Another social media 'ban' update

Written and contributed to The Smashed Avocado by Haylie.

On Tuesday 16 September, the eSafety Commissioner published Social Media Minimum Age Regulatory Guidance, a 55-page guideline for social media platforms to follow when the ban takes place on the 10 December. These guidelines come after the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 passed in federal parliament at the end of last year, changing the Online Safety Act 2021 to increase the minimum age to hold a social media account to 16. 

The Commissioner's report is a big announcement when it comes to the ban, after many months of uncertainty around what age-assurance technology platforms would be required to use, along with what would be considered ‘reasonable steps’ in making sure underage users don’t hold accounts on the platforms. 

Expectations of social media platforms 

This report clarifies the expectations of platforms in the lead up to and implementation of the ban.  

Initially, it will be expected that platforms focus on the ‘detection and deactivation/removal of existing accounts held by children under 16,’ which includes integrating options to report underage users into their existing reporting tools. Platforms are also expected to ensure, from the start of the ban, that methods are in place to avoid underage users from making new accounts. 

Platforms will then need to inform underage users on what will happen to their account, how to challenge decisions, obtaining their information, and where to seek mental health support if necessary.  

Age verification methods 

A trial of age verification methods was conducted by UK-based assessment body Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS), funded by Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sports and the Arts to research a variety of options to reduce underage social media use in Australia. 

The trial determined that there is no method more effective than any other, as all have their own issues when it comes to effectively determining a user’s age – but that age assurance technology is feasible for use in Australia and will be effective in keeping underage users off social media.  

As a result, it has been left up to the platforms to decide what methods they use, although it was recommended that they use ‘successive validation’ (multiple methods simultaneously). 

Any methods used need to be user friendly, accessible, and account for any common issues with these technologies, such as being inclusive of different cultures, a lack of documentation, and language barriers.  

Platforms need to be transparent, consider any risks, have measures in place to prevent basic workarounds such as VPN’s and deep fakes, and allow users to submit for a review or make a complaint if their account was deactivated despite being over 16. 

The guidelines also state that platforms using government issued ID or a 3rd party provider to check ID need to have other verification alternatives available for users. Normal privacy laws must still be followed when verifying user’s ages and platforms aren’t expected to retain any information used to check ages. 

If asked, platforms will be required to prove that they are taking reasonable steps to ensure underage users aren’t able to set up accounts, along with proving any other information that may be requested as part of a review.  

To be considered reasonable, platforms can’t:  

• rely on self-declarations 

• wait long periods of time before confirming a user’s age 

• allow recently deactivated users to immediately make a new account 

• stop a large amount of users over the age of 16 from accessing the platform as a result of the method used.  

But there may also be other instances where the eSafety Commissioner might deem a platform to not be taking reasonable steps that aren’t listed above. 

All changes as a result of these new requirements need to be reflected in the platform’s terms of use and platforms need to be prepared to handle the increase in work that will likely come from the changes through an increase in reports of underage accounts. 

What happens after the ban starts? 

The eSafety Commission and other relevant departments involved in making the guidelines for platforms have set dates between 1–2 years to review the requirements based on how the initial roll-out goes.  

Any platforms seen to not be following the new legislation in line with released guidelines will receive a written statement, which will also be published on the eSafety website, along with potentially being fined up to 49.5 million dollars. 

Social media ban update

We are mere months out from the nationwide ban on under 16’s holding social media accounts and there are very few updates to give. 

As YACSA young member Haylie explained here earlier in the year, decisions on what platforms would and wouldn’t be included under the ban, and how it would be implemented began being made after legislation passed. 

Haylie also touched on age verification technology, and that trials in other countries to create their own versions had previously been unsuccessful.  

With parliament still awaiting a report from a government-funded age assurance trial due to be released later in August, not much has changed on this front. 

While the government have been looking into this, the responsibility to verify the ages of users is with the platforms, and the ban won’t dictate how they do this.  

So, while they’ll probably differ between platforms, age assurance methods could include technology that estimates your age from images of your face or matches your photo with your ID images. 

But while ID checks can be used for age assurance purposes, under the legislation platforms won’t be able to have this as the only option available for users to verify their ages. 

As the early-December start of the ban gets closer, the federal government has clarified some platforms that will, and will not, need to remove accounts held by under 16s. 

While early discussions focused on messaging platforms, attention has now turned to YouTube – with the Government deciding that the video-sharing platform won’t get an exemption from the ban. 

This is despite Google (who own YouTube) threatening legal action in response on the basis of the platform’s educational uses. 

The government has said platforms would be exempt if their primary purpose is: 

• messaging, emailing, voice calling or video calling 

• playing online games 

• sharing information about products or services 

• professional networking or professional development 

• education 

• health 

• communication between educational institutions and students or their families 

• facilitating communication between providers of healthcare and people using those providers’ services. 

But ultimately, while the government set these rules, it will be up to the eSafety Commissioner to enforce this legislation, including determining which platforms meet these criteria for an exemption. 

The social media ban – what is it?

Written and contributed to The Smashed Avocado by Haylie.

The social media ban, created under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, is a change to the Online Safety Act 2021, making the minimum age to use social media to 16.

The ban originated in South Australia after the Premier commissioned an independent report from the Honourable Robert French AC, who is a former chief justice of the high court. The 276-page long report provided ideas on what the ban could look like, which went through further discussion and changes. This report went on to inform the Children (Social Media Safety) Bill 2024 in SA.

The initial idea, outlined in the report, was a ban for under 14's, with 14 and 15-year-olds needing parental permission to hold social media accounts. When federal parliament joined in with the idea and planned to impose a nation-wide ban, the age was changed to under 16's in the federal Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which was successful.

There is still a lot to be decided about the ban though, parliament needs to make decisions on what platforms are actually banned and how the ban is enforced, amongst other things.

Deciding what does get banned is the tricky part. This is because messaging platforms aren't a part of the ban, but some platforms like Snapchat do fall under this category. These are still being discussed, but once decisions are made they’ll be made public.

Age verification has been mentioned many times as a potential requirement for platforms to introduce when the ban takes place. This isn't an easy thing to do though, several other countries have attempted to introduce this technology before without success. The age verification roadmap previously made by the eSafety Commissioner highlighted that the technology wasn't developed enough to work yet.

There is however some potential in age prediction technology. While age estimates from a face aren't too accurate, there are other methods that the reliability has not yet been seen on, such as using artificial intelligence to track app usage and make a prediction on the user's age.

These decisions will come as recommendations from the eSafety commissioner, before being passed in federal parliament to be included in the ban. More information will be released during the year as the decisions are made before the ban comes into place at the end of the year.

Every sitting week of SA Parliament in 2024 summarised

In 2024 we began summarising the happenings of SA Parliament for young people based on the issues you care about and debate about and affecting you and your peer’s lives.

We’ve condensed them all under this post, just pick the week you want to look at and the link will take you straight there.

Week one (6 - 8 Feb)

Week two (20 - 22 Feb)

Week three (5 -7 Mar)

Week four (9 - 11 Apr)

Week five (30 Apr - 2 May)

Week six (14 - 16 May)

Week seven (4 - 6 Jun)

Week eight (18,19 & 27 Jun)

Week nine (27 - 29 Aug)

Week ten (10 - 12 Sept)

Week 11 (24 - 26 Sept)

Week 12 (15 - 17 Oct)

Week 13 (29 - 31 Oct)

Week 14 (12 - 13 Nov)

Week 15 (26 - 28 Nov)

What's in the 2024-25 SA State Budget for young people?

The 2024-25 State Budget was handed down on Thursday 6 June, and as it has focused on housing, cost of living relief, jobs and skills, and health we’ve broken down measures directly impacting young people by cost of living, health, housing and education and employment, but we’ve included other things of note below them too. 

Each new federal and state budget is an opportunity for governments to make a commitment to address issues people are experiencing. We looked at how young people and the issues they’re experiencing were considered in the areas this budget has focused on.  

Cost of living 

Of the cost-of-living measures included in this budget, there is $14.1 million over four years to improve access to concessions and $10.6 million over four years to extend public transport concessions.  

Improved access will make young people who have previously missed out on ‘per household’ concessions because they live in share houses, including disability accommodation, eligible. It will also expand access to glasses, emergency electricity payment and funeral concessions.

Public transport concessions will be extended to all Health Care Card holders which will benefit young people on ABSTUDY Living Allowance, Austudy, JobSeeker Payment, Parenting Payment, Special Benefit and Youth Allowance. 

Young people should have the same access to concessions as older folk and that is unlikely to happen until decision makers acknowledge the current generational disparity and work with young people to develop supportive policy measures. 

Health  

Amongst the total health spending of $7.1 billion, there’s $5 million over four years to support youth mental health services, including an expansion of child and adolescent virtual urgent care services, mental health workshops, and to support carers and families of those with eating disorders. 

The Unmet Needs Study identified major gaps in support for mental health that mean 19,000 people of all ages are unable to access services across the state. More specifically, the study found immediate need for support and rehabilitation targeted at young people of up to $27 million.  

$1.25 million per year represents about 5% of the estimated investment needed to adequately support young people’s mental health and wellbeing so this budget measure does not go far enough to adequately support young people.  

Housing 

The SA Housing Authority will receive $576 million until 2034-35 for redevelopment of land at Seaton and government owned land at Noarlunga which will deliver an estimated 1,900 dwellings, including 400 social housing and $65.9 million in 2025/26 to meet public housing building commitments from A Better Housing Future.   

There is also $135.8 million over five years to build and upgrade approximately 442 new social housing dwellings, $30 million over three years to boost regional housing and $5 million over four years to extend intake for Hutt St Centre’s Aspire homelessness program until 30 June 2027.   

For first home buyers, there is $14 million over four years to remove the property value cap (previously $650 000) from the stamp duty exemption for purchasing a new home or vacant land to build a new home. 

The majority of young people access housing via the private rental market and while the cost of living allowance will now be available to people living in share houses, the measures in the housing spend are unlikely to have a substantial impact on young people. YACSA reaffirms that the availability of affordable rental housing must be considered a priority by governments.  

Education & employment

Mt Gambier High, Le Fevre High and Mt Barker High will share in $38.1 million over four years for required facility upgrades and there’s $155.3 million over five years for the construction of a new secondary school in the Northern suburbs   

For higher education there is $275.6 million to increase the number of training places by about 35% to over 160 000 prioritising defence, health, construction, early childhood education, $56.2 million to provide student support and increase completion rates and $53.1 million to increase the VET workforce and develop curriculum.   

There’s also $18.3 million for Closing the Gap initiatives that deliver tailored education programs to First Nations students and $9 million to support regional programs connections between students, trainers and employers.   

$62.6 million has been assigned to boosting audits and investigations to ensure training providers and employers meet obligations and there’s $13.3 million for state workforce planning and defence pathways program.  

There’s also $380 000 over 2 years to expand the SA Young Entrepreneur Scheme to all age groups.   

Funding for Closing the Gap initiatives is welcome, as is the 35% increase in the number of training places, but we note that none of these measures are aimed at lessening the financial burden of higher education on young people who are graduating with record debts. 

Other notable inclusions for young people: 

We’re really glad to see $4.6 million over four years for additional staffing at the Office for the Guardian for Children and Young People to perform statutory functions. The Guardian’s office is responsible for advocating for the rights and best interests of young people who are in care and detention, so being properly funded to undertake their duties is incredibly important.  

However it’s disappointing to see that $5.4 million over two years to upgrade security components in the Adelaide Youth Training Centre is only spending around youth justice – especially as the Government have consulted on raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility and additional diversion programs require investment. As always, we would have liked to see investment in community-led programs and services that keep young people safe, supported and out of the youth justice system altogether.  

There is also $2.6 million over four years for early intervention and prevention of youth violence within African South Australian communities, including supporting the African Communities Council of South Australia to deliver community programs.  

Within transport spending there is $5 million to complete planning for bus and depot infrastructure to transition to zero-emissions public transport bus fleet and $2 million to fund planning studies to support transition to zero-emissions public transport rail fleet. Arts spending also includes $720 000 for the construction of permanent pavilions for Mt Gambier Generations in Jazz, the annual jazz festival for young jazz musicians.   

To summarise 

We’re just going to say what we said last year - this budget does little to address intergenerational inequality particularly in the context of the current cost of living and rental crises. This generation of young people will be the first to be worse off than their parents and State and Federal governments have the power to do something about that. The 2024-25 State Budget is another missed opportunity to do so.  

If you need some extra support, don’t hesitate to reach out to any of the below:  

Lifeline 13 11 14 & webchat 24/7  

Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800 & webchat 24/7  

13 YARN (13 19 76) Crisis support for First Nations people 24/7 

Is the government wiping student debt?

In short, not really. But your HELP balance will still go down.

The long story is the Government have announced as a part of this 2024/25 Federal Budget they’ll be changing the way study loans are indexed. 

What is indexation? 

HELP (formerly HECS) doesn’t generate interest in the same way as regular loans, but they are adjusted, or indexed, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on 1 June each year.  

The idea is that indexation is applied to your debt to maintain its ‘real’ value, but with inflation over the past few years loan holders have had more money added to what they owe. 

Now, as part of this year’s Federal Budget the Government have announced they’ll be passing legislation that will mean HELP balances will be indexed by whichever is lower, the CPI or Wage Price Index (WPI).  

They’ll also be retrospectively changing the indexation of 2023 from 7.1% to 3.2% and crediting the difference to your loan balance. 

Because the legislation will not have passed before loans are indexed for 2024 next month, balances will also be credited for the rate changing from 4.7% to 4%. 

When loans were indexed in 2023 there was a lot of advice circulating that loan holders should try to pay off their balances – if you managed to do this, you’ll still be credited for the changes in rates and without an existing balance you’ll just get that money back. 

Obviously seeing student debt go down is great – especially when the money credited came from indexation, not classes. 

If you want to work out how much will come off your study loan, the Department of Education have a calculator you can use – all you need to know is the balance of your HELP debt as at 1 June 2023 which you can find on your account with the ATO (via myGov). 

To not have thousands added to your student loans is absolutely a win.  

But is it wiping student debt? Not really, more just making one element of higher education less expensive and decreasing the government’s profit margin on student debt. 

It’s still hugely expensive to obtain higher education, and the budget missed opportunities to address the costs associated with higher education whilst studying outside of fees, particularly for regional and rural students. 

With no increase to Youth Allowance (or expansion of eligibility) and a maximum increase of $9.40 to rent assistance higher education remains an enormous financial burden on so many young Australians. 

First members of the SA First Nations Voice to Parliament

The first elections for the South Australian First Nations Voice to Parliament have officially been run and won. 

Since election day, electoral workers have been counting votes and now results for each region are now available. You can find the results below, or here along with an election summary and breakdown of votes for each region. 

Region 1: Central

Number of positions to elect: 11 (5 males, 5 females, 1 any gender) 

Moogy Sumner 

Douglas Clinch 

Robert Leidig 

Tony Wayne Minniecon 

Scott Wilson 

Susan Dixon 

April Lawrie 

Tahlia L Wanganeen 

Deb Moyle 

Rosalind Coleman 

Cheryl Axleby 

Region 4: Riverland and South East

Number of positions to elect: 7 (3 males, 3 females, 1 any gender) 

Ro Wright 

Tim Hartman 

Darryle Barnes 

Danni Smith 

Eunice Aston 

Sheryl Giles 

Lisa Rigney 

Region 2: Far North

Number of positions to elect: 7 (3 males, 3 females, 1 any gender) 

Mark Campbell 

Johnathon Lyons 

Christopher Dodd 

Melissa Thompson 

Dharma Ducasse-Singer 

Dawn Brown 

Donald Fraser 

Region 5: West and West Coast

Number of positions to elect: 7 (3 males, 3 females, 1 any gender) 

Jack Johncock 

Duane Edwards 

Leeroy Bilney 

Lorraine Haseldine 

Cecelia Cox 

Rebecca Miller 

Keenan Smith 

Region 3: Flinders and Upper North

Number of positions to elect: 7 (3 males, 3 females, 1 any gender) 

Charles Jackson 

Rob Singleton 

Ralph Coulthard 

Laverne Ngatokorua 

Kerri Coulthard 

Candance Champion 

TJ Thomas 

Region 6: Yorke and Mid-North

Number of positions to elect: 7 (3 males, 3 females, 1 any gender) 

Raymond Wanganeen 

Doug Milera 

Quentin Agius 

Joy Makepeace 

Kaylene O’Loughlin 

Denise Wanganeen 

Eddie Newchurch 

So what happens now? 

The candidates of each newly-elected will meet to elect two representatives to represent their region on the State First Nations Voice. These representatives’ terms will conclude at the next elections in 2026, which will coincide with the 2026 South Australian State Election. 

If you want to know more about how the State and Local voices will work you can check out our previous post here. 

‘Harmony’, ‘Inclusion’, and other celebratory buzzwords

Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is marked each year by the United Nations (UN) on the day the police in Sharpeville, South Africa, opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration against apartheid laws designed to enforce segregation in 1960. 

It is held in solidarity with people struggling with racial discrimination – but you’re not to blame if this is the first you’re hearing of it. 

In 1998, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship had the first national survey on Australian attitudes about race. 

Then in 1999, after a report from the survey recommended building the belief that Australian society was fundamentally harmonious, and that this harmony should be a cause for celebration, Australia rebranded the day to ‘Harmony Day’. 

This change not only pushes aside racial discrimination, but any mention of racism at all. It’s largely reflective of Australia’s attitudes toward racism, denying its very existence.  

This is actually only one of two examples of this we get each March. 

International Women’s Day, celebrated on 8 March, comes with two themes every year.  

The official theme from the UN, which this year was Count Her In: Invest in Women. Accelerate Progress, and the theme from internationalwomensday.com, #InspireInclusion. 

This happens every year, one proposes a specific theme aimed at moving toward gender equality, and the other is broad and requires no real action (except maybe the distribution of cupcakes). 

A vaguely ‘empowering’ hashtag doesn’t ask for anything but, much like Harmony Day, it sounds good. Never mind that ‘inclusion’ is much harder to measure than investment in women’s education and employment. 

The non-UN theme has been such an effective distraction over the years that the fact that there are always two goes relatively unnoticed. The UN theme consistently gets less reach both across social media and International Women’s Day celebrations. 

While of course it’s all well and good to celebrate progress, the words we use have the power to dilute action. 

Language is paramount in how we understand anything – and if we aren’t asking for real change, we might just be suggesting that none is needed. 

And maybe – just maybe – we can distract ourselves from these issues so much we forget to call them out altogether. 

Motion adjourned: Select Committee on Gender Dysphoria

You may have seen last week that a motion to establish a committee in the Upper House of SA Parliament into gender dysphoria was abandoned. 

Debate on the motion was adjourned after all Greens and Labor members in the Legislative Council and Hon Michelle Lensink MLC (Liberal) said they intended to vote against it. 

While it might come as a surprise initially, this is a motion we also strongly opposed – along with the South Australian Rainbow Advocacy Alliance who petitioned all members to vote against it. 

But wouldn’t looking into gender dysphoria be a good thing? 

We definitely have concerns around the welfare of trans young people and their ability to access safe and inclusive care – however this committee wasn’t setting out to look into this. 

While introducing the motion, Frank Pangallo (who is a member for SA best) made a series of comments that indicated his intentions to platform harmful disinformation around trans people and change existing medical guidelines for gender dysphoria. 

He repeatedly referenced medical gender affirming care such as puberty blockers and hormones as experimental, dangerous and permanent and cast doubt on current evidence-based models of care that have been developed by medical experts. 

(Reminder: parliamentarians are not doctors – they are simply unqualified to weigh up the merits of any medical treatment) 

It’s also worth pointing out that the way this was presented was incredibly infantilising to young people. Repeatedly centering the parents, and what they think and believe, rather than the individual is incredibly harmful. Family support is key to the wellbeing of trans and gender diverse young people and their transition is about them and happens in the context of medical evidence and guidelines. It should not be about politicians – it’s about trans and gender diverse people. 

We are pleased to see that the majority of the Upper House agree that this inquiry was not only unnecessary, but dangerous. 

What's happening with vaping?

The only legal nicotine vape products in Australia are unflavoured or menthol products purchased from a pharmacy. From 1 July 2024 (if legislation passes) a prescription will no longer be required for people 18 and over, and they will be accessible to people under 18 with a prescription.

This may come as a surprise, given how readily available and popular they are within the community, but the government is now cracking down on suppliers and sellers of these products banning all disposable vapes.

There is significant concern that health warnings struggle to hold any weight with people because of how easy it is to get your hands on one – which makes sense, if they were so bad for you wouldn’t they be harder to get?

What's the problem with vapes?

While vapes or e-cigarettes were supposedly created as a way to help people quit smoking, companies that sell them have long raised concerns that they are marketing directly to young people, and due to the significant amount of nicotine in them (even compared to cigarettes) you can develop a dependency pretty quickly.

It’s also worth noting that young people who vape are around three times more likely to take up smoking cigarettes.

While vaping may lessen some of the risks associated with smoking, it really hasn’t been around for long enough to gauge the long-term impacts, and there are also concerns about the high levels of nicotine in these products given the impacts the chemical has on developing brains.

Additionally, because the vaping products people are buying are illegal they’re not using regulated products. It’s one thing to look at the health benefits of a regulated smoking alternative, but when they haven’t been subject to any testing or even list ingredients properly there’s no way to tell whether any particular product is safe.

This doesn’t just concern the amount of nicotine, but ingredients used for things like flavouring can also be unsafe to inhale. For example, the chemical used to flavour cinnamon vapes called trans-cinnamaldehyde is actually banned in all vape and e-ciggarette liquids in Australia because it damages the cells your lungs’ ability to fight off infection.

So why are they here at all?

It all comes back to border control.

Previous attempts to enforce bans have fallen short because suppliers were able to find a loophole to get them into Australia: with only nicotine vapes banned, disposable vapes started being labelled as containing no nicotine or being nicotine free to bypass regulations.

It’s difficult to determine if they’re labelled correctly, particularly with nicotine because without testing the product there’s no real way to tell if it is or isn’t present.

What’s changing?

The government is primarily cracking down on these products getting through the country’s borders and the people then selling them to consumers. In order to do that all disposable vapes are banned, including those that ‘don’t’ contain nicotine to close the loophole being exploited.

In Adelaide alone this year hundreds of thousands of vapes have been seized by the Australian Border Force. SA Health and other bodies have also been running busts on shopfronts distributing these products under the counter.

Given people are still easily accessing vapes, at least for now this is going to be a long process. There are more reforms lined up, but these companies have found loopholes before, so how effective they will be is yet to be seen.

From 1 March 2024…

Extensions to vape and smoke-free zones in public come into force from the first of March 2024. These changes are aimed at protecting people from passive exposure to smoke and vape exhalant and on the spot fines will apply.

The following are now smoke-free and vape-free outdoor areas:

• Within early childhood services premises, and education and children’s services facilities (including schools), and within 10 metres of their boundaries.

• At and within 10 metres of non-residential building entrances, such as entrances to shopping centres, government and commercial buildings.

• Within public hospitals, public health facilities, private hospitals and residential aged care facilities, and within 10 metres of their boundaries.

• At outdoor swimming facilities.

• Within major event venues declared under the Major Events Act 2013.

• At and within 10 metres of a sporting venue during an organised underage sporting event or training or practice session in preparation for an organised underage sporting event.

• On beaches between, and within 50 metres of, red and yellow patrol flags, and at and within five metres of any part of jetties (including under jetties).

You can find these guidelines here.

Want to know more?

Watch:

@uncloud.vaping (Tik Tok)

What do we know about the effects of vaping and is it safe? (8:57) – ABC News

The fierce battle over vaping in Australia (46:13) – Four Corners

Listen:

Part 1: What is actually in a vape? Understanding Vaping (18:30) – The Daily Aus

Part 2: How illegal are vapes? Understanding Vaping (18:12) – The Daily Aus

Read:

Cigarettes and The Law (The Law and Young People Factsheets) – Legal Services Commission South Australia

Soon you’ll only be able to buy vapes with a prescription – The Post (Supported by the SA Government)

Need support?

Resources for quitting here.

Download the quitSTART app.

Try SmokefreeTXT by signing up online or texting QUIT to 47848.

What are human rights?

10 December 2023 is Human Rights Day and the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

But what are human rights actually? In the words of the UN:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

Human rights are important because when individuals are safe and supported, they are able to thrive. They spell out in no uncertain terms how every person deserves to live, free and safe from harassment and discrimination.

Particularly in conversations around justice, human rights are often framed as privileges that can be earnt and taken away. But this distinction is important, human rights cannot be disregarded.

The point of human rights is that there is no bar that must be reached in order to be entitled them. Each and every person is entitled to them, full stop.

Children and young people are recognised under this declaration as individuals, but also have additional rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This is because while the UN recognises children and young people as their own individuals with their own rights, not belonging to their parents, they also recognise that young people have specific developmental needs not covered in this declaration.

We have another post on the UNCRC here if you want more info on what’s included in that.

What's important to SA young people?

Each year Mission Australia conducts the largest survey of Australian young people, this year receiving responses from 19,500 young people aged 15-19 years old. Each year this survey provides the sector with invaluable insight into what young people are thinking and concerned about as well as what is most important to them at that point in time. 

This year’s survey found the environment (44%), equity and discrimination (31%), the economy and financial matters (31%) and mental health (30%) topped the issues they considered most important in Australia. 

The report is also broken down by results from each state and territory, and the Youth Survey 2023 - SA Sub-report provides valuable insights into the concerns and challenges of young people in South Australia specifically. 

 In total 1,609 young people aged 15-19 from South Australia completed the Youth Survey. The report underscores the need for greater support and awareness of available resources to help young people address their challenges and emphasizes the importance of addressing the root causes of these challenges to enable young people to thrive.  

Personal Challenges and Supports: 

The report highlights the three biggest personal challenges young people in South Australia face are school challenges, mental health issues, and relationship challenges. Solutions suggested by young people included the need for greater understanding from teachers and parents about stress levels, the need for better access to mental healthcare services and the importance of being comfortable asking for support or advice.  

National Concerns: 

The most important issues for SA respondents are the environment, equity and discrimination, and the economy/financial matters. A little under half (44%) identified the environment as a critical issue, with 1 in 5 (22%) extremely or very concerned about climate change personally. A third (33%) identified equity and discrimination as one of the most important issues, with almost a quarter (23%) reporting that they were treated unfairly or discriminated against in the last year. One in three (32%) identified the economy and financial matters as one of the most important issues, which is a significant increase compared from 2022 (22%) and 2021 (9%). 

Education and Employment: 

Almost all (94.6%) young people reported they are studying and half (51%) reported they were in paid employment. Two thirds of young people in South Australia were satisfied of very satisfied with their studies (66.8%) and job (65.5%). However, only half (50.3%) are extremely or very confident in achieving their study or work goals, with the top three barriers reported being mental health, academic ability and financial difficulty. 

Wellbeing: 

The report indicates that a significant portion young people have wellbeing concerns and challenges. The majority of young people (62.9%) report having good, very good or excellent overall mental health and wellbeing, but over a third report having fair (24.8%) or poor (12.3%) overall mental health and wellbeing. Over half (57%) experienced moderate to high psychological distress in the four weeks prior to completing the survey. About 1 in 5 (20.8%) feel alone most or all of the time. Only half (49.9%) of young people are very positive or positive about the future. 

Support and Connectedness: 

The report notes that three quarters (76%) of young people identified friends as their top source of support, and that just under a third (29.8%) of young people find it hard to fit in and socialise with everyone else. Young people largely have positive feelings about their community, however a significant minority had mixed feelings, and less than half (45%) of young people agree or strongly agree that young people in their community have a say on issues that matter to them. 

Unfair Treatment and Discrimination: 

Almost a quarter (23%) reported that they were treated unfairly or discriminated against in the last year, most commonly due to physical appearance, race/cultural background, and personal views.  

What can happen without a Voice?

The first referendum any eligible Australian young person has had the opportunity to vote in has run its course. Passions have been high around this referendum, and we know that for some people the result is disappointing. If you’d like to have a closer look at how SA voted, you can find that here.

But throughout the debate there have been calls across the political spectrum for meaningful improvements to the lives of First Nations people – so, what can be done without a Voice? 

The Voice was a federal proposal so let’s start on a federal level 

Closing the Gap targets 

In December 2008 six Closing the Gap targets were introduced by the Council of Australian Governments, stemming from the Social Justice Report 2005, and subsequent Close the Gap campaign, which called for Australian governments to commit to achieving equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in health and life expectancy within 25 years.  

Due to some additions and the Closing the Gap Refresh in 2018, developed to expand the framework and to replace expired (and unmet) targets, there are now 19 targets. 

These socio-economic targets are across areas that have an impact on outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These range across health, education, employment, housing, justice, child protection, connection to culture and self-determination. You can find all of them listed here. 

A report released by the Productivity Commission in June shows that just four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are on track. Of the others, 11 targets are not on track and four targets can’t assess a trend. 

The Close the Gap Campaign is built on evidence that shows that significant improvements in the health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can be achieved within short time frames.  

Providing primary health care services to the Aboriginal and Islander population, particularly through Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services, is likely to result in significant increases in life expectancy within a decade. 

Community controlled health services need adequate funding, and in the words of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma, ‘it is not credible to suggest that one of the wealthiest nations in the world cannot solve a health crisis affecting less than three per cent of its citizens’. 

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) 1987-1991 was established in response to growing public concerns that First Nations deaths in custody were far too common and poorly explained.  

It examined 99 deaths that occurred in custody in the just over nine years between January 1980 and May 1989. The manner and circumstances of each death were investigated and reported on and there were also broader investigations into the social, cultural and legal factors that may have contributed to the deaths.  

The Final Report, released in April 1991, concluded that First Nations Peoples had a higher chance of dying in custody simply because they had a higher chance of being in custody. A central finding was that continuing conditions of over-representation of First Nations Peoples in prisons originates from structural and systemic injustice, not increased criminal inclination. 

Not only have black deaths in custody increased since the report’s release, but some jurisdictions have also introduced laws in direct opposition of the recommendation that detention be the option of last resort for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.  

Reviews on the progress of the implementation of recommendations have been highly contested, but most remain completely unimplemented or only partially implemented. 

The answers are in recommendations of the RCIADIC report, they’ve needed to be implemented for over 30 years and need to be implemented now. 

Bringing Them Home report 

The Bringing Them Home report was tabled in Federal Parliament in 1997, the result of a national inquiry that investigated the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families, extensively documenting the experiences of members of the Stolen Generations. 

The report consists of 54 recommendations to address the impacts of the removal polices and the ongoing trauma inflicted. The recommendations included a national Apology (delivered in 2008), reparations, improved services for Stolen Generations members and a process for monitoring the implementation of the report's recommendations. 

With no formal monitoring process, in 2017, 20 years on, non-government assessments found very limited implementation of the recommendations: less than one in 10 were identified as having been fully implemented. 

Forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people hasn’t ceased in the over 20 years since this report was tabled in parliament. The recommendations need to be implemented and a process to monitor the implementation needs to be established to hold government to account. 

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

In 2007 the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly.  

The framework establishes universal minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world and elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms as they apply to Indigenous peoples. 

Australia was initially one of four countries who refused to sign onto the declaration. But despite indicating support for UNDRIP in 2009 and again pledging to support it in 2017, Australia has been criticised for the lack of changes to policies and actions as a result.  

Any steps toward bringing laws and policy in line with the human rights standards we have internationally agreed to would be an improvement. 

Within South Australia 

The inquiry into the application of the Atsicpp in the removal and placement of Aboriginal Children in South Australia: Preliminary report

SA’s Commissioner for Aboriginal Children & Young People, April Lawrie, has released a preliminary report into the inquiry into the application of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle (ATSICPP). 

The ATSICPP is based around recognising the importance of safe care within family and culture to the best interests of children and ensure the actions that caused the Stolen Generations are not repeated. The elements of the principle cover both preventing children and young people entering out-of-home care and reunification centring culturally connected placements and inclusion of families and communities in decision-making. 

The Preliminary Report makes 17 recommendations to inform the South Australian Government’s proposed reform of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. 

You may also be aware South Australian Parliament passed legislation for a state-based Voice to Parliament earlier this year, you can find more info on that here. 

Support for First Nations young people: 

13 YARN (13 19 76) 24/7 support for First Nations People 

WellMob Social, emotional and cultural wellbeing online resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. 

AIMhi-Y A mobile app to support the wellbeing of First Nations young people, aged 12-25, available for download via the App Store or Google Play. 

Lifeline 13 11 14 & webchat 24/7 

Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800 & webchat 24/7 

How did SA vote in the referendum

The referendum has run its course and by now we know how South Australia voted, but we thought it would be interesting to have a closer look at electorates* in context. 

*Electorates largely mean nothing during a referendum, in SA our votes were tallied by state and then toward the national totals – but we do have age demographics by electorate! 

In SA the three electorates with the highest proportion of ‘yes’ votes were: 

1. Adelaide (48.79%) 

2. Boothby (47.56%) 

3. Sturt (41.98%) 

The three electorates with the highest proportion of 18-24-year-olds are: 

1. Spence (11.1%) 

2. Adelaide (10.2%) 

3. Sturt (9.9%) 

Spence, with the highest proportion of 18-24-year-olds had the third lowest ‘yes’ vote proportion at 27.51%. 

Barker and Grey have the lowest representation of 18-24-year-olds, at 7.9% of each electorate, and had the lowest proportion of ‘yes’ votes, 21.26% and 21.4% respectively. 

As a state we also had the lowest turnout of an election this year. Less than 80% of enrolled voters cast their ballots, compared to 89% at the state election in March and 91.07% at the federal election in May. 

Support for First Nations young people:

13 YARN (13 19 76) 24/7 support for First Nations People

WellMob Social, emotional and cultural wellbeing online resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.

AIMhi-Y A mobile app to support the wellbeing of First Nations young people, aged 12-25, available for download via the App Store or Google Play.

Lifeline 13 11 14 & webchat 24/7

Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800 & webchat 24/7

Yes, no, undecided... Finding First Nations perspectives on the Voice

In Australia enrolling and voting is not only compulsory (meaning you’ll be fined if you’re eligible to and don’t), but it is a responsibility. It is the responsibility of each of us to consider the options and positions presented to us and cast our vote in order to determine the will of the people.

At YACSA, we’re not aligned with any political party or movement. What’s important for us in relation to this process is that all young people are informed about the process and head into a polling place on 14 October feeling confident in how it works and their understanding of their decision.

Below we’ve linked places where you can find discussions and perspectives on the Voice from First Nations people on all sides of the debate.

Zee Feed POV on the Voice

Zee Feed, who produce news and explainers for young people have collated perspectives from First Nations people who are voting Yes, No and who are undecided. There are a bunch of formats, from Tik Toks to podcasts and articles.

Four Corners The vote that will change Australia: Inside the Voice referendum (45:10)

The debate around the Voice has been unsettling and confusing for many; trying to navigate the politics has been hard. In this Four Corners, the ABC’s Voice Correspondent, Dan Bourchier, explores what self-determination looks like in different parts of the country. Dan finds communities ready and willing to vote Yes to the Voice, and others who are concerned it will divide the country.

NITV Voice Comment, Opinions and Analysis

The National Indigenous broadcaster, NITV have opinion pieces across different perspectives of First Nations people on the Voice. These are mostly about 5 minute reads with lots of direct quotes.

What's in the 2023-24 SA State Budget for young people?

The 2023-24 State Budget released on 15 June aims to prioritise housing, health and cost of living relief while ‘investing in the state’s economic future’. Each new federal and state budget is an opportunity for governments to make a commitment to address issues people are experiencing. With the new State Budget prioritising housing, health and cost of living relief, we looked at how young people and the issues they’re experiencing were considered in those areas. 

Cost of living 

A series of ‘cost of living relief’ measures featured in the budget including energy bill relief with eligible households receiving up to $500 rebates on power bills, increased concessions in line with inflation, and support for families receiving family tax benefit.  

More and more young people report living week to week and forgoing essentials like food and healthcare. With current concession eligibility, many young people will miss out on budgeted cost of living relief. YACSA believes adequately supporting young people with the cost of living requires us recognise the current generational disparity and the need to work with young people to develop supportive policy measures. 

Health  

The State Government is providing $30.8 million over four years ($7.7 million per year) to permanently extend to the Child and Adolescent Virtual Urgent Care Service as an alternative to attending emergency departments. While this is a welcome approach to overcrowded ED’s, the service is aimed and parents of children aged 6 months to 18 years so it won’t be available to independent young people. 

YACSA continues to advocate for governments to invest in increasing the availability and accessibility of mental healthcare services by funding evidence-based local community mental health and wellbeing supports including dedicated youth programs.   

Housing 

The State Government is removing stamp duty for eligible first home buyers seeking to purchase a home of up to $650,000 and for first home buyers purchasing vacant land valued at up to $400,000 to build a new home. The State Government estimates this will assist 3,800 first home buyers.  

While many first home buyers will be supported with this budget measure, it will have a limited effect for young people. YACSA reaffirms that the availability of affordable rental housing must be considered a priority by government. A continued lack of support for renters and missed opportunities to address accessibility and affordability issues via recent review of the Residential Tenancies Act is impacting young people disproportionately as they are the most likely of any age cohort to rent. 

The vast majority of young people remain locked out of home ownership between property prices, interest rates, unprecedented student debt and making less money than older generations. 

Other notable inclusions for young people: 

We’re glad to see investment of $1.1m over two years to continue the child diversion program diverting Aboriginal children and young people from the youth justice system. 

An extra magistrate will be added to the Youth Court along with additional associated support staff to address increased workloads is welcomed, especially given most young people in AYTC are generally detained on remand, meaning they’re awaiting court proceedings. 

However, given the current situation within the Adelaide Youth Training Centre, it’s incredibly disappointing to not see any measures aimed at staffing shortages or Investment in community-led programs and services that keep young people safe, supported and out of the youth justice system altogether. 

To summarise 

Overall, this budget does little to address intergenerational inequality particularly in the context of the current cost of living and rental crises. This generation of young people will be the first to be worse off than their parents and State and Federal governments have the power to do something about that. The 2023-24 State Budget is another missed opportunity to do so. 

If you need some extra support, don’t hesitate to reach out to any of the below:  

Lifeline 13 11 14 & webchat 24/7  

Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800 & webchat 24/7  

13 YARN (13 19 76) Crisis support for First Nations people 24/7 

What do you want to see in the next SA Youth Action Plan?

The State Government is developing South Australia’s Youth Action Plan 2023-2026 to improve access to opportunities, resources and support for young people aged 12-25. They want to hear about the issues that are important to you and how they can better meet your needs.

The plan includes five key topic areas:  

1. Physical health, and social and emotional wellbeing and mental health.

2. Safety and justice.

3. Education and employment.

4. Connections and access to resources.

5. Citizenship and participation.

Young people are invited to contribute to the plan by participating in a public consultation via YourSAy until 6 August 2023.

You can provide feedback about the proposed topic areas and potential actions, suggest other topic areas or actions, and raise any other issues you think are important to young South Australians.

The consultation provides a range of options for you to choose from including a survey, quick poll, submitting an idea or suggestion. You can pick one option or complete them all – it’s up to you!

All options allow you to remain anonymous, you don’t need to register, and there are no mandatory questions so questions can be skipped, reducing the amount of time required to complete activities. 

We’re also doing our own consultation and we’d appreciate you answering any or all of our questions here. We’ll analyse the information provided and complete a written submission to the SA Government about the Youth Action Plan. We’ll also use your responses to inform our advocacy.

Your participation strengthens our ability to represent the interests of young people and to advocate with and for you to improve the quality of young people’s lives in South Australia.

Please contact Doug (doug@yacsa.com.au) with any queries about the SA Youth Action Plan, our consultation, or your membership.

Changes to protest laws in SA

You may have seen that, despite strong opposition from human rights groups, new laws around protesting in South Australia recently passed through parliament. So how did we get here exactly?  

Where did this all come from?  

From Monday 15 - Thursday 18 May the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) – part of the oil and gas industry – held its annual conference at the Adelaide Convention Centre.  

During the conference, Chief Executive for Woodside and Chair of APPEA Ms O’Neill said it was an opportunity to ‘outline the going role of gas in the energy transition,’ and South Australian Energy Minister Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP told the attendees from the industry the State Government ‘are here to help’.  

Protests occurred during the first two days of the conference, and on Wednesday CBD traffic was disrupted by a protester abseiling from the Morphett Street bridge on North Terrace. On Thursday more protest actions occurred including protesters throwing paint on the Santos building in the city. The abseiling protester and four involved in paint-throwing were arrested and charged with various offences including property damage.  

What was the response?  

On Thursday (18 May) morning Opposition Leader Havid Speirs MP told a talk back radio show that fines for protesters should be increased and jail time should be considered.  

Premier Hon Peter Malinauskas MP said in a radio interview that morning the Government would consider increasing penalties for protesters. A few hours later, he introduced a Bill without notice and sought for the Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill 2023 to be passed without delay.   

The Bill changed offence wording of section 58 in the Summary Offence Act 1953 from ‘wilfully obstructs’ to ‘intentionally or recklessly obstructs the free passage of a public place,’ whether directly or indirectly and increased the maximum penalty from a $750 fine to a $50,000 fine or a three-month jail term.  

It passed the first, second and third reading stages in the lower house within 22 minutes of being introduced with support from the Opposition.   

What did other people say?  

Human rights, social and legal organisations as well as academics and unions have opposed the changes and how quickly they were developed and passed. The Human Rights Law Centre have said the changes in the Bill will ultimately undermine the ability of everyone in South Australia to exercise their right to peacefully protest,’ you can find their explainer on the changes here. Other organisations expressing concern for the lack of consideration and consultation, the intended and unintended consequences of significantly broadening the offence as well as the increase of penalty, included Amnesty International Australia, SA Bar Association, SA Unions, Human Rights Watch, the Law Society of South Australia, Rights Resource Network of SA, and many unions.  

On Friday (26 May) while more than 500 people gathered to protest the changes and lack of consultation, Attorney-General Hon Kyam Maher MLC told radio listeners that the Government aren’t looking to change who the legislation applies to, just to update the penalties. More than 80 organisations signed an open letter featured in the Advertiser urging the State Government to withdraw the Bill and protect the right to freedom of assembly including the Australian Democracy Network, The Australia Institute and Amnesty International Australia. Over the following weekend, Labor Members including the Premier denied the changes would impact rights to freedom of assembly.   

What about in the Legislative Council? 

On Tuesday (30 May) morning hundreds gathered in the city to demand Government withdraw the Bill. Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Rights Resource Network SA, SA Unions and others published a double-page feature in the Advertiser urging Parliament to withdraw the legislation and ask citizens to join the protest for human rights.  

That afternoon the Legislative Council, or the upper house, began debating and the crossbench attempted to make amendments including having the changes reviewed by a committee, removing the word ‘indirectly’ from the offence, requiring the Attorney-General to review the changes after 12 months, having the SA Voice to Parliament review the proposed changes and reducing the maximum penalty from $50,000 to $5,000 – these suggested changes were all rejected.  

The crossbench of the upper house attempted a ‘filibuster’ – a political tactic of prolonging debate on legislation to delay or prevent voting – and after a 14-hour overnight session where Greens MLC Rob Simms and SA-Best MLC Frank Pangallo MLC and Connie Bonaros MLC spoke for hours, the Bill passed at 6:15 AM Wednesday (31 May) morning with one small change made by a crossbench amendment to remove ‘reckless’ to read ‘intentionally obstructs the free passage of a public place,’ whether directly or indirectly.  

 What now?  

YACSA, alongside many human rights, social, and legal sector organisations as well as unions, is concerned about the lack of consultation the now passed Bill received and the speed at which it moved through Parliament. We are also worried about the unintended consequences of broadening the offence that may impact young people who are often discriminated against. 

The Human Rights Law Centre said it is likely the new law will be taken to the High Court. That challenge would relate to how the new law impacts implied freedom of political communication rights in the constitution.  

The 'generational bargain'

Particularly in the context of the recent Federal Budget, and the upcoming State Budget, we’ve been talking a lot about government spending and the long-term impacts it has on young people and their futures. 

The most important piece of context to this budget puzzle is something referred to as the generational bargain which you might have seen us refer to. This is an agreement across generations that acknowledges that some age groups and stages of life require more supports than others, and that other cohorts are obligated to support them. 

In the context of young people, older generations have a responsibility to ensure that the next generation are better off than the last. 

Investing in things like social and disability services, mental health and education gives each generation of young people access to what they need in order to become active citizens and members of the workforce as they get older. Older age groups are in a similar position – following generations contribute to the care they may need as they age, as they did for them when they were young people. 

But this bargain has been broken. This generation of young people will be the first generation since Federation to be worse off than their parents.  

So what is the cost of breaking the bargain? 

Bad outcomes for young people. Not having access to appropriate services and supports means young people miss out, and the most marginalised groups of young people are hit hardest. Children, young people and their families need, have a right to, support to ensure each individual’s needs are met. 

We often talk about home ownership being out of reach for young people in their lifetimes, but the reality is that breaking this bargain puts generating any kind of wealth out of reach for most young people. 

This broken bargain is a context we cannot separate from any conversations around young people because it has real, continuous impacts on the lives of young people.  

Further in the future young people now will continue to carry the burden of struggling to generate wealth and supporting an ageing population, setting them up for continued disadvantage. 

We often hear about young people who have tragically ‘fallen through the gaps’, but this takes the responsibility off of decision makers, as if they couldn’t have avoided this outcome by properly funding child and family services, welfare, public education, disability services and mental and physical healthcare. Bad outcomes don’t just happen, they are political choices. 

Governments have money – but it is how they choose to spend it. 

What's in the 2023-24 Federal Budget for young people?

The Federal Budget has been released and we’ve been through it to see if it addresses what we had hoped. Spoiler alert, it didn’t.  

While we’d hoped to see measures beginning to address intergenerational inequality, this budget presents little to reverse the broken generational bargain. This unspoken agreement has seen each generation better off than the last, until now, with young people in Australia today to be the first since Federation to be worse off than their parents. 

It is a dire situation – one successive governments have refused to so much as acknowledge. 

Here’s a quick look at each of our priority areas but keep an eye out for more in the coming weeks. Please note that we’ve only included budget items aimed at young people. Obviously these aren’t the only budget measures that will impact young people, but let’s start by putting these into perspective. 

 Economic participation  

What we wanted 

• The rate of income support, including Youth Allowance, raised above the poverty line. 

• Investment in and commitment to a youth full employment guarantee. 

• Tax reforms for low-to-middle income earners to begin to address intergenerational inequality. 

What we got 

• An increase of $40 a fortnight to the base JobSeeker and Youth Allowance rates. A grand total of $2.85 a day.  

The poverty line, or the level of income below which people are regarded as living in poverty, sits around $490 per week for a single adult. The maximum Youth Allowance rate will be raised to $301.40 per week, an increase that isn’t nearly enough. 

• $0.8 million in 2023-24 (plus $0.9 million 2024-25 & 2025-26) to SA for the Schools Pathways Program which assists in promoting a potential career path for young people in the defence industry. It focuses on increasing the number of students undertaking STEM subjects relevant to the defence industry in participating schools.  

Supporting young people interested in career pathways for potentially growing industries is positive, but this program does not aim to improve or guarantee improvement in young people's disproportionate rates of unemployment and underemployment. 

Mental health  

What we wanted 

• Significant investment in increasing the availability and accessibility of mental healthcare services. 

• Increased funding to evidence-based community mental health and wellbeing support, including dedicated youth programs. 

What we got  

• $6.9 million over two years from 2023–24 to continue child and youth mental health supports, including supporting digital work and study and student mentoring. 

This funding is to extend headspace’s Work and Study Online program (and to continue youth programs in Newcastle, NSW). This is important support, but it does not address the need to increase availability and accessibility of mental health and wellbeing services. 

• $2.8 million to extend supports for people living with eating disorders and their families.  

• $6.2 million to support children to build and maintain a positive body image and reduce body dissatisfaction and appearance pressures. 

This spending is important, and welcome, but it’s targeted and doesn’t address the broader mental health and wellbeing issues young people are experiencing.  

Housing  

What we wanted  

• Funding for youth-specific homelessness services including for prevention and early intervention. 

• An increased rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) available. 

What we got  

• A small increase in CRA that doesn’t come close to addressing the rent increases over the last few years. 

A young person receiving the maximum rate of Youth Allowance and the maximum rate of CRA after increases will receive $783.58 per fortnight or $391.79 per week. The median rental property price in Adelaide is currently $430 per week, leaving little to nothing for living expenses like, you know, food. 

If you need some extra support, don’t hesitate to reach out to any of the below: 

Lifeline 13 11 14 & webchat 24/7 

Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800 & webchat 24/7 

13 YARN (13 19 76) Crisis support for First Nations people 24/7