Johansen.se

The 1980s are remembered for many things including power suits, the Ford Falcon and the long lunch.

The last was thanks to a generous interpretation of tax law as it applied to food and entertainment at “business meetings”. Bosses could deduct the cost of lunch with colleagues and contacts for tax purposes.

The Hawke government ended that when it made sweeping changes to tax law the mid 80s including the introduction of a fringe benefits tax.

But the long lunch might return under a Coalition government.

Its estimated cost to the budget, however, swings wildly. The Parliamentary Budget Office puts the figure at A$250 million, while a government-commissioned study by Treasury says it could be between $1.6 billion and $10 billion .

The different estimates result from varied modelling of how many businesses would seek the deduction and the average amount each would claim. Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor on Tuesday said it would cost less than $250 million. He said the Treasury estimates were “straight nonsense”.

Angus Taylor said Treasury’s estimates were “straight nonsense”
Mick Tsikas/AAP

The actual cost may also depend on whether the deduction would be limited to employees or could include spending on their family members and on clients. These things are not yet clear.

One thing that is clear, however, is higher spending at hospitality venues should bring in more tax from businesses to offset the lost deduction revenue.

Whatever rules emerge, enforcing them could be expensive. Some small businesses might be tempted to inflate their expenditure, or simply “reclassify” usual food and drink costs to make them eligible for a deduction.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton announced the plan late last month. He said small businesses could claim deductions for meals and entertainment. This would be available to businesses with a turnover under $10 million and excluded alcohol.

The deduction would be capped at $20,000 a year. The policy would run initially for two years and would presumably be reviewed with a view to extending it or making it permanent.

Dutton gave two reasons for reintroducing the exemption to the FBT. First, it was an incentive that would help retain and reward employees. Employees can get a “little bit of a return”, Dutton said at the time. Second, it would boost hospitality spending.

Overwhelmingly, this policy is an incentive for small businesses. However, tax policy experts argue the tax system should not use targeted tax breaks to promote a particular economic activity.

One major concern is this plan runs counter to the reasonably clear boundary our income tax system has established between private consumption expenditure (not deductible) and income producing expenditure (deductible).

The 1985 deduction denial for entertainment expenditure is a central part of this framework; it squarely recognised the private consumption character of the expenditure and it has stood for 40 years in tax law. Serious analysis should be done before changes are made.

Also, it might lead to claims of “what about me?” Think, for example, of a small business taxpayer with a turnover of $12 million who misses out. What about an independent contractor who falls short of being a business?

It looks like the technical way the tax deduction is to be achieved will depend on who benefits from the food and entertainment. If the beneficiary is a customer of the small business, the small business will be given a deduction. If the employee benefits, the small business will get an exemption for the benefit and obtain a deduction for the expenditure.

Peter Dutton said in his announcement last month the Coalition was doing this in a way to ensure small businesses “are not dragged into a complicated tax jungle”.

Fringe benefits tax is complicated and compliance costs are high.
Shakirov Albert/Shutterstock

The complexity of fringe benefits tax is well known. Compliance costs are high and mistakes are made by taxpayers and tax agents. The complexity is greatest for entertainment spending where income tax interacts with fringe benefits tax and the GST.

Without knowing the proposed rules, there is a chance a small business incurring entertainment expenditure can avoid being brought into a “tax jungle” if they keep employees and customers at separate entertainment events.

If they do combine the two, some complications arise, but they are not insurmountable. In any event, tax agents and their clients tend to get used to their specific situation over time. Excluding alcohol does add a slight complication, though, because of the different treatment it will attract.

Overall, the concerns about this policy are real and substantial. It is worth recalling that there are many examples of poor tax policy getting into legislation, and despite the significant evidence about them, they are not removed.

The capital gains tax discount is a good example. This discount has overwhelmingly delivered a tax break to high income earners. And the amount of the lost revenue is continually increasing. Let us think before running this risk with the proposed “long lunch” tax break. Läs mer…

History has repeated in the rock category at this week’s 67th Grammy Awards. Best rock performance was awarded to the Beatles for their song Now and Then, while the Rolling Stones took home best rock album for Hackney Diamonds.

The Beatles’ track, finished and released by the fab four’s remaining members with the assistance of artificial intelligence, has been recognised by the Recording Academy 55 years after the band broke up. This comes as their eighth Grammy win and 27th nomination since their 1962 debut.

The Beatles’ long time rivals, the Rolling Stones, have received many accolades over their six decade career, including five Grammys. Their 24th studio album includes cameos from other legacy artists like Elton John and Stevie Wonder.

These victories are historic – but they also reveal a broader truth about rock music’s biggest institutions. The same artists who defined the genre decades ago continue to dominate its highest honours, leaving little space for contemporary acts to break through.

The new wave

The past year has seen a resurgence in rock. Streaming services and radio have reflected a rise in the popularity of the genre and reunions of rock’s most popular bands are making headlines.

This renewed enthusiasm toward rock has brought newcomers to the genre, including an emergence of new popular talent.

Newer rock talent was present at the Grammys, with St Vincent (who broke out in 2006) winning Best rock song and Fontaines D.C. receiving their first best rock album nomination since their debut in 2014.

Both of these artists have been recognised for breathing new life into the rock genre. With a willingness to confront discomfort and vulnerability coupled with distinctive guitar work and production choices, St. Vincent has been positioned as a trailblazer in modern rock.

Fontaines D.C’s nominated album Romance has been praised by critics for its energetic embrace of a diverse musical palette with compelling lyrics, a sound which has grabbed the attention of those outside and within the rock audience.

But they were up against a nominee pool largely composed of long career legacy acts such as Green Day, Pearl Jam, Jack White and the Black Crowes, who all broke out in the last millennium.

Along with the Beatles’ and the Rolling Stones’ wins, this reflects a trend in rock’s institutional recognition, where industry awards, hall of fame inductions, and media retrospectives continue to reaffirm the same monumental figures – often to the exclusion of artists shaping rock today. This phenomenon is a symptom of the rock canon, otherwise known as “the best of all time”.

The old canon

The rock canon is a set of artists, albums and songs that have been collectively deemed as the genre’s greatest.

This canon was solidified by the late 1960s and 1970s and is sustained predominantly by media outlets and awards organisations like the Grammys. Publications that rank “the best” also help shape the rock canon by repeatedly spotlighting the same classic albums and artists.

To be considered “the best” in rock, artists typically need to meet an (often unwritten) criteria of long-term critical acclaim, commercial success and influence on future generations. Artists like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones meet this criteria, frequently appearing in the top ranks of “best of” lists and maintaining their position at the top of the rock hierarchy.

But the Grammy wins for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones raise concerns about how rigid this canon remains. Artists who enter the rock canon rarely leave it, making it difficult for newcomers to garner the same levels of critical and commercial success. It has also been criticised for its preferential treatment towards whiteness and masculinity.

If the canon represents the highest levels of artistic quality in rock, its inability to change poses concerns for the future of the genre.

Australia has not remained untouched by these issues. While the Grammys are an American institution, the rock canon’s influence extends globally.

Australian institutions such as Triple J’s Hottest 100 of All Time have demonstrated this influence, showing us that the canon plays a role in shaping Australian music culture. Artists like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin often appear on these lists, voted on by Australian listeners. Local audiences overwhelmingly favour a more standard, mainstream canon of older international rock acts over our own Australian talent.

The preference towards artists who have long been in the canon in today’s “best of” lists makes it harder for local artists – particularly those from marginalised backgrounds – to gain widespread recognition.

Crafting a vital genre

The Grammy success of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones reflects both the strength and the stagnation of rock’s institutional gate-keeping.

On one hand, these wins celebrate artists whose influence has endured for generations. On the other, they reveal how difficult it is for new acts to gain recognition when institutions continue looking backward rather than forward.

As rock continues its resurgence, the vitality of the genre may rely on expanding a more inclusive definition of greatness: one that makes room for innovation and diversity, not just nostalgia.

Will future Grammy ceremonies still be awarding the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, or will we finally see rock’s institutions evolve? Läs mer…

Months out from a federal election, the industry lobby is gearing up in opposition to the Albanese government’s renewable energy targets. In a salvo on Monday, food distributors urged the government to increase fossil fuel production, as a way to purportedly tackle high energy prices.

It was followed by comments on Tuesday by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which also called for fast-tracking of gas expansion to avoid price spikes and blackouts.

Unfortunately, however, these approaches miss the point. They are a short-sighted response to what is, in large part, a climate-induced problem.

In fact, evidence suggests burning more coal and gas will only make things worse for many industries, including the food sector.

Burning more coal and gas will only make things worse for many industries.
geckoz/Shutterstock

More fossil fuels = more industry disruption

The industry group Independent Food Distributors Australia claims Labor’s energy policies are driving up costs for businesses and, in turn, consumers.

In comments published in The Australian, the group’s chief executive Richard Forbes said the phase-out of coal-fired energy was too fast and the government’s renewable energy target was too ambitious. The newspaper claimed business owners instead want Labor to support new gas plants and support upgrades to existing coal plants.

The group represents food manufacturers, suppliers and distributors supporting the food service industry. Its members largely comprise food distribution warehouses operating large refrigerators and freezers.

First, it’s important to ask whether a focus on renewable energy can be blamed for Australia’s high energy prices. The answer is largely no.

That aside, would expanding fossil fuel production ultimately be a boon to food distributors? Evidence suggests it would not.

A study published in 2022, led by my colleagues at the University of Sydney, found that almost one-fifth of total emissions from global food systems were produced by transport and supporting services, such as distribution warehouses. This was equivalent to about 6% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate and leading to worse and more frequent natural disasters. And, as another University of Sydney study showed, these disasters have extensive repercussions for the food industry.

Natural disasters disrupt food transport systems.
Dave Hunt/AAP

It found the disruptions would be hardest felt by the fruit, vegetable and livestock sectors, however effects flowed to other sectors such as transport services. Overall, people in rural areas and those from a low-socioeconomic background were most vulnerable, both to food and nutrition impacts, as well as losses in employment and income.

What’s more, research I led into the economic impact of Australia’s 2019–20 bushfires also reveals the vulnerability of the food ecosystem. The 2024 study, which focused on tourism, found employment and income losses were greatest in the hospitality and transport sectors respectively. Restaurants, cafes and accommodation providers were disproportionately hit by job losses resulting from reduced consumption, including less food being consumed out of home.

So what does all this mean? Clearly, expanding polluting energy generation to reduce food distribution costs in the short term will not, ultimately, secure the sector’s future.

Making food distribution more sustainable

Having said all this, Australia’s high energy prices are undoubtedly a stress point for many Australian businesses. So how can the food sector tackle the problem?

Energy requirements (and therefore costs and emissions) differ according to the type of food. Fruits and vegetables, for example, are likely to require a temperature-controlled environment. This generates about double the emissions produced by growing the crops themselves.

Growing and distributing crops that can be transported at ambient temperatures would reduce energy use. This is particularly important given refrigeration needs are likely to increase as the planet warms.

In terms of broader food movements, 94% of domestic transport happens by road. So, there is a strong case for investing in electric trucks to help guard against energy price hikes.

The weight of food freight has also been correlated with energy use. Cereals – along with fruit and vegetables, flour and sugar beet/cane – are among the food types transported at high tonnages.

As my colleagues have noted, there are huge energy savings to be gained if the global population ate more locally produced food, and if food businesses used cleaner production and distribution methods, such as natural refrigerants.

Energy requirements differ according to the type of food.
BK Awangga/Shutterstock

Looking ahead

Global food systems are crucial to human wellbeing. It’s in everyone’s interests to keep them functioning well and protected from climate-fuelled hazards.

The choices now facing the food-distribution sector represent one of many tradeoffs Australia must make during its transition to a low-carbon future.

Will we continue the polluting, business-as-usual approach or will we embrace Australia’s natural advantages in renewable energy, and protect the planet that supports us?

When it comes to food distribution, will Australia expand gas and coal production as a purported answer to lower energy costs in the short term – or will we move swiftly to decarbonise the sector and buy more local, sustainable food? Läs mer…

Australian radio host Kyle Sandilands announced on air yesterday that he has a brain aneurysm and needs urgent brain surgery.

Typically an aneurysm occurs when a part of the wall of an artery (a type of blood vessel) becomes stretched and bulges out.

You can get an aneurysm in any blood vessel, but they are most common in the brain’s arteries and the aorta, the large artery that leaves the heart.

Many people can have a brain aneurysm and never know. But a brain (or aortic) aneurysm that ruptures and bursts can be fatal.

So, what causes a brain aneurysm? And what’s the risk of rupture?

Weakness in the artery wall

Our arteries need strong walls because blood is constantly pumped through them and pushed against the walls.

An aneurysm can develop if there is a weak part of an artery wall.

The walls of arteries are made of three layers: an inner lining of cells, a middle layer of muscle and elastic fibres, and a tough outer layer of mostly collagen (a type of protein). Damage to any of these layers causes the wall to become thin and stretched. It can then balloon outward, leading to an aneurysm.

Genetics and certain inherited disorders can cause weak artery walls and brain aneurysms in some people.

For all of us, our artery walls become weaker as we age, and brain aneurysms are more common as we get older. The average age for a brain aneurysm to be detected is 50 (Sandilands is 53).

Females have a higher risk of brain aneurysm than males after about age 50. Declining oestrogen around menopause reduces the collagen in the artery wall, causing it to become weaker.

A brain aneurysm occurs when a part of the wall of an artery balloons out.
Alfmaler/Shutterstock

High blood pressure can increase the risk of a brain aneurysm. In someone with high blood pressure, blood inside the arteries is pushed against the walls with greater force. This can stretch and weaken the artery walls.

Another common condition called atherosclerosis can also cause brain aneurysms. In atherosclerosis, plaques made mostly of fat build up in arteries and stick to the artery walls. This directly damages the cell lining, and weakens the muscle and elastic fibres in the middle layer of the artery wall.

Several lifestyle factors increase risk

Anything that increases inflammation or causes atherosclerosis or high blood pressure in turn increases your risk of a brain aneurysm.

Smoking and heavy drinking affect all of these, and nicotine directly damages the artery wall.

Sandilands mentioned his cocaine use in discussing his diagnosis. He said:

The facts are, a life of cocaine abuse and partying are not the way to go.

Indeed, cocaine abuse increases the risk of a brain aneurysm. It causes very high blood pressure because it causes arteries to spasm and constrict. Cocaine use is also linked to worse outcomes if a brain aneurysm ruptures.

Stress and a high-fat diet also increase inflammation. High cholesterol can also cause atherosclerosis. And being overweight increases your blood pressure.

A study of more than 60,000 people found smoking and high blood pressure were the strongest risk factors for a brain aneurysm.

Is it always a medical emergency?

About three in 100 people will have a brain aneurysm, varying in size from less than 5mm to more than 25mm in diameter. The majority are only discovered while undergoing imaging for something else (for example, head trauma), because small aneurysms may not cause any symptoms.

Larger aneurysms can cause symptoms because they can press against brain tissues and nerves.

Sandilands described “a lot of headache problems” leading up to his diagnosis. Headaches can be due to minor leaks of blood from the aneurysm. They indicate a risk of the aneurysm rupturing in subsequent days or weeks.

Less than one in 100 brain aneurysms will rupture, often called a “brain bleed”. This causes a subarachnoid haemorrhage, which is a type of stroke.

If it does occur, rupture of a brain aneurysm is life-threatening: nearly one in four people will die within 24 hours, and one in two within three months.

If someone’s brain aneurysm ruptures, they usually experience a sudden, severe headache, often described as a “thunderclap headache”. They may also have other symptoms of a stroke such as changes in vision, loss of movement, nausea, vomiting and loss of consciousness.

Surgery can repair a brain aneurysm, and stop it from rupturing.
Roman Zaiets/Shutterstock

Surgery can prevent a rupture

Whether surgery will be used to treat a brain aneurysm depends on its size and location, as well as the age and health of the patient. The medical team will balance the potential benefits with the risks of the surgery.

A small aneurysm with low risk of rupture will usually just be monitored.

However, once a brain aneurysm reaches 7mm or more, surgery is generally needed.

In surgery to repair a brain aneurysm, the surgeon will temporarily remove a small part of the skull, then cut through the coverings of the brain to place a tiny metal clip to close off the bulging part of the aneurysm.

Another option is endovascular (meaning within the vessel) coiling. A surgeon can pass a catheter into the femoral artery in the thigh, through the aorta to the brain. They can then place a coil inside the aneurysm which forms a clot to close off the aneurysm sac.

After either surgery, usually the person will stay in hospital for up to a week. It can take 6–8 weeks for full recovery, though doctors may continue monitoring with annual imaging tests for a few years afterwards.

You can lower your risk of a brain aneurysm by not smoking, moderating alcohol intake, eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly and maintaining a healthy weight. Läs mer…

Independent Allegra Spender spearheaded a condemnation of antisemitism by federal parliament – but the debate was mired in partisanship.

The opposition tried to prevent the government bringing on the Spender motion in the House of Representatives, because it said it wanted something stronger and would not be able to amend the motion.  

Coalition speakers repeatedly used the debate to attack the government for not, in its view, doing enough to combat antisemitism, particularly after the pro-Palestine demonstration at the Opera House in the wake of the Hamas atrocities of October 7 2023.

Eventually the Spender motion was passed without dissent. It said the House:

deplores the appalling and unacceptable rise in antisemitism across Australia – including violent attacks on synagogues, schools, homes, and childcare centres

unequivocally condemns antisemitism in all its forms and

resolves that all parliamentarians will work constructively together to combat the scourge of antisemitism in Australia.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said Spender had agreed to delete words in an earlier version that would have condemned “all similar hatred directed to any groups in our community”.

“The member agreed to that form of words being struck out because we don’t think that was necessary. And we also think it is inexplicable to try and mount the argument that this sort of hatred and this sort of racism and this sort of antisemitism is being conveyed against any other pocket of the Australian community.”

Dutton said the opposition had voted against the government bringing on the motion “because it stopped us from moving amendments […] which would have strengthened the motion and provided stronger support to the community.”

Spender said combating antisemitism was not just a matter of laws but also of culture.

“We must lead by example. The message from our parliament today must be unambiguous. We will not stand for hate. We will not stand for abuse.

”We will not abide intimidation. We will not tolerate the terrorising of any part of our community. We are united against antisemitism. Words must be backed by action, but words matter, particularly those of the parliament.”

Spender will seek to strengthen the anti-hate bill currently being considered by the parliament.

The motion was seconded by Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns, who said: “the last six months have been like no other I’ve experienced in this country. And my grandparents came to this country looking for a safe haven for the Jewish people. And over the last six months, we’ve seen cars set alight. We’ve seen synagogues burnt down. We’ve seen Jewish homes and businesses marked. And we have seen childcare centres being burnt down.”

Anthony Albanese said: “We know that antisemitism has given dark shadows across generations. I say to Jewish Australians, live proudly, stand tall, you belong here and Australia stands with you.”

Former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, accused a previous Coalition speaker, Andrew Wallace, who criticised the government, of being “corrosive” on “an issue where we should be coming together”.

In the Senate, crossbencher Jacqui Lambie moved the same motion as Spender. The opposition unsuccessfully tried to amend it to embrace mandatory sentencing. A member from independent Lidia Thorpe was also defeated and the motion was passed on the voices. Läs mer…

In his first term, Donald Trump deported far fewer people from the United States than his three predecessors: Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Just weeks into his second term, however, Trump is making the deportation of immigrants one of his top priorities. Immigration raids on those who have overstayed their visas and non-citizens with criminal histories have already commenced, with arrests increasing dramatically in recent days.

His administration has announced plans to build a migrant detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba that could hold up to 30,000 people awaiting deportation. Trump has also threatened to use a little-known law from 1798 to speed up the process, bypassing immigration courts.

People demonstrate against the Trump administration’s sweeps of undocumented migrants in Georgia.
Erik S. Lesser/EPA

While much of the attention has focused on the hundreds of thousands of migrants at risk of being deported to Latin America, many Pacific islanders are likely to be ordered to leave, as well.

A list from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement of people with “final orders of removal” includes some 350 migrants from Fiji, 150 from Tonga and 57 people from Samoa, among others.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s threats have invoked fear across the Pacific. Prominent Fijian lawyer Dorsami Naidu told the ABC:

We’ve had lots of people who have served prison sentences in America get sent back to Fiji where they introduce different kinds of criminal activities that they are well-groomed in.

It should be noted, though, that not all of the people with orders to leave have been convicted of serious crimes. Many have simply overstayed their visas or may have only committed a minor infraction. Most want to turn their lives around.

Lack of support

Criminal deportations from the US, Australia and New Zealand have increased dramatically over the past decade, yet there is still a crucial lack of funding to support reintegration services.

Concerns about the repercussions of criminal deportations are particularly high in Tonga, which received more than 1,000 returnees from 2009–20, nearly three-quarters of whom were from the US.

One Tongan commentator suggested Trump’s decision would “unleash a wave of deportees that could drown Tonga and other Pacific nations in crisis”.

Though some Tongan returnees are accepted back into families and societies, many struggle. A large number left the country when they were young and often have limited understanding of the local language and culture. As such, they experience difficulties reintegrating into society.

My research shows that some deported Pacific islanders with criminal histories may turn “back to what they know” in the absence of support, which at times means involvement in the drug trade if there are no other means of gainful employment.

In countries like Tonga where there is an escalating methamphetamine problem and a lack of employment opportunities, this is understandably concerning.

Tonga, like other Pacific countries, struggles to fund organisations that crucially assist with deported peoples’ reintegration needs in order to prevent the risk of (re)offending. The countries deporting these individuals (such as the US, New Zealand or Australia) rarely provide any assistance, despite repeated requests from Pacific governments and non-governmental organisations.

Can these countries negotiate instead?

Countries can push back against Trump’s decisions to deport their citizens. Colombia was the first to do so, when President Gustavo Petro initially refused to allow military planes carrying deported migrants to land.

Petro’s refusal was met with fury in Washington. Trump threatened a number of retaliatory trade measures, prompting Petro to eventually relent.

Pacific states have previously tried to push back against deportations during the COVID pandemic. Samoa and Tonga, for instance, used diplomatic channels to request a “pause” on removals while they grappled with the unfolding health crisis.

Australia and New Zealand complied with the request, but the US did not. Instead, it used punitive measures to force states into continue receiving deportations.

For instance, the US blacklisted Samoan and Tongan nationals from the list of states eligible for seasonal work visas, affecting these countries’ economies. They were not returned to the list until they “complied” with US removals.

International law mandates that countries accept their own citizens if they are deported. Those that refuse are deemed “deviant states”, which can cause problems for both the deporting state and returnees trapped in limbo.

However, there are other ways of delaying deportation orders.

For example, Samoa has requested additional information from the countries trying to deport Samoans and will not issue travel documents (for example, a passport) until this request is complied with. This information includes evidence of an individual’s connection to Samoa and family ties in the country.

Samoan authorities maintain this helps organisations like the Samoa Returnees Charitable Trust find their families and arrange appropriate accommodation, aiding with their reintegration.

Countries like Colombia and Samoa are acting in the interests of their citizens. While many have legitimate concerns about returnees potentially turning to crime once they are in their home countries, these states also want to challenge the perception that all migrants are criminals.

As Petro, the Colombian president, was quick to point out:

They are Colombians. They are free and dignified, and they are in their homeland where they are loved […] The migrant is not a criminal. He is a human being who wants to work and progress, to live life. Läs mer…

Since becoming president, Donald Trump has issued a record number of executive orders. Several aim to dismantle federally funded initiatives based on the idea that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) are goals worth achieving.

In response, many commentators have warned Trump may be dragging the United States back to the dark days of the “pre-civil rights” Jim Crow era.

But who or what was Jim Crow?

The term Jim Crow refers to the long period in US history when black Americans could not exercise the same rights of citizenship as white Americans.

“Jim Crow” segregation began when slavery ended in northern states such as New York, between 1777 and about 1830. There was a brief reprieve from some of the era’s excesses just after the Civil War, when African Americans could do things such as run for political office, vote, and own land even in the South.

But by 1877, conservative forces had regrouped. In the next few decades they enforced inequality through acts of violence such as lynching and by passing laws mandating separate public spaces and schools for black people and preventing them from voting.

The Jim Crow era ended with the mass mobilisation in the 1950s and 1960s of civil rights campaigners, which forced the federal government to take, in the words of President John F. Kennedy, “affirmative action” to make things more fair.

President Trump throws pens used to sign executive orders to the crowd during an event in Washington on January 20.
Matt Rourke/AAP

Who was Jim Crow?

The character of “Jim Crow” first came to life in 1828 on a New Orleans stage. An itinerant white performer, Thomas Dartmouth Rice, blackened his face and claimed to be mimicking the songs and dances of an enslaved man, named Jim Crow.

White performers and later even black ones wore makeup and outfits accentuating the supposed difference of black people from white norms of beauty. They performed songs, skits, and sometimes excerpts of other well-known stage plays, all designed to malign black people. One of those songs was “Jump Jim Crow”.

Cover of the early edition of ‘Jump Jim Crow’ sheet music.
Wikimedia Commons

Within ten years of Rice’s first rendition, the theatrical genre of minstrelsy took hold of audiences in the US, and spread across the British world, including Australia and New Zealand. Its popularity lasted right into the 20th century, as late as the 1960s.

Historians have never quite solved the mystery of how, by the 1890s, the mythical figure of Jim Crow became the shorthand name for the system of laws, violence, and caricature under which black Americans laboured for so long.

But by naming it as such, the shorthand implied the system was required in order to keep an inferior group of people, illustrated by the dissolute and comical character of Jim Crow, in check. The name stuck.

Actor Thomas D. Rice dancing blackface as the enslaved man ‘Jim Crow’ in 1836.
Wikimedia Commons

The name also travelled. In Australia, several Indigenous men were named Jim Crow (and Indigenous women named Topsy, after another caricatured figure in the wildly popular American novel and stage show, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin).

In central Victoria, Jim Crow Creek was renamed Larni Barramal Yaluk in 2023 after a long campaign by Dja Dja Wurrung leaders.

Why separate people by race?

The Jim Crow era emerged after slavery ended because wealthy white people wanted to maintain a cheap labour force.

They justified this system by claiming the aim of keeping white and black people apart was to maintain “racial purity.” (The very word, “miscegenation” emerged in 1864, just a year before the end of slavery in the US.) This rhetoric also helped make segregation appealing to poorer whites, because it enabled them to feel superior to non-white people.

Little Rock, 1959: a rally at the state capitol, protesting the integration of the local high school.
Wikimedia Commons

While segregation is now often imagined to have been total, in fact white and black Americans continued to inhabit many of the same spaces. White and black agricultural workers often tilled the same fields, while African American women worked throughout these decades as maids or cooks in white people’s homes, a very intimate role.

Maintaining inequality

The system of unequal opportunities – “Jim Crow” – was maintained in three main ways. First, with violence. More than 4,000 African Americans were killed in a ritual known as “lynching” between 1877 and 1950. Untold numbers suffered other forms of violence and lived constantly with the fear that they might be its victim.

Secondly, local and state governments passed laws and ordinances to control African Americans. These included dictates on mobility such as curfews; vagrancy laws to force black Americans to sign desperately unfair labour contracts; and prohibitions on black people owning firearms. Later, these laws were expanded to prevent black men (and later women) from running for office, voting, or sitting on juries.

And the laws mandated separate public spaces, such as in train travel or in the theatre, as well as separate educational facilities. In 1896, the provision of “separate but equal” public facilities was given the stamp of approval by the US Supreme Court. That decision was only overturned in 1954.

At the bus station in Durham, North Carolina, May 1940. Photo by Jack Delano.
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Thirdly, the racism that had underpinned justifications for the trafficking of 12 million people from Africa across the Atlantic in the slave trade was expanded in new ways.

Grotesque caricaturing of black people became a mainstay of consumer goods (think of “Aunt Jemima” pancakes or “Uncle Ben” rice) and popular culture. This started with theatre in the 1820s, then later in recorded music, film, radio, and television.

Today’s picture

Now, “Jim Crow” is back in public discourse. Conservatives say their anti-DEI policies restore merit-based appointments and are genuinely “colorblind.” But the appointment of Fox News host Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, for example, suggests “merit” is understood very differently by different groups of people.

Critics such as Margaret Huang, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s president and chief executive, assert that Trump and others’ attacks on DEI “aren’t about a particular program or some acronym — they’re just a sanitized substitute for the racist comments that can no longer be spoken openly”.

Coupled with other presidential executive orders aiming to remove “birthright citizenship,” and to expand deportation of immigrants and limit fresh immigration, it’s clear Trump’s administration is intent on reshaping just who is a legitimate citizen of the US, and which groups of people have access to federal support.

If there is one lesson to take from the ignominious period of US history known as Jim Crow, it is this: it was overturned only by dint of African Americans’ immense collective efforts. These began with civil court cases in the 1830s through to marching across a bridge in Selma, Alabama, in 1965.

Participants in the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965.
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Plenty of people are looking to their examples of community building, civil disobedience, and collective resistance to once again defend the principles of equality. Läs mer…

Protecting and restoring peatlands and mangroves can strengthen Southeast Asian countries’ efforts to combat climate change, according to new findings from an international team of researchers.

Carbon-dense peatlands and mangroves comprise only 5% of Southeast Asia’s surface. Protecting and restoring them, however, can reduce approximately 770±97 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) annually. This is equal to more than half of the carbon emissions from land use in the region.

Conserving offers larger mitigation potential through reduced emissions from ecosystem loss in the region compared to gains from restoration. If optimally implemented, restoration can still play an important role in nature-based carbon sequestration.

Having peatlands and mangroves included in the new climate pledges (Nationally Determined Contributions 3.0) can help countries set higher emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2035.

A researcher walks through the brown-coloured water of swampy degraded peatlands during the wet season. Photo by Sigit Sasmito/CIFOR.
cifor-icraf/flickr

More benefits to offer

The study reports extensive climate benefits from conserving and restoring peatlands and mangroves. Therefore, they make effective natural climate solutions for Southeast Asian countries.

Both ecosystems protect organic matter from decay under natural conditions, acting as net carbon sinks. This means that carbon uptake exceeds carbon loss.

Net carbon gains are mainly accumulated in their soils instead of their vegetation. More than 90% of carbon stocks in peatlands and 78% in mangroves are in their soils.

At scale, protecting and restoring both types of wetlands also supports other valuable co-benefits. These include biodiversity preservation, water quality improvement, coastal protection, food security and rural development for millions of coastal people across Southeast Asian countries.

Challenges remain

Despite the benefits, many challenges and risks persist in conserving and restoring peatlands and mangroves.

When peatlands and mangroves are disturbed – commonly due to land use change – they release large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. This release can later exacerbate climate change.

The new estimates suggest that changes in their land use for the past two decades (2001-2022) had caused the release of approximately 691±97 MtCO2e of excess emissions.

Indonesia accounts for the largest portion of the region’s emissions, accounting for 73%. Malaysia (14%), Myanmar (7%), and Vietnam (2%) follow. The other seven Southeast Asian countries generate the remaining 4% of emissions.

In Southeast Asia, mangroves and peatlands are often treated as unproductive land. Still, they have long been subject to agricultural land expansion planning.

Moreover, unclear or multi-land ownership and lack of long-term participatory monitoring programs are critical challenges for prioritising and implementing restoration on the ground.

Despite these challenges, government and corporate interest in developing conservation and restoration-based carbon projects for peatlands and mangroves is rapidly increasing.

That is why now is a good opportunity to recognise their vital roles — not only for climate change mitigation — but also for people and nature.

Researchers measure the biomass carbon stocks in a mangrove forest. Photo by Kate Evans/CIFOR.
cifor-icraf/flickr

Implications for national emissions reduction targets

The new study addresses a critical gap in climate policy for Southeast Asian by providing annual climate change mitigation potentials from peatlands and mangroves.

Climate mitigation potential for national land-use emissions varies widely between countries.

The findings suggest that it could reduce national land-use emissions by up to 88% in Malaysia, 64% in Indonesia, and 60% in Brunei. Other countries include Myanmar at 39%, the Philippines at 26%, Cambodia at 18%, Vietnam at 13%, Thailand at 10%, Laos at 9%, Singapore at 2%, and Timor-Leste at 0.04%.

Our study also shows that mitigation potential from peatlands and mangroves in Indonesia can fulfil country Forestry and Other Land-use (FOLU) Net Sink targets by 2030.

In its 2022 NDCs, Indonesia plans to reduce its annual emissions from FOLU by 2030 between 500-729 MtCO2e, depending on the level of external support. According to the study, this figure is within the same order of mitigation potential as peatlands and mangroves can collectively generate.

However, peatland and mangrove mitigation potentials are insufficient to avoid dangerous levels of climate change in the future.

Decarbonisation remains the most effective means of curbing climate change and its impacts, with peatland and mangrove protection enhancing these efforts. Läs mer…

Large social media companies should have to proactively remove harmful content from their platforms, undergo regular “risk assessments” and face hefty fines if they don’t comply, according to an independent review of online safety laws in Australia.

The federal government will today release the final report of the review conducted by experienced public servant Delia Rickard, more than three months after receiving it.

The review comes a few months after Meta announced it will stop using independent fact checkers to moderate content on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.

Rickard’s review contains 67 recommendations in total. If implemented, they would go a long way to making Australians safer from abusive content, cyberbullying and other potential harms encountered online. They would also align Australia to international jurisdictions and address many of the same problems targeted by the social media ban for young people.

However, the recommendations contain serious omissions. And with a federal election looming, the review is not likely to be acted upon until the next term of government.

Addressing online harms at the source

The review recommends imposing a “digital duty of care” on large social media companies.

The federal government has already committed to doing this. However, legislation to implement a digital duty of care has been on hold since November, with discussions overshadowed by the government’s social media ban for under 16s.

The digital duty of care would put the onus on tech companies to proactively address a range of specific harms on their platforms, such as child sexual exploitation and attacks based on gender, race or religion.

It would also provide several protections for Australians, including “easily accessible, simple and user-friendly” pathways to complain about harmful content. And it would position Australia alongside the United Kingdom and the European Union, which already have similar laws in place.

Online service providers would face civil penalties of 5% of global annual turnover or A$50 million (whichever is greater) for non-compliance with the duty of care.

Two new classes of harm – and expanded powers for the regulator

The recommendations also call for a decoupling of the Online Safety Act from the National Classification Scheme. That latter scheme legislates the classification of publications, films and computer games, providing ratings to guide consumers to make informed choices for selecting age-appropriate content.

This shift would create two new classes of harm: content that is “illegal and seriously harmful” and “legal but may be harmful”. This includes material dealing with “harmful practices” such as eating disorders and self-harm.

The review’s recommendations also include provisions for technology companies to undergo annual “risk assessments” and publish an annual “transparency report”.

The review also recommends adults experiencing cyber abuse, and children who are cyberbullied online, should wait only 24 hours following a complaint before the eSafety Commission orders a social media platform to remove the content in question. This is down from 48 hours.

It also recommends lowering the threshold for identifying “menacing, harassing, or seriously offensive” material to that which “an ordinary reasonable person” would conclude is likely to have an effect.

The review also calls for a new governance model for the eSafety Commission. This new model would empower the eSafety Commissioner to create and enforce “mandatory rules” (or codes) for duty of care compliance, including addressing online harms.

The recommendations would give more power to the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

The need to tackle misinformation and disinformation

The recommendations are a step towards making the online world safer for everybody. Importantly, they would achieve this without the problems associated with the government’s social media ban for young people – including that it could violate children’s human rights.

Missing from the recommendations, however, is any mention of potential harms from online misinformation and disinformation.

Given the speed of online information sharing, and the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) tools to enable online harms, such as deepfake pornography, this is a crucial omission.

From vaccine safety to election campaigns, experts have raised ongoing concerns about the need to combat misinformation.

A 2024 report by the International Panel on the Information Environment found experts, globally, are most worried about “threats to the information environment posed by the owners of social media platforms”.

In January 2025, the Canadian Medical Association released a report showing people are increasingly seeking advice from “problematic sources”. At the same time technology companies are “blocking trusted news” and “profiting” from “pushing misinformation” on their platforms.

In Australia, the government’s proposed misinformation bill was scrapped in November last year due to concerns over potential censorship. But this has left people vulnerable to false information shared online in the lead-up to the federal election this year. As the Australian Institute of International Affairs said last month:

misinformation has increasingly permeated the public discourse and digital media in Australia.

Tech giant Meta recently announced it will stop using independent fact checkers to moderate content on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
Jeff Chiu/AP

An ongoing need for education and support

The recommendations also fail to provide guidance on further educational supports for navigating online spaces safely in the review.

The eSafety Commission currently provides many tools and resources for young people, parents, educators, and other Australians to support online safety. But it’s unclear if the change to a governance model for the commission to enact duty of care provisions would change this educational and support role.

The recommendations do highlight the need for “simple messaging” for people experiencing harm online to make complaints. But there is an ongoing need for educational strategies for people of all ages to prevent harm from occurring.

The Albanese government says it will respond to the review in due course. With a federal election only months away, it seems unlikely the recommendations will be acted on this term.

Whichever government is elected, it should prioritise guidance on educational supports and misinformation, along with adopting the review’s recommendations. Together, this would go a long way to keeping everyone safe online. Läs mer…