Achi news desk-
Last week, Youth Minister Anne Aly unveiled a new youth engagement strategy aimed at including young voices in government decisions.
It did not receive much media attention, perhaps because it did not contain many unexpected components. All it does is close existing consultation mechanisms, such as the government’s Youth Advisory Groups, which selected young people use to advise government departments. Added to this was the National Youth Forum, an annual talkfest, the first of which was held last Wednesday in Canberra with 110 young people aged 14-25 from all over the country. The whole strategy is led by a steering group of 15 more young people.
The government is keen to show that it is listening to young people — more than 4,600 of them for this report. But what exactly is all that listening means is vague, beyond listening again.
This does not mean that there is no point in consulting with specific groups of young people. In the fields of health, education and social services, and particularly trauma-laden subjects such as domestic violence and suicide, young people are often affected in particular, harmful ways. Collecting data on their experiences—and, importantly, their interactions with government agencies—helps improve government policies and agency processes.
But on wider political issues that matter to young people, such as housing and climate change, it is unclear whether such a “youth consultation” achieves anything that traditional political processes cannot.
What Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen learned, for example, from the government’s Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change and COP28 that was not evident from the thousands of students who have walked out of class several times to protest the slowdown in emissions Australia discount?
On such complex issues that span the generations, the problem is not a lack of knowledge or understanding by ministers, but their defense against countervailing pressure from vested interests and older generations who are satisfied with the status quo. What will move the needle is not another box-ticking forum, but a definite electoral pressure that politicians cannot ignore.
Exhibit A: Teal MPs Monique Ryan and Zoe Daniel are currently pushing for changes to HECS indices. Based on a recommendation from the Universities Agreement, they want debts to be indexed either according to the consumer price index or the wage price index — whichever is lower. They also want indexation to be calculated at the end of the financial year so that money paid in that year is not included.
Ryan has become something of a TikTok star because of her proposals, and her petition gained 80,000 signatures in just six days. She and Ryan will present it to Education Minister Jason Clare in the coming days.
I do not doubt that Ryan and Daniel sincerely support such proposals, but their advocacy is undermined by self-interest. Their electorate is home to many young students, with Kooyong having the highest number of under-24 voters in Victoria (and not far across the country). Ryan and Daniel cannot win re-election without them, and young people have been increasingly vocal online about these issues after debt rises significantly with inflation in the 2022-23 financial year, giving leaders clear incentives opportunistic.
Fair enough, but what about the young people who can’t vote yet? Well, maybe we should enfranchise more of them. This would ensure that their interests are represented directly, rather than being mediated through committees of officers appointed by the government. It would give them real power — although, as some cynics argue, the lack of real power may be part of the reason why politicians like “youth consultation” in the first place.
If the state can imprison a 16 year old, shouldn’t they at least get to vote on the laws that send them there?
But what about children under voting age, you might ask? In fact, what about children who haven’t even been born yet? How can government processes, particularly in an aging society, be calibrated to meaningfully account for the interests of the young and future generations?
Thomas Walker, CEO of youth-led think tank Think Forward, has some ideas. He approves of the government’s strategy, and is impressed by Aly’s engagement with current advisory group participants. But he hopes his strategy is a first step, followed by a “broader effort to embed intergenerational thinking in policy-making through legal mechanisms with teeth”.
It highlights Wales’ “commissioner of future generations”, a product of the country’s 2015 The Well-being of Future Generations Act. This legislation places a legal responsibility on government agencies to govern with future generations in mind, by adhering to a list of “sustainable development” principles. It has already prompted various progressive changes, including canceling most major road projects and reinvesting the proceeds in public transport projects.
Walker is also a supporter of Senator David Pocock’s Duty of Care and Intergenerational Equity Bill, which a Senate committee is due to report on this week. If passed in its current form, it would require governments to consider the impact of climate damage on young people and future generations when making decisions, and not to make decisions that pose a significant risk of harm to their health and well-being.
“It is a sincere effort to incorporate the rights of young and future generations into the government’s decision-making process,” Walker said. “However, perhaps the fact that the government refuses to support the legislation gives a more realistic picture of how far they are willing to go”.
Aly certainly appears to be a passionate advocate for young people. But when representing their views to the cabinet, the question remains how often her colleagues move beyond listening and taking action.
What else should the government be doing to consider the rights of future generations? Should we consider lowering the voting age to 16? Let us know what you think by writing to [email protected]. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
