When things get tough, we need to talk.
But, as Next25 research shows, Australia finds it hard to constructively discuss contested issues, and this is a key contributor to the country’s underperformance.
And things are getting tough in Australia.
Of the eight areas the Productivity Commission and CSIRO’s Data61 track in their Performance Reporting Dashboard, Australia is doing well on just three: healthcare, infrastructure, and legal assistance. As a nation, we have failed or are failing on the other five: housing, education, skills, disability, and Indigenous.
We’re a rich country that has walked into trouble across economic, environmental, and social issues. For example, even before recent interest rate rises, 28% of mortgage holders were “at risk” of mortgage stress in the three months to April 2023, the highest proportion since late 2011. Meanwhile, climate change and tearing down habitat for agriculture and urban development means a national symbol, the koala, is now officially endangered in New South Wales, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory. Is it any wonder that three in 10 young people indicate high levels of psychological distress, one-quarter feel lonely all or most of the time, and over half say they need mental health support at some point?
Indeed, accepting those with different views and being willing to talk out disagreements are two of young Australians’ biggest unfulfilled hopes for their country.
But, enabling constructive discussion at a national level is no straightforward task. So, where to start?
As I said in a recent interview for Greek media:
At the heart of all of this is that we live in uncertain times, especially with the impacts of megatrends like climate change and artificial intelligence (to name just two). What worked in the past might not work in the future. Even our responses to the global financial crisis and the covid pandemic might not work again.
People feel vulnerable and don’t trust the media or politicians. Leaders in all sectors have failed to articulate an honest and believable path through the uncertainty, let alone a compelling vision for the future underpinned by a coherent ideology that resonates with the public.
The major political parties – lacking relevant visions, ideologies, and pathways – struggle to show how they are different from each other and therefore confect fake differences to appear different. For commercial and ideological reasons, parts of the media foster this fake conflict.
All this leaves the public even more pessimistic and disengaged.
In 2022, six students in the Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation at the University of Technology Sydney (Rachael Egan, Yasmene Placer, Louisa Preston, Riley Quinn, Eliane Steger, Michaela Sullivan) focused their capstone unit on the polarisation of society and the value of constructive discourse. Their chosen target audience was Gen Z, dubbed “Generation Snowflake”. The core themes that emerged were “echo chambers, political division, desire for identity, and ‘wokeness’.” Their work unearthed some interesting insights for us to consider.
Generation Snowflake is a product of hyper-protection by their parental figures while growing up, inadvertently robbing the opportunity to develop tolerance in real-world problems and conversations.
Topics contributing to toxic polarisation can often feel deeply personal, are held to an individual's sense of identity, and are capable of evoking strong passion and triggering emotional disruption.
Contentious topics are avoided in settings with friends and family to avoid permanent damage to relationships.
Polarisation amongst young people occurs as a result of lacking emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and social consciousness.
Attention is a commodity for social media companies that profit off mindless scrolling. The manipulation of social media users via targeted algorithms that encourage echo-chambers and confirmation exacerbates polarisation.
Next25 is in the middle of a two-year investment with academics and system leaders to understand what is causing the lack of constructive discussion in Australia and identify good places to intervene. From there, we will design potential interventions to improve constructive discussion, trial them at a small scale, learn from the trials, and choose one to take to scale.
To stay up to date on our journey to deeply understand Australia’s lack of constructive discussion and potential interventions to improve discussion on the big issues facing Australia, subscribe to our newsletter and consider donating to support our work.