Nemesis is over, and what did we learn? For millennials like me, the series covered my entire voting life and has confirmed what many in my generation have long felt: Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison were motivated not by civic duty but by the sole pursuit of personal power.
That’s probably obvious to older Crikey readers, but I cannot emphasise how disorienting it was to come of age politically during this time.
In school we are taught the basic principles of Australia’s political system. The concept of representative democracy, the strength of our compulsory voting, and how the free debate of Parliament allows different perspectives to shape legislation for the good of the entire country. While the issues at hand might be complex and the ideological differences frustrating, the goal of creating policy that will improve Australia should always be easy to follow.
Unfortunately for everyone voting for the first time in this era, the logic being applied was entirely different. The political discussions of the day made no sense and you assumed (because you were told repeatedly) it was because you were “too young to understand”. But the truth is that the decisions made by Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison would only make sense in the context of personal power. That thread of public interest we’d been told would guide us through the most ideologically opposed debates? Almost non-existent.
The National Energy Guarantee policy was tanked because Abbott wanted to get revenge; not because of any robust discussion of its emissions or energy price impact.
Turnbull put marriage equality to a non-compulsory postal survey because he was paranoid the issue would be used as a Trojan Horse against him; not because it was the best way to legislate.
Morrison’s attempt to push through religious freedom laws in the final months of his government was driven by a need for, as Bridget Archer tells it, “control at all times”.
For almost a decade there was no substantial policy debate for young voters to unpack. There was no vision being painted of the future for us to evaluate on its merits, and no good answers for why anything was happening. We started our practical political education in a values void.
Older voters have periods of more earnest and productive politics to look back on. Reading about the legacies of Bob Hawke, Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating or even John Howard is one thing; knowing through first-hand experience how it looks, sounds and feels for a prime minister to champion necessary reform is entirely another. While the Nemesis years would have been no less frustrating for older voters, there must have been comfort in knowing they were a bad patch that could be recovered from.
For Millennials and Gen Z, the bad patch is all we’ve been able to participate in. Sure, we watched on as very young spectators to Labor’s leadership spills from 2006 to 2013 (the Killing Season years). But even throughout the whiplash of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard’s power struggles, these politicians still managed to put forward policies and ideas connected to national progress: the ill-fated carbon tax; giving the national apology to the Stolen Generations; commissioning the Gonski review into school funding. When the time finally came for us to get involved, the Coalition replicated all the drama of the power struggles… with none of the political will.
Miraculously, the past three governments have not killed our political engagement. Young voters are credited with deciding the 2022 election. But the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison procession has, unfortunately, set the baseline — a despairingly low bar for future governments to be judged against. It’s not an erosion of trust; it’s that none was built to begin with.
These foundational beliefs will continue to impact election cycles into the near future, because clearing very low bars is not impressive and does not breed loyalty. Millennial and Gen Z voters might put you in office, but meeting their expectations will disappoint. Anthony Albanese is quickly finding this out, with his failure to uphold his own values seeing a fast fall from grace. It may not be a recoverable position.
As Millennials and Gen Z become the majority of voters, the trend towards minor parties and independent candidates will continue to grow. While this is being attributed to ideological shifts, with young people not sliding to the right as we get older, it’s also about the greater perceived accountability of these options. We want to see major reform that dismantles the very system that allowed Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison to thrive — and we know the major parties won’t threaten their own power unless they have no choice.
Nemesis proved the suspicions of young voters right: we were being played. But now we know better, and we’ll be damned if we let that happen again.
Good article Crystal, and I hope your optimism for Millennials and Gen Z is well founded. However, I beg to differ on one point. “ there was no substantial policy debate for young voters to unpack”. Housing affordability. was one such debate. The ALP took comprehensive negative gearing / CGT discount policies and other tax reform measures to the 2019 election which would of been of great benefit to Millennials and Gen Z. Unfortunately, and incomprehensibly, a great many millennial voters rejected those policies and voted for the coalition, which killed off any chance of those reforms ever being enacted for decades.
Maybe many, but without looking it up I’m betting most of those under 40 did not support the Coalition in 2019. Older voters and Queenslanders seem to have been key targets and responders to the scare campaign.
Agree, too often RW MSM claim support from younger gens without evidence to nudge ppl towards the right…..
With the above median age demographic now starting to dominate elections due to ageing and longevity, vs. fewer youth, one thinks lowering the voting age is needed.
Thankfully more left or centre voters aren’t becoming conservative or RW as they age due to better education and reaction to the appalling behaviour of RW parties and MPs in Anglopshere and globally.
Just under 30% of Millennials gave their first preference vote to the coalition in 2019. That’s quite a lot considering how much they would have benefited from the ALP’s tax reforms. Understandable, a much bigger percentage of boomers and gen X voted for the coalition because they were the beneficiaries of the tax rorts that Labor were intending to end. Millennials had the chance to get policies of long lasting benefit to themselves and younger generations but missed their opportunity.
Well labor learned their lesson didn’t they. They’re doing nothing substantial on housing now, or climate change for that matter.
No boss. Those policies weren’t rejected – a tired, lumbering ALP was rejected.
If it was the policies that were at fault you would maybe think that the ALP primary vote would ^ after they were removed, but instead the ALP shed voters to the left after they dumped their progressive policies. So Weird!
Yes, nice work Crystal, but beware. I’m hoping that you read all GR’s pieces with the same enthusiasm as I do, but you’ve surely noticed that not only is nobody allowed to comment on them, but they point to a future where religious, right wing pro-US propaganda is all we’ll be allowed to read, and no amount of millennial goodwill will make a difference to the gutless politicians in Canberra.
Someone has to address the elephant in the room that blows its trunk at any mention of the conflict in G. (Can’t use the name of the country for fear of the modbot). Here we are, reading articles in Crikey on a daily basis about how press restrictions are constantly being enforced by governments and media over G, how it’s all intimidating and one-sided, and every single time, the tag ‘comments are switched off‘ greets us at the end. Is it just me, or is there a double standard operating here?
I think it’s sheer timidity, fear of being ‘doxed’ or sued or something.
Also at risk of the bot, I think the Crikey explanation is reasonable, they do not have the resources to have a staff moderator and the topic generates massive heat that the modbot cannot cope with adequately. I think most commentators make good points and insightful ones regarding the issue but some did not. Frankly some comments that went up before the switch off were appalling A-S. Having directly published comments is a luxury but sometimes it cannot work. Sadly that seems to be the case here, but I remain thankful for the articles and commentary on the issue we subscribers are getting.
AP 7 would you please kindly let me know just where Crikey has published its “explanations” for turning off comments on this particular issue (I can’t be more specific about which ‘issue’ I am talking about for reasons outlined by Frank Dee in his timely and relevant post above). I am very interested in reading them.
This censorship issue is indeed the “elephant in the room” as Frank points out.
I wrote to “The Boss” @ Crikey, suggesting that a brief post/article from the editor explaining their position, and what they’re doing to still provide an opportunity for their customers to engage with them would be helpful – no response and no post.
Don’t worry banquo, I wrote to them too. But apart from an automated response acknowledging my (email) correspondence, I have not received anything else either. I also somehow doubt that AP 7 will be able to throw any light on the matter.
Today is the best in months for ability to comment – just not on these “sensitive” topics
Thanks Robert I wish I could be more helpful. There was an explanation published around the time of the Rundle controversy, I’m afraid I don’t have the reference but I distinctly remember it. Presumably not long after October 7. I was interested because several of my comments were among the initial thread wiped, including one calling someone out for A-S. I don’t think it was in a daily edition, rather a seperate message regarding moderation.
In an ideal world the Crikey community would police this sort of thing via discussion but I can’t really blame Crikey for not wanting to be a platform for these sorts of comments. There is a real and tragic matter going on and allowing that sort of comment just gives cover to those perpetrating it.
The Rundle controversy and the subsequent statement from Crikey editors occurred well before October 7 last year, as I think (his article was removed before I had a chance to read it) it was over the alleged grape of a (former) Liberal staffer, BH, not the ‘war’ in G.
As a fellow youth, although I agree it’s important to view the above-described AusPol history through the lens of “personal power”, I do think a lens concerned with political ideology provides a more comprehensive platform for understanding these policy positions.
Yes, Abbott was motivated by revenge, but he also legislated policy that protected the standing of corporate interests (i.e. our biggest polluters), yes, Turnbull was looking out for himself with respect to the plebiscite, but his position was ultimately just textbook Conservative stalling on issues pertaining to ever-evolving social justice. And Morrison, well he’s writing a book on how a two-thousand-year-old product of make-believe guided him through his prime ministership, which feels at least somewhat ideologically driven.
In my humble opinion, viewing these policies through the lens of ideology and seeing them for the slight oscillations between uninspired conservatism and neoliberalism as they are, provides for a more enduring critique, one that also prepares us for further bullshit which is surely, and unfortunately, still to come.
What became really evident to me watching on for years has been the influence of media, because of its relentless confected outrage on any subject that suits the owners of the outlets, the children overboard saga probably wins for most audacious, with ditch the witch, and pink batts right up there.
The biggest change came with Howard and Keating, the campaign to privatise shifted the public psyche from shared wealth to personal wealth.
Today we see a half yearly profit of 5 billion for the commonwealth bank, the rise in interest rates has amplified its profit, because of the mum and dad investors this is seen as a good thing as an example.
I’m convinced that it is the media that suppresses perspective and debate and that it is the lack of a media outlet large enough to compete with these neoliberal legacy propaganda machines that has allowed this hollowed out democracy that we live in today.
I watched while 2nd hand cars and smaller houses and cheap local holidays and spare time and single income families , free education came under attack.
I suggest that the future and it’s independent media outlets focus on shifting the emphasis back to living , environment and learning, not hyper consumerism, strategies to spend less and remove latent waste .
Logic dictates that is what your generations will accomplish.
I think these last 20+years are a society almost exclusively driven by policy dictated by vested interests’propaganda.
Tracking the monocultural silent generation and now boomers, expecially regions, see The Voice No campaign.
Thanks Crystal, a good piece of wordsmithing with some illuminating insights.
If you want politicians who have good intentions, find candidates who’ve had success in a career unrelated to politics, before they entered politics.
As it was at one time! Once successful individuals went into politics in middles age as they thought they has something to contribute in return for the benefits they received during their professional/business career