Speaker 1: From Schwartz Media. I'm Daniel James. This is seven AM.
Speaker 1: At the recent election, a generational shift became undeniable. Nearly
Speaker 1: half of all voters were millennials or gen Z and
Speaker 1: their votes helped deliver Labor its biggest lower House majority ever,
Speaker 1: returned a size of a cross bench and left the
Speaker 1: coalition reeling. But despite their decisive influence, young voters are
Speaker 1: still waiting for answers, especially on one issue they've placed
Speaker 1: at the heart of their demands, a government duty of
Speaker 1: care in the face of the climate crisis. Today, climate
Speaker 1: activists Unduli Sharma on whether Labor were governed for the
Speaker 1: young people who delivered them victory. It's Monday, June ninth.
Speaker 2: Well, young voters held a large amount of power in
Speaker 2: this federal election. For the first time, Gen Z and
Speaker 2: millennials outnumbered Baby boomers.
Speaker 1: So Labor has been given a huge majority at mandate.
Speaker 1: And we've heard a lot about how that came off
Speaker 1: the back of the youth vote at the most recent election.
Speaker 1: How do you think young people viewed that election? What
Speaker 1: did they think was at stake?
Speaker 3: Well, there was a lot at stake this election.
Speaker 4: We saw culture's rife during the election campaign, we saw
Speaker 4: policies that just simply did not accord with what young
Speaker 4: people are seeing before our eyes. What's reality for young people?
Speaker 4: And I'm talking about nuclear I'm talking about uninspiring policies
Speaker 4: on housing, on cost of living, really from both major parties,
Speaker 4: and so I think what young people were really looking
Speaker 4: for when we went to the ballot box was some
Speaker 4: level of safety, some level of security, and the fact
Speaker 4: that the government was delivered with such a historic majority,
Speaker 4: I think is reflective of that.
Speaker 1: Recognizing the change in demographics at the election, both major
Speaker 1: parties chased young voters online.
Speaker 2: Absolutely labeable white, twenty percent of everyone's student dead. By
Speaker 2: the way, it's the first bit of legislation will introduce
Speaker 2: if we're re elected on the third of May. Signing
Speaker 2: up for UNIE shouldn't mean signing up for a lifetime
Speaker 2: of debt.
Speaker 1: What did you make of those efforts?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it brings a smell to my face thinking about
Speaker 4: some of the social media campaigning that we saw from
Speaker 4: really all sides of politics. Peter, why should I care
Speaker 4: about Peter Dutton wanting to gut Medicare.
Speaker 1: Well, Brian, You're a dog, so it doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 1: That you don't care you're not allowed in hospitals. But
Speaker 1: when he was last health minister, he tried to end
Speaker 1: universal healthcare by introducing gp CO payments.
Speaker 4: We now know that the words de lulu with no
Speaker 4: sululu are in our parliamentary hand side. This really was
Speaker 4: reflective of the fact that both major parties had done
Speaker 4: their homework. They knew that it was young people who
Speaker 4: were going to be a key factor in swaying this election,
Speaker 4: and they wanted to meet us where we were. I
Speaker 4: guess you can say that they did that. They met
Speaker 4: us where we were in relation to their social media later,
Speaker 4: in relation to how they tried to get our attention. Now,
Speaker 4: the question for them is how they honor our votes
Speaker 4: and how they take that forward, how they act on
Speaker 4: that mandate that we delivered to them.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that during the campaign it was rife with
Speaker 1: things like culture wars, which are basically, I guess, constructed
Speaker 1: to divide the community and try and get a majority
Speaker 1: of from one particular side on any particular issue. Do
Speaker 1: you see the election out come as a rejection of
Speaker 1: that type of politics, that politics of.
Speaker 4: Division In a way, I think that people were sick
Speaker 4: of hearing about whether our next prime minister was going
Speaker 4: to stand in front of three flags or whether they
Speaker 4: were going to stand in front of one. But also
Speaker 4: at the same time, at the start of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 4: the Liberal Party was in a competitive position and there
Speaker 4: were polls showing that they could take majority government even
Speaker 4: and that we knew that their views on indigenous rights,
Speaker 4: their history of climate denial, and their wants to spook
Speaker 4: and push nuclear Of course, it became more visible as
Speaker 4: the election campaign took center stage in people's minds, but
Speaker 4: they were shown at the start of the year that
Speaker 4: culture wars had gotten them support because they were there
Speaker 4: in front in the polls. So I wouldn't say it
Speaker 4: was a complete rejection of cultural wars. Unfortunately, to some
Speaker 4: extent they got ground with that, and you know that's
Speaker 4: why parties like One Nation have seats in the Parliament
Speaker 4: as of now. But I think that vote was reflective
Speaker 4: of that desire for some sort of security, some sort
Speaker 4: of stability, and the backflipping that we saw from the
Speaker 4: Liberal Party, the up and downness of their election campaign
Speaker 4: and their ability to offend almost every marginalized group in
Speaker 4: the country was something to do with their vote.
Speaker 1: So We've been talking about the huge influence that Gen
Speaker 1: Z millennials have had on what the new parliament looks like,
Speaker 1: delivering what he's on paper, a progressive parliament. What confidence
Speaker 1: do you have that what we'll see on paper will
Speaker 1: translate to real world action.
Speaker 4: Well, you're asking me this question after the government has
Speaker 4: just approved the Northwest Shelf project, Woodside's carbon bomb essentially,
Speaker 4: so you've caught me a time of not very much optimism.
Speaker 4: I'll be honest. It's really, really, really disheartening that this
Speaker 4: government's and this Environment Minister's first act is to greenlight
Speaker 4: a project, a gas project out to twenty seventy in
Speaker 4: clear contradiction of an immense amount of science, an immense
Speaker 4: amount of business groups and organizations and unions backing a
Speaker 4: call to keep all remaining fossil fuels in the grounds,
Speaker 4: and the evidence that says that we need to do
Speaker 4: that to make good on our Paris Agreement obligations to
Speaker 4: deliver a safe and Liverpool future for young people. Woodside
Speaker 4: is a carbon bomb and there was very good reason
Speaker 4: to not let that project go ahead. But under Australia's
Speaker 4: broken environmental laws that we've seen promises full reform continually
Speaker 4: be kicked down the roads. That project was allowed to
Speaker 4: go ahead despite this mandate, despite this historic youth vote.
Speaker 4: Now that they've won our votes, they've retreated into that
Speaker 4: shelter of complacency once again, and they're not too set
Speaker 4: on figuring out how to honor.
Speaker 1: Them coming up after the break a duty of care
Speaker 1: to young people or to Woodside.
Speaker 2: Now the federal government is being accused of setting off
Speaker 2: a carbon bomb after.
Speaker 4: Giving the green light to a forty year expansion of
Speaker 4: that is biggest gas operation.
Speaker 1: Angelie. You've point into the government's decision to green light
Speaker 1: the extension of Woodside's a massive gas project, as a
Speaker 1: major disappointment given the huge mandate labor now has. What
Speaker 1: would you want to see them do with it?
Speaker 4: Well, one end of Australia right now is underwater and
Speaker 4: the other end is going through devastating drought. It's clearer
Speaker 4: than ever that climate change isn't a far off issue
Speaker 4: anymore for Australians. It's one that's touching hearts around the world.
Speaker 4: It's one that people are seeing not just through our
Speaker 4: TV screens but through our windows. That mandate now is
Speaker 4: a mandate. As I've said, for safety, for security. And
Speaker 4: that doesn't mean acting on woodsides wishes and on the
Speaker 4: wishes of Meg O'Neil. It means delivering ambitious climate and
Speaker 4: environmental reform. That means Australia's broken environmental laws aren't able
Speaker 4: to be used as a smoke screen to push through
Speaker 4: extension after extension.
Speaker 3: That mean that we're.
Speaker 4: Not able to tick a box and say yes, we've
Speaker 4: done our part on climate change because our emissions that
Speaker 4: we burned here in Australia are this much while actually
Speaker 4: where one of the world's largest exporters of fossil fuels,
Speaker 4: and where responsible for much much more emissions than we
Speaker 4: actually count in our domestic targets.
Speaker 1: Angelie, you were one of eight children who took the
Speaker 1: Federal Environments to the court arguing the government has a
Speaker 1: duty of care to protect young people from climate harm.
Speaker 1: Where does the push for a legally recognized gi of
Speaker 1: care stand right now?
Speaker 4: So I guess to answer that question, I'll start with
Speaker 4: telling you why we believe that that should be legally recognized,
Speaker 4: and that's because we know that young people will be
Speaker 4: worst affected by climate change. We know that climate disaster
Speaker 4: is increasing in frequency and severity, and that it's our
Speaker 4: generations that we'll have to bear the brunt of that.
Speaker 4: That's what we argued, as you said, before the courts
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty again in twenty twenty one on appeal,
Speaker 4: and unfortunately that ruling was overturned after being successful initially.
Speaker 5: The Federal Court today may have accepted the minister's legal
Speaker 5: arguments over ours, but that does not change the minister's
Speaker 5: legal obligation moral obligation sorry to take action on climate
Speaker 5: change and to protect young people from the harms that
Speaker 5: it will bring.
Speaker 4: So it no longer exists right now in common law
Speaker 4: before the courts. However, we continued that campaign after that ruling,
Speaker 4: and what we've done is we've worked with Independence and
Speaker 4: in a David pocock I move.
Speaker 6: That the following bill be introduced, a Bill for an
Speaker 6: Act to Amend the Climate Change Act twenty twenty two,
Speaker 6: to put.
Speaker 4: Forward a bill to the Federal Parliament that seeks to
Speaker 4: establish that duty of care.
Speaker 6: Bill obviously would legislate a duty of care where the Environmentister,
Speaker 6: the relevant decision maker would have to consider the impact
Speaker 6: of fossil fuel projects.
Speaker 1: On young people.
Speaker 4: Right now, that bill is still before the Parliament and
Speaker 4: hasn't been voted on the Government has indicated that they
Speaker 4: don't support it as of.
Speaker 3: Now, but our work continues in that area.
Speaker 1: So what kind of support does it have in and
Speaker 1: out of Parliament?
Speaker 3: It has lots of support in the Parliament.
Speaker 4: We had a lobbying day where we went around to
Speaker 4: around fifty MPs and we asked them for support in
Speaker 4: writing for a duty of care. That day we got
Speaker 4: support from around thirty members of Parliament and eleven of
Speaker 4: them were from within the government, including assistant ministers too.
Speaker 4: We have support from businesses and unions. We released an
Speaker 4: open letter calling for this study of care that was
Speaker 4: signed by five former Australians.
Speaker 3: Of the Year.
Speaker 4: A Nobel Laureate Australia is the most decorated Olympian Emma
Speaker 4: McKeon organizations young people have written to the Parliament asking
Speaker 4: for the.
Speaker 3: Study of care.
Speaker 4: We have thousands of signatures on our petition. It's a
Speaker 4: principle that, as far as I've tried to communicate it
Speaker 4: to people, is very well received.
Speaker 1: Your campaign has led to a bill being put forward
Speaker 1: by Senator David Pocock. You mentioned that Labor isn't going
Speaker 1: to support that bill. Have you spoken to anyone within
Speaker 1: the government about that bill.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so we have quite regular, ongoing and productive conversations
Speaker 4: with many people within the Parliament. We have a really
Speaker 4: strong coalition of backbenches within the government who support this
Speaker 4: bill and to have been from the outset some of
Speaker 4: our really really strong supporters for a duty of care. Unfortunately, though,
Speaker 4: what we see is factional politics is caucus politics.
Speaker 3: That mean that it's actually.
Speaker 4: Not those backbenchers who get to say despite what their
Speaker 4: communities might be calling for, and it means that really
Speaker 4: really good policy proposals like this one don't just get rejected,
Speaker 4: they get rejected without any possibility of compromise or negotiation.
Speaker 4: That doesn't mean that we've stopped calling for a duty
Speaker 4: of care.
Speaker 3: Our campaign will continue in this term of.
Speaker 4: Parliament to and now what we're calling for the government
Speaker 4: now is that if you don't like this private members
Speaker 4: bill that's before you.
Speaker 3: Then do it your own way.
Speaker 4: Put in a duty of care however you would like
Speaker 4: draft in your own terms, but work with us and
Speaker 4: work with young people on actually doing that, rather than
Speaker 4: saying our current environmental.
Speaker 3: Laws a fit for purpose. We've got X, Y and Z,
Speaker 3: because clearly they're not.
Speaker 4: If you're approving Northwest shelf out till twenty seventy, then
Speaker 4: there's something lacking in our environmental laws. We've got this
Speaker 4: proposal here to plug that gap, but we need you
Speaker 4: to come to the table as well.
Speaker 1: I want to fast forward to the twenty twenty eight election,
Speaker 1: will be at the tail end of a decade that
Speaker 1: signed to say is critical when it comes to climate change.
Speaker 1: We spoke about how young voters were instrumental in Albanesi's victory.
Speaker 1: What's the risk if young voters and their priorities are ignored.
Speaker 4: Well, what we saw this election actually, as young people do,
Speaker 4: skew progressive and that doesn't just mean delivering a labor government.
Speaker 4: It means significant first preferences for Greens and for climate independence.
Speaker 4: In some of the youngest electorates in the country. We
Speaker 4: saw significant swings towards the Greens. We saw previously safe
Speaker 4: seats turned marginal because of Green's challenges or because of
Speaker 4: climate independence challenging the sitting and incumbent MPs. It's a
Speaker 4: clear indication of what's to come in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 4: If we believe that that mandate that we handed the
Speaker 4: government hasn't been on it and hasn't been taken forward.
Speaker 4: It's something that we know that we'll continue to see.
Speaker 4: It started in the twenty twenty two election, that green slide,
Speaker 4: that swing towards climate independence. It continued this election and
Speaker 4: it's only going to grow.
Speaker 3: We know that one of the.
Speaker 4: Biggest reasons that the government and parliaments haven't put forward
Speaker 4: decisive policies on young peoples because up until now they
Speaker 4: haven't really had to consider them as a key demographic
Speaker 4: and lead up to election. The more that that happens,
Speaker 4: as we saw in this election, the more we will
Speaker 4: see policies targeted towards young people.
Speaker 3: Who've just seen.
Speaker 4: Australia's youngest senator ever elected, and I hope that she
Speaker 4: does as she said, become a voice for those who
Speaker 4: share her perspective and those who know what it's like
Speaker 4: to be twenty one right now, staring down the barrel
Speaker 4: at a world that could be marked by climate disaster
Speaker 4: increasing in frequency and severity, and compounding with the crisis
Speaker 4: of inequality of frog, insecurity of water, insecurity of housing, insecurity.
Speaker 3: This movement is not just.
Speaker 4: One that we see every three years at the ballot box.
Speaker 4: It's one that we're seeing continuously through different avenues that
Speaker 4: are being used for change.
Speaker 1: Andelie, thank you so much for taking the time to
Speaker 1: speak with us.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Before we go, I wanted to tell you about some
Speaker 1: of the reporting. In the latest edition of the Saturday Paper.
Speaker 1: Barrister Adrian Bow writes about the recent death of a
Speaker 1: young Aboriginal man while under the restraint of two plain
Speaker 1: clothed police officers and Alice Springs in Bartway. He draws
Speaker 1: parallels between the death and the twenty nineteen shooting of
Speaker 1: Cumen Joe Walker and the systemic problems that these killings reveal,
Speaker 1: and award winning writer Richard Flanagan reports in the crisis
Speaker 1: within the Tasmanian Liberal Party over plans to build a
Speaker 1: stadium that would bankrupt the state. You can find these
Speaker 1: stories and many more at the Saturday Paper dot com
Speaker 1: dot au. I'm Daniel James. This is seven am. Thanks
Speaker 1: for stay