow has jumped more than 60 per cent and Bannerman Energy has soared about 45 per cent. Similarly, the world's largest publicly traded uranium miner and Swedish powerhouse Cameco Corp is up more than 70 per cent since early April. The climb comes as the ASX 200 has experienced wild turbulence since the beginning of the year. China and the US placed massive tariffs on one another, but agreed last month to reduce these to undergo trade negotiations. US and Chinese officials said on Tuesday they had agreed on a framework to get their trade truce back on track and remove China's export restrictions on rare earths, but offered little sign of a durable resolution to longstanding trade tensions. The ASX 200 hit a peak in mid-February before slowly dropping after President Trump began revealing his trade policies - including tariffs on aluminium, steel and automotive parts. The index plummeted in early April after the sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs were slapped on most nations around the world. President Trump temporarily pausing these levies and a boost of investor confidence has led to a gradual rise of the ASX 200.
