Page last updated 18/10/2024.
In June of 2023, I visited the State Library to collect primary source material and research relating to the Victorian Secondary Students Union. Most of it I have not yet analysed nor published, but it is a rich archive. David Mould is also working sporadically on a compiled history of the student voice movement. Once I was done at the library, I went over to Spring Street to watch some of the Victorian Youth Parliament session. In the galleries, I drafted my first piece about Monash University.
I joined the Whitehorse City Council’s Youth Parliament team this year. The Victorian Youth Parliament has young Victorians 16-25 years old draft a bill in teams of six, then debate and vote on them over a few days at Parliament House. Participants also get the chance to deliver a member’s statement, in the style of an adjournment debate. Additionally, there is a national matter of public importance which is debated at all Youth Parliaments around Australia, which this year was on regulation of monopoly. In debates, youth parliamentarians are assigned a specific side to debate on but ultimately have an unbound conscience vote.
At Parliament House I gave a number of speeches, all with a time limit of two minutes. While certain fellow youth parliamentarians were impressively intent about using the programme and their speeches to make/test actual change and influence MPs, I saw it as mainly a performance aimed at the audience sitting in the green house with me. Whilst the programme is for participants aged 16-25 years (I was 20 years old), this year especially had a younger, overwhelmingly school student cohort. These were the people I had in mind when I spoke, and what I spoke was naturally not necessarily what I believe. Neither did I prioritise conforming to the broader strategy and context of my side of the debate.
Also obvious this year was the relatively low number of returning participants, especially compared to last year. It shows in the flavour and tone of debate.
I have decided to post a selection of my speeches. The ones that I wrote out are a small minority (and even then sometimes incomplete with space for improvisation), so many of them have been hastily transcribed from audio released of the debates. In at least one instance, audio of my speech is partially blanked out. Speeches may have been lightly edited for clarity and accuracy.
This was a member’s statement.
My statement is addressed to the Minister for Education, and I call on the Minister to take action to ensure that going to a government primary or secondary school is really free.
Officially, there are supposed to be no compulsory fees to attend a government school. But substantial ancillary costs prevent families and students from being able to enjoy the full benefits of a public education. Free education must mean free participation, access, and quality of education.
Students should be entitled to free fares on public transport. If it costs money to get to school in the first place, school is not really free.
Students should receive free uniforms. If it costs money to comply with school rules, school is not really free.
Students should be able to participate in all activities for free, including excursions and camps. If it costs money to fully participate in school, school is not really free.
Students should receive free equipment and materials for their subjects. If it costs money to study a subject, school is not really free.
Students should be taught by qualified and specialised teachers. If it costs money to guarantee appropriately qualified teachers at school, school is not really free.
Students should have access to a local school fully, without accounting tricks, funded to at the very least the Schooling Resource Standard. If it costs money to receive the minimum standard quality of education, school is not really free.
Speaker, the reality is that going to school in Victoria costs money. Persistent government failure on this means that schools have had to offload costs to families, teachers and charities. And we need to be clear that especially when cost of living is biting, means-tested measures will exclude many that desperately need the support. If the Education State is honestly committed to universal free education, it needs to be practically, genuinely free for every child, whether their family is poor or whether they are rich.
The Department of Education responded to the statement. A version of the speech is available at the October 2024 issue of Parents Voice, the newsletter of Parents Victoria, which also includes several other relevant items.
The national matter of public importance was a motion that “calls for the Commonwealth Government to introduce breakup powers for concentrated markets”.
I wrote the substance of my speech before finding out which side I would be formally debating on, which ended up being the side for the motion. I believe that I voted for the motion.
An earlier version of this speech included a denunciation of a trade union, which I replaced on the day. The idea which replaced it is something that I was trying to convey in the rest of the speech, but a conversation that I had the day before with one of this year’s great youth parliamentarians crystallised the expression of it.
What does it mean to be a monopoly? It is when the few dominate the many. In another word, we could call it tyranny. So we should be uncompromising when we say, “smash all monopolies”, and we should understand this broadly.
We should realise that duopolies and anti-competitive markets are the very same thing as monopoly. Because when they collude to push out competitors, weaponise exploitation and drive up prices, the effect is exactly the same. Remember, when Standard Oil got broken up, the companies that came out of it became part of the “Seven Sisters” cartel which together dominated and controlled global oil production and distribution, whilst propping up American and British imperialism.
We need to understand that the underlying economic system is itself a monopoly, in which big business dominates the worker and the consumer. Hence, corporate monopolies are an inevitable product of our system, and simple breakup powers alone are only an insufficient band aid. Because it is contrary to the motivations and incentives of the system, the system will overcome it through anticompetitive collusion, like we saw with Standard Oil. So, to smash monopolies means to smash the monopoly of business and capital over the economy.
We need to recognise our political system as a monopoly, in which the established governing class – bureaucracy, the parties, parliaments – together they dominate the rest of us. So, to smash monopolies means to take power into our own hands, the young people and the marginalised people.
We must be conscious of wherever monopoly might arise. When all aspects of our society - schools, media and so on - are geared on the assumptions of the monopoly of the status quo, we need imagination to smash monopolies everywhere.
I will leave you with the words of one of the great opponents of all forms of monopoly, Barry Goldwater, who reminds us that “extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. And […] moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
This was a speech against a bill proposing comprehensive Auslan education. It was a bill proposed by the Hume City Council team, a team which supplied some of the most powerful debaters that I heard in either the green or red house. I voted for the bill.
Let us be very clear that this is an important issue. This bill is novel and it is bold. I think it is worth recognising and thanking the ambitious and valuable contribution that our friends opposite have given to this discussion.
With that ambition comes risk and the unknown, and we have already heard from my friends on this side some concerns with the practical aspects of this bill. My fear is that passing this bill would distract and divert effort, attention and resources from measures and programmes which have a higher likelihood of success and positive impact, including programmes which are already supported and being implemented right now by the deaf community and existing organisations.
As we have heard, this bill has to be implemented on a massive scale. Every employer in the retail and pharmaceutical sectors, every school will be implementing part of this bill. And with that massive scale, that means that this bill is not targeted to provide the most impact and relevance to deaf and hard of hearing people in an efficient manner.
It relies on the creation of a new government bureaucracy to enforce and oversee the implementation of this bill. It asks for Auslan educators to act as compliance officers, to go to businesses to audit. Would these Auslan educators not be better used to provide the most impact to where deaf and hard of hearing people interact the most and are most relevant for them? For these reasons, I believe that we can provide more practical and directed support by prioritising what has been specifically proposed by the deaf community, acknowledging the diverse range of views and experiences of people in the community.
These are things like ensuring that functional hearing loops become the norm. Like guaranteeing captions in all media. Like guaranteeing Auslan interpreters at all press conferences and public addresses, and requiring that broadcasters ensure that the Auslan interpreters are visible at all times. Like providing sustainable recurrent funding to community support and advocacy organisations.
This was a speech for the bill that my Whitehorse City Council team composed, to increase education on intergenerational trauma, cultural competency and intersectionality in schools. I voted for the bill, which passed unanimously. The bill was admirably refuted by the Hume City Council team, who primarily raised important considerations on the workload and responsibilities of teachers. I believe that even if the goals of the bill and its content are generally correct, critique is important so that it is as rock-solid as possible.
I want to acknowledge the fantastic work that our teachers and education support staff are doing today. They are doing a lot of that work, and they are doing a lot of work, without proper support from the system.
One of the important aims of this bill is to help teachers. By giving them the opportunity to gain tools and skills to support students while keeping themselves safe. To be clear, teachers should never be expected to replace other specialised professionals, but with students spending most of their time in the classroom, teachers need and want to be ready.
Any teacher will want their students to be comfortable, supported and thriving in their classroom. So when they interact with a student who experiences intergenerational trauma, who comes from an intersectional background, or who is culturally diverse, the teacher may or may not be equipped with the understanding, knowledge and skillset to fully support the student – that is not the teacher’s fault.
What implementing this bill does is provide the initial training, the ongoing professional development, and the community support to give teachers that understanding, that knowledge, that skillset. So that teachers can be confident to work with their students, and equally as importantly to maintain their own mental health. Because we need to be mindful that teachers too come with their own experiences.
These factors are also why teachers are explicitly a top stakeholder in this bill, with every local committee required to include teacher members. This reflects the importance of teachers in the education system, in the community and in particular what the bill addresses, and that implementing these measures requires keeping teachers a core part of the conversation.
In creating a society and culture in which we can discuss these issues without stigma, and work together to begin breaking down these cycles of trauma and building healthier communities, teachers will be able to play a central role in their mentorship of the next generation. That is why supporting teachers has been a top priority of this bill.
A taster of the infamous collapse of the Melbourne University Student Union. This was a speech in favour of a bill proposing government-owned student housing. I do not remember my vote.
Speaker, I am not known for telling stories on the floor of this House, but I do have one today. It is a true story that you may be familiar with.
Back in the early 2000s, the University of Melbourne had a student organisation called the Melbourne University Student Union, or MUSU in short.
With an annual budget of more than 10 million dollars, MUSU was a powerful body providing both services and political representation for the students of the University. Keep in mind that MUSU was governed by students.
MUSU’s final years were embroiled in controversy around a deal, worth well over 40 million dollars, to develop student accomodation. With the deal threatening to send it bankrupt, alongside accusations of financial mismanagement and corruption, MUSU was liquidated by the Supreme Court of Victoria and the property was never developed.
Speaker, inaction, allowing this situation to continue, would be negligence by this House. Our failure means gaps will persist, to be filled by other indpendent organisations without oversight. Like MUSU, there are no guarantees that such programmes will not be affected by incompetence, corruption and rorts. There is no guarantee that such programmes will not end. This bill provides certainty. This bill provides confidence. This bill provides accountability. This bill provides affordability.
This was a speech against a bill proposing a number of reforms to regional public transport. I do not remember my vote.
Can I first say that I love public transport. And I would love for my regional and rural comrades to have the same mobility that I do as a resident of a metropolitan area.
I do have some questions for our friends opposite and I would love for them to be answered to clarify some points on this bill.
Why are we maintaining fares for concession holders, rather than providing free public transport for concession holders or indeed free public transport for all Victorians?
Would tailoring concession fares make it more complicated and confusing for the traveller? Is it worth it?
The bill proposes to extend Myki statewide, but also provides to install card and cash machines. Would the use of these machines slow boarding of buses and lead to delays?
The bill also proposes a campaign to increase public transport usage, and some of our friends opposite have given good reasons for doing so. But would doing so lead to overcrowding or lower service quality for those who truly need it?
The bill proposes that to increase efficiency of services, that frequency is increased. But, and correct me if I have misread, but there seems to be no mention of reviews to add or modify routes, or to add stops as my colleague on this side has mentioned. Is simply increasing frequency sufficient?
I look forward to these questions being answered by our friends opposite.
Several of the questions were answered in subsequent speeches.
This was a speech in favour of a bill proposing mandatory desexing of pets. I was absent from the house during the division.
Fundamentally, this bill is about what our responsibility is to our fellow living beings. That includes both our pets, and the other animals and plants that our pets interact with.
So to be responsible, that means to ensure that our pets have the best quality of life. It also means that our pets are not damaging the environment, are not harming other animals, are not harming other people.
So unfortunately, it seems that some of our friends opposite have missed the point. Because of course it is the responsibility of the individual pet owners to demonstrate that care for both their pets and other living beings. But of course, when pet owners fail to do that, it is the responsibility of the government to intervene to ensure that our community and our environment continue to be safe and protected.
And for anybody who thinks that it is infeasible, we have heard already that local councils are already implementing these sorts of policies, we have seen interstate that these similar policies have been implemented, so all that this bill does is harmonise that across this state and ensure that there is consistent regulation of desexing across this state so that there is certainty for every pet owner.
This was part of a speech against a bill (the final debate) proposing widespread implementation of digester tanks to turn organic waste into biofuels and fertiliser. I do not remember my vote. The debate was chaired by Tim Read, who seemed to have fun.
In an earlier debate, I had extolled the benefits of imposing statewide uniformity on a traditional council issue.
We have heard a lot of discussion about the various benefits and disadvantages of this proposal. My point would be that each local community is unique. There is no two identical councils or local government areas in this state. And for that reason, the local councils who are closest to their constituents are best placed to respond to the needs of their residents, to accommodate the needs of their community, and to work towards a renewable future within the context of their unique circumstances.
So despite its facade of nobility, this bill reveals our friends’ shocking disregard for local council autonomy. Is nothing sacred?
Tyranny is what our friends opposite are proposing. We are appalled and I condemn this bill.
In the speech immediately following, the deputy opposition leader - a formidable and intelligent politician - referenced and refuted my speech alongside many of the previous speeches on my side of the debate.
This was an impromptu member’s statement.
My statement will be addressed to the Minister for Local Government, and I call on the Minister to take action to roll back forcing single-member wards on all local councils in Victoria.
Yesterday, I had the amazing opportunity to speak with Sven Bluemmel, and I first met Sven when he was the Information Commissioner - a phenomenal Information Commissioner.
But now he is the Electoral Commissioner. And I spoke to him about this year’s local government elections, which will be occurring in October. And I spoke to him about the introduction of single-member wards across the board. And in our conversation, we realise that the last time local government elections were held, there were around two hundred something essentially individual elections across the state. Now there are over four hundred. So that is now a massive logistical challenge for the Victorian Electoral Commission to address in this cycle.
But more importantly, across my time in Youth Parliament I have met some incredible young people, and a number of those young people will be running for local government this October. But being young people, they do not have the profile that many other members of their community do. And that means that in single-member wards, as opposed to multi-member proportionally elected wards, these young people will have an inherent disadvantage in getting elected to their council.
If we are serious about youth participation in government, if we are serious about encouraging young people to run for council, to contribute to the civic life of our state, we need to return to proportional multi-member wards in order to encourage - in order to make it feasible and actually realistic for young people to actually get elected to councils.
This is not my speech. It was a member’s statement by fellow youth parliamentarian Chris Oates. Chris and I have similar age but lead different lives - for instance, he has never studied at a university. He is a wise man and one of the great youth parliamentarians of this year.
I stand here today because I want to reduce the amount of drug abuse in Victoria, and I believe educating the youth is the most effective strategy. Get to them before someone less responsible does.
Currently, drugs like MDMA, psilocybin are being used in studies in trauma therapy. Cannabis is around the corner and Oregon, a state in America, had a four-year stint of decriminalising all hard drugs, which only receently ended this April. Plus, an overall increase in the use of party drugs such as methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, GHB, MDMA, ketamine, and not so party LSD, psilocybin, cannabis. Point being, drugs are around. Regulated or not, people will do them.
What I want is people educated before they are given that opportunity to dabble. I want a PSA, similar to what you have been doing with domestic violence. In this PSA, highlight what I call the five Rs: Right place, Right time, Right people and Right Respect. The fifth R being Respect. Get this running through young people’s heads.
I also want the PSA to highlight Right Respect, R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Research and reduction for the first R. Research the drug. Reduce the harm on the body. Experience - people have never done this, so value it. Safety - common sense. Plan - cater to the drug. If you are using LSD, arts and crafts, simple. Enjoy - it is meant to be an enjoyable experience. Conversate with others - tell others what is happening to you. And Test before you do.
To put this into perspective, a young man who is curious about the drug scene, fresh out of high school, goes clubbing. Is offered a substance and in his head he runs the five R’s. He analyses the situation and instead of taking the drug in the heat of the moment, he takes it home to take into the experience in a controlled environment.