Independent MP Sophie Scamps has a question about her wellbeing for future generations bill (which needs government support to go anywhere)

“For the first time in modern history, our young people will be worse off than their parents. They face converging crises of climate, environment, housing, mental ill health and so much more. It’s clear our short term, siloed thinking is failing us. Today, I introduced the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill. Prime Minister, will you consider adopting my bill, which requires a long term lens and the Wellbeing of Future Generations to be considered in all government and public policy decision making? And if not, why not?”

Albanese does not agree to support the bill, but says he will look at the ‘ideas’. He doesn’t poopoo the idea because it turns out you need the youth vote when the linear nature of time means that millennials (who are now parents) and Gen Z suddenly have strong voting power.

The important part of his answer:

I thank the member for Mackellar for her question and for her advocacy, and I certainly commit to having a look at the ideas that have been put forward by the member for Mackellar, who plays a constructive role in this chamber.

I certainly agree and have spoken about, including in the speech that I gave at the National Press Club about the question of intergenerational inequity, because it is a genuine feeling that people have arising out of the changed circumstances which are there facing young Australians.

Young Australians are very concerned about not just their economic position and the fast changing nature of workplaces and their experiences in life, but also about dealing with the challenge of climate change and the fact that people who say, ‘oh well, you can’t make a difference immediately’ forget the fact that generations that will inherit our climate are not ones that have benefited from the growth that came from fossil fuels in the in the 20th century and 21st century.

You would think the logical thing to do then would be to STOP fossil fuels, but no. Nope, that’s not on the agenda. Yet. Eventually, politicians won’t have a choice, but the question is how much extra damage will they have caused in that time?