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

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

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

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

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

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

Why big tech needed a nudge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxing digital profits

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

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

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

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

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

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

A digital services tax in all but name

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

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

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

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

A bold move for Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fei Gao, Lecturer in Taxation, Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney

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

In the same breath that AI's potential is mentioned brings forth a warning about how it can be misused. Now we know what that looks like: Anthropic has just detailed how a its Claude AI was used and misused to execute cyberattacks on behalf of Chinese-backed hackers.

What happened?

A China-backed hacking group has just made cybersecurity history. By using the popular consumer artificial intelligence product Claude to execute real cyberattacks on dozens of companies and government agencies around the world. Specifically, the tool at the centre of the attack was Claude Code, an AI model developed by Anthropic to help people write all kinds of code.

For the first time, hackers used AI not just as a helper or advisor in writing code or answering questions, but as an automated agent on the very frontline that did most of the hacking itself. According to Anthropic, the group managed to infiltrate a small number of major tech, financial, and government targets, in what experts are calling the first large-scale cyberattack carried out with minimal human involvement.

How the attacks worked

First, hackers chose their targets. At this advanced level, they're not looking to pull some fake foreign prince scam. They want state-based intelligence, proprietary secrets and technology and/or big piles of cash to help fund their future operations. The latter in particular is a favourite of sanctioned regimes like Iran or North Korea as a way to fund their state. 

In this instance, China-backed hackers focused on major tech companies, banks, chemical manufacturers, and government agencies. The group then built a system that used Claude Code to do most of the hacking without much human help.

It's easy to sit back and ask 'how did this happen?'. And in this instance, it's a good question. AI models have what are known as "weights" that act as guardrails to stop malicious use of the bot by the bad guys. And this stuff is rigorously tested - especially by Anthropic - to make sure it can't beaten. Claude in particular is designed to reject requests that seem harmful. But hackers got around this by “jailbreaking” Claude. 

They tricked the Claude AI into thinking it was doing routine cybersecurity work, not a real attack. They broke the attack into small steps. Each step looked harmless on its own, so Claude followed the instructions.

Once inside, Claude then scanned the target’s computer systems for valuable data. It found databases and user accounts faster than any human could. It wrote and tested code to find weak spots in security. When it found ways in, it collected usernames and passwords, sorted out the most important information, and even created backdoors for future access.

Once the hacking was done, Claude wrote up detailed notes. These files helped the hackers know exactly what was stolen and how. Most of this work happened without the need for a person to guide every move. The AI operated at high speed, making thousands of attempts per second, and only checked with its human operators a handful of times during each attack.

The attack was not perfect. Sometimes Claude made mistakes, like inventing fake passwords or misunderstanding what was sensitive. But the sheer speed and scale of the attack set a new benchmark for what AI can do in the wrong hands.

How the hackers were discovered

Anthropic’s cyber boffins noticed unusual activity all the way back in mid-September 2025. While that doesn't seem like long ago to you and me, it's a lifetime for an AI that moves as fast as Claude.

At the time, Anthropic security saw Claude Code being used in ways that didn’t match normal patterns. The attackers made thousands of rapid requests and showed signs of trying to hide what they were doing. 

This spurred them to take a closer look, tracking the activity over the subsequent 10 days or so. The company eventually uncovered the larger hacking plan using its AI, tracing the work to a group backed by the Chinese government. Anthropic locked them out, and called the cops soon after realising their AI had breached other organisations.

It's worth pointing out that while the hackers were "discovered", nobody has been caught as yet. It also should be highlighted that while this is being reported as AI's first use in an attack, that doesn't mean it's  the very first. Just the first we're hearing about.

You can read the full report here.

With much talk this week about the end of the Whitlam government, Liberal conservatives might do well to read Gough Whitlam’s 1967 speech to the Victorian Labor Party, at the start of his climb to power.

Like the Liberals now, federal Labor had been trounced at the 1966 election. Whitlam was the new leader, and he took on Victorian hardliners who put ideology ahead of electability.

“Certainly, the impotent are pure,” Whitlam told the delegates at the conference, in a line that echoed down the years.

The Liberal conservatives’ success in forcing their party to dump its commitment to the net zero emissions reduction target has been a triumph of ideology over pragmatism, worthy of those 1960s Labor zealots.

Walking away from the commitment is ill-judged and politically dangerous. It’s also unnecessary.

Many political players, including in Labor, don’t think net zero by 2050 is attainable. But the timeframe is a generation away. Given that, why is it so urgent to reject the target?

Especially when, as Liberal federal director Andrew Hirst told the party room on Wednesday, among voters net zero has become a “proxy” for action on climate. Hirst did talk about possible arguments that could be mobilised if net zero was dumped. For those listening, however, his message, based on research, was clear: ditching net zero was high-risk politics. The conservatives didn’t care.

But the party, with its moderates, had to be held together. On Thursday, when the Liberal shadow ministers met, the leadership stuck a tiny plaster on the gaping wound. Bottom line: commitment to the target is out, but if net zero happened to be achieved, that would be “a welcome outcome”.

The Liberals are in a dreadful state and a climate and energy policy that’s all over the shop can only worsen things. No one thinks they can return to power in under two elections. Even for that they’d have to pick up a significant number of seats in 2028.

At present, the Coalition is on 24% primary vote (in Newspoll). The Liberals will never do well with young voters, but to be competitive overall they have to at least make inroads with them. That’s to say nothing of the women’s vote, on which Labor has a stranglehold.

The Liberals have hardly any urban seats and, apart from Goldstein, the formerly Liberal teal seats stayed solidly independent at the last election.

Net zero resonates with young voters, women, urban dwellers and those in teal electorates, whether or not it is pie in the sky. By dropping it, the Liberals have delivered a slap in the face to these voters. They are saying, in effect, “you might have rejected us at two elections, but we still know better than you do”.

A commonsense voice came ahead of Wednesday’s meeting from Gisele Kapterian, who failed by a handful of votes in the traditional Liberal Sydney seat of Bradfield. It went to a teal. In an email to Liberals on Tuesday, Kapterian described herself as “a concerned Liberal, a technology executive, a former international trade lawyer, a millennial, and […] the former Liberal candidate in the most marginal seat in the country”.

She wrote, “In my experience, echoed throughout the most marginal, winnable, metropolitan seats, our party must remain firmly committed to the language of a ‘net zero’ emissions target as part of an energy policy that is differentiated from the ALP. Retreat is an electoral liability.

"My experience on the ground is that a credible, technology-focused climate policy is essential to securing the many discerning voters in key urban and suburban seats.”

What will all these constituencies take out of the new policy? That the Liberals don’t believe in net zero, that’s what. Not that they have found some great ways to bring down power bills.

And who is going to sell persuasively the messy new policy? Not Sussan Ley, who struggled with its contradictions at her news conference on Thursday. Far from being a conviction politician, Ley didn’t even give a personal view to Wednesday’s party meeting. Nor is the affable energy spokesman, Dan Tehan, likely to convince many people. He looks out of his depth.

The divisions in the party will remain obvious. Even if the moderates stay in line, their views are on the record because they have previously been talking their heads off – as have the conservatives.

The loud voices in the Nationals, who’ve had a massive win, leading the Coalition by the nose, will come across as clear and unconflicted. Can anyone miss the irony that Barnaby Joyce, thought to be on his way to One Nation, has had a triumphant hurrah?

To return to Whitlam: he led from the front and imposed himself on his party, even willing to risk expulsion. Ley is at the opposite end of the leadership spectrum.

Despite once having extolled net zero, Ley decided a while ago to go with the flow in the interests of preserving her job. Was there an alternative? A brave (maybe crazy brave) leader might have stepped out and argued for a position.

Yes, given the dominance of the conservatives (including in the party branches), she might have been rolled on the issue and, sooner rather than later, as leader. But at least she would have stood for something, and gone down fighting.

As for losing the leadership, most Liberals see that as inevitable – it’s only a matter of timing.

Some point out it would look bad to bring down the party’s first woman leader. Let it be recorded, however, that a couple of high-profile Liberal women are among those with political knives out for Ley. The front row of the conservative phalanx who marched into the party meeting comprised three women: Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Sarah Henderson and Jessica Collins.

The conservatives are in charge of the Liberal Party and, when it suits them, they will install a conservative leader. The problem for him (and it will be a him) is he will be operating in an Australian electorate that is progressive, both now and for the foreseeable future.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

Despite the RBA leaving interest rates unchanged at its last meeting, Aussie banks are quietly upping fixed interest rates. But why?

What's happening?

Westpac was identified as raising some of its one, three and five year fixed rates this week. Some of them by up to 0.35%.

Whereas one used to be able to score a rate that started with 4 on a Westpac two-year fixed mortgage this time last week, this week it's a different story. Now the lowest fixed rate on offer from Westpac is 5.24% on one- and two-year terms. The highest fixed rate looks to still be the four- and five-year options at 5.59%.

But those with their finger - nay, a whole monitoring suite - on the pulse of local banks noticed that this wasn't an isolated move.

Canstar has identified that a total of nine local banks have all quietly put up their fixed rates in a similar fashion over the last month. Canstar spokesperson Laine Gordon said:

"Canstar tracking shows nine lenders, including the Westpac Group, have hiked at least one fixed rate in the past two months and they are unlikely to be the last."

But the Reserve Bank held rates at its last two meetings in a bid to deal with higher than expected inflation and a wait-and-see labour market, right? So why are so many banks pointing north right now?

Understanding the 'why' tells us a little bit more about our financial future over the next 12 months.

Why banks are lifting rates now

While variable rates depend on the RBA's hawkish mood, fixed rates are a different beast. Rather than being tied to the RBA's overnight rates, fixed lending costs are funded from international interests such as global bond markets. And the cost of that lending has increased for banks.

Three- to five-year bond yields have recently risen as investors price in a return to persistent inflation. When funding becomes more expensive, banks lift fixed rates to keep their margins intact.

The recent jump suggests that traders see the RBA’s long pause as less comfortable than it looks. Inflation may have ducked back into the target band over recent months, but the data behind it has proven slow to settle. Services prices, wages pressure and rent growth remain stubborn. Markets now see a higher chance that the RBA’s next move is up rather than down, even if that move is many months away.

Taken together, rising fixed rates and sticky inflation are a sign that financial conditions may stay tight well into next year. The RBA has said it does not expect to cut until it is confident inflation will stay inside the band. If that confidence wavers, the timeline stretches. Bond markets are pricing in a world where rate cuts arrive later and move more cautiously.

For borrowers, it means that cheap fixed rates are quickly evaporating. Canstar's Laine Gordon adds that of the over 40 lenders it tracks, only one offers a rate below 5% today. 

The fixed market is officially pricing in a tricky 12 months for local and global markets.

Life360 announced a big earnings beat this week, and even an acquisition that will help it diversify its business. So why is the Life360 share price down 25% in the last month?

By the numbers: Life360's record earnings

It's another record quarter for Life360, and now there's a new ad-tech acquisition and new products on the table.

Total revenue jumped 34% year-on-year to $124.5 million, driven primarily by growth in paying subscribers (dubbed “Paying Circles”) which reached a record 2.7 million. Net income climbed to $9.8 million, up 27% from the prior year, and operating cash flow soared by 319% to $26.4 million. The company’s annualised monthly revenue is now at $446.7 million, reflecting continued gains in both the U.S. and international markets. Life360 has raised its full-year guidance for both revenue and adjusted EBITDA on the back of this strong result.

One of the biggest headlines is Life360’s agreement to acquire advertising technology company Nativo for around $120 million in cash and stock. This acquisition signals a strategic push into new revenue streams, allowing Life360 to leverage its extensive first-party location data to drive more contextually relevant advertising. The Nativo deal is expected to help diversify the company’s business beyond subscriptions and hardware, giving it more exposure to the booming ad tech sector.

Despite the upbeat results, the pace of growth in monthly active users (MAUs) is showing signs of moderation. While global MAUs increased 19% year-on-year to 91.6 million, the sequential growth rate has slowed compared to previous periods. In the U.S., MAUs rose 15% to 48.7 million, while international MAUs were up 24%. The company acknowledged the slowdown but emphasised record net additions in paying circles (170,000 for the quarter) as evidence of improving monetisation and strong conversion rates, particularly in international markets.

So with profits, guidance and cash flow all very much in the green, why is the stock in the red?

The drop: why shares are down 25%

There are a few reasons Life360 could be down. The most obvious comes from how the Technology sector is losing ground as concern swells about a potential AI bubble. Over the last week alone we've seen the tech-focussed NASDAQ slip more than a few points as folks rotate out to less speculative bets.

The other is the potential for profit-taking activity. Markets are up big-time after this seemingly never-ending surge, and Life360 is one massive beneficiary. If you bought it a year ago you'd still be up 61% on your initial investment even after the most recent backslide. There's also the analyst view that Life360 was running a little too hot for its own good, which I reported on when analysts changed their guidance back in September.

There are more company-specific reasons that the company may be sliding, however. Two, in fact.

The first is that Life360's monthly average user (MAU) growth is slowing. This company lives and dies by how many people it can convert from the free tier of its service to the paid tier. Remarkable conversion numbers are what kicked off the hype about Life360 in the first place. In Q3, Life360's global MAUs increased by 19% year-on-year to 91.6 million, with net additions of 3.7 million. But that pace is down from previous years, suggesting the company may be running up against the limits of its current markets. Growth in the US (still Life360’s biggest market) rose just 15% year-on-year, lagging international markets, where MAUs were up 24%.

This slowing growth number might have been enough to spook off some conservative investors who only wanted to stick with the stock while customer adds were on the increase.

Secondly, I've seen reports that this acquisition of Nativo for $120m. The deal marks a clear pivot beyond subscriptions and hardware, with Life360 aiming to tap into new revenue streams by using its rich trove of first-party location data for targeted advertising. Management sees the acquisition as a way to diversify the business and reduce reliance on paid subscriptions alone, especially as user growth slows.

And that's a potential worry to some investors who see a shift into the ad market as a tacit warning sign that the company's core business may not have what it takes to deliver this sort of growth for the long term.

Both of these - along with market pullbacks and profit takers - are likely what has driven the price down by 25% in the last 30 days.

When I started looking at this story last night, Life360 was trading at around $72 a share. Overnight it jumped as traders sought to capitalise on the pullback, meaning it's now sitting at around $76 after the bell in New York. Either way, it's a far cry from where it was this time last month its record of just over $94 a share.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a very nice-looking chart provided you bought in more than six months ago. But investors who hopped on the hype train late may be wondering what it was all about in the first place.

You've seen the headlines about multi-billion dollar AI deals for everything from software to components. It's all fuelling speculation about a potential AI bubble. So how much do the companies at the centre of this speculation need to make to ensure the whole thing doesn't pop? The answer is astronomical.

Here's a quick illustration of the problem. In the first six months of 2025 alone, OpenAI - makers of ChatGPT - burned through $2.5 billion dollars. That's a huge number. But what's even bigger is the fact that CEO Sam Altman has announced almost a trillion dollars in various deals in the same period. The tech sector, and every sector that interacts with it, is making a huge, huge bet that AI will not only become a functional part of everyday life, but a profitable one.

The companies who have signed on various dotted lines in the last 12 months all need something to show for all the money they've spent. And considering how many people aren't paying for AI now (given that it's mostly being bundled for free in different software platforms), that's going to be tricky.

So let's do some back of the envelope maths with our friends from JPMorgan in the US. JPM this week put out a report featuring their own back-of-the-envelope maths, and the numbers are more than a little terrifying if you're a believer in the current bubble.

I've added emphasis here to drive home how wild this is, but JPMorgan shared that:

"The path from here to there will not just be 'up and to the right'. Our biggest fear would be a repeat of the telecom and fibre buildout experiences, where the revenue curve failed to materialise at a pace that justified continued investment. For now, commentary from large corporates suggests benefits are starting to be realised at scale. More interestingly, OpenAI just publicly commented that they have achieved a $20 billion annualized revenue run-rate already. However, breakthroughs or accelerated efficiency gains - as people initially thought occurred with Deepseek - could drive an overcapacity/dark fibre situation. Big picture, to drive a 10% return on our modelled AI investments through 2030 would require ~$650 billion of annual revenue into perpetuity, which is an astonishingly large number. But for context, that equates to 58bp of global GDP, or $34.72/month from every current iPhone user, or $180/ month from every Netflix subscriber. How that is apportioned between corporations, governments and consumers is, of course, a long-term debate. Regardless, even if everything works, there will be (continued) spectacular winners, and probably some equally spectacular losers as well given the amount of capital involved and winner takes all nature of portions of the AI ecosystem."

So even barring any future billion-dollar deals, companies in JPM's portfolio of AI investments would need to find almost three-quarters of a billion in pure revenue right now for them to be even 10% profitable. And if they wanted to charge a 'fair value' for the AI that's being given away right now for free, customers would need to stump up at least $US180 a month to get to those same revenue figures. I don't know about you, but I don't see that happening in the next couple of days.

It's not unusual to see tech companies trade in ways that would make most regular traders scratch their heads. Tech companies often trade at high valuations despite losing money because investors are betting on future dominance, not present profits. The logic is that once a platform scales, its costs barely rise while revenue can grow exponentially. A global user base, network effects, and the ability to monetise data or subscriptions later on make early losses look like down payments on future cash flow.

Low interest rates have also inflated tech valuations by making future earnings look more valuable today, while investors are drawn to powerful narratives about disruption and innovation. It’s part maths, part faith: the promise that today’s losses will fund tomorrow’s monopoly. But I am he of little faith, and I'm starting to think the AI bubble boys have a point.

It’s been a rocky road for Australia’s food delivery sector. Over the past decade, major platforms and a smattering of daring, minor players have been jostling for market share. That’s brought rapid change – and also seen several high-profile business casualties.

First came Foodora’s exit from Australia in 2018, which the company attributed to seeing “higher potential for growth” in other countries. Then, Deliveroo abruptly departed in late 2022, reportedly for similar reasons.

On Wednesday, Menulog announced it would cease its Australian business on November 26, citing “challenging circumstances”.

The end of Menulog’s Australian run is a big deal. It signals a different-looking future for the entire food delivery sector. So what does that mean for consumers and delivery workers – and the cost of a home-delivered meal?

Menulog was the second biggest player

Menulog was a “big fish” in Australia. According to recent data from IBISWorld, it held nearly a quarter (about 24%) of the Australian market. That was still well behind Uber Eats, with around 54% of the market, but ahead of DoorDash on about 15%.

Together, those top three accounted for more than 90% of the market.

Now, DoorDash will move up a step on the podium and be pitted in an even fiercer contest with clear market leader Uber. Both platforms will fight over the spoils of Menulog’s departure.

In one sense, this is just market consolidation, as firms enter the market, compete, fail or get bought out.

But with just two delivery platforms now poised to control the vast majority of the Australian market, there is legitimate cause for concern about what the future holds – for competition, service quality, prices and workers’ rights.

Where did it go wrong for Menulog?

Menulog’s demise didn’t come about because of decreased demand for food delivery. If anything, this market is in rude health, with revenue holding steady in the post-pandemic period.

Nor has Menulog merely lost its appetite for operating in Australia after a quick bite. The company was founded here almost two decades ago in 2006.

In 2015, it was sold to UK-based Just Eat, which subsequently completed a merger with Dutch rival Takeaway.com in early 2020, to form Just Eat Takeaway.com (which itself has just been acquired by a larger investment group, Prosus).

In 2021, Menulog credited an expensive TV advertising campaign featuring US rapper Snoop Dogg with significantly raising its profile.

A different approach

Menulog has always had a slightly different business model and market positioning from its rivals, Uber Eats and DoorDash.

It started as a two-sided marketplace, allowing people to order from restaurants that may have had their own delivery workers. Later, it adopted a three-sided marketplace model, with the app sitting between consumers, restaurants and couriers – who were operating as independent contractors.

Following multiple reports about poor working conditions and a spate of worker deaths in the food delivery sector more broadly, Menulog tried to chart its own course and differentiate itself.

In 2021, it began a trial to hire some of its couriers as employees rather than contractors. It also unsuccessfully pursued the creation of a new modern award.

While praised at the time, these moves were to be overtaken by the Albanese government’s gig work reforms, which rejigged the rules and provided increased legitimacy to the business model of its rivals.

However, its efforts to pursue a more pro-worker “gig” model meant it incurred significant costs with limited return. Further, compared to its rivals, the company did not diversify as drastically into the grocery delivery space.

What does it mean for food delivery prices?

Menulog’s exit means Australian consumers will have one less platform to choose from. It could also impact the prices they pay for food deliveries.

The norm for Australian consumers is that they have enjoyed food delivery services at subsidised rates. The major delivery platforms have been willing to absorb losses in return for growing their market share.

Now that we are seeing significant consolidation in the sector, the remaining platform giants may well move to capitalise on their newfound strength by upping prices.

Yet being profitable as a food delivery platform is a balancing act. These firms operate on relatively thin margins and add very little value. In effect, their business model is one of “rent-seeking”, taking a cut from each transaction.

For years, this has placed platforms under pressure from all sides: consumers wanting cheaper, faster service; restaurants and shops aggrieved by the platforms’ fees; and unions and voters concerned about worker safety.

The competition dynamics of the gig economy – including food delivery – can push it towards “monopsony” and “duopoly” conditions. This is where either one or two major platforms dominate a market and prices.

What does it mean for workers?

Menulog said its exit from the Australian market would lead to about 120 job losses.

But this figure does not paint the full picture, with thousands of affiliated couriers thrown into uncertainty, too – though not entitled to the same redundancy benefits as employees.

There will be a two-week transition period before the platform shuts down. And Menulog said eligible couriers would be entitled to receive a four-week voluntary payment.

A recent survey by Menulog found 75% of its engaged in “multi-apping” – working for Menulog as well as its competitors. Still, many couriers will be left without a gig.

Workers, like consumers, will now have less choice in the food delivery market.

Alex Veen, Senior Lecturer and University of Sydney Business School Emerging Scholar Research Fellow, University of Sydney and Josh Healy, Associate Professor in Managing People and Organisations, University of Sydney

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

If last week’s trillion-dollar slide of major tech stocks felt familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before – when hype about innovation last ran headlong into economic reality.

As markets slump on the back of investor unease over soaring valuations of artificial intelligence (AI) companies, commentators are asking the same question they were during the dotcom crash 25 years ago.

Can technology really defy basic economics?

It’s a question I discussed in my inaugural professorial lecture at the University of Otago back in August 2000, just as internet stocks were tumbling and hundreds of dotcoms were failing.

I argued then that many internet firms were “naked” because their business models were visible for all to see. They spent vast sums to attract customers with no credible path to profit.

A generation later, the same logic is driving the AI boom.

Different metrics, same story

In 2000, the internet promised to revolutionise commerce, with success measured in “eyeballs” and “clicks” rather than profit. Today, those indicators have become “tokens processed” and “model queries”.

The language might have changed, but the belief that scale automatically leads to profit hasn’t.

Just as we heard the internet was going to remove intermediaries – cutting out traditional middlemen like retailers and brokers – there have been promises that AI will remove cognitive labour.

Both have encouraged investors to overlook losses in pursuit of long-term dominance.

At the height of the dotcom frenzy, companies such as online retailer eToys spent lavishly on marketing to win customers. Today, AI developers invest billions in computing power, data and energy – yet still remain unprofitable.

Nvidia’s multi-trillion dollar valuation, OpenAI’s continuing losses despite surging revenue, and the flood of venture funding into AI start-ups all echo the 1999 bubble.

Then, as now, spending is mistaken for investment.

What the dotcom crash should have taught us

Back in 2000, I suggested internet firms were building market-based assets such as brand value, customer relationships and data, which could create genuine value only if they produced loyal, profitable customers.

The problem was that investors treated spending as proof of growth and marketing as a business model in its own right.

The AI economy repeats this pattern.

Data sets, model architectures and user ecosystems are treated as assets even when they have yet to generate positive returns.

Their value rests on faith that monetisation will eventually catch up with cost. The logic remains the same; only the story has changed.

The dotcom boom was driven by fragile start-ups fuelled by venture capital and public enthusiasm.

Today’s AI surge is led by powerful incumbents like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Nvidia, which can sustain years of losses while chasing dominance. That reduces systemic risk but concentrates market power.

Where the money goes has also shifted. Internet firms once burned cash on advertising. AI companies burn it on computing power and data.

The spending has moved from the marketing agency to the data centre, yet the question remains: does it create real value or only the illusion of progress?

AI also reaches deeper than the internet. The web has transformed how we communicate and shop, but AI is shaping how we think, learn and make decisions.

If a crash comes, it could erode public trust in the technology itself and slow innovation for years. Relatively low real interest rates and abundant capital have also contributed to fuelling this current wave of technology investment.

Much like the late-1990s boom, when favourable monetary policy helped underwrite a surge in tech valuations, this cycle shows how the macro-financial backdrop can amplify technological optimism.

The return of intangible mania

Despite these differences, the pattern of valuation is familiar. Investors are again pricing potential over performance.

In 2000, analysts justified valuations by counting users a company might one day monetise. In 2025, they model “inference demand” and “data advantage”. Both are guesses about an imagined future.

Narrative has become capital as markets reward conviction over evidence. The danger is not technological failure but economic distortion when storytelling outpaces solvency.

Even profitable firms can be caught in the downdraft.

In 2000, leaders such as Yahoo! and eBay lost most of their market value when the bubble burst, despite their long-term survival. The same could happen to today’s AI giants.

Two lessons still stand. First, scalability without profitability is not a business model. Exponential growth can deepen losses rather than reduce them.

Each additional AI query carries a real computational cost, so growth matters only when it leads to sustainable margins.

Second, intangible assets must create measurable value: marketing, data and algorithms are assets only when they produce lasting cash flow or clear social benefits.

For policymakers, the implication is clear: fund AI projects that deliver tangible productivity or social benefits, rather than merely fuelling hype.

While AI will transform how we work and think, it cannot abolish the connection between cost, value and customer need. Lasting value comes from providing genuine benefits to people.

The question now is whether AI’s real productivity gains will ultimately justify today’s valuations, as the internet, after a painful correction, eventually did.

Rod McNaughton, Professor of Entrepreneurship, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

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

At 95, Warren Buffett has penned his last letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders. It’s part memoir, part farewell, and part final investing lesson from the man who has long been Wall Street’s conscience. Here are his most striking lines and what it means for markets.

The farewell

For nearly 60 years, Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders has been required reading for anyone interested in investing. A blend of plainspoken wisdom, quotable quotes, market lessons, and stories from a life at the heart of American capitalism.

But this year’s message was different. It was Buffett’s last: a more personal, reflective sign-off, marking the end of an era.

As he put it plainly:

"I will no longer be writing Berkshire’s annual report or talking endlessly at the annual meeting. As the British would say, I’m ‘going quiet.’ Sort of."

Buffett confirmed that Greg Abel will step in as Berkshire Hathaway’s CEO at yearend, calling him “a great manager, a tireless worker and an honest communicator” and encouraging shareholders to “wish him an extended tenure.”

With that, Buffett’s legendary run as the voice of Berkshire is officially over, capping a tradition that shaped how generations thought about business, leadership, and markets.

Buffett on today's volatile markets and the coming swing

Buffett’s final letter returned to one of his most enduring themes: the unpredictable, often irrational nature of markets, and the importance of investor resilience. He didn’t sugarcoat the reality of volatility, reminding readers that even Berkshire Hathaway’s own share price has suffered brutal swings over the decades. He even warned it may be about to happen again.

"Our stock price will move capriciously, occasionally falling 50% or so as has happened three times in 60 years under present management. Don’t despair; America will come back and so will Berkshire shares."

He urged investors not to panic during downturns, emphasising that enduring through cycles is part of the journey. The lesson: price swings are a feature, not a bug, of investing, and faith in the market’s long-term prospects is non-negotiable in his playbook.

As ever, Buffett wanted shareholders to understand what sets Berkshire apart in times of trouble. He described Berkshire’s structure — built on conservative financial management, diverse holdings, and a fortress-like insurance float — as an almost unrivaled shield against catastrophe.

"Berkshire has less chance of a devastating disaster than any business I know."

Buffett blasts executive pay

Buffett didn’t hold back in his final commentary on one of his perennial frustrations: the escalation of CEO compensation and the culture of envy it feeds. He drew a direct line between the disclosure of executive pay and the ever-rising arms race among corporate leaders.

"The ratcheting took on a life of its own. What often bothers very wealthy CEOs – they are human, after all – is that other CEOs are getting even richer. Envy and greed walk hand in hand."

I love that last bit.

Buffett has long seen excessive executive pay and boardroom groupthink as a danger to both shareholders and the integrity of the wider market. His final word on the subject is a caution to resist short-termism, self-interest, and the corrosive power of envy at the top.

The man behind the message

For all the financial lessons, Buffett’s last shareholder letter is as much about character as capital. He punctuates his farewell with lines that reveal the dry humour and humility that made him so widely trusted.

His last words aren’t about money, but about living well and treating others decently.

"I wish all who read this a very happy Thanksgiving. Yes, even the jerks; it’s never too late to change. Remember to thank America for maximizing your opportunities."

And his final guidance, equal parts wisdom and wit:

"Choose your heroes very carefully and then emulate them. You will never be perfect, but you can always be better."

So good. Are we sure this has to be his last?!

Berkshire’s future and scale: A new era, steady expectations

Finally, Buffett didn’t promise fireworks for Berkshire’s future — just solid stewardship and realistic expectations. He acknowledged the sheer scale of the conglomerate, cautioning shareholders that the company’s enormous size inevitably acts as a brake on growth, even as it remains a powerhouse in American business.

"In aggregate, Berkshire’s businesses have moderately better-than-average prospects, led by a few non-correlated and sizable gems. However, a decade or two from now, there will be many companies that have done better than Berkshire; our size takes its toll."

With Greg Abel set to take the reins, Buffett signaled that Berkshire’s days of blockbuster returns may be behind it, but steady, above-average performance is the new benchmark. The message: don’t expect miracles, but count on Berkshire to stay resilient, diversified, and committed to long-term value.

A new federal Resolve poll has found 61% of respondents would struggle to afford an expense of a few thousand dollars, compared to just 24% who said they would not. The 37-point margin is the highest since Resolve began asking this question in February 2023.

When this question was last asked in December 2024, the margin was 50–36%.

On who to blame for rising living costs, 42% blamed the federal government, 16% global factors, 11% state governments, 7% the Reserve Bank and 7% businesses. In the next six months, 42% thought the economic outlook would get worse, 20% said it would improve and 29% said it would stay the same.

The poll for Nine newspapers – conducted between November 4-8 from a sample of 1,804 people – also gave Labor a 53–47% lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences, a two-point gain for the Coalition since the October Resolve poll.

Primary votes were 33% Labor (down one), 29% Coalition (up one), 12% Greens (up one), 12% One Nation (steady), 7% independents (down two) and 6% others (down one).

By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would lead by about 54.5–45.5%, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

Despite Labor’s drop on voting intentions, Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved six points to net zero, with 44% both giving him a good and poor rating.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s net approval was down two points to -7. Albanese led Ley as preferred PM by 39–25% (40–23% previously).

Labor led the Liberals on economic management by 31–29% (29–28% in October). But on keeping the cost of living low, the Liberals led by 28–27%, reversing a 28–24% Labor lead in October.

When asked their most important issue, 42% of respondents said cost of living, with no other issue reaching double digits.

This poll was taken after the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported on October 29 that inflation in the September quarter rose 1.3%, its highest quarterly increase since March 2023.

There has also been a surge in the popularity of right-wing to far-right politicians since December 2024.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s net likeability increased 21 points to +8, National MP Barnaby Joyce’s net likeability increased 14 points to -8 and Liberal MP Andrew Hastie’s net likeability increased four points to +8.

Unlike the late October Newspoll, this new poll did not show a surge for One Nation. Ley’s net approval in this poll is far better than in Newspoll (-7 vs -33).

Labor still far ahead in NSW Resolve poll

A NSW state Resolve poll for The Sydney Morning Herald – conducted with the federal October and November Resolve polls from a sample of more than 1,000 people – gave Labor 37% of the primary vote (down one since September), the Coalition 28% (steady), the Greens 10% (steady), independents 15% (up four) and others 11% (down one).

Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party estimate for its state polls, but primary votes suggest little change from September’s estimate of 59–41% to Labor. The next NSW election will be held in March 2027.

Despite Labor’s continued dominance on voting intentions, Labor Premier Chris Minns slumped to his lowest preferred premier lead this term over Liberal leader Mark Speakman. Minns led by 31–19%, down from 37–16% in September.

Minns’ net likeability was up one point to +14, and has remained roughly steady since recovering from a slump to +10 in December 2024.

Speakman’s net likeability was up two points to +3, continuing a rebound from a low of -3 in April.

Coalition retains narrow lead in Victorian DemosAU poll

A Victorian DemosAU state poll – conducted between October 21–27 from a sample of 1,016 people – gave the Coalition a 51–49% lead, unchanged from an early September DemosAU poll.

Primary votes were 37% Coalition (down one), 26% Labor (steady), 15% Greens (steady) and 22% for all Others (up one).

Opposition Leader Brad Battin led Labor Premier Jacinta Allan as preferred premier by 40–32% (37–32% previously). The Victorian election will be held in November 2026.

Upper house voting intentions were 30% Coalition, 21% Labor, 14% Greens, 11% One Nation, 5% Family First, 4% Libertarian and 3% Animal Justice. The combined vote for the Coalition and Labor is an unrealistic 12 points lower in the upper house than in the lower house.

All 40 of Victoria’s upper house seats will be elected in eight five-member electorates using proportional representation with preferences.

Liberals increase lead in Tasmanian DemosAU poll

A Tasmanian DemosAU state poll – conducted between October 16–27 from a sample of 1,021 people – gave the Liberals 41% of the vote (39.9% at the July election), Labor 24% (25.9%), the Greens 15% (14.4%), independents 14% (15.3%), the Shooters 2% (2.9%) and others 4%.

Tasmania uses a proportional system for its lower house elections, so a two-party estimate is not applicable. Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff led Labor leader Josh Willie by 46–34% as preferred premier.

Respondents were asked if they had positive, neutral or negative views of various Tasmanian politicians.

Rockliff was at net +5, but Deputy Premier Guy Barnett was at net -14 and Treasurer Eric Abetz at net -19.

Willie was at net -5, with former Labor leader Dean Winter much worse at net -33. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff was at net -20.

Queensland byelection on November 29

A byelection for the Queensland state seat of Hinchinbrook will occur on November 29 after the Katter’s Australian Party MP, Nick Dametto, resigned to run for mayor of Townsville.

At the 2024 election, Dametto defeated the Liberal National Party’s Annette Swaine by 63.2–36.8%, from primary votes of 46.4% KAP, 28.2% LNP, 14.0% Labor, 4.6% One Nation, 3.6% Legalise Cannabis and 3.2% Greens.

The KAP, LNP and Labor have all announced candidates for the byelection, with others likely to follow.

US government shutdown set to end

For most legislation to pass the United States Senate, 60 votes out of the 100 senators are needed to end a “filibuster”. Republicans control the Senate by 53–47.

On Sunday, eight Democrats joined with nearly all Republicans to pass a bill reopening the US government by exactly the required 60–40 majority.

The House of Representatives still needs to approve the bill, which should happen in the coming days. This will end the longest US government shutdown.

US President Donald Trump’s ratings have slumped to a low this term following big wins by the Democrats in the New Jersey and Virginia state elections. This vote will widely be seen as Senate Democrats unnecessarily caving to Trump.

Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

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

Once again, the annual shopping extravaganza known as “Black Friday” is nearly upon us, this year falling on November 28. But the sales are already well underway.

What started as a single-day discounted shopping event on the Friday after Thanksgiving in the United States has blown out to a weeks-long sales festival, in stores and online. And it has spread around much of the world – including to Australia.

If found to be engaging in misleading or deceptive sales conduct, retailers may face heavy financial penalties. But as a consumer, it also pays to understand how these dodgy tactics work, so you can’t be duped this sales season.

Dodgy sales tactics

The ACCC says it is on the lookout for a range of misleading or deceptive sales advertising tactics. Examples include:

• advertising sales as “storewide” when only some items are discounted
• countdown clocks or timers that show a shorter period than the actual sale (to create false urgency)
• fine-print disclaimers that exclude some items from the sale
• “up to X% off” discounts that only apply to a few items (or the “up to” text is not prominently displayed)
• price comparisons of before and after sale discounts that are not accurate (including where the price has gone up in a short period before the discount was applied).

Sadly, there are many examples of allegedly misleading sales conduct occurring at peak shopping periods.

Following a similar sweep of last year’s Black Friday sales, the ACCC recently fined three retailers for allegedly
misleading customers by advertising discounts as “storewide” when only some items were on sale.

In 2019, the online marketplace Kogan offered a “tax time” discount of 10% on products that had had their price increased immediately before the promotion (by at least 10% in most cases). It was subsequently fined A$350,000 for misleading conduct in breach of Australian Consumer Law.

Why is the ACCC so strict about this kind of conduct?

These examples of dodgy conduct might seem annoying. But they don’t seem earth-shatteringly bad – such as selling physically dangerous products.

Why is the ACCC so concerned about misleading conduct at Black Friday sale time, and indeed retail pricing more generally?

Shouldn’t consumers just be more careful? The answer lies in the cumulative harms of misleading pricing conduct.

Manipulating consumers through marketing

Sales rely on consumers thinking they are getting a good deal on products they want. And sometimes sales marketing seeks to persuade consumers the deal is better than it really is.

Marketing strategies such as countdown timers, strike-through prices or promoted large percentage discounts are designed to appeal to consumers’ emotions and to rush them into closing off a purchase.

Consumers with heightened emotions or feeling pressure to grab a deal are less likely to make a rational assessment of the real value of the discount being offered to them. This is why truth in sales advertising is so important.

What consumer protection laws are for

We have strong protections against misleading conduct in Australia for good reason. If sellers can trick consumers into buying goods at discounts that are actually illusory, those dishonest sellers gain an advantage over honest sellers selling at a transparent and accurate price.

This risks a market that rewards poor conduct and encourages an overall rush to the bottom.

Australian Consumer Law takes the view that consumers should be able take the advertisements they see at face value. Consumers shouldn’t have to assume they are going to be tricked by sellers.

Such an approach would not conform to the object of enhancing the “welfare of Australians” through “the promotion of competition and fair trading” that underlies Australian Consumer Law.

Stopping a bad deal

If you are considering buying goods at the Black Friday sales, it is a good idea to screenshot the item before it goes on sale. That way you can check if the sale discount is genuine and the item is actually the same as the one you want (not an older or cheaper model).

When shopping at a sale, take time to look at the discount offered. Is it a real discount? Does it justify the spend coming up to the holiday period? Discounts may be marked up in an attractive colour but still not represent good value.

Finally, if you think you have been misled by a pricing strategy, such as a discount that isn’t genuine or a fine-print qualification on the discount that is advertised, you can complain to the ACCC.

Ideally, take screenshots of what was advertised and what you received to support your claim to be treated fairly at sales time.

Jeannie Marie Paterson, Professor of Law (consumer protections and credit law), The University of Melbourne

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

I've reported on company results a long time, but this is a first for me. Afterpay-owner Block reported its results this week, which were positive but not where analysts wanted them to be. One reason profits were down? A massive expense for a three-day party for employees.

Spotted on Sherwood, the results were reportedly thrown off by one event in particular that cost them a real chunk of change. As the shareholder letter puts it (emphasis mine):

"General and administrative expenses were up 14% year over year on a GAAP basis, driven in part by an in-person company event. Excluding this expense, general and administrative expenses remained roughly flat year over year in the third quarter."

A bit of digging from Joe Aston's Sherwood shows that around $68 million was spent on this particular "in person event". Yep, you read that right: sixty-eight million for an "in-person company event".

Joe Aston's Rampart reports that the event was reportedly called "Block by Block" (catchy). I did some digging on social and found a slick video put together by a Block team member who describes the event as a coming together of all employees under the Block banner in the US. This includes Cash App, Afterpay, Jay-Z's music streaming service Tidal, Bitkey and Proto. About 8000 in total.

The event was held to celebrate a "square" year. As the company, Block, was initially called Square, after the payment service CEO and founder Jack Dorsey founded after he left Twitter. This was year nine, and as a result, it was party time.

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by brittney tam (◕‿◕✿) (@brittneytam)

I really encourage you to watch the video because it's insane to think of it all as an event for one umbrella tech company. It looks more like the Coachella music festival than a company get-together.

And it was absolutely littered with celebrities, with A-listers like musician Anderson Paak, billionaire and rapper Jay Z, and rappers T.I., T Pain and more. They obviously don't come cheap.

It's easy to turn around and say that it's Block's money and the company's event planner can spend it how they like, but somehow I don't think shareholders would agree with this one.

Again, it bears repeating that Block made a profit at its last results announcement, just not the kind of earnings beat that analysts were hoping for at the end of the day. Maybe a pizza party next time might be better for the company's accounts?