Six months on from Australia’s under-16s social media ban taking effect, the early verdict from headlines and children themselves has been blunt: it isn’t working.

A new study published today in the British Medical Journal appears to add even more weight to this judgement.

Led by University of Newcastle public health researcher Courtney Barnes, the study found very little evidence that kids had stopped accessing restricted social media platforms such as TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram.

But the question “are children evading social media age checks?” might be the wrong one to ask when considering the long-term success of Australia’s world-first experiment.

Isolating the effect of the ban

The team behind the new study followed 408 adolescents aged 12–16, surveying them just before the law took effect in December 2025 and again three months later. They compared teenagers just under the age cutoff with those just over it to isolate the law’s effect.

They found more than 85% of under-16s were still using restricted platforms at follow-up, mostly through their own accounts.

Two thirds had encountered age verification, but the most common form was simply being asked to state their age. A minority used fake accounts or private browsing to access social media. But VPN use to evade the ban was rare.

When the researchers checked whether under-16s used social media any less than the just-over-16s who were free to keep their accounts, they found no meaningful gap at the age cutoff.

The researchers were transparent about the study’s limitations. The analysis was underpowered (which means the study may not have had enough participants to detect an effect if one existed). The sample sizes either side of the cutoff were also small.

Nevertheless, these results square with recent research from the eSafety Commissioner that showed roughly 7 in 10 children kept their accounts after the law came into effect.

So, case closed, right? The ban is a failure? Not quite.

An unrealistic pipe dream

It was an unrealistic pipe dream that the ban would stop all of today’s under-16s from using social media overnight. All online technology comes with inherent capacities to be exploited or its features circumvented.

Instead, the ban enables the government to put pressure on social media companies to comply with their directives – to restrain and contain them with greater power than existed before.

The ban should be considered over a longer timeframe. Its logic is more aligned with another form of public health law: the generational approach now being applied to tobacco control.

Britain’s Tobacco and Vapes Act, which received royal assent in April 2026, bars anyone born on or after January 1 2009 from ever being sold tobacco.

The aim is not to make today’s smokers quit but to raise a generation for whom smoking never becomes normal. Australia’s social media law makes a similar bet: that if access is delayed long enough, social media might lose its grip on childhood the way cigarettes slowly did.

That is the measure that matters, and it’s a far slower and less certain test than counting how many teens still have Instagram six months after the ban took effect.

A benighted idea for future generations

Granted, there’s a catch to this framing.

Tobacco use has been denormalised with a public health approach for decades, and its supply has been squeezed from multiple directions: higher prices, plain packaging, advertising bans.

It’s hard to put pressure on social media use in the same way. Effectively, social media is “free”, practically infinite, and engineered to maximise engagement.

Shifting a generation’s social media norms this way only works if the pressure on platforms is relentless and sustained for years, not abandoned the moment the first headlines call it a failure.

My research into social media use and risk-taking found the same difficulties: norms are sticky. Social media rewards risky content and changes what is deemed as normal or acceptable. Changing norms like these overnight is unlikely.

But viewed in the long term, or even generationally, we can see how social media use for children may become a benighted idea for future generations.

Effects not clear for a decade

Naturally, laws that “ban” things often have unintended or even detrimental consequences. When mandatory bicycle helmet laws were introduced in Australia in the early 1990s, one result was that some people simply cycled less.

The new study in the British Medical Journal reflects this, with small numbers of young people turning to fake accounts, private browsing or messaging apps. Some may drift to less visible corners of the internet that are harder to watch than the mainstream platforms.

We shouldn’t take this to mean the ban is a failure. It means we are judging it on a timeline that does not fit its design.

The researchers make the point themselves: the greatest opportunity may lie with children under eight who have not yet started using social media, rather than teenagers whose habits are already set, whose norms are to use social media.

By their estimate, the full effects may not be clear for a decade.

Australia has volunteered to be the world’s test case, with other countries now following. To do the social media age restrictions justice, we should test the right thing.

Samuel Cornell, Honorary Research Fellow in Public Health, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A former Australian resident living in Iraq directed the attack on Melbourne Adass Israel Synagogue in December 2024, the head of ASIO Mike Burgess has revealed.

Burgess said Iran, which was behind the attack, recruited the man through a “complex web of Iraqi-based militia groups”.

“Valuing his high wealth and criminal connections, the IRGC (The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) protected him and supported his illegal enterprises.

"That changed dramatically after ASIO publicly named Iran’s involvement in the arsons.

"This person’s Iranian backers lost their enthusiasm, and after further pressure from Australian and local law enforcement, they threw him in prison.”

Burgess gave the details while delivering his Annual Threat Assessment speech on Wednesday evening. He also said an Iran-based Australian citizen orchestrated the firebombing of the Lewis Continental Kitchen in Bondi in October 2024, which was the “the first major attack in the summer of antisemitism”.

“This person is a senior agent of the IRGC Qods Force, running its networks around the world.

"We know more about him than he realises, including the name of his superior in Iran and the department he works for. Department eleven-thousand, a covert unit within the IRGC Qods Force, is responsible for coordinating operations in the West.”

Burgess said he couldn’t name the individuals because of the need to protect continuing investigations and related prosecutions.

“But I want them to understand this: we know who you are, we know what you’ve done and we know who you work for.”

On antisemitism generally, Burgess said it was often seen through a narrow lens. But it could come from “diverse sources simultaneously, challenging traditional definitions, assumptions, and approaches”.

Sadly, and illogically, hatred of Jews is one thing virtually all the violent extremist cohorts have in common. Neo-Nazis are antisemitic. Islamic extremism is antisemitic.

Issue-motivated extremists can be antisemitic, particularly when they subscribe to conspiracy theories and stereotypes about the Jewish community.

Nation states can be antisemitic, as we saw with the arson attacks against the Jewish communities in Melbourne and Sydney perpetrated by criminals directed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Anarchists and revolutionary groups can be antisemitic.

He said Australian companies seen to have links to Israel were being targeted with “repeated acts of vandalism and arson by far-left activists”.

“My point is that violent antisemitism is not a single, or simple, intelligence problem.”

The firebombing of a synagogue “can simultaneously be criminal arson, foreign interference, the promotion of communal violence and politically motivated violence”.

“And when Iran directs the arson, it’s an act of state-sponsored terrorism.”

Burgess once again stressed the degrading of Australian’s security environment. “Great power competition is driving an insatiable appetite for strategic advantage. As a result, espionage and foreign interference are at extreme levels, while preparation for sabotage is growing in scale and sophistication.”

“At the same time, politically motivated violence – which incorporates terrorism – remains an acute concern.”

Burgess said the degrading security environment was marked by “concurrent, cascading, and compounding threats” which could be categorised as “threats to life” and “threats to our way of life”.

In a speech filled, as usual, with case studies, Burgess related the story of a person subjected to “an unrelenting campaign of intimidation” by a foreign regime that for a decade had demanded he return to his place of birth to address unspecified corruption investigations.

The harassment included detaining the man’s relatives living overseas, interrogating them and subjecting them to travel bans.

“After receiving a desperate plea from one of the detained relatives, a family member based in Australia tried to sort things out.The family member flew to the foreign country to meet the regime’s. They interrogated the traveller for hours, and bluntly stated the individual would only be allowed to return to Australia after agreeing to maintain phone contact with the regime and file reports on the target of the harassment.”

Burgess said ASIO knew of five regimes that targeted Australians with harassment, with one country particularly active.

“In 2023 alone, that country coerced at least eight individuals to leave Australia for the place of their birth. Five were Australian citizens or permanent residents. Three never returned.”

Burgess said Australia’s defence captivities, especially AUKUS, were priority targets for foreign intelligence services.

“A spy from a foreign intelligence service approached an Australian security clearance holder online, pretending to be from a consulting company.

"The spy paid the official to write two reports on Australia’s relationship with our Pacific neighbours, and then, thinking he’d been hooked, offered money for inside information on AUKUS. The foreign intelligence service wanted insights on the progress of Pillar 1, the technologies of Pillar 2, the amount of money being invested, Australia’s geo-strategic ambitions, relations between the three AUKUS governments and the likely trajectory of Australian public opinion.

"I’m pleased to report the clearance holder became suspicious and reported the contact.”

Burgess also said nation-state hackers had compromised the network of a critical Australian infrastructure provider. They were apparently preparing for sabotage, mapping out the network so it could be later crippled.

“Cyber sabotage is an evolving threat, and I have established dedicated teams to counter it. As ASIO’s understanding grows, so does our level of concern.

"The scale of this activity – led by one nation state in particular – is difficult to overstate. You’d be surprised how extensive our warrant coverage is. We struggle to find a single country in our region that has not been compromised by this state’s cyber apparatus.”

He said critical infrastructure in energy and communication as well as that supporting the military were “top targets”.

“In this case, a state-sponsored group didn’t just achieve access to the Australian critical infrastructure provider, it successfully acquired credentials – log in details and passwords – for active users of the networks, including the IT professionals guarding it.”

Burgess struck a defensive note when talking about ASIO’s counter terrorism activity in recent times, which can be read as a response to criticism that the organisation had not given counter terrorism sufficient priority.

“Even when surging espionage and foreign interference demanded more attention, countering terrorism remained a priority – as I stated publicly in ASIO’s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment.

"We increased CT resourcing when we raised the threat level in 2024 and it continued to grow in the months before Bondi. Resourcing followed the threat.

"The number of ASIO officers working on our counter-terrorism mission in 2025 was almost double the number from 2005.

"That reflects a bigger ASIO but also an on-going commitment to leave no known serious threat untreated.”

But he said in the new terrorism environment, even a “vast army” of ASIO officers might not be enough “to find an individual who’s been radicalised online and uses encrypted communications”.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

He once called one of my relatives and said “when a chicken stops laying eggs, people slaughter it and eat it”. Because I had not been able to become pregnant, he basically said I too should be slaughtered.

When Zakira* made this comment during an interview for my PhD research, I was shocked.

“Does this relative of yours live in Australia?” I asked.

“Yes, she is in Australia,” Zakira said. “And no, if you are going to ask me whether she reported it to the police, she didn’t. Neither did I.”

Zakira isn’t alone. My research on migrant women’s experiences of abuse revealed people around these women were aware of threats, yet nobody contacted police.

A consistent pattern

My research focused on spousal financial abuse, but it soon became clear it was deeply entangled with emotional, physical, and sexual violence. These overlapping forms of violence help enforce fear, dependence, and silence.

Across these stories, a pattern emerged: a deep reluctance to contact the police.

One participant told me she didn’t even know how to call police.

I had no idea people in Australia call police if anyone is beaten. I thought it is like the way we do in Bangladesh; it is the family who mitigate the problem. That’s why I kept complaining to my in-laws each time I was beaten.

Another said:

I wasn’t sure they would help me because I am Muslim, and they are not.

Zakira told me:

In Bangladesh […] f the police get involved in family matters, the whole society shames that family. In Australia, I had no idea what the police would do if I called them. What if my husband beat me more once the police were gone? What if the police blamed me instead? […] And this was a matter between a husband and wife, what would the police do?

After particularly violent incidents, Zakira would sometimes walk to the local police station and stand outside, trying to gather the courage to go in. But, each time, she turned and went home.

This was partly because shortly after arriving in Australia, her husband and one of his friends

told me the police strip-search the complainer if they suspect anything. I did not want that. I did not want to be naked in front of the police.

Police not always seen as a source of safety

Not all women in my research remained silent.

Beena told me:

I called police on the second time because I did not want to end up like my mother. From my childhood I have seen my father hit my mother on whatever occasion he wishes to. If me or my sibling tried to save my mother, he would beat us too […] I didn’t want my own family to become the same.

Most, however, did not see the police as a source of safety.

Coming from a post-colonial country where the policing system was originally designed to serve the British Empire rather than protect ordinary people, many carried a deep-seated fear and mistrust of law enforcement. This was shaped by experiences of policing culture in Bangladesh, where abuse of power and impunity are common.

As Safia said:

In Bangladesh, there’s a saying: if a tiger attacks you, you suffer 18 wounds; but if the police get involved, you suffer 36!

She added:

I thought if I call police they will come and take my husband to jail straight away […] where will I go with my children? I had no money, no support.

Several women described being repeatedly warned by their husbands that involving police would lead to deportation or removal of the children.

Another woman, Roji, worried that because her husband spoke fluent English and she didn’t, he would be able to convince the police while she would struggle to even understand what was being said.

Stigma and shame

Migrant women often face enormous emotional, financial, social, and cultural barriers even after contacting police. Many described becoming immediately overwhelmed by guilt and uncertainty after seeking help.

Under pressure from family and community members, and frightened by the prospect of navigating Australia’s legal and welfare systems alone, many withdrew complaints.

Women described how involving police often leads to gossip and stigma.

Humaira was on the verge of calling triple zero when she thought of another family who’d involved police:

Since people saw police coming to their house, the other families don’t allow their children to play with the children of that particular family […] I hung up immediately.

Dependency built into the system

Migration is not automatically liberating for women. In many cases, migrant women face new vulnerabilities, such as isolation and financial dependency on their spouse, after arriving in Australia.

My research raises an uncomfortable question: what if the systems meant to protect migrant women are often unable to hear them properly in the first place?

Most women who actually sought help described feeling lost trying to navigate the system. Many described feeling rushed interacting with authorities, unfamiliar legal language, and the absence of culturally sensitive communication.

After police attended an incident at Safia’s home and took her husband to the police station, she was asked whether she wanted to “press charges”. But no one explained what that meant, or what the possible consequences could be.

Another woman, Ayesha, said of her experience:

The police came and gave an AVO against him. I even did not know what AVO means.

Mala, who endured prolonged physical, sexual and psychological abuse, eventually contacted police about her experiences. But when police mentioned an AVO,

That was the first time I heard the word AVO. Later that day, the police called me back and informed me that my husband didn’t acknowledge any accusation. I had no idea what that means legally. It was very difficult for me to understand what the police were telling me.

Many participants described entering legal processes without even the most basic understanding of Australian laws, police procedures, or support services.

However, not all participants experienced police interactions negatively. Faiza described how her ex-husband falsely accused her of being violent towards him after calling the police, tearing his own shirt, and banging his forehead against a wall. Arrested and taken to the police station, she felt bewildered. But a female police officer calmly guided her through the process.

One officer offered her a sandwich and juice to break her Ramadan fast. Faiza recalled:

As I was crying, the officer told me, “This is not the end of the world, don’t worry”. I felt like those were the most comforting words I had ever heard in my life.

It’s also important to recognise many migrant women hesitate to disclose abuse because they fear feeding racist stereotypes.

But rejecting racism shouldn’t mean ignoring women’s suffering.

If we fail to confront this violence and the structural failures surrounding it, many migrant women face the prospect of years trying to survive systems that never fully saw or understood them.

*All names have been changed to protect identities.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

Farjana Mahbuba, PhD Researcher, Australian Catholic University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Dutch government is considering making it illegal to use children under 16 in paid social media content. The government argues such online content featuring children – designed to sell goods to child consumers – is basically involving them in child labour.

With Australia’s under-16s social media ban in place and other countries – most recently the United Kingdom – following suit, would this be the next logical step to protect children?

The reach of child influencers

Child influencers are increasingly featured in family vlogs, toy unboxing videos, gaming streams and branded posts. One prominent example is Ryan Kaji, who began reviewing toys on YouTube at age four. By 2024, he had built “Ryan’s World” into a major commercial brand spanning toys, clothing, films, television content and sponsorships. The channel has more than 40 million subscribers, with estimated annual earnings of around US$35 million (A$51 million).

Research shows children often perceive influencers as more trustworthy and relatable than traditional advertisers. This in turn can limit their ability to recognise persuasive intent.

Influencer content integrates advertising into entertainment formats, blurring the line between play and promotion. Content created by paid influencers attracts, on average, nearly ten times as many likes per video as content that appears unpaid.

Influencer content can also go viral because large follower counts boost initial exposure, increasing the likelihood of cascades of shares and further uptake.

In this context, the proposed ban aims to prevent children from being used as a “revenue model” by parents or companies.

Dutch Minister for Work and Participation Thierry Aartsen argues that when children become central to monetised content, they risk losing their privacy and developing negative self-images. This is particularly so when their online presence is shaped by commercial pressures.

Unlike adult creators, children may have limited capacity to consent to their participation. They also have little control over how their images are used, and no guarantee of fair compensation.

For this reason, the Dutch government is framing the issue as one of child labour rather than simply media participation. It seeks to prevent children under 16 from appearing in revenue-generating content. In this way, it hopes to curb a “kidfluencer” economy that lacks adequate protections for privacy, consent and fair compensation.

A ‘grey zone’ in child labour laws

The Dutch government’s decision highlights Australia’s regulatory gap. Australian laws do not adequately address the growing use of children as revenue sources by companies or their own parents.

In Australia, every state and territory has different rules that govern child employment. Most jurisdictions restrict paid work for children under 13 or 15. Regulations also vary in terms of the duration of work allowed for children, the types of work they can undertake, and the responsibilities placed on employers.

In New South Wales, employers must obtain authorisation from the Office of the Children’s Guardian to engage children for entertainment, performance, filming or still photography if the child is under 15. For modelling, that applied if the child is under 16.

A condition of being granted authority is the employer’s compliance with the relevant legislation and code of practice. Employers must also follow strict rules, including limits on working hours, ensuring proper supervision, providing rest breaks, and protecting the child from harm.

Australia’s current framework protects children employed through agencies, which are responsible for permits and compliance with rules governing hours, supervision and workplace safety.

However, when parents create content featuring their children for paid partnerships, it becomes unclear whether the child is an employee or simply participating in everyday family activity being filmed.

This creates a “grey area” where legal protections may not automatically extend to child influencers. This suggests new or updated legislation is needed to better protect child influencers.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has acknowledged the growing role of children in the influencer economy. It has raised concerns about the privacy risks, online harassment and lack of labour protections faced by “kidfluencers” appearing in commercial content.

New laws for a new world?

As social media becomes increasingly commercialised, governments need to consider whether existing laws are keeping pace with new forms of work.

Australia’s ban on social media for under-16s came into effect on December 10 2025. These new laws aim to protect young people from addictive platform features and harmful content.

However, the ban is already proving difficult to enforce, with more than 60% of children still using social media. UNICEF Australia argues improving online safety, rather than delaying access, is a more effective approach.

What Australia could do instead of a ban

Against this backdrop, instead of adopting a blanket ban, Australia could extend child labour protections to digital environments. This could be done by classifying children’s participation in monetised content as a form of digital labour under the child employment code of practice.

Such a change would require parents and talent agencies producing monetised child-centred content to comply with government conditions on the duration and type of work children can undertake.

The ACCC and Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) could also require social media platforms to clearly disclose sponsored content involving minors and provide greater transparency around such content.

Finally, the eSafety commissioner should expand media literacy initiatives to equip parents and carers with the knowledge, skills and tools needed to make more informed decisions about children’s involvement in monetised, child-centred content.

Nipa Saha, Lecturer, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This week, Vegemite launched a new product specifically for children called Vegemite Kids that contains 50% less sodium (salt) than the traditional iconic spread.

Reactions have been divided. Some have called it “un-Australian”, said it would make kids less resilient, and called for Vegemite to be left alone. Others thought a lower-salt option was a good idea.

Vegemite is among Australian children’s most frequently eaten discretionary breakfast items. So let’s unpack whether halving the salt content in this new product makes a meaningful difference to children’s health.

Why care about sodium levels?

Sodium is an essential nutrient (meaning our bodies need some sodium to function normally). But Australians typically eat more than the recommended amount.

Eating too much sodium is associated with raised blood pressure, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (including heart attack and stroke).

This relationship begins early in life. Eating a lot of sodium is associated with higher blood pressure in children and adolescents.

Taste preferences also develop during childhood. For instance, infants who often eat salty foods are more likely to prefer salty food when older.

For these reasons, reducing sodium intake remains a public health priority in Australia and internationally.

How much is too much?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports many Australian children consume substantially more sodium than recommended.

Importantly, sodium intake does not typically come from adding salt to meals (such as using a salt shaker). Rather, it is typically already in foods.

For example, bread contributes almost 15% of Australian children’s sodium intake. Next comes mixed cereal-based dishes (such as sandwiches and pizza) and processed meats (such as ham).

How much difference does Vegemite Kids make?

A 5 gram serve of regular Vegemite contains 165 milligrams of sodium. A 5g serve of Vegemite Kids contains 82mg, almost exactly 50%. The recommended serving sizes for the two versions are the same.

So if a child eats a 5g serve of Vegemite each day, switching to Vegemite Kids would reduce their sodium intake by about 83mg a day. For a child consuming around 2,000–2,500mg sodium a day, this equates to roughly a 3–4% reduction in total sodium intake.

However, some children prefer only a thin scraping of Vegemite on toast rather than a full 5g. So, if these children switched to Vegemite Kids, their reduction in overall sodium intake would be even smaller.

Even if every child in Australia switched to Vegemite Kids instead of Vegemite while maintaining their current intake, most of the sodium in their diet would still come from other foods, such as bread, processed meat or other processed foods.

The bigger story may be food reformulation

Food manufacturers are facing increasing pressure to improve the nutritional profile of packaged foods. This includes targets to reduce sodium content across a range of food categories.

These targets are voluntary rather than mandatory. But if there is insufficient industry response, these targets may become mandatory, as has been proposed for Health Star Ratings.

While reformulation often produces relatively small changes in nutrient intake at the individual level, those changes can accumulate across populations when adopted at scale.

From this perspective, Vegemite Kids is part of a broader trend in reducing sodium in familiar foods to support health and wellbeing, without requiring consumers to make major changes to their eating habits.

Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The central aim of any child protection system is in the name: protect children. But over the years, inquiries and media reports have shown fulfilling this goal has too often proved tragically elusive.

In response, governments across the country have poured more and more money into their child protection systems in the hope of getting better outcomes.

Our newly-published research shows total national spending has almost doubled over the decade, climbing from $5.4 billion in 2014–15 to $10.2 billion in 2023–24 (adjusted for inflation).

But we found this hasn’t been matched by changes in activity across systems, like increases in the rate of investigations for alleged maltreatment, or the number of children entering out-of-home care. Nor has it improved outcomes for children.

So if money alone isn’t the answer, what is? Here’s what the evidence shows would help.

A maze of moving parts

Protecting Australia’s children is not the job of a single system. It involves many overlapping systems – health, childcare, education, justice and policing, disability services, and other parts of the social welfare system – working together to prevent and respond to child abuse, neglect and exploitation.

In Australia, there is no national child protection system to bring these parts together. Each state and territory runs its own. They share the same guiding principles, such as acting in the best interests of the child. But how they operate in practice differs across the country.

The result is several systems made up of many moving parts that do not always work as a coordinated whole. And too often, prevention is left to the side, in favour of reacting to harm once it has already happened.

Recent inquiries in Queensland and Victoria show this fragmentation is not just inefficient, but may be causing more harm than good.

The concerns raised in the recent Queensland and Victorian inquiries about how we protect children are not new. They have been raised many times in recent history.

Queensland alone has had four inquiries in the past 30 years (1999, 2004, 2012–13 and 2025–26), while Victoria has had three (2012, 2024, and 2026).

But as the presiding commissioner for the 2025–26 Queensland inquiry, Paul Anastassiou put it:

[…] the child protection system continues to fail children and the community in serious respects.

So, what are the problems?

1. Child protection systems don’t work as a whole

Statutory child protection services hold decision-making authority over when and how to intervene in a child’s life, and ultimately, whether a child needs to be removed from their parent(s) to keep them safe.

But it doesn’t control the conditions that create harm in the first place. Those sit across other systems.

For example, poverty and housing instability are linked to harm, yet responsibility for addressing these conditions lies within housing and income support systems, not child protection.

Similarly, other causes of harm such as family violence, mental illness, and substance use are addressed through justice, health, and alcohol and other drug systems.

This means responsibility for child safety is distributed across many systems. Accountability, however, is not.

Each system remains accountable for its own functions, rather than for whether children are kept safe, stable and supported. No single system is accountable for whether the child’s best interests are upheld across their life course.

This has real consequences for statutory child protection decision-making. Information about children and families sits across multiple systems, and those systems do not always communicate. So, child safety decisions are often made with incomplete, fragmented or selectively available information.

At the same time, decisions are made under pressure and often rely on adult’s views without meaningful consultation of children and young people about their own safety, or what would help.

Together, this creates child protection systems where high-stakes decisions are made on shaky foundations.

2. Child protection systems act too late and can cause harm

Systems remain overwhelmingly reactive, responding only after harm has happened, rather than preventing it in the first place.

In more than 50% of cases, children and families in contact with systems have already been subject to a child protection investigation.

The Victorian inquiry revealed that once in contact with statutory child protection, children aged 15–17 years old can expect to be re-reported almost seven times.

While this is not a new problem, it is one that must be solved.

Worse still, child protection systems themselves can cause harm. Children might experience multiple placements, uprooting relational and environmental stability, as well as significant delays in receiving health and medical care.

The most recent Queensland inquiry also highlighted children placed in residential care in particular experience higher rates of trauma, unmet mental health needs, self-harm and suicide attempts.

The commission rightly recognised the state’s heavy reliance on residential care as one of its biggest failures.

3. Over-prioritising crisis responses

Both the Queensland and Victorian inquiries found most resources are spent on responding to crises rather than on early intervention.

Our research found while overall spending was increasing, out-of-home care saw most of the funding boost. Between 2014–15 and 2023–24, the proportion of all spending that was on activities associated with out-of-home care increased from 58.4% to 63.6%.

Meanwhile, investment in intensive family support reduced from 8.2% to 6.2% of the overall spend.

What needs to be done?

Together, findings from recent inquiries and our own research show child protection systems across Australia are not consistently delivering on their core aim: acting in the best interests of the child.

While state-level statutory child protection reform is welcome, addressing this will require federal leadership.

Australia needs a national child maltreatment prevention agenda with sustained investment in prevention and early support. It could be overseen by the Department of Social Services, whose role is to improve the economic and social wellbeing of individuals, families and vulnerable members of Australian communities.

Alternatively, because child maltreatment is a significant public health issue, it could also be assigned to the Australian Centre for Disease Control: a national agency established to strengthen Australia’s prevention, preparedness and response to public health threats.

There also needs to be shared accountability across all systems that should be involved in supporting children’s safety.

Finally, genuine partnership with First Nations organisations is needed to help Indigenous children, who are over-represented in child protection systems.

Until these systems are designed to work together, they will continue to fail to deliver what children need most: safety, stability and support.

Claudia Bull, Postdoctoral research fellow, Deakin University and Daryl Higgins, Professor & Director, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

July 1 ushers in a new financial year – and a raft of changes that will affect both workers and businesses.

From changes in superannuation payments and parental leave to an above-inflation increase in the minimum wage, here’s what you need to know.

Modest tax cuts are coming

From July 1, the current lowest income tax rate, which applies to income from A$18,201 to $45,000, will be reduced from 16% to 15%.

So a person earning $45,000 or more will save $268 a year.

New ‘instant’ $1,000 tax deduction

If you’re someone who hates keeping track of receipts, there’s good news.

While it still has to pass parliament, the federal government has proposed an “instant” $1,000 work-related tax deduction to start this financial year. That’s higher than the little-known $300 limit on receipt-free work deductions available already.

It’s forecast to leave about 6.2 million Australians better off than now.

But be warned: if you’re among the majority of Australians who claim more than $1,000 in work expenses, you’ll be better off still collecting those receipts and claiming the way you have before.

National minimum wage increase

Around 2.8 million of Australia’s lowest-paid workers will get a 4.75% pay rise from July 1. The very lowest-paid workers – about 100,000 people on entry-level and minimum pay – get a bigger 5.97% pay bump.

The national minimum wage will rise from $24.95 an hour to $26.44, or up from $948 a week to $1,004.90 per week.

Yet even after the new rises, Australia’s lowest-paid employees will still have less buying power at the shops than they did five years ago.

Payday super

From July 1, all Australian businesses need to pay their employees’ superannuation on the same day as they pay salaries. It’s expected to leave ordinary workers thousands of dollars better off in the long term, while guarding against a persistent problem of super being underpaid.

If you’re an employer worried about meeting the July 1 deadline, you can find more resources here.

Parental leave pay changes

The length of paid parental leave is increasing slightly, by ten days, to a total of 26 weeks from July 1, and the payment will increase to $1,004.70 per week.

The government says this will provide families with more financial support and parents will still need to meet an income test and work test.

There’s more information for employers on how the scheme works here.

Instant asset write-off extended

For small businesses, an instant writeoff for assets costing less than A$20,000 will be extended permanently from July 1. This applies to small businesses with annual turnover of less than $10 million.

SMS register to fight scams

For years, scammers have used a simple trick to lure people into clicking links they shouldn’t.

You get a message from “AusGov” and assume it’s from the Australian government. In fact, that’s a fake “sender ID” – the identity of who’s sending a text – close enough to the real “myGov” that it has fooled people.

From July 1, those scam text messages should show up on your phone under a single, “unverified” message thread.

While it’s a welcome move, it is expected to catch some businesses and community groups off-guard. If they haven’t registered their legitimate sender ID by July 1, their messages risk ending up in that “unverified” scam thread too.

Supermarket price-gouging law

From July 1, it will be harder for our two largest supermarkets – Coles and Woolworths – to charge “excessive prices”. A new law has been brought in to increase scrutiny on their pricing practices, following similar rules in the European Union.

Penalties will apply for any breach, although “excessive pricing” may be difficult to prove.

Anti-money laundering rules widened

Updated laws covering anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing (known as “AML/CTF”) will apply to more businesses from July 1.

The rules will now apply to real estate professionals, lawyers, accountants and conveyancers and some other businesses. These services will need to register with the regulator, AUSTRAC, and meet certain requirements, such as checking the identity of customers and reporting certain transactions.

What’s not changing from July 1

• Changes proposed in the May federal budget to negative gearing and the 50% capital gains tax discount are not yet law. They are currently being debated in parliament and are due to begin on July 1 2027.

• A new minimum tax on discretionary trusts, also flagged in the budget, is not due to start till July 1 2028. These types of trusts are typically used for income splitting, so a high income earner pays a lower rate of tax.

• The Working Australians Tax Offset announced in the May budget provides an additional tax offset of $250 each year. But this only starts from July 2027.

For more changes coming in from July 1, 2026 – including on business and company fees – check the federal government’s Business website.

Liz Minchin, Executive Editor + Business Editor, The Conversation and Victoria Thieberger, Business and Economics Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Greens have secured an eight-week extension of the Senate inquiry into the government’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) legislation – but declared they will vote against it regardless.

The government had little choice but to agree to the extension, which will take several hundred million off its projected savings.

It needed the Greens’ support to pass its tax package before parliament rises for its winter recess, an agreement it has now secured. Anyway, if it had held out against the longer inquiry, the Greens and opposition would have had the numbers to vote for it in the Senate.

The Greens said extending the inquiry until August 14 “would grant more time to build pressure on both Labor and the Liberals to withdraw their support for the bill entirely”.

But they stressed in a statement: “Regardless of amendments, the Greens will oppose the NDIS bill if it comes to a vote”.

The Greens noted they had already secured several amendments, including limiting ministerial powers.

The government will press on with the legislation, but the delay raises issues for it on two fronts.

It complicates the start of implementing the reforms. Minister for the NDIS Mark Butler said the delay in passing the legislation would cost “a few hundred million dollars”. The original timetable for passage has gone from this fortnight to August, which will hold up some changes. But he said the big changes did not start until October 1.

The delay also gives added time and exposure for critics of the changes to air stories of how people will be potentially disadvantaged.

The cuts to the NDIS are the biggest area of savings in the budget. The budget projects that over the forward estimates, spending will grow about an average of 2% every year as the government resets many of the scheme’s design features, before returning to 5% growth from 2030. Its present spending growth rate is about 10%.

Butler said a six-month extension, which the Coalition wanted, “would cost the budget billions of dollars, but would also delay our ability to get those cost blowouts under control, to clear up eligibility rules, and to crack down on the fraud and the integrity issues that the community knows are there with the NDIS”.

He said the government would use the extra time to provide reassurances about the NDIS reforms.

Labor is looking to the Coalition to ultimately provide the Senate numbers to pass the legislation.

On the tax package, the Greens won an amendment to prevent people purchasing investment residential properties through self-managed superannuation funds to dodge the capital gains tax increase. The Greens said this would stop “wealthy property investors exploiting a loophole”.

Last week the government announced several changes to the controversial tax reform package, after sustained attacks from business and other critics.

In relation to the latest change, the government said superannuation funds were generally banned from borrowing money to invest, with the exception of “limited recourse borrowing arrangements ”(LRBAs) used by self-managed superannuation funds.

These arrangements will be banned for residential property in the future, although current arrangements will stand.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said multiple inquiries had raised concerns about the current arrangements, including under the Coalition government. The arrangements make up under 1% of total residential property borrowing.

The change is a saving to the budget of $50 million over the forward estimates.

Overall, however, the government has been spending substantial extra money since the budget. Earlier changes to the tax package cost $475 million over the forward estimates, while the partial extension of fuel excise relief, announced at the weekend, will cost $400 million.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.