youth policy
27 Oct 2009
You Crazy Kids
Minister for Youth, Kate Ellis, wants to start a 'national conversation' with young Australians. The only problem is she's not all that interested in what they have to say
Did you know Australia is formulating a new policy for young people?Federal Minister for Youth, Kate Ellis — who is 31, so hopefully not too old to remember what being young is like — announced last week the she was beginning a "national conversation with young Australians".
It's easy to be cynical of such exercises, but if ever there was an area of public policy that deserves more attention and respect, it's youth policy. According to the Rudd Government's recently released report, The State of Australia's Young People, there are nearly 4 million young Australians — defined as those aged between 12 and 24. Throw in a couple of million more Australians aged under 12, and perhaps a fifth of the entire Australian population lacks even an elementary say in our political process: a vote.
This is a fundamental flaw in our democracy, because young people will be hugely affected by the really big issues shaping Australia.
Climate change is of course the biggest of these. As the UK's Stern Report observed, the destruction of tomorrow's atmosphere by the polluters of today is one of the greatest market failures in world history. Far from leaving a better planet for our children and grandchildren, Australia's current leadership generation shows every sign of not caring at all. The Government's own Treasury data shows that global CO2 concentrations will be unlikely to peak below 450 parts per million; according to Clive Hamilton, 600ppm is a more realistic figure. That could mean a world close to five degrees warmer. In other words, a person born today will inherit a world fundamentally different to that of her parents, grandparents or indeed the entire last 10,000 years of human civilisation.
Climate change is merely the most obvious gathering crisis our leaders will bequeath to young Australians. There's peak oil and energy security - the challenge of finding a replacement for the fossil fuels that power our entire way of life. There's food security — the challenge of growing enough food to feed a world that will soon contain nine billion people. And there's water — will Australia's cities and farms have enough of it in a hotter, drier future? No one is asking young people how they think we should be addressing these issues that will greatly affect their lives.
What about housing affordability? After a pause during the global financial crisis, Australian house prices have resumed their inexorable climb, making it ever harder for young Australians to rent (let alone buy) a place to live. Housing is one of the most aged-biased parts of the entire economy: because of the massive house price inflation of the past two decades, Australians homes are now largely owned by middle-aged and elderly Australians, while most young people rent. Those rents represent a multi-billion transfer from poorer, younger Australians to richer, older Australians every month. But you won't hear about a curb to negative gearing tax concessions in any Rudd Government discussion of youth policy.
It goes on. Our population is ageing. Today's children will inherit a nation top-heavy with retired workers and pensions; ever more of their taxes will be required to support their elders into old age. And then there's youth unemployment, which remains considerably higher than unemployment for the broader population. Youth unemployment is a perennial problem that is exacerbated by Australia's flat-lining rates of high school completion.
So, you would expect that a national youth strategy would mention some of these issues. Indeed, you'd think that such a strategy would at least acknowledge the generational unfairness inherent in climate change, wouldn't you?
Don't be silly. The five-page crib sheet from Kate Ellis that passes for a "discussion paper" doesn't mention climate change. In fact, it makes no mention of the environment at all. And it certainly doesn't mention youth unemployment or housing affordability.
Instead, we have what must surely be one of the most prejudiced policy documents ever to be released by a Canberra department.
According to the document, "the Prime Minister has identified three key reasons for developing a strategy". They are:
1. One in five Australians are under 25, and make a strong contribution to Australia, our economy, our culture, our sport and our nation.
2. This generation is facing new challenges (changing social and family structures, changing skill requirements etc).
3. There are specific areas of concern that require transparent national action (eg binge drinking, mental health and violence).
Ah, there you have it, in dot point number three. The problem is not what we are doing to young people — it's what young people are doing to themselves! If this discussion paper is any guide, young people are mad, bad and drunk. In short, they are very naughty boys and girls.
The paper's suggested goals of a national strategy are pure boiler-plate spin. "Empowering young people to build their own lives for the future" and "enabling young Australians to accept full responsibility for their lives, their actions and their behaviours" sound great, until you realise that in most aspects of our society, young people have neither power nor responsibility. Locked out of the housing market, competing against more experienced elders for jobs and about to be burdened with possibly insoluble environmental problems, most young Australians don't even get to vote. In this country, depending on when your birthday falls, you may not get to vote in a federal election until you are 21.
You have to conclude that the Rudd Government simply doesn't take youth policy seriously. After all, one of the very first things the Howard Government did on taking office was to defund the national youth lobby group, then known as the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition (AYPAC). AYPAC was unhelpfully honest in its criticisms of the Howard government's policies, so Howard replaced it with a hand-picked National Youth Roundtable, a largely honorary body that had no genuinely consultative role. As a result, young people's voices went largely unheard in a government that in any case depended statistically on the votes of older Australians far more than younger ones.
But have matters improved under Kevin Rudd? Some new funding was found for the successor to AYPAC, the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition. But if Kate Ellis and Kevin Rudd were really serious about youth policy, they could meaningfully engage with young people on the issues that actually affect them.
There is no sign of that at the moment. According to Crikey's Andrew Crook, Ellis didn't even turn up to her own launch of The State of Australia's Young People last week. Participants flown to Canberra for the event spoke of being told the Minister wasn't "available" and of being shuffled around between double-booked meeting rooms. They didn't even get to read the national youth strategy discussion paper, which is perhaps just as well, given how laughably patronising it is.
Foundation for Young Australians CEO and Young Australian of the Year nominee Adam Smith told Crook that last Wednesday's events were "hugely disappointing".
In a display of Ellis' priorities, she still managed to hold a press conference. "Most young people are well educated, have close relationships with their families and friends and contribute to society through study, work and volunteering," Ellis said. "But the report also shows there are serious risks to their health, safety and wellbeing."
Serious risks? The Rudd Government is not taking young people seriously at all.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
"perhaps a fifth of the entire Australian population lacks even an elementary say in our political process: a vote. This is a fundamental flaw in our democracy, because young people will be hugely affected by the really big issues shaping Australia."
Ben, you did neuroscience. Did you cover brain development? Do you think that it might have some link with a persons ability to make judgements? (particularly about the veracity of the claims made by politicians). Maybe that’s why society routinely continues to deny ‘young people’ a representative voice (in the form of a vote) and does not perceive this to be a flaw of our system.
Before I hook into Bob Karmin let me say how pleased I am that someone out there has noticed just how weak our youth policy is.
Just a brief example is my presence at the otherwise laudable Sydney 2020 sustainability summit. At 44 I was one of the youngest people in the room. I took pains to point this out but the response seemed to imply that young people were a resource to be managed, rather than the very people who will supposedly carrying out our big plans.
Government can’t afford to acknowledge the climate, financial and social debt they are running up on our children’s tab. If our young people could get a sense of just how hard we are making their life they could legitimately take to the streets for some genuine revolution. I just might be persuaded to go along.
Now Bob, you seem relatively well read. Surely you are aware of the vast differences between adults in their congnitive and discriminatory abilities. Are you really prepared to say that you don’t know 14 year olds who are smarter, more savvy and more logical than some 40 year olds. I do, you should come down the youth centre and meet them.
If you propose a meritocracy Bob, I can present you with a list of people that shouldn’t get the vote right now because fo their lack of knowledge or ability. Just the posts on this site could supply a plethora of ignoramuses. Certainly the mentally ill come into the same catagory that you place our young people.
Why stop there Bob? Rural people without access to QandA should be struck off the roll as well. Anyone less well informed than yourself, Bob, could be in line for this treatment. Screw it, lets say everyone who reads the Telegraph to get their daily news can lose the vote. Black people have only just gotten on the roll, surely they wouldn’t miss it.
Or you could simply admit that their lack of a voice has nothing to do with the quality of their decision making and everything to do with their lack of power. For all the Baby Boomer’s rhetoric they were quick to enslave ensuing generations in a state of suspended adolescence, happy to reap the result of making these young people powerless super consumers.
I hear a lot of people complain about the lack of responsibility among young people but I see few who are willing to extend them the opportunity. Government, like the rest of us, stink in this regard.
To quote the thinking of Don Tapscott:
“As the first global generation ever, the Net Geners are smarter, quicker, and more tolerant of diversity than their predecessors. They care strongly about justice and the problems faced by their society and are typically engaged in some kind of civic activity at school, at work, or in their communities."
Gen Y:
WE are engaging politically and see democracy and government as key tools for improving the world.
WE turn to speed and freedom, empowering ourselves and others to begin the transformation on every aspect of modern life.
From the workplace to the marketplace, from politics to education to the basic unit of any society, the family, WE are replacing a culture of control with a culture of enablement.
Gen Y is here…
Just look around and have a look at what WE are doing.
Look around and see what WE are achieving, before blindly judging us as lazy, non-commital, addicted to the net/tv/technology, spoiled and entitled, poor work ethic, little respect for authority, too self centred and individualistic, overinflated and unrealistic expectations, without loyalty, lacking in social Skills and needy, poor communicators, demanding and impatient.
WE prize freedom and freedom of choice.
WE want to customize things, make them OUR own.
WE’RE natural collaborators, who enjoy a conversation, not a lecture.
WE’LL scrutinize you and your organization.
WE insist on integrity.
WE want to have fun, even at work and at school. Speed is normal. Innovation is part of life. Get on with it…
Just don’t patronise us……
Bob Karmin, I would question your ability to make judgments, yet again. The greedy people who own all the properties and shares and currently have the right to elect politicians seem to be voting for the politicians who will make them even richer, at the expense of the voiceless youth, who are paying all the rent and will have to pay all the bills in the future for this overstimulated ecnonomy. I think you are the flaw in our system Bob. andrew
Bob, for the record, I do support lowering the voting age. 16 seems to me a fair age, especially when you consider that many young people don’t manage to get on the electoral roll for years.
In terms of the cognitive abilities of young people, I’m unconvinced. To take your argument to its logical extension, we should be performing cognitive tests on elderly voters with dementia. Sounds pretty unsavoury when you put it like that.
voting age should be 15 in my opinion, so most people would get a chance to cast a ballot before leaving school. But accept there may be a spike in the number of people wagging on polling day.
The thing I am concerned about with lowering the voting age is demagoguery and manipulation. If it can be shown that young people are more easily manipulated by advertising then I would not want to lower the voting age. Otherwise - great. And, of course, I can’t see the point unless lowering the age will get rid of the execrable Labor and Libs.
When the Government of the UK is sponsoring campaigns like this one:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Government-CO2-Climate-Change-…
which tells children their puppies will drown from rising sea levels we can’t be far behind.
With the Government hell bent on a National Broadband scheme so it can censor EVERYTHING you and your children see this is a terrifying future of Brave New World magnitude.
I was one of the delegates (if that’s what we were called?) of the first National Youth Roundtable. We were split into various groups to address different issues, and I ended up in the Environment group (after trying to get into education, which ended up containing 12 people, none of whom had ever attended a public school….).
The whole process took most of a year spread over several in face meetings and about half a dozen teleconferences. The over-riding impression that we all got was that the whole exercise was a complete waste of money and our time and that the government had zero interest in what we came up with. The highlight of the whole experience was a mock up we did for the press, in which they put us all in a room with an actual roundtable, put microphones (not plugged in to anywhere) and name plaques in front of us and filmed us joking to each other about how stupid this was for about 30 seconds (no sound was recorded). These were the images that were the backdrop to news reports about the Roundtable.
I do have to laugh though, since our key over-riding reccomedation (at least from the environment group) was that the goverment adopt an emmission trading scheme (this was in 1998) for carbon emmissions. We did get to speak to the minister (Robert Hill) although he spent our entire 15 minute meeting reading papers. I think he looked up and acknowledged our presence once, but literally didn’t say a word (his minders offered some pleasantries like ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye’ on his behalf).
It has to be said that a lot of the opinions, views and solutions put forward by the National Youth Roundtable were naive, ill-informed and simplistic. But I’d argue that the same could be said about the 20/20 summit; when you throw people together for a short time and demand suggestions that the participants know will only be accepted if the government would have done it anyway that’s the kind of output you get.
maybe you should get to the real root issue, electoral reform.
Geographic boundaries/districts and bias mean there will never ever be a youth representative/party or voice in the legislature.
It about time the unrepresentative swill in the senate was made proportional by population Australia-wide not state based.
Unlikely to ever happen though.
What point youth or anyone getting a voice when that will be overridden by an increase to Australia’s population by 60%? It would be like organising a new bike path only to find that half way into your journey the lane has changed to one way in the opposite direction for B-doubles only.
Apparently suicide is the number one cause of death for under 35s http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/28/2725900.htm
And the solution is… more funding for lifeline.
Genius.
What kind of genuine suicider calls lifeline?
And if any of them do, what, are we supposed to beleive they’re thinking "shit man, if this thing could afford better hold music I’d be livin it up!"
Mel Jewel,
About the only thing I could add to this is;-
"Gen Y is here…
Just look around and have a look at what WE are doing.
Look around and see what WE are achieving, before blindly judging us as lazy, non-commital, addicted to the net/tv/technology, spoiled and entitled, poor work ethic, little respect for authority, too self centred and individualistic, overinflated and unrealistic expectations, without loyalty, lacking in social Skills and needy, poor communicators, demanding and impatient.
WE prize freedom and freedom of choice.
WE want to customize things, make them OUR own.
WE’RE natural collaborators, who enjoy a conversation, not a lecture.
WE’LL scrutinize you and your organization.
WE insist on integrity.
WE want to have fun, even at work and at school. Speed is normal. Innovation is part of life. Get on with it…
Just don’t patronise us……"
That the Governments and society are creating an older and older population while the world is becoming ever increasingly over populated
It should be three score and ten then by the grace of God go thee and as callous as it may sound or be we have to start letting people die
Thanks
From Dave
Interesting points Ben. Much food for thought. Thanks!
Jungarrayi
The "yes, but are they listening?" aspect of this article resonates with us living on "Prescribed Areas" under the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
What do Australian Youths and Australian Aborigines have in common?
Neither are being listened to.
Recently a Walpiri (an Australian Aboriginal language spoken here) phrase came to my attention; visiting politicians and bureaucrats were described as "langa pati". Langa= ear(s)… pati= hard impenetrable soil.
Re: Voting age….
This month’s poll is on voting age. Poll closes 31 October.
http://kids.nsw.gov.au/kids/kidzone/kidspoll.cfm
Yes, Yes, Yes.
There is so much reason to give the young people a greater voice in our cadaverous BodyPolitic. I work with them on a daily basis as well as having them in my home as my children.
The ignorance of the politicians when it comes to the creativity and ethics of the young is simply astounding.
Robert Hill’s behaviour - if described accurately and i have no reason to doubt it - represents perfectly the attitude of politicians to any form of consultation that doesn’t include big bucks for themselves or the Party.
Lower the voting age and go for proportional representation.
One of my daughters, then aged 6, came up with a classic remark as we went to pick up her younger brother from kinder, 6 years ago. " It isn’t John Howard’s fault - it was the way he was brought up". I gently corrected her on the irrationality of this excuse and she has kept me in check ever since.
It is hard not to despair for the young people given the gormlessness of people in the grosser political parties, but their resilience never ceases to amaze me.
Same daughter a few weeks ago: "Do you want me to be alive at 50. Get an energy efficient fridge."
Christopher
PS I know the current psychological wisdom excretes stuff around brain development. It doesn’t change a capacity for taking responsibility anything like as much as their elders presuming to know better about what is good for them.
I attended the first National Youth Roundtable.
This strategy highlights the need to help disadvantaged youth back onto their feet. When they are in such a position, then they can help to fix the problems (such as climate change) that your generation contributed to.
Many youth wish they could start to worry about problems such as the ones you speak of, however, realistically, are battling their own problems with family or domestic violence; school or peer bullying; depression; lack of money, food, transport or shelter; homelessness; drug and alcohol abuse; etc. The strategy aims to help youth rid themselves of these problems, so they can "accept full responsibility for their lives, their actions and their behaviours" and "build their own lives for the future".
You are correct in saying that in many aspects of society young people have neither power nor responsibility. But the National Youth Strategy is aiming to provide youth with a stable foundation to compete in the housing market, job market, and to tackle climate change.
Youngen,
Sure there are all those problems being dumped on young people by their elders BUT
If the Government was even slightly interested they would remove the capacity of Real estate agents to discriminate against young people who are 16 and homeless - simply on the basis of age when they have an independent income and great references Christopher
So what they are saying is Your’re crap, you deserve to get crap. What a sensitive and diplomatic government we have.
"there are nearly 4 million young Australians — defined as those aged between 12 and 24…"
I can’t get past this statement. 12 year olds and 24 year olds covered by the same tarp - good luck with that.
Well Ben,
You want to solve their problems by giving them the vote. If they had any sense you would get it straight back.
Why would they want to vote for a politician? How can they participate in a process with such barriers to entry?
Why would you want to exhaust their enthusiasm and energy when they would prefer to get out into the private sector and try to make that work for them?
The answer is a direct democracy with a represntation reflecting the electorate.
"The answer is a direct democracy with a represntation reflecting the electorate."
A direct representative democracy?
Let people die Dave? Well it might be hard to get that through as policy, I guess you can only make a start by falling on your sword, or do you mean just letting ‘other people’ die?
Mel Jewell, if you hope not to be patronised I suggest you desist from overblown claims about your generation, along with the capitalisation.
WE are engaging politically and see democracy and government as key tools for improving the world.
Get out! Really? Unthought of.
WE turn to speed and freedom, empowering ourselves and others to begin the transformation on every aspect of modern life.
Speed and freedom? Speed of what? Freedom from what? The transformation of modern life is a function of corporate greed from my perspective. Whatever you think your speed is giving you, it has robbed you of much, you may be different but certainly not better, or more free.
From the workplace to the marketplace, from politics to education to the basic unit of any society, the family, WE are replacing a culture of control with a culture of enablement.
How? When? In what way are you emancipated? How did you as a generation acheive this emancipation?
WE prize freedom and freedom of choice.
How is this exercised? Freedom of choice seems largely expressed commercially, and Gen Y’s compliance in the workplace is well documented. I wonder if slavery for profit is consistant with your high regard for freedom.
WE want to customize things, make them OUR own.
Again, the main flowering of this principle seems to be in your use of technology and the many products sold to you by Baby Boomers to use this technology.
WE’RE natural collaborators, who enjoy a conversation, not a lecture.
Like, say, this lecture you are giving here?
WE’LL scrutinize you and your organization.
Enjoy, but again I haven’t seen any indicators that this scrutiny has had any effect, positive or negative. What do you intend to do, post scrutiny?
WE insist on integrity.
Well some of you do, just like everyone else, but claims of ethical superiority are usually followed by abuses of power. You might do well to avoid them.
WE want to have fun, even at work and at school. Speed is normal. Innovation is part of life. Get on with it…
I have to agree with this, fun is missing from the world we have created. I hope you succeed, because having fun is half the fun. As for your claims that speed is normal it is worth reminding you that so is stillness, reflection and planning. Whether you have been innovative enough will be a question for you when we are all dead.
Young people deserve a vote and a voice Mel, not a freaking sainthood.
No Dr Dog as I said three score and ten then by the grace of God go thee
I am 55 years old if and I meen if I make it to 70 then I shouldn’t be entitled to all the life prolonging medicals heart transplants kidney transplants or any of the other things that are prolonging life when I should be dying
I have had a life it is time to make room for someone younger if I am meant to live longer fate should dictate that not man
Thanks
From Dave
Its a cute photo of her
Thanks Dave, I turn 45 next month and I tells ya, the mortal coil just ain’t what it used to be. And I can agree that flying one person across the country in a helicopter for a heart lung transplant while thousands of others starve is a strange way to use our resources.
dear Ben.
its not often someone older (therefore wiser) is able to view these situations from a younger perspective.
it may be true that people my age (around 20) are generally apathetic to greater issues. but there are still so many who really care and really want to make a difference.
i really wanted to thankyou because your report has only excited me more to make a difference when i can.
it gives me the shits when people i try to talk to stare blankly back. but we’re not all braind dead drones. ok?
To my fans:
@ Dr Dog. - I consider myself very much ‘in touch’ with the average cognitive capacity of younger people as I frequently encounter them down at the marina in Double Bay. Not once have any of those little terrors offered to help me carry my various necessities aboard the yacht. And its not like the opportunity to assist is infrequent. I am always carrying stuff to and from ‘The Aurora.’ At times I have had to make two trips back home to Vaucluse in the rover.
As to your comments about meritocracy, let me respond very clearly. I did not make an argument for meritocracy. I simply attempted to draw attention to the fact that part of the rationale behind the existing voting age is linked to cognitive development. When we talk about universal thresholds like the voting age, of course there will always be exceptions. But it would seem counter-intuitive to think that the majority of people under the age of 18 had the ‘maturity’ (yes, yes you can have fun with that if you want) to understand the decision they were making. This may also be the case for many people above the age of 18. But that’s a different argument: one that involves taking something away and is therefore much harder to make. A voting age of 18 seems pretty reasonable to me (not least because it is already in force).
@ Ben - saying something seems ‘fair’ doesn’t make it so. Show me some evidence buddy. Some statistics. Some surveys. Psych. research data. Whatever. Make an argument. If there is a bureaucratic stuff up with electoral rolls then show me some evidence of that and between us we might be able to figure out how to fix it.
@ andrew2607 - What can I say? I hope you feel better having expressed yourself. I can take it.
But Bob, that is a meritocracy isn’t it, to say that kids have less maturity and therefore do not merit decison making? Anyway, good luck on the Aurora, if I see you struggling down the pier with a couple of cases of single malt I will be sure to step in. I’m taking to the water myself next week and cannot wait.
OK Bob, We gave you the opportunity to respond very clearly BUT, let me say this, you didn’t.
Now please tell us what is so special about 18 that isn’t true of 16.
And how about giving votes to women at 14 and men at 35. From my experience, that is the age at which some sort of gender equality in the cognitive and emotional maturity stakes takes place. Christopher
"Did you cover brain development? Do you think that it might have some link with a persons ability to make judgements? (particularly about the veracity of the claims made by politicians)."
Bob, judging by the political awareness demonstrated by the greater part of the electorate…brain development doesn’t come into it.
The sophistication of public political debate (and privately formulated poll-driven policy) grows less mature by the day. And this continues to drive the public towards political illiteracy and outright alienation, regardless of age.
In the intervening decade between my Year 9 social studies class and my current job in State politics, the proportion of people my age who agressively refuse to be informed about their legislatures, judicial system and political process has been a more or less constant ‘high’.
In older age groups the proportion is, it seems, higher. And I can empathise…politics as publicly exercised brings to mind babysitting a collection of particularly spoiled, undisciplined three-year-olds. Except that you pay them for the babysitting.
Behind the scenes the policy process is an different matter; a sufficient number of representatives on all sides still take their roles, and their constituents, seriously enough that the pressures of lobbying, party infighting, poll-driven thinking, spin and outright corruption remain significant intrusions into policymaking but do not (I hope) rule it entirely.
But this is not what we see on TV. Or even, very often, in the daily press. The media loves a good shitstorm and thus Question Time will trump a productive bipartisan policy discussion any (every) day of the week.
If the major parties continue to publicly portray their Question Time antics as actual policy debate and the public remains ignorant of how policy actually works, the argument that kids shouldn’t vote is a dumb one…in fact, it’s on a level that the under-5 demographic would perhaps understand best of all.
Tim Hall
@ Dr Dog -
You may call me a sucker for good old fashion dualism, but I make a distinction between ‘merit’ and ‘cognitive potential’ (or ability, or capacity, or whatever). For me, the ‘merit’ in meritocracy is always exclusively ‘social’ (or external, or constructed, or literal, or whatever). On the other hand, I think of ‘capacity’ as ‘immanent’ (or internal, or authentic, or substantive, or whatever).
So the answer to your question - for me - would be no. A child may have stacks of ‘merit’ (she may be a mathematical prodigy and be able to play Bach on the piano by ear as well as bowl the odd over for a state level cricket squad on the weekends) YET still have and underdeveloped ‘capacity’ (that is, lack the ability to understand the consequences of her OWN actions and judgements). Maybe the phrase i am looking for here is ‘sense of identity’.
Anyway, I suppose it might have something to do with the being able to reflect on a large enough set of constructed experiences (or memories, or whatever). I venture that the lasting schools of thought in developmental psychology would grant me this point. Interestingly this same ‘capacity’ or ‘sense of identity’ may be reduced in adults by physical disease or trauma-induced neurosis. The former is undoubtedly tragic, whilst the latter would go a long way to explaining the many wonderful manifestations of fascism.
I hope you have a good time on the water.
Sounds very good Bob - who you going with?
The old standards, Piaget and Eriksen, never let me down. But ofcourse they need to be placed in an ecological-cultural perspective and we have two antithetical perspectives to deal with: the MEanness of the Howard era and its corollaries; and the breadth of those who saw through that sham to realise that as youngsters they had to take responsibility for their own needs and not wait for the so-called adults to care for them.
It’s an interesting dualism - the Howard attempt to force people into perpetual childhood like himself [neocon stance] versus the removal of all the joy of childhood in the Julie Bishop, Julia Gillard education stuff putting down parents and teachers indiscriminately. Most of the kids I know don’t take the first thrust seriously, and hope the J’s will just disappear, taking their nauseous testing with them. They can then pursue their own agenda of enlightenment from within - the true meaning of education - hopefully with the incredulous support of their parents. AND VOTE
Nothing in Eriksen or Piaget in my view would support your stance.
Cheers Christopher
@ phermon -
By the ‘MEanness of the Howard era’ I take it you are referring to the one-dimensional stoicism that is necessary to legitimize JH’s brand of free-market ideology. If this is true, then I agree. It is a pitiless and egocentric approach to ‘subjectivity’. Your ‘antithetical perspective’ seems to be a reaction to this ridiculous mantra.
I put it to you: why even engage with the premise? Why not pitch the ‘dialogue’ between ‘lassiez-faire autonomy’ and ‘scientific paternalism’ (i.e. the attempt to ‘totalize’ testing to ensure that ‘competition is harnessed for the good of the children’).
Maybe we should stop viewing our society as neo-darwinian roller-coaster. Maybe we should take your idea of ‘ecology’ seriously. That might mean having to accept that we need ‘embodied’ categories (or dualisms) on which to base our reasoning. Inside/outside, substantive/literal, capacity/merit are all good.
Anyway, I’m putting myself to sleep here, so I’ll just say one more thing. I think we are talking ‘cross purposes’. If you accept my (embodied and temporal) dualism then I can’t (for the moment) see why the voting age should be lowered. If I accept yours (i.e. that capacity/merit are both ‘timeless’ and in principle ‘knowable’) then there may well be an argument for lowering the voting age to 16.
Hey Bob, You can call me Christopher! Did you get a good night’s sleep?
Have you seen Leunig in The Age today? Get back to you on the other stuff when I’ve digested the concepts except to say my ‘antithetical perspective’ preceded the Political Dwarf. Christopher
As a young person (22), I think it’s important that the Government spends more time engaging meaningfully with youth - ask them what they think are important issues and ensure that these conversations are easily accessible. (Through social networking websites and other places that young people tend to gather).
Maybe there could also be less of a focus on some of the negative issues (binge drinking etc) and more of a focus on positive engagement between government and youth. Instead of spending money on trying to relieve excessive binge drinking in young people, instead shift some of the focus onto giving kids more under-age venues to visit or fun funded activities. When I was under 18 one of the hardest things to find was a place to go and have fun on a Sat night.
The "Your Spin" pilot project which was commissioned by the NSW Minister of Youth Affairs (The Hon Graham West MLA) and DoCS was a step in the right direction - asking young people through social networking technologies to make decisions regarding expenditure in their local areas under the NSW Better Futures programme framework. Young people responded and voted for where they thought the money should be spent and most importantly, had a SAY. If you’re interested in reading the result, you can read the report at http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/unsworks:456… or visit http://www.yourspin.com.au/
Well, what can you expect from Adelaide anyway?
Jokes aside, what is the actual benefit of PR exercises like this? Especially one done with such a lightweight figure from amongst Labor Party? If that doesn’t automatically translate to "Hey! We don’t really give a flip about what you say", then I honestly don’t know how to interpret it. (And how long is it since she’s been around anyway? Three years? Four years? You need to be a prodigy to be assigned to anything important for that kind of experience.) Besides, given this is something sponsored by the federal government, for what reason should you anticipate anything in it that might make the good people running the show look bad? Carbon pollution? Tax burden? Not a chance!
C’mon people. It’s all just a propaganda campaign like the good ol’ 2020 Summit. But if you squint hard enough, Ellis actaully kind of looks like Cate Blanchet.
Nothing to do on Saturday nights.
In the swinging sixties there was always a party or local dance to attend. Parents could be induced to disappear with theatre tickets or other forms of outright bribery.