JASON FALINKSI: Australian Government needs to offer empowerment not pallatives to young people

For the last three decades, the overwhelming volume of public intellectualism has been from the left. The cultural left, as can be seen from recent arts and literary festivals, control the commanding heights of our culture.

The impact of this control has been ventilated online and the real world results can be seen in each new poll that chronicles the surge in support for One Nation. But rejection of the status quo is not an alternative.

Some recent books are beginning to sketch out an alternative framework to solve the anguish many are feeling rather than just empathising with it.

A recent book by The Nightly’s Aaron Patrick, The Last Battle, dares to tell the story of our soldiers’ achievements in Afghanistan through the prism of humanity, rather than the retrospective lawfare that they have been subjected to since their return.

Another has now arrived from the Centre of Independent Studies, authored by social researcher Parnell McGuiness that sets out to answer the essential democratic question: are we leaving more to those who come after us?

What makes this contribution unique is that it dares to bring facts to the intergenerational unfairness vibe fight.

That is not to say that the unfairness is not real. As Ms McGuiness demonstrates, it is very real. The emphasis on analytical causality forces readers’ focus to solutions, while driving out the toxic compassion with which this topic is so often considered. This makes this study compelling.

With the methodical precision of a German industrialist, the author deconstructs the impacts of government help. More than once throughout the report this author was reminded of Reagan’s exhortation that the 10 most dangerous words in the English language were: I am from the Government and I am here to help.

After a year of work on the psychological state of young Australians, she found the ambitions of the next generation are not dissimilar to those who came before. Young Australians want financial security, home ownership, meaningful work, relationships and children.

The difference with earlier generations is that fewer than four in 10 young people think the main barriers to their goals are within their control, and this loss of control closely tracks lower life satisfaction and higher anxiety.

These outcomes are contrary to popular belief that this is due to “snowflake” attitudes rather than a collapse in autonomy, driven by housing costs, financial insecurity and time pressure, interacting with a welfare‑state “lattice” that manages symptoms and narrowing choice.

McGuiness argues that the state has expanded, but in a way that often substitutes a government‑designed version of the “good life” (rent assistance, therapy, free courses) for the traditional milestones young people still want but can no longer see a path to.

In short, big government has created small citizens.

Across the research, life satisfaction is strongly linked to the belief that you can influence the barriers in your way.

For people with low autonomy, money is “existential”. It determines whether they can live at all.

For those with higher autonomy, money is “instrumental” — a tool to exercise choice.

Policies that increase money transfers but reduce choice do not lift overall wellbeing because people perceive themselves as passengers rather than authors of their own lives.

The road to here is long and well meaning. Over 70 years, governments built a dense lattice of subsidies, entitlements and services that now wraps around every life stage: education, health, housing and income support.

As life changed, policy froze instead of revisiting settings from first principles.

Governments have responded to the visible symptoms of youth distress without tackling the underlying constraints, especially housing supply, taxation on work and saving, and regulatory barriers to starting and progressing in work.

This is the “generation trapped”: people stuck not just economically, but inside a policy architecture that offers palliatives instead of empowering.

At this point, the solutions are not important mainly because they are all well known. What is important is the reframing of the debate.

The paper makes it clear that the focus on input-driven policy is adding to an entire generation’s anxiety. This shift in thinking alone could do more good for the future of Australia than anything else you are likely to do today.

There are also some intriguing insights amongst the six identified tribes of Australians under 35.

Many young Australians, despite having low trust in government, still use government information as verified truth. And while many agree that our institutions need to be rebuilt, they want to see it done from the inside in an evolutionary way not revolutionary.

Most interestingly, the very people most likely to identify as socially progressive are the very people most likely to be sceptical about government spending and supportive of small government.

Liberals in the Liberal party should see this as encouragement to continue framing political debate along the economic axis, ignoring socially coded ones.

Parnell McGuiness and her publisher have achieved a rare triple with this paper: they have reframed a debate that sorely needed new perspectives; brought rigour to what has been a fact-fee discussion; and hopefully changed the trajectory of future generations.

Jason Falinski is a former Liberal Party MP from NSW