Latest news with #SchoolStrike4Climate
Sydney Morning Herald
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Let's lower the voting age and see some progress
Herald opinion writers Vivienne Skinner and Brad Emery discussed the pros and cons of lowering the voting age to 16 in Australia after England's move to join Wales and Scotland (' Sixteen is sweet to step up to the polls', ' An interest in politics is great, but only adults should be allowed to vote ', July 23). I was delighted to read that independent MP Monique Ryan intends to bring a private member's bill to Parliament on this issue. Initially, I would support the vote for 16 and 17-year-olds to be voluntary, with a view to make it compulsory over time. Democracy worldwide is under pressure with elderly, self-serving leaders mainly concerned with holding on to power. In a world rapidly changing environmentally, socially and geopolitically, we have old men making decisions that will largely affect the young, who have no voice. This change would almost certainly increase the progressive vote, and may be why British PM Keir Starmer is putting it forward. It could work for Anthony Albanese, too. Now is the time to refresh our democracy and make our society as representative as the UK's. Andrew Caro, Greenwich While there are thoughtful arguments each way, my feeling is that 16 is too young. People such as Tanya Plibersek and Monique Ryan move in relatively select society in which politics is of interest and importance, so perhaps have a biased view of how much ability and interest the average 16-year-old has. There is also the maturity factor, which is not necessarily based on chronological age. Let them reach at least 18, while encouraging them to become politically aware and hopefully more able to make reasoned, logical, responsible decisions. Augusta Monro, Dural I must challenge columnist Brad Emery on his assertion that 16 and 17-year-olds are 'considered minors in every other regulatory contexts'. At 16, youths can legally have sex and bring children into the world (in most states) – one of the most important decisions of their lives. At 16, you can register as an organ donor, get an abortion, get married (with permission), get a learner's permit, apply for youth allowance, consent to medical and dental treatment, have your own Medicare card and work full-time. You only have to look at the 'School Strike 4 Climate' protests, in which thousands of youths took part, to see the commitment that young Australian have to civic duty. I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16 now. Bruce Welch, Marrickville Australia has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the Western world. If 10-year-olds can be tried as adults for crimes, then surely they should also be allowed to vote. Either they are capable of adult decisions, or they are not. Bart Fielden, Lindfield Marine tragedy The toxic algal bloom on South Australia's coastline should indeed be taken seriously (' Government all at sea on toxic algal bloom ', July 23). The Great Barrier Reef has already suffered several mass bleachings, largely due to ocean warming. Now a widespread algal bloom has put South Australia's Great Southern Reef under threat. It is heartbreaking to see the devastation of coastal treasures like the Coorong, which once had an abundance of thriving birdlife and wetland vegetation. Many readers will remember the iconic film Storm Boy, which was set in this location. Again, a marine heatwave was a major contributor. Environment Minister Murray Watt has finally decided to visit Adelaide with a pledge of $14 million to deal with the algal bloom disaster. But what's the point of Labor spending that money when at the same time it approves fossil fuel projects? The government must account for the effects of global warming when dealing with such disasters. Anne O'Hara, Wanniassa (ACT) Gender writes Correspondent Ryszard Linkiewicz claims fewer boys read books nowadays because male authors have been 'purged from reading lists' (Letters, July 23). But why should boys only be interested in stories written by men? At school, we girls read F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Joseph Conrad and other male authors. We read them despite the fact they were written by men, about men, with only the occasional one-dimensional female character to whom we might relate. It is sad that boys only have what Linkiewicz calls 'poorly written tripe' by the likes of Helen Garner, Kate Grenville, A.S. Byatt, Doris Lessing and other women. What a pity that, according to him, those whose 'literacy skills develop more slowly' can't find anything of interest in the works of such (female) giants of the literary canon. Gerianne Rudd, Toowong (Qld) There are several Australian male authors who are writing and publishing books now, all available to boys. I've just finished Mark Brandi's latest book Eden and have read his Wimmera and Southern Aurora, all of which have boys or men as the main characters, and are easy to read. Then there's also Tim Winton and Trent Dalton, plus Aaron Blabey with his graphic novels Bad Guys. The graphic novels in particular are a good way to encourage reading among boys and young men. Rosemary Wolf, Mount Warrigal Ryszard Linkiewicz notes that NSW schools have replaced distinguished authors with 'poorly written tripe'. I feel this has long been the case. Ryszard is lucky he didn't sit the HSC in 1970, when we studied such literary gems as Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights. So many hours of boredom. Trevor McCarroll, Gerringong No right to rule Yet more correspondents (Letters, July 23) resorting to disparaging statements such as 'sense of entitlement' and ' their right to rule' to attack Gisele Kapterian for exercising her right, on behalf of those who supported her, to ensure that in an incredibly close election, every voter's true intention is properly accounted for. That is the entitlement of every candidate in our elections, and our system was established to enable that to happen. No one in this country has a right to rule, and even if they thought they did, it would be only to govern, not rule, and face their electors every three years. Peter Thornton, Killara Reality lost The Israeli ambassador to Australia was very quick to admonish the Australian government, along with 27 other countries, for their call to end the Gaza war, saying they were 'disconnected from reality and it sends the wrong message to Hamas' (' Penny Wong: Israel condemnation channels Australians' 'distress' over Gaza ', July 22). He conveniently forgets the reality that this whole catastrophe would not have happened had it not been for the abject failure of the Israeli government, the IDF, the Shin Bet (internal security service) and Mossad to protect Israel citizens from the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Perhaps he's the one 'disconnected from reality', and no amount of killing people seeking humanitarian aid is going to change that. Alexis Lander, Kensington Definition dilemma I read closely the piece by Adam Slomin about the definition of antisemitism. (' Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift ', July 23). Unfortunately, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism would be more easily accepted if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu and his government also adopted that definition, instead of calling all criticism of Israel's policies and actions 'antisemitic'. If Israel cannot accept that definition as best practice, why should anyone else? Doug Richards, Tamarama I find it extraordinary that Herald correspondents should suggest that the best way to combat antisemitism is for Jews to publicly disassociate themselves from Israel (Letters, July 23). I doubt that these writers would say that Arabs or Muslims must publicly condemn Hamas, or the Syrian, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Afghani or Indonesian regimes. What about Australians of Chinese, Russian or American origin or connections? Should they have to condemn 'their' regimes? Opposition to particular actions by Israeli settlers or the government is not antisemitic as many Jewish people and Israelis prove. But the ideas that the Jewish state is uniquely evil and that all Jews are implicated in everything it does are, and should be, roundly rejected. John Sexton, Centennial Park Chinese Australians aren't directed to 'unequivocally denounce the actions' of the Chinese government in Tibet or Xinjiang or against Taiwan to stop harassment and firebombing and graffiti of their businesses and cultural centres, Dave Bailey (Letters, July 23). Indonesian Australians aren't told to 'disassociate themselves from the worst things happening in' West Papua to stop doxxing and protests directed at them at universities or art performances, Jennifer Briggs. It's only Jewish Australians who apparently deserve to suffer persecution for the actions of a foreign state. Richard Abram, Bexley Victims of tobacco war On the illegal tobacco debate, I agree with the obvious premise that cigarettes cause harm, and cheap cigarettes keep people using them. But if the plan is simply to close down the illegal tobacco market, I worry for many habitual smokers on low incomes (' Eviction, jail and fines for illegal tobacco sellers', July 23). As a psychologist, I work with a number of people on disability support pensions who live with severe mental illnesses. Cigarettes are a part of their way of life, and they're just not interested in quitting. If they are forced to go back to highly taxed/priced legal cigarettes, they will forego food and other necessities in order to keep smoking. I've seen this happen. Even though they're well aware of the terrible health prospects, cigarettes nevertheless help many people to keep going. Sadly, they're not keen on patches or gum. So, whatever is done about illegal cigarettes, allowances need to be made for many on low incomes who will continue smoking regardless. Otherwise their quality of life and mental health will crash. Jim Filshie, Kingsgrove I hardly think any landlord is going to evict a retailer for selling illegal tobacco. I recall reading that these same sellers are offering landlords above market rates to rent their premises and with today's vacancy rates in strip retail shops, I'd suggest it would be a rarity to see any landlord evict a tenant for anything apart from rent arrears. Barb La Ganza, North Narrabeen I think that tough legislation and penalties is the right approach rather than lowering the tax rate on tobacco products. However, it remains to be seen if the words will be put into action. It has been more than eleven years since smoking was banned in all cafes and restaurants, and I have seen little evidence of enforcement. Reports to Health NSW and local councils achieve nothing. Bob Edgar, Moss Vale HECS anomaly Ross Gittins quite rightly points out the stupidity of the Morrison government's Job Ready program, which resulted in arts degrees costing $50,000 (' Cutting HECS debt is the least Albanese could do for young Australians ', July 23). Why the new Labor government hasn't changed this policy is a mystery. Reducing students' HECS debts by 20 per cent is a good start, but surely preventing future extreme and unfair tertiary debt must be on the agenda. As they say, 'it's a no brainer'. Eric Sekula, Turramurra While the government tinkers with HECS debts in a rather ineffective attempt to reduce financial burdens on the young, it is quite amazing that university education in EU countries like France, Germany and Sweden is almost free. Furthermore, living allowances are provided which reduce the need to work part-time. Governments there heavily subsidise universities and the considerable benefit is little disincentive for university study even for the relatively poor. These policies obviously do much to reduce inequality. The secret is of course higher average taxation and the realisation that university degrees will result in higher salaries and thus more tax being paid during a lifetime of work. Geoff Harding, Chatswood Tax outrage There are certainly valid arguments for a tax on high-value family homes (Letters, July 23), but the government also urgently needs to address the miserable contributions from the oil and gas industry, among others. According to The Australia Institute and despite the industry's insistence that it pays substantial tax, nurses paid $7 billion more tax during the past 10 years than oil and gas companies paid in company tax and Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. In short, nurses paid $52 billion and the oil and gas companies $45 billion. Finally, the oil and gas industry 'exports 80 per cent of Australia's gas, gets most of the gas it exports for free, is a small employer and pays little tax'. It is hoped that Jim Chalmers' economic summit will not be dominated by the usual rent seekers. Alison Stewart, Riverview Super changes The story in the Herald (' Average pay of $240k to be hit by super tax', July 23) outlines a number of scenarios for people who will be hit by Labor's superannuation tax changes. But what the report fails to mention is that both a husband and a wife can have $3 million each in super. It also doesn't ask the question 'why do people running a farm have the farm included in superannuation?' Also, many farming families also have trust accounts, thus decreasing their taxable income. It's all legal but not an option for the average Australian. If everyone wants the Labor government to enact the policies it took to the recent election, then the money has to be found from somewhere, particularly as companies are not reinvesting to create growth in the economy. Peter Nelson, Moss Vale Welfare state It has become all too apparent that Australian society is fast becoming a welfare state following many years of government handouts (' Australia risks becoming a 'welfare state', study warns ', July 23). In many instances, this has been initiated to win elections. While government support is appreciated by those with urgent or specific needs, far too many now see it as an easy alternative to employment and making a contribution to society. With government spending approaching 40 per cent of gross domestic product and the emphasis currently on how to increase productivity, the answer clearly lies within government itself. The issue of debt – private and government – must be addressed if productivity is to be increased, or, accept that peak productivity and economic growth has been reached. Efficiency is just not a private sector issue but also a government issue with ever-increasing public sector employment. Australia's standard of living cannot be totally reliant upon an ever- smaller private sector. Just look at the number of business failures over the past few years. Bruce Clydsdale, Bathurst Moved to tears Your story on Labor MP Ali France has to be one of the most moving pieces of journalism in a long, long time (' How Ali France's late son's words propelled her to parliament ', July 23). Her compassion and courage, which included both the loss of her son, in addition to her disability, are just phenomenal and reduced me to tears. I sincerely hope we hear a lot more from Ali for a long time to come. Rose Lysnar, Sherwood (Qld) Ali France's maiden speech was inspiring. Let's hope that the 48th parliament provides a safe, supportive workplace which embodies her values of service, fairness, kindness and perseverance. Viv Mackenzie, Port Hacking Ali France is a beacon of hope for the many Australians living with grief and/or disability. We now have a strong voice in federal parliament. Sending grateful thanks to the voters of Dickson. Margot Alaba, Balgowlah
Sydney Morning Herald
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Whitlam gave 18-year-olds the vote. Now it's time to lower it again
In the midst of COVID and not long before the 2022 election, I tuned in half-heartedly to yet another Zoom seminar, something about sustainability in the global tech sector. It actually turned out to be riveting, but the thing I remember most was a throwaway line right at the end by a young speaker from western Sydney called Natasha Abhayawickrama. She was one of the brains behind the nationwide School Strike 4 Climate movement. Answering questions with great maturity from her family kitchen about her passion for climate action, she ended with a quiet aside: 'But of course I can't vote on any of this.' What? Here was a thoughtful, rational, educated leader, completely across the biggest challenge of our age, yet she could not participate in our election because she would only have been 17 on election day. Really? Let's check what Natasha could have done at 17. She could enlist in the army. She could get a job and pay taxes. She could drive a car. She could independently manage her own MyHealth records. She could be charged as an adult with a criminal offence. And, like the then 16-year-old Melbourne climate change activist, Anjali Sharma, she could launch a class action against the federal environment minister for failing to consider the impacts of climate change. Yet for some reason, Australia deemed Natasha incapable of stepping inside a voting booth, picking up the stumpy pencil, and voting for her future. Australia should follow England's lead and fix this. There are some, such as British academic and podcaster, Professor David Runciman, who argue the voting age could drop as low as six. Only a crazy brave government would float that one up. Yet surely by election day 2028, Australia should at least drop the voting age to 16 or 17. This is hardly radical. We'd simply be joining England and also Austria, Brazil, Scotland, Cuba, Malta, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Wales and Indonesia, all of whom have lowered their voting ages across varying levels of government. A big question concerning lawmakers here in Australia is, would dropping the voting age skew the vote? The common fear is it would favour parties of the left. However, European researchers found voting patterns among 16 and 17-year-olds were unpredictable and poorly studied. But there were evident gender differences. Young women tended to vote progressive on issues such as climate change, gender equality and social justice. Young men were more split, showing greater support than young women for right-leaning, populist parties. In 1973, prime minister Gough Whitlam lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Even the Liberal opposition leader at the time, Billy Snedden, admitted that compared to previous generations, young Australians were 'better informed, better able to judge, more confident in their judgements, more critical in their appraisals, and on more mature terms with society around them'. He was speaking then, of course, about the Baby Boomers. While their dominance might be fading, those Boomers swelled the ranks to become Australia's most feted and entitled generation. Just look at how many policy announcements over many decades were targeted squarely at them. Then try and find something, anything, that addresses in a long-term, concrete fundamental way, the generational inequality faced by young Australians. Rocketing rents and housing prices, precarious employment (not helped by AI), low wages, high HECS debt and, scariest of all, a failing planet they'll be forced to confront long after the rest of us have departed. Compared to Gough Whitlam's 1973, Australia feels like another world. Yet, Billy Snedden's words could apply just as equally to today's 16 and 17-year-olds. In their hand sits a tool that, with a swipe, allows them to find an answer to pretty much anything. At no other time in human history have they been more informed, educated and globally connected.
The Age
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Whitlam gave 18-year-olds the vote. Now it's time to lower it again
In the midst of COVID and not long before the 2022 election, I tuned in half-heartedly to yet another Zoom seminar, something about sustainability in the global tech sector. It actually turned out to be riveting, but the thing I remember most was a throwaway line right at the end by a young speaker from western Sydney called Natasha Abhayawickrama. She was one of the brains behind the nationwide School Strike 4 Climate movement. Answering questions with great maturity from her family kitchen about her passion for climate action, she ended with a quiet aside: 'But of course I can't vote on any of this.' What? Here was a thoughtful, rational, educated leader, completely across the biggest challenge of our age, yet she could not participate in our election because she would only have been 17 on election day. Really? Let's check what Natasha could have done at 17. She could enlist in the army. She could get a job and pay taxes. She could drive a car. She could independently manage her own MyHealth records. She could be charged as an adult with a criminal offence. And, like the then 16-year-old Melbourne climate change activist, Anjali Sharma, she could launch a class action against the federal environment minister for failing to consider the impacts of climate change. Yet for some reason, Australia deemed Natasha incapable of stepping inside a voting booth, picking up the stumpy pencil, and voting for her future. Australia should follow England's lead and fix this. There are some, such as British academic and podcaster, Professor David Runciman, who argue the voting age could drop as low as six. Only a crazy brave government would float that one up. Yet surely by election day 2028, Australia should at least drop the voting age to 16 or 17. This is hardly radical. We'd simply be joining England and also Austria, Brazil, Scotland, Cuba, Malta, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Wales and Indonesia, all of whom have lowered their voting ages across varying levels of government. A big question concerning lawmakers here in Australia is, would dropping the voting age skew the vote? The common fear is it would favour parties of the left. However, European researchers found voting patterns among 16 and 17-year-olds were unpredictable and poorly studied. But there were evident gender differences. Young women tended to vote progressive on issues such as climate change, gender equality and social justice. Young men were more split, showing greater support than young women for right-leaning, populist parties. In 1973, prime minister Gough Whitlam lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Even the Liberal opposition leader at the time, Billy Snedden, admitted that compared to previous generations, young Australians were 'better informed, better able to judge, more confident in their judgements, more critical in their appraisals, and on more mature terms with society around them'. He was speaking then, of course, about the Baby Boomers. While their dominance might be fading, those Boomers swelled the ranks to become Australia's most feted and entitled generation. Just look at how many policy announcements over many decades were targeted squarely at them. Then try and find something, anything, that addresses in a long-term, concrete fundamental way, the generational inequality faced by young Australians. Rocketing rents and housing prices, precarious employment (not helped by AI), low wages, high HECS debt and, scariest of all, a failing planet they'll be forced to confront long after the rest of us have departed. Compared to Gough Whitlam's 1973, Australia feels like another world. Yet, Billy Snedden's words could apply just as equally to today's 16 and 17-year-olds. In their hand sits a tool that, with a swipe, allows them to find an answer to pretty much anything. At no other time in human history have they been more informed, educated and globally connected.
The Spinoff
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
The many complex truths within the ‘censoring' of youth parliament
The biggest story to come out of youth parliament was the supposed censorship of its MPs-in-training. They had no trouble blowing the lid off on that, but is it really so black-and-white? The tri-annual return of youth parliament this week was not without its controversies. 123 youth MPs and 20 youth press gallery members descended on parliament for three days of training and debates, and while many of these teens gave great speeches in the House, the attention has been on what they supposedly haven't been allowed to say. Youth parliament – despite what its name may suggest – is a non-partisan learning experience for young people who want to be politically engaged. And if you talked to these teens, you'd realise many of them already are – they're in advocacy groups, are dedicated posters to certain Reddit forums, already have fully-fledged political leanings they don't want to budge on and also have an MP whispering politicking tricks in their ears. It was a truly divided parliament this week: with one side desperately telling the media they've been censored, and the other desperately telling the media they haven't. As always, when it comes to politics, the truth is more nuanced than just one position. Truth #1: Claims of censorship haven't been totally genuine. It's more accurate to say that the ministry of youth development made suggestions to speeches, which the youth MPs were allowed to accept or deny, and these rules were also in place for the 2022 youth parliament. Yeah, it sounds silly, but this is a non-partisan event and the youth MPs know this, and at the end of the day, everyone still spoke their piece. Truth #2: Youth MPs are not protected by parliamentary privileges – if they defame a minister, they can be taken to court. Truth #3: Those crying wolf about censorship were mostly aligned with Make It 16, Gen-Z Aotearoa and SchoolStrike4Climate. Make It 16 and SchoolStrike4Climate have both described themselves as 'non-partisan', though their values tend to align with left-leaning politics, specifically those you might find within the Green Party kaupapa. Truth #4: Those teens pulled a pretty bloody good PR stunt, especially from a political campaigning group which hasn't yet been able to have much sway on voting age policy, and another which has been largely operating under the radar for the last few years while the government abandons its climate targets. Truth #5: NZ First and Act youth MPs did have a chance to take back the narrative, but they bungled their press conference by letting their progressive peers hijack it. Truth #6: There are plenty of 16-year-olds who would feel intimidated by an authoritative figure – especially a government official – making suggestions about their work. The ministry should have been clearer about its expectations. Truth #7: In a way, some of the progressive party-aligned kids are almost guilty of censorship themselves, having attempted a walkout during a speech from Winston Peters' youth MP, and trying to shut up Karen Chhour's youth MP by raising multiple points of order during his speech. This is where the censorship argument gets tricky, you see – wouldn't the likes of the Free Speech Union and David Seymour argue that that is a form of suppressing speech? Truth #8: There are far more racist and controversial things said on a near-weekly basis in this House than anything these youth MPs have said. Truth #9: Unfortunately in life, you have to listen to opinions you don't want to listen to. Unfortunately as a politician, you do this basically every day, and can't always run away from it. Truth #10: The 'real' politicians also have ministry officials and press secretaries begging them not to say something that will get them, their party or their agency in trouble. Truth #11: There were concerns about censorship among some of the youth press gallery members, too, though the ministry has described the checking-over of these stories as 'moderating' rather than editing. Truth #12: This does lead into an editorial grey area, because while the youth press gallery is supposed to operate under the same expectations as the youth MPs, having a ministry shape the story up to their standard, and then encouraging budding reporters to pitch these stories to independent outlets, is kind-of just like sending out a government press release. Truth #13: But this also teaches you some valuable lessons in journalism: how to recognise spin, how to deal with an editor you don't agree with and what to expect when an entity doesn't want you to reveal the worst of them. Truth #14: And, at the end of the day, you go into journalism to be a reporter, not an activist. One youth gallery reporter held the tino rangatiratanga flag over the bannister, others gave their peers standing ovations – the reality of being in the press gallery is that you are the observer, not the demonstrator. And everyone in that House deserves an equal level of scrutiny. Truth #15: All the drama that has gone down this week only proves that youth parliament has done its job: teaching these kids how to be effective politicians – and in the modern era, this often looks a lot like controlling the media narrative. Truth #16: It also suggests the future of our political landscape looks like more publicity stunts, and less cross-party communication, which is a shame.
