The “Binding Recommendations”: Increasing Young Australians’ Participation in Traditional Governance Structures & the Scope of the Federal Youth Advisory Groups

Elina Forsyth, Menzies Foundation National Scholar, Y20 Brazil 2024

Executive Summary

Structural barriers and perceived non-aligned policy priorities are increasingly causing young Australians to be disillusioned and disengaged from traditional Australian government processes. Despite overwhelmingly prioritising socioeconomic and social justice issues, many young Australians do not feel their participation in formal decision-making structures is an accessible, values-aligned, or effective pathway in reaching the long-term solutions they overwhelmingly seek to implement. 

The following policy paper outlines the case for implementing a “Binding Recommendation” program within the Office for Youth’s Youth Advisory Groups (YAGs) to translate youth perspectives into tangible federal policy action, with the long-term goal of strengthening confidence in federal decision-making and supporting sustained youth engagement in formal governance.

The “Binding Recommendations” program - costing an estimated $6 million annually - allows each YAG to have one of their recommendations enacted with support from their associated federal government agency, Treasury, and the Department of Education. YAG members would work alongside professional policymakers to draft and implement youth-led policies that target young Australians’ interests and needs. 

Problem Identification

Young Australians - aged 12-24 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2021) - are increasingly disillusioned and disengaging from conventional political structures due to structural and ideological barriers. One in five 18-24 year olds report dissatisfaction with the policies and politics of the Australian Government (Gill 2023), with many losing confidence in government institutions to accurately represent their needs (Stephenson et al. 2024) and prioritise the sustainable policies young people overwhelmingly support (Sathanapally 2024). With over 92% of federal parliamentarians over the age of 40 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, n.d.) and no representatives under the age of 18, young Australians’ perspectives can be deprioritised, or entirely absent from policy discussions. 

Feeling unrepresented by political leaders and short-term policy cycles, many young Australians are reclaiming political agency elsewhere, shifting away from conventional political participation (running for office, keeping up to date with politics) (UNICEF Australia 2025), and moving towards non-traditional methods (sharing online political media, signing petitions, and grassroots activism) (Kapeke et al. 2024). Many young people identify formal political structures as not always designed to address their long-term interests. A study by the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership found that of a cohort of politically engaged youth, 85% preferred participating in non-traditional political methods (Australian National University 2024). Whilst effective in their ability to raise awareness towards political issues, these non-traditional initiatives often lack direct policy influence and/or decision-making authority, making them less effective than conventional government systems in implementing policies that serve young Australians’ largely sustainable policy interests. 

This youth disengagement from formal political structures further exacerbates the reason for their original disengagement: lack of youth-focused, long-term policymaking. Without meaningful structural reform and consistent long-term policy commitments, youth trust in democratic systems will continue to erode, alongside government commitments to generate sustainable and intersectional policy responses to national challenges.

Context

Article 12 of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child articulates that all children under the age of 18 have the right to be involved in decision-making processes that may affect them, having their perspectives be both heard and properly considered by decision makers (United Nations General Assembly 1989; Guterres 2023). A signatory and ratifier of the Convention, Australia has an obligation to uphold its provisions (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights n.d.). The urgency of intergenerational policymaking was further recognised in 2024 through the United Nations Pact for the Future and its annex, the Declaration on Future Generations. This landmark document acknowledges the necessity of all States to deliver long-term policies to effectively safeguard the needs and standards of living of future generations (United Nations General Assembly 2024). Sustainable future-thinking policies aim to ensure the needs and prosperity of present populations without reducing the standard of living for future generations (United Nations n.d.) rather than focusing on immediate short-term profits. 

Federal politicians shape critical policies affecting every aspect of life for all Australians, including education, healthcare, economics, and foreign policy. For democracy to be effectively responsive, policies must accurately respond to the needs of all they serve - including young Australians. When politicians make such decisions without insight into the needs of young people, it can leave young Australians’ needs and interests inauthentically understood, and inadequately addressed (Stephenson et al. 2024). This is evident in the frequent prioritisation of short-term policies, particularly concerning areas such as climate change, mental health, and cost of living. These policies often exacerbate intergenerational inequity, negatively impacting both current and future generations’ youth (Rimmer, Stephenson & Taylor 2024). This is also evident through critiques of Stage 3 tax cuts and fossil fuel expansions, with many experts arguing they generate short-term economic growth, but will impact later generations with higher economic costs and environmental impacts (Hutchens 2024 and Bourne 2025). In order to ensure healthy, reflective policies, it is therefore imperative policymaking be intergenerational, with young people themselves involved in policymaking and traditional government processes (ACE Electoral Knowledge Network). 

Despite widespread claims, analysis shows that young Australians are not politically apathetic, they are deeply concerned about political and societal issues; with this sentiment particularly articulated amongst First Nations, queer, and low-income youth (Young Australians UPR Taskforce 2025). Additionally, young people are invested in our political system - with the 2025 election youth enrolment rate an estimated 5% over the target threshold (Australian Electoral Commission 2025). Although youth remain largely underrepresented in politics and turn to alternative forms of political participation, they have a keen knowledge and awareness of democracy and the political and socio-economic issues around them (Collin & Hugman 2020). The two factors are not mutually exclusive, as emphasised in a report by youth-run organisation Foundations for Tomorrow (2021), “the challenge is not getting young Australians interested in politics; it is getting them engaged in a system where they do not feel heard.” 

Whilst there have been, and still are, efforts to include youth voices in policymaking throughout all levels of Australian government, these practices have historically been solely advisory, run independently of government, or are otherwise missing entirely (Waite et al. 2024). Among existing traditional government youth initiatives, young people from traditionally marginalised backgrounds often report feeling incapable or unsafe when participating in these systems; including people of colour, First Nations Peoples, and those from low-income backgrounds (Young Australians UPR Taskforce 2025). Due to these structural barriers and wellbeing-related challenges, such initiatives have been largely ineffective in addressing young Australians’ needs through policy impact, contributing to growing disillusionment and disengagement with formal political systems.

Case Study

A proven model of integrating non-elected individuals into formal policymaking structures is the process of Mini-publics, where diverse groups of randomly selected citizens proxy for their relevant populations (Escobar & Elstub 2017). Mini-publics come in several forms including Citizens’ Jurors, Planning Cells, and Citizens’ Assemblies, with the latter consisting of participants researching an issue, consulting local constituents on their perspectives of the issue, and a group deliberation to finalise official recommendations to government policymakers.

The world's-first youth Citizens’ Assembly for children under the age of 16 was conducted in Scotland, and saw young people develop climate action recommendations to be presented to government officials (Children’s Parliament 2022). These recommendations were included within the government’s Climate Assembly report, utilised in policy discussions, and ultimately assisted in the Scottish government's ban on most single-use-plastics. The success of this Youth Citizens’ Assembly demonstrates that non-elected young people shaping policy within formal political processes can benefit both participants and the wider community, through the generation of sustainable policies. 

Further, longitudinal studies showcase that the earlier young people are able to engage in political processes, the more likely they are to participate civically for a sustained period of time. A 2025 Scottish study found that young people first enfranchised at 16–17 maintained much higher turnout rates in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections compared to those whose first opportunity came at 18 or older (Eichhorn & Huebner 2025). This suggests that initiatives like the Youth Citizens’ Assembly, which engage young people in tangible policymaking before voting age, may both accelerate the adoption of values-driven policies that reflect young people's sustainable priorities and rebuild trust in government - creating conditions for ongoing, meaningful civic youth participation. 

Current Policy Landscape

State and local youth council structures are increasingly common within Australian communities, with the YMCA operating youth parliamentary programs across seven states and territories (Y Australia n.d). In Victoria, 81% of the 79 local councils are in the process of, or have already established youth advisory councils (Youth Affairs Council Victoria 2021). However, only five councils reported utilising youth co-design methodology when establishing their youth strategies - highlighting the Australian youth engagement landscape as largely nominal (Youth Affairs Council Victoria 2021).

In 2022, the Australian Department of Education implemented a Youth Engagement Model in order to increase youth engagement within policy and decision-making (Department of Education, 2024). 

Initiatives under this model include:

Figure 1: Overview of Initiatives under the “Engage!” National Strategy

The recommendations provided from the Youth Advisory Groups guide their respective government agencies on how to better serve the needs and interests of young people in Australia (Office for Youth n.d). These groups provide a direct line of communication between young people and government officials, who have the power to shape policies, implement programs, and influence present and future outcomes for young Australians. 

Efforts of the federal Youth Engagement Model to engage young Australians in traditional governance structures through initiatives such as youth forums, national surveys, and providing training materials to Australian government employees (Department of Education 2024), remain largely advisory and symbolic. Under this model, there is no structural mandate that young 

Australians’ recommendations through the YAGs will impact policy and/or be actioned, resulting in youth not being given substantial impact in formal governance structures. This risks the potential of reinforcing youth disengagement, as a result of perpetuating short-term policymaking cycles. 

Policy Options

The following proposals aim to facilitate direct young Australian involvement in federal policymaking, in order to curb disengagement and distrust in traditional governance structures and short-term policies: 

Option 1: Expand the Child Rights Impact Assessment Toolkit to Incorporate ‘Youth Assessors’ 

Building upon the preexisting Australian Child Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) toolkit established by the Australian Human Rights Commission and supported by UNICEF Australia, this option proposes that direct analysis by young people be added to the toolkit. The use of such child impact assessment tools is recommended by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The toolkit, designed to provide government institutions with a tool for assessing how their policies impact young people in the long-term (Australian Human Rights Commission 2023), would be further enhanced by participation from young Australians themselves. Selected by the Australian Human Rights Commission, Youth Assessors would assess whether proposed policies align with youth needs and interests, and provide suggestions for modification. It is suggested the analysis consists of assessment by 30-50 young Australians from a variety of groups including: those not involved in politics, politically-engaged youth, activists, and response statements from federal Youth Advisory Group members. Members should be divided accurately based on Australia’s youth population, ensuring a diverse and representative range of perspectives. 

Whilst these analyses amplify young Australian voices, they are not able to directly impact the development of these policies. Similar to current limitations with non-traditional political engagement such as online youth advocacy and protests, there is no guarantee that upon being heard, these statements will lead to tangible outcomes - risking the potential of youth opinions not being meaningfully received, and reinforcing youth disillusionment in politics. 

Based on a similar honorarium payment structure for other youth advisory positions within government (Australian Government Department of Education 2025), it is estimated that each Youth Assessor should be granted approximately $1,000 p.a, resulting in an annual estimated budget of $60,000 - $100,000 for implementation. Given the lack of direct benefit stemming from this recommendation, this is highly cost ineffective. 

Option 2:  Modify the Mandate and Scope of the federal Youth Advisory Groups,  Implementing a “Binding Recommendation”

Establishing a definitive mechanism for young people to impact the federal government’s actions, this second recommendation proposes ensuring that each federal Youth Advisory Group (YAG) has one proposed recommendation implemented per term. This implemented recommendation shall be referred to as the “Binding Recommendation”. 

It is proposed that members of each YAG develop a “Binding Recommendation” with guidance from staff of their corresponding government agency; assuring attunement to young Australians’ needs, and alignment with government standards, priorities and capabilities. 

It is recommended “Binding Recommendations” receive funding between $1 - $5 million, aligning with pre existing funding models used by government agencies such as the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science and Resources 2024).

Implementing a “Binding Recommendation” would tangibly demonstrate to young Australians that their ideas and perspectives are genuinely considered by federal policymakers. With policies and programs based on their interests being actioned, young Australians may rebuild trust in the effectiveness and applicability of conventional political processes, stimulating their participation within these structures. This projected impact of greater involvement of youth in federal governance and the likely long-term policies to follow justify the costly investment and effort in restructuring the YAG program. 

Option 3: Expand the Youth Advisory Groups across all federal Agencies

This recommendation proposes expanding the YAGs across all 60+ federal agencies (Australian Business Register 2024), increasing the breadth and depth of young Australians’ perspectives incorporated in federal policymaking. This process would offer young people additional opportunities to provide recommendations across all aspects of society, allowing for a greater understanding of youth issues and increased number of intergenerational policy recommendations. 

With YAG members provided an approximate individual $2,000 annual honorarium (Department of Education 2025) and eight assumed members on each YAG (Office for Youth 2024), this expansion would require an additional minimum annual funding of $960,000 to the Office for Youth.

Whilst this model provides more opportunities for youth interests to be heard within traditional governance structures, there remains no mechanism ensuring that these perspectives will be meaningfully considered or actioned. Without meaningful influence, youth disillusionment within formal governance structures and the policy short-termism may persist.

Policy Recommendation

It is recommended that the Department of Education implement Option 2: widening the scope and mandate of the federal YAGs, enabling one recommendation put forward by each of the Advisory Groups to be implemented by their corresponding government agency.

Providing avenues for young Australians to have a direct, yet monitored role in policymaking offers a tangible incentive for political engagement, demonstrating that their perspectives can shape government action. Through fostering greater youth participation in governance, this approach could help combat disengagement and encourage additional long-term policies that reflect both immediate and future young Australians’ needs.

Scope of the 'binding recommendations'

In the first three months of their term, and upon consultation with young people in their respective state and territories, it is suggested that each YAG proposes a maximum of six options for “Binding Recommendations” to staff at their corresponding governmental agencies. Upon receipt, staff will determine which of the proposed recommendations is most appropriate to be actioned, and will begin mentoring Advisory Group members as to how to draft the recommendation into a policy. 

Whilst each of the YAGs may only recommend six proposed “Binding Recommendations”, this is independent from the number of general recommendations put forward to governmental agencies as part of the advisory board position.

To ensure coordinated and effective development of the “Binding Recommendations”, it is proposed that all YAG members be appointed at the same time, rather than the current staggered system where half the members are selected in alternative years (Office for Youth n.d.). This ensures that all YAG members experience the full cycle of the “Binding Recommendations”, allowing them to have a say in policy ideas from ideation to operation.

In addition to approval from relevant agency staff, the six proposed “Binding Recommendations” require pre-approval by Treasury. Staff at Treasury will analyse whether the recommendations fit within the allocated budget (as outlined below), and determine funding amounts for each “Binding Recommendation”. As part of this process, the department reserves the right to veto any proposed recommendations they deem financially burdensome and/or not meeting their criteria. 

Alongside fiscal pre-approval, there are several key parameters each “Binding Recommendation” must adhere to: 

• There will be no more than one recommendation per YAG, to be accepted as a “Binding Recommendation”, each term

• Each “Binding Recommendation” policy and subsequent action must be operational within the two year term of the YAG members

• Unless otherwise approved, each “Binding Recommendation” must be approved under the executive branch of government 

• Each “Binding Recommendation” must result in a measurable outcome (e.g. young people consulted, number of participants, funds raised)

• A “Binding Recommendation” cannot influence pre-existing government policies

Predicted Costs

In 2022, the federal government invested $10.5 million for the establishment of the Office for Youth (Office for Youth 2022). In addition, the 2023-2024 federal budget allocated an additional $1.7 million over four years to fund initiatives of “Engage!” (Chalmers & Gallagher 2024).

Government Funding Responsibility

To ensure appropriate funding for “Binding Recommendations”, each governmental agency associated with a YAG will be responsible for funding the recommendation, as the recommendations fall within their portfolio. This ensures that the Office for Youth and Department of Education do not bear the financial burden of paying for all “Binding Recommendations”, allowing appropriate funding for other initiatives under the ‘Engage!’ strategy.

With each of the government departments attached to a YAG having their own budget - this leaves room for funding disparities between “Binding Recommendations”. As such, it is recommended that all “Binding Recommendations” receive funding of between $1-5 million, with final allocations determined by the Department of Treasury. 

Whilst the exact cost of a YAG’s “Binding Recommendations” is undetermined, it is expected to be relatively low in cost due to the limited time for generation and implementation. As departments with YAGs have allocated annual budgets in the billions, the proposed funding of $1 to 5 million for each recommendation is feasible.

Australian Public Service Staff Additional Costs: Policy Mentorship Program

To facilitate the policy mentorship process, additional funding must be provided for government staff to run the program. 

Given the additional increase in work of 26 hours - two hours per week over three months - for the policy mentorship program, and the assumption that the mentorship will be guided by Australian Public Service (APS) workers specialised in policy creation and reform - likely APS Level 5 (Australian Public Service Commission 2024) - the figure below outlines the estimated costs:

Therefore, assuming there are six YAGs - the maximum number ever in a year - an estimated additional minimum of $19,748.64 annually will be required for staff reimbursements for the “Binding Recommendation” program. 

YAG Member Honorarium: Policy Mentorship Program

For 2024-2025, YAG members received $79,000 (Australian Government Department of Education 2025). Assuming members meet for two hours every two months - as taken from the parallel federal Youth Steering Committee (Office for Youth n.d. b) - and additional in-person meetings, it can be assumed that members work approximately 20 hours per year, excluding intermittent events. With the suggested eight members per YAG (Office for Youth 2024), and the five current YAGs (Office for Youth 2024), it can be estimated that of the total honorarium, individuals currently receive $1,975 for their contributions over the two years. 

It can be inferred that YAG members earn approximately $49.38 an hour. Therefore, an additional 26 hours for the mentorship program with 40 assumed YAG members would cost an additional $51,355.20. 

Final Cost Breakdown

Given these estimated costs, the financial breakdown for the “Binding Recommendations” is as follows:

As such, the total estimated costs of implementing this recommendation is estimated to be up to $6 million, leaving room for additional events, salary variations and incidentals. 

Timeline

The following timeline for the implementation of “Binding Recommendations” is proposed:

First Year

• Months 1- 3: YAG members begin consultations with local young Australians and their respective governmental agency and brainstorm potential ideas for “Binding Recommendations”

• Months 4-6: YAG members present suggestions for, and gain approval of their “Binding Recommendation”; Members commence the policy mentorship program and write their “Binding Recommendation” policy

• Months 7-12: Policies of “Binding Recommendations” work toward implementation and enactment

Second Year

• Months 1-3: The policies of the “Binding Recommendations” are initiated 

• Months 4-10: YAG members continue advising other matters

• Months 11-12: YAG members and federal government employees assess the efficacy of the “Binding Recommendation” in reaching its half-year goals, and analyse the policy mentorship program, providing suggestions for later cohorts

Evaluation and Monitoring

To ensure effective monitoring, the Department of Education should request the federal Productivity Commission to undertake biennial evaluations from the end of the first “Binding Recommendation” cycle. These evaluations should align with existing impact analyses such as the National School Reform Agreement review (Department of Education n.d.) and the inquiry into Australia’s early childhood education and care sector (Australian Government Productivity Commission n.d.). The biennial accountability mechanism should assess whether the “Binding Recommendations” have been effective in increasing young Australians’ engagement in traditional federal governance processes by analysing:

• Increase in the number of young people campaigning for bills to be introduced to Parliament

• Expansion in the number of young people running for government in the 2028 federal election and beyond

• Uptick in federal YAG applications

• The rise in number of long-term policies implemented by federal parliament

• Boost in satisfaction rates for government policies amongst young Australians

Risks

A prominent risk is that the “Binding Recommendation” process may be perceived as undemocratic due to the involvement of non-elected members in the drafting process. However, the scope of the “Binding Recommendations” falling within the executive power of government ensures that these recommendations follow constitutionally protected, democratic, and legal practices (Parliament of Australia 2024). This limitation ensures “Binding Recommendations” do not impact past policies or implement new legislation, which require parliamentary approval. 

In the rare event that a “Binding Recommendation” is given approval by a federal agency and requires legislative power (such as the allocation of more funds than specified in the respective agency budget, or the creation of new laws), it should follow the usual democratic processes, ensuring its legal implementation. However, such scenarios are incredibly unlikely due to the vetting of “Binding Recommendations” by federal agency employees, and the program’s time constraints. This scope balances the need for young Australians’ engagement in traditional governmental processes, without compromising democratic principles. 

The Office for Youth being dismantled when a new political party is elected into government in Australia, is a potential risk, and would result in the closure of the Office for Youth and its “Binding Recommendations” program. However, this can be combated by ensuring that the “Binding Recommendations” are successful in fulfilling their outcomes, and the Office for Youth continues to make long-term positive impacts toward elevating the lives of Australian youth. Seeing these positive results, and the increasing youth engagement that stem from them, it is unlikely that a new Government would dismantle this program and the Office for Youth. 

Another inherent risk is that “Binding Recommendations” may not be effective in achieving their intended outcomes, leading to a potential misallocation or waste of government resources. However, this risk exists for all new government initiatives, and can be combated by ensuring that the “Binding Recommendation” policies are evidence-based, address meaningful issues faced by young Australians, take into account previous policy pitfalls, and are developed in conjunction with experienced federal policy staff. Each “Binding Recommendation” falling under the purview of a different federal agency ensures that there is appropriate guidance and research to establish effective policies. 

References

Australian Business Register (2024) Federal agencies, Australian Government Australian Business Register, accessed 19 November 2024. https://www.abr.gov.au/government-agencies/accessing-abr-data/agencies-access-non-public-data/federal-agencies

ACE Electoral Knowledge Network (2024) Youth and elections, ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, accessed 16 November 2024. https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/yt/yt10/yt240/informal-participation

Australian Bureau of Statistics (n.d.) Representation in parliament, Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed 19 March 2025. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/measuring-what-matters/measuring-what-matters-themes-and-indicators/cohesive/representation-parliament

Australian Electoral Commission (2025) National youth enrolment rate, Australian Electoral Commission, accessed 18 March 2025. https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/performance/national-youth.htm

Australian Government Productivity Commission (n.d.) Early childhood education and care, Australian Government Productivity Commission, accessed 19 March 2025. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childhood#report

Australian Human Rights Commission (2023) National Children’s Commissioner urges governments to monitor child rights, Australian Human Rights Commission, accessed 19 November 2024. https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/media-releases/national-childrens-commissioner-urges-governments-monitor-child-rights

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021) Australia’s Youth - in brief, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, accessed 14 July 2025. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/70b59dde-b494-48a7-ab51-f0cab369904f/australia-s-young-people-in-brief.pdf

Australian National University (2024) Young people passionate about political action, but forging new pathways to change, Australian National University Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, accessed 19 July 2024. https://giwl.anu.edu.au/news/young-people-passionate-about-political-action-forging-new-pathways-change

Australian Public Service Commission (2024) Work level standards: APS Level and Executive Level classifications, accessed March 18 2025. https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/aps-employees-and-managers/work-level-standards-aps-level-and-executive-level-classifications

Bourne G (7 June 2025) ‘The real reason for the North West Shelf project’, The Saturday Paper, accessed 7 August 2025, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2025/06/07/the-real-reason-the-north-west-shelf-project

Chalmers J and Gallagher K (2025) Budget Measures: Budget Paper No. 2. Treasury Department, Parliament of Australia, accessed 18 March 2025. https://budget.gov.au/content/bp2/download/bp2_2025-26.pdf

Children’s Parliament (2022) Climate Changemakers! Impact Report,  Children’s Parliament, accessed 19 March 2025. https://www.childrensparliament.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Climate_Changemakers_Childrens_Parliament_2022.pdf

Collin P and Hugman S (2020) What Matters to Young Australians?: Exploring young people’s perspectives from 2010-2018, Whitlam Institute, accessed 16 March 2025. https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/1779937/What_Matters_to_Young_Australians.pdf

Department of Education (2024) Engage! A strategy to include young people in the decisions we make, Department of Education, accessed 19 July 2024. https://www.youth.gov.au/engage/resources/engage-our-new-strategy-include-young-people-decisions-we-make

Department of Education (2025) Youth Advisory Group member honorarium payments, accessed March 17 2025. https://www.education.gov.au/about-department/resources/youth-advisory-group-member-honorarium-payments

Department of Education (n.d.) Review to Inform a Better and Fairer Education System, accessed March 19 2025. https://www.education.gov.au/review-inform-better-and-fairer-education-system

Eichhorn J and Huebner C (2025) ‘Longer-Term Effects of Voting at Age 16: Higher Turnout Among Young People in Scotland’, Politics and Governance, Vol. 13(1):1-18, doi: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.9283

Escobar O and Elstub S (2017) Forms of Mini-Publics, NewDemocracy, accessed 18 November 2024. https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/2017/05/08/forms-of-mini-publics/

Foundations for Tomorrow (2021) Awareness to Action: A youth-informed proposal for a more just, equitable and sustainable Australian future, Foundations for Tomorrow, accessed 16 March 2025. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6562bc3b0b80f547bdee287f/t/659f5494057d253e9ac089dc/1704940698560/Awareness%2Bto%2BAction%2BFull%2BReport.pdf

Gill S (2023) When I grow up I want to be … a politician, Parliament of Australia, accessed 19 July 2024. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2023/July/Youth_representation_in_Parliament

Guterres A (2023) Our Common Agenda Policy Brief 3: Meaningful Youth Engagement in Policymaking and Decision-making Processes, United Nations, accessed 19 March 2025. https://bahrain.un.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/our-common-agenda-policy-brief-youth-engagement-en.pdf

Hutchens G (15 February 2024) ‘Australia’s tax system is worse than it was 15 years ago, and young people are paying the price, Ken Henry says’, ABC News, accessed March 17 2025. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-15/ken-henry-australias-tax-system-in-worse-position-after-15-years/103465044

Kapeke K, Saw P, Krutsch E, Burgner C, Pitt H, Desai R, Muse K, Rowan J, Nalupta C, Bessant J, Sawyer SM and Wardak S (2024) ‘Young voices, healthy futures, the rationale for lowering the voting age to 16’, The Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 221(10):18-22, doi: 10.5694/mja2.52496

Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (2024) Grants now open to support a Future Made in Australia, Australian Government, accessed 19 July 2024. https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-releases/grants-now-open-support-future-made-australia

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (n.d.) UN Treaty Body Database, United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies, accessed March 17 2025. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CRC&Lang=en

Office for Youth (2022) Federal Budget commits $10.5 million for a new Youth Engagement Model, Office for Youth, accessed 19 March 2024.https://www.youth.gov.au/news/announcements/federal-budget-commits-105-million-new-youth-engagement-model

Office for Youth (n.d) Get involved!, Office for Youth, accessed March 17 2025. https://www.youth.gov.au/office-youth/get-involved

Office for Youth (2024) Join a 2025 Youth Advisory Group, Office for Youth, accessed March 17 2025. https://www.youth.gov.au/news/announcements/join-2025-youth-advisory-group

Office for Youth (n.d. b) Youth Steering Committee, Office for Youth, accessed March 19 2025. 

https://www.youth.gov.au/youth-steering-committee#:~:text=The%20Youth%20Steering%20Committee%20is,programs%20that%20impact%20young%20people.

Parliament of Australia (2024) Chapter 4: The executive government, Parliament of Australia, accessed 20 November 2024. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/hamer/chap04

Rimmer SH, Stephenson E and Taylor H (2024) A Fair go for all: Why Australia needs intergenerational policymaking, EveryGen, accessed 16 November 2024. https://giwl.anu.edu.au/files/2024-11/A%20Fair%20Go%20for%20All%20Report.pdf

Sathanapally A (16 November 2024) ‘Bridging generations’, Grattan Institute, accessed 19 November 2024. https://grattan.edu.au/news/bridging-generations/

Stephenson, E, Monteith, E, Shepard, B, Ryan, M, Oliveira-Silva, L, Fisher, A, Mikolajczak, G, Streeter-Jones, A, Barkha, B, Contos, C and Barr, N (2024) Alternative Paths to Politics: How Young People Engage in Politics in Australia, Australian National University, accessed 19 March 2024. https://giwl.anu.edu.au/files/2024-11/Alternative_paths_to_politics.pdf

United Nations (n.d.) Sustainability, United Nations, accessed August 8 2025. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability

United Nations General Assembly (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Resolution 44/25. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/crc.pdf

United Nations General Assembly (2024) Declaration on Future Generations, Resolution 77/568. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/77/568

Waite, C, Walsh, L, Gallo Cordoba, B, Cutler, B, and Bao Huynh, T (2024) About them, without them? figures of youth in Australian policy 2014-2021,  Journal of Youth Studies, vol (1): 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2024.2325447

Y Australia (n.d.) Youth Parliament, YMCA Australia, accessed 8 August 2025. https://ymca.org.au/what-we-do/empowering-young-people/youth-parliament/

Youth Affairs Council Victoria (2021) Mapping youth policy, participation mechanisms and services across Local Councils, Youth Affairs Council Victoria, accessed 11 August 2025. https://www.yacvic.org.au/assets/Documents/Mapping-Youth-Policy-Participation-Services-across-Local-Councils-in-Victoria-Dec-2021.pdf

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.