[Theme Music Starts]

From Schwartz Media, I’m Daniel James. This is 7am.

At the recent election, a generational shift became undeniable. Nearly half of all voters were Millennials or Gen Z – and their votes helped deliver Labor its biggest lower house majority ever, returned a sizable crossbench, and left the Coalition reeling.

But despite their decisive influence, young voters are still waiting for answers – especially on one issue they’ve placed at the heart of their demands: a government duty of care in the face of the climate crisis.

Today, climate activist Anjali Sharma, on whether Labor will govern for the young people who delivered them victory.

It’s Monday, June 9.

[Theme Music Ends]

Audio excerpt – ABC Host:

“Well young voters held a large amount of power in this federal election. For the first time Gen Z and Millennials outnumbered Baby Boomers.”

DANIEL:

So, Labor has been given a huge majority – a mandate – and we've heard a lot about how that came off the back of the youth vote at the most recent election. How do you think young people viewed the election? What did they think was at stake?

ANJALI:

Well, there was a lot at stake this election. We saw culture wars rife during the election campaign. We saw policies that just simply did not accord with what young people are seeing before our eyes, what's reality for young people. And I'm talking about nuclear, I'm talking about uninspiring policies on housing, on cost of living, really from both major parties. And so I think what young people were really looking for when we went to the ballot box was some level of safety, some level of security. And the fact that the government was delivered with such a historic majority, I think, is reflective of that.

DANIEL:

Recognising the change in demographics at the election, both major parties chased young voters online.

ANJALI:

Absolutely.

Audio excerpt – Anthony Albanese TikTok:

“Labor will wipe 20 per cent off everyone's student debt. By the way, it's the first bit of legislation we'll introduce if we're re-elected on the 3rd of May. Signing up for uni shouldn't mean signing up for a lifetime of debt.”

DANIEL:

What did you make of those efforts?

ANJALI:

Yeah, it brings a smile to my face thinking about some of the social media campaigning that we saw from, really, all sides of politics.

Audio excerpt – AI voice of Brian from Family Guy:

“Peter, why should I care about Peter Dutton wanting to gut Medicare?”

Audio excerpt – AI voice of Peter from Family Guy:

“Well, Brian, you're a dog, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't care. You're not allowed in hospitals. But when he was last Health Minister, he tried to end universal healthcare by introducing GP copayments.”

ANJALI:

We now know that the words “delulu with no solulu” are in our parliamentary Hansard. This really was reflective of the fact that both major parties had done their homework. They knew that it was young people who were going to be a key factor in swaying this election and they wanted to meet us where we were. I guess you can say that they did that. They met us where we were in relation to their social media collateral, in relation to how they tried to get our attention. Now the question for them is how they honour our votes and how they take that forward, how they act on that mandate that we delivered to them.

DANIEL:

You mentioned that during the campaign, it was rife with things like culture wars, which are basically, I guess, constructed to divide the community and try and get a majority from one particular side on any particular issue. Do you see the election outcome as a rejection of that type of politics, that politics of division?

ANJALI:

In a way. I think that people were sick of hearing about whether our next prime minister was going to stand in front of three flags or whether they were going to stand in front of one. But also at the same time, at the start of 2025, the Liberal Party was in a competitive position and there were polls showing that they could take majority government even. And that we knew their views on Indigenous rights, their history of climate denial and their want to spruik and push nuclear. Of course, it became more visible as the election campaign took centre stage in people's minds, but they were shown at the start of the year that culture wars had gotten them support because they were there in front in the polls. So, I wouldn't say it was a complete rejection of culture wars. Unfortunately, to some extent, they got ground with that and that's why parties like One Nation have seats in the parliament as of now. But I think that vote was reflective of that desire for some sort of security, some sort of stability. And the backflipping that we saw from the Liberal Party, the up and downness of their election campaign and their ability to offend almost every marginalised group in the country, was something to do with their vote.

DANIEL:

So we've been talking about the huge influence that Gen Z and Millennials have had on what the new parliament looks like, delivering what is, on paper, a progressive parliament. What confidence do you have that what we'll see on paper will translate to real world action?

ANJALI:

Well, you're asking me this question after the government has just approved the North West Shelf Project – Woodside's carbon bomb, essentially. So you've caught me at a time of not very much optimism, I'll be honest. It's really, really, really disheartening that this government's, and this environment minister's first act, is to greenlight a project – a gas project – out to 2070. In clear contradiction of an immense amount of science, an immense amount of business groups and organisations and unions, backing a call to keep all remaining fossil fuels in the ground and the evidence that says that we need to do that to make good on our Paris Agreement obligations to deliver a safe and livable future for young people. But Woodside is a carbon bomb. And there was very good reason to not let that project go ahead. But under Australia's broken environmental laws that we've seen promises for reform continually be kicked down the road, that project was allowed to go ahead despite this mandate, despite this historic youth vote.

Now that they've won our votes, they've retreated into that shelter of complacency once again, and they're not too set on figuring out how to honour them.

DANIEL:

Coming up after the break: a duty of care to young people, or to Woodside?

[Advertisement]

Audio excerpt – ABC Host:

“The federal government is being accused of setting off a carbon bomb after giving the greenlight to a 40 year expansion of Australia's biggest gas operation.”

DANIEL:

Anjali, you’ve pointed to the government’s decision to greenlight the extension of Woodside’s massive gas project as a major disappointment. Given the huge mandate Labor now has, what would you want to see them do with it?

ANJALI:

Well, one end of Australia right now is under water and the other end is going through devastating drought. It's clearer than ever that climate change isn't a far off issue anymore for Australian’s. It's one that's touching hearts around the world. It's the one that people are seeing, not just through our TV screens, but through our windows. That mandate now is a mandate, as I've said, for safety, for security, and that doesn't mean acting on Woodside's wishes and on the wishes of Meg O'Neill. It means delivering ambitious climate and environmental reform. That means Australia's broken environmental laws aren't able to be used as a smoke screen to push through extension after extension. That mean that we're not able to tick a box and say, I guess we've done our part on climate change because our emissions that we burn here in Australia are this much, while actually we're one of the world's largest exporters of fossil fuels and we're responsible for much, much more emissions than we actually count in our domestic targets.

DANIEL:

Anjali, you were one of eight children who took the Federal Environment Minister to court, arguing the government has a duty of care to protect young people from climate harm. Where does the push for a legally recognised duty of care stand right now?

ANJALI:

So I guess, to answer that question, I'll start with telling you why we believe that that should be legally recognised. And that's because we know that young people will be worst affected by climate change. We know that climate disaster is increasing in frequency and severity and that it's our generations that will have to bear the brunt of that. That's what we argued, as you said, before the courts in 2020, again in 2021 on appeal. And unfortunately, that ruling was overturned after being successful initially.

Audio excerpt – Anjali Sharma:

“The Federal Court today may have accepted the Minister's legal arguments over ours, but that does not change the Minister's moral obligation, sorry, to take action on climate change and to protect young people from the harms that it will bring.”

ANJALI:

So, it no longer exists right now in common law before the courts. However, we continued that campaign after that ruling and what we've done is we've worked with Independent Senator David Pocock…

Audio excerpt – David Pocock:

“I move that the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Climate Change Act 2022.”

ANJALI:

…to put forward a bill to the federal parliament that seeks to establish that duty of care.

Audio excerpt – David Pocock:

“This bill obviously would legislate a duty of care where the environment minister, the relevant decision maker, would have to consider the impact of fossil fuel projects on young people.”

ANJALI:

Right now, that bill is still before the parliament and hasn't been voted on. The government has indicated that they don't support it as of now, but our work continues in that area.

DANIEL:

So what kind of support does it have in and out of parliament?

ANJALI:

It has lots of support in the parliament. We had a lobbying day where we went around to around 50 MPs and we asked them for support in writing for a duty of care. That day we got support from around 30 members of parliament and 11 of them were from within the government, including assistant ministers too. We have support from businesses and unions. We released an open letter calling for this duty of care that was signed by five former Australians of the year, a Nobel Laureate, Australia's most decorated Olympian Emma McKeon. Organisations, young people, have written to the parliament asking for this duty of care. We have thousands of signatures on our petition. It's a principle that, as far as I've tried to communicate it to people, is very well received.

DANIEL:

Your campaign has led to a bill being put forward by Senator David Pocock. You mentioned that Labor isn't going to support that bill. Have you spoken to anyone within the government about that bill?

ANJALI:

Yeah, so we have quite regular, ongoing and productive conversations with many people within the parliament. We have a really strong coalition of backbenchers within the government who support this bill and who have been, from the outset, some of our really, really strong supporters for a duty of care. Unfortunately though, what we see is factional politics, is caucus politics, that mean that it's actually not those backbenchers who get the say, despite what their communities might be calling for. And it means that really, really good policy proposals like this one don't just get rejected, they get rejected without any possibility of compromise or negotiation. That doesn't mean that we've stopped calling for a duty of care. Our campaign will continue in this term of parliament too. And what we're calling for the government now is that, if you don't like this private members bill that's before you, then do it your own way. Put in a duty of care however you would like. Draft it in your own terms. But work with us and work with young people on actually doing that rather than saying our current environmental laws are fit for purpose, we've got X, Y and Z. Because clearly they're not, if you're approving North West Shelf out till 2070, then there's something lacking in our environmental laws. We've got this proposal here to plug that gap but we need you to come to the table as well.

DANIEL:

I want to fast forward to the 2028 election. We'll be at the tail end of a decade that scientists say is critical when it comes to climate change. We've spoken about how young voters were instrumental in Albanese's victory. What's the risk if young voters and their priorities are ignored?

ANJALI:

Well, what we saw this election actually was young people do skew progressive, and that doesn't just mean delivering a Labor government. It means significant first preferences for Greens and for climate independents. In some of the youngest electorates in the country, we saw significant swings towards the Greens. We saw previously safe seats turned marginal because of Greens challenges or because of climate independents challenging the sitting and incumbent MPs. It's a clear indication of what's to come in 2028, if we believe that that mandate that we handed the government hasn't been honoured and hasn't taken forward. It's something that we know that we'll continue to see. It started in the 2022 election, that Green slide, that swing towards climate independents. It continued this election, and it's only going to grow.

We know that one of the biggest reasons that the government and parliaments haven't put forward decisive policies on young people is because up until now they haven't really had to consider them as a key demographic in the lead up to an election. The more that that happens, as we saw in this election, the more we will see policies targeted towards young people. We've just seen Australia's youngest senator ever elected, and I hope that she does, as she said, become a voice for those who share her perspective and those who know what it's like to be 21 right now, staring down the barrel at a world that could be marked by climate disaster increasing in frequency and severity, and compounding with it crises of inequality, of food insecurity, of water insecurity, of housing insecurity. This movement is not just one that we see every three years at the ballot box, it's one that was seen continuously through different avenues that are being used for change.

DANIEL:

Anjali, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us.

ANJALI:

Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.
[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

DANIEL:

Before we go, I wanted to tell you about some of the reporting in the latest edition of The Saturday Paper.

Barrister Adrien Boe writes about the recent death of a young Aboriginal man while under the restraint of two plain clothed police officers in Alice Springs, Mparntwe.

He draws parallels between this death and the 2019 shooting of Kumanjai Walker and the systemic problems these killings reveal.

And,

Award-winning writer Richard Flanagan reports on the crisis within the Tasmanian Liberal party over plans to build a stadium that would bankrupt the state.

You can find these stories and many more at thesaturdaypaper.com.au

I’m Daniel James, this is 7am. Thanks for listening.

[Theme Music Ends]