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
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Economic summit aims to firm up drooping productivity
An economic summit on lifting lagging productivity rates can serve common interests for the business sector and unions, the prime minister says. Anthony Albanese has announced plans for a productivity roundtable in August in Canberra to shape the nation's economic growth. Experts have expressed concern about Australia's lagging rate of productivity, a key economic measure of efficiency and long-term driver of improved living standards. Despite criticism previous economic summits were too slanted towards unions, Mr Albanese said outcomes from the roundtable had not been decided. He called for a mature discussion from all parties, noting it was in everyone's interest for productivity to improve. "We're a Labor government, we support unions existing ... but we will always respect both the role of business and the role of unions," he told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "There are common interests ... you don't get union members unless you've got successful employers. "It's the private sector that drives an economy. What the public sector should do is facilitate private sector activity and private sector investment." The Productivity Commissioner's most recent report showed labour productivity fell 0.1 per cent in the December quarter and dropped 1.2 per cent in the past year. The Business Council of Australia says productivity growth over the past decade has been the lowest in 60 years. Council chief executive Bran Black welcomed the roundtable, saying "lifting business investment is essential to boosting productivity, lifting real wages, creating jobs and ensuring more opportunity for more Australians". "We will continue to be very clear about policies that the business community believes will be counterproductive to improving productivity," he said. Mr Albanese said he wanted a boost to productivity, alongside other economic indicators as part of his second-term agenda. "We want to build an economy where growth, wages and productivity rise together," he said. "The starting point for our government is clear. Our plan for economic growth and productivity is about Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn." ACTU secretary Sally McManus said working Australians must be at the centre of the roundtable. "We need to leave behind the idea that productivity is equated with cutting pay and making people work harder for less," she said. "We have a common interest in addressing the challenges we face and when we work together our country is at its best." Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said boosting productivity was essential for economic growth. "The business community looks forward to participating in the summit and contributing constructive and sensible ideas to address the problem," he said. Shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien said the roundtable could amount to nothing but a talkfest. "Anthony Albanese has actively sought to undermine productivity by abolishing structures to drive it," he said. "He also saddled the economy with thousands of new regulations in the last parliament. "If this change of heart by Labor is true, it will be akin to turning around the Titanic." The prime minister announced Jenny Wilkinson would become the first female Treasury secretary. Ms Wilkinson, who heads the Department of Finance, will replace Steven Kennedy, who will become the nation's most senior public servant as head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They will begin their new roles on Monday for five-year terms. An economic summit on lifting lagging productivity rates can serve common interests for the business sector and unions, the prime minister says. Anthony Albanese has announced plans for a productivity roundtable in August in Canberra to shape the nation's economic growth. Experts have expressed concern about Australia's lagging rate of productivity, a key economic measure of efficiency and long-term driver of improved living standards. Despite criticism previous economic summits were too slanted towards unions, Mr Albanese said outcomes from the roundtable had not been decided. He called for a mature discussion from all parties, noting it was in everyone's interest for productivity to improve. "We're a Labor government, we support unions existing ... but we will always respect both the role of business and the role of unions," he told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "There are common interests ... you don't get union members unless you've got successful employers. "It's the private sector that drives an economy. What the public sector should do is facilitate private sector activity and private sector investment." The Productivity Commissioner's most recent report showed labour productivity fell 0.1 per cent in the December quarter and dropped 1.2 per cent in the past year. The Business Council of Australia says productivity growth over the past decade has been the lowest in 60 years. Council chief executive Bran Black welcomed the roundtable, saying "lifting business investment is essential to boosting productivity, lifting real wages, creating jobs and ensuring more opportunity for more Australians". "We will continue to be very clear about policies that the business community believes will be counterproductive to improving productivity," he said. Mr Albanese said he wanted a boost to productivity, alongside other economic indicators as part of his second-term agenda. "We want to build an economy where growth, wages and productivity rise together," he said. "The starting point for our government is clear. Our plan for economic growth and productivity is about Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn." ACTU secretary Sally McManus said working Australians must be at the centre of the roundtable. "We need to leave behind the idea that productivity is equated with cutting pay and making people work harder for less," she said. "We have a common interest in addressing the challenges we face and when we work together our country is at its best." Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said boosting productivity was essential for economic growth. "The business community looks forward to participating in the summit and contributing constructive and sensible ideas to address the problem," he said. Shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien said the roundtable could amount to nothing but a talkfest. "Anthony Albanese has actively sought to undermine productivity by abolishing structures to drive it," he said. "He also saddled the economy with thousands of new regulations in the last parliament. "If this change of heart by Labor is true, it will be akin to turning around the Titanic." The prime minister announced Jenny Wilkinson would become the first female Treasury secretary. Ms Wilkinson, who heads the Department of Finance, will replace Steven Kennedy, who will become the nation's most senior public servant as head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They will begin their new roles on Monday for five-year terms. An economic summit on lifting lagging productivity rates can serve common interests for the business sector and unions, the prime minister says. Anthony Albanese has announced plans for a productivity roundtable in August in Canberra to shape the nation's economic growth. Experts have expressed concern about Australia's lagging rate of productivity, a key economic measure of efficiency and long-term driver of improved living standards. Despite criticism previous economic summits were too slanted towards unions, Mr Albanese said outcomes from the roundtable had not been decided. He called for a mature discussion from all parties, noting it was in everyone's interest for productivity to improve. "We're a Labor government, we support unions existing ... but we will always respect both the role of business and the role of unions," he told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "There are common interests ... you don't get union members unless you've got successful employers. "It's the private sector that drives an economy. What the public sector should do is facilitate private sector activity and private sector investment." The Productivity Commissioner's most recent report showed labour productivity fell 0.1 per cent in the December quarter and dropped 1.2 per cent in the past year. The Business Council of Australia says productivity growth over the past decade has been the lowest in 60 years. Council chief executive Bran Black welcomed the roundtable, saying "lifting business investment is essential to boosting productivity, lifting real wages, creating jobs and ensuring more opportunity for more Australians". "We will continue to be very clear about policies that the business community believes will be counterproductive to improving productivity," he said. Mr Albanese said he wanted a boost to productivity, alongside other economic indicators as part of his second-term agenda. "We want to build an economy where growth, wages and productivity rise together," he said. "The starting point for our government is clear. Our plan for economic growth and productivity is about Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn." ACTU secretary Sally McManus said working Australians must be at the centre of the roundtable. "We need to leave behind the idea that productivity is equated with cutting pay and making people work harder for less," she said. "We have a common interest in addressing the challenges we face and when we work together our country is at its best." Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said boosting productivity was essential for economic growth. "The business community looks forward to participating in the summit and contributing constructive and sensible ideas to address the problem," he said. Shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien said the roundtable could amount to nothing but a talkfest. "Anthony Albanese has actively sought to undermine productivity by abolishing structures to drive it," he said. "He also saddled the economy with thousands of new regulations in the last parliament. "If this change of heart by Labor is true, it will be akin to turning around the Titanic." The prime minister announced Jenny Wilkinson would become the first female Treasury secretary. Ms Wilkinson, who heads the Department of Finance, will replace Steven Kennedy, who will become the nation's most senior public servant as head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They will begin their new roles on Monday for five-year terms. An economic summit on lifting lagging productivity rates can serve common interests for the business sector and unions, the prime minister says. Anthony Albanese has announced plans for a productivity roundtable in August in Canberra to shape the nation's economic growth. Experts have expressed concern about Australia's lagging rate of productivity, a key economic measure of efficiency and long-term driver of improved living standards. Despite criticism previous economic summits were too slanted towards unions, Mr Albanese said outcomes from the roundtable had not been decided. He called for a mature discussion from all parties, noting it was in everyone's interest for productivity to improve. "We're a Labor government, we support unions existing ... but we will always respect both the role of business and the role of unions," he told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "There are common interests ... you don't get union members unless you've got successful employers. "It's the private sector that drives an economy. What the public sector should do is facilitate private sector activity and private sector investment." The Productivity Commissioner's most recent report showed labour productivity fell 0.1 per cent in the December quarter and dropped 1.2 per cent in the past year. The Business Council of Australia says productivity growth over the past decade has been the lowest in 60 years. Council chief executive Bran Black welcomed the roundtable, saying "lifting business investment is essential to boosting productivity, lifting real wages, creating jobs and ensuring more opportunity for more Australians". "We will continue to be very clear about policies that the business community believes will be counterproductive to improving productivity," he said. Mr Albanese said he wanted a boost to productivity, alongside other economic indicators as part of his second-term agenda. "We want to build an economy where growth, wages and productivity rise together," he said. "The starting point for our government is clear. Our plan for economic growth and productivity is about Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn." ACTU secretary Sally McManus said working Australians must be at the centre of the roundtable. "We need to leave behind the idea that productivity is equated with cutting pay and making people work harder for less," she said. "We have a common interest in addressing the challenges we face and when we work together our country is at its best." Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar said boosting productivity was essential for economic growth. "The business community looks forward to participating in the summit and contributing constructive and sensible ideas to address the problem," he said. Shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien said the roundtable could amount to nothing but a talkfest. "Anthony Albanese has actively sought to undermine productivity by abolishing structures to drive it," he said. "He also saddled the economy with thousands of new regulations in the last parliament. "If this change of heart by Labor is true, it will be akin to turning around the Titanic." The prime minister announced Jenny Wilkinson would become the first female Treasury secretary. Ms Wilkinson, who heads the Department of Finance, will replace Steven Kennedy, who will become the nation's most senior public servant as head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They will begin their new roles on Monday for five-year terms.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so
"You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King.
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Israel under attack ‘right from the start'
The Australian's Editor-at-Large Paul Kelly says Israel was under attack 'right from the start'. Mr Kelly told Sky News host Rita Panahi that most of its neighbours 'never accepted' its legitimacy. 'So it's not surprising there is this sense of embattlement.'
