By Nick Munn*
This week’s Supreme Court judgment on lowering New Zealand’s legal voting age has, at times, been interpreted as some kind of mandate for change. That’s not quite the case, but the court’s ruling does at least make change a possibility.
What the court has done is accept the claims made by members of the Make It 16 campaign that the current voting age limit of 18 is inconsistent with section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Essentially, it found, preventing 16 and 17-year-olds from voting discriminates against them on the basis of their age.
The court also accepted that this inconsistency has not been justified. While that doesn’t mean the age limit cannot be justified, the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill means legislation can be found to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
The decision effectively means parliament now has to defend the 18 age limit if it wants to keep it. However, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has already announced her government will draft a bill to lower the voting age (requiring a three-quarter majority to pass). She’s also said she personally supports lowering the voting age.
This rapid shift of the electoral landscape provides a good opportunity to restate the arguments in favour of lowering the voting age – and to ask whether retaining the 18 age limit can be justified at all.
The Government will introduce a bill to lower the voting age to 16, the Prime Minister says. https://t.co/D4pem5EAKW
— Stuff (@NZStuff) November 21, 2022
Voting is a human right
When the 2020 general election was delayed due to COVID, it meant a group of young people were suddenly eligible to vote because they had turned 18 in the interim.
As I noted then, the choice of where to set the voting age is not made on the basis of some immutable facts about the capacity of the young to vote. Rather, it is a procedural decision.
Setting the voting age at 18 made some sense when it was introduced in 1974 (down from 21). It was a convenient number that coincided with some (but not all) other age limits for the granting of rights in our society.
But the right to vote is different to the right to buy alcohol, for example, which is also restricted to those 18 or over. Unlike buying alcohol, voting is a human right. Any restrictions on human rights must be demonstrably reasonable restrictions.
The Make It 16 campaign argued, and the Supreme Court has now agreed, that parliament has not provided that justification for setting the voting age at 18.
Luxon calls on voting age to remain at 18https://t.co/1HmBGuuaaS pic.twitter.com/h8C9JbxmVP
— 1News (@1NewsNZ) November 20, 2022
Improve civic education
Parliament will find it difficult to provide a satisfactory justification for continuing to exclude 16 and 17-year-olds.
The most popular arguments against letting these young people vote – that they aren’t interested or capable – are subjective, anecdotal or simply not very good. Another common argument – that they don’t pay tax – is both wrong (many work and they also pay GST) and irrelevant to enfranchisement.
A key part of a good argument is that it can be applied consistently. If we wanted to exclude young people for being uninterested or incapable, we would have to be willing to exclude the many adults who are uninterested or incapable. We do not do this, and nor should we.
If an adult doesn’t want to vote, they don’t have to. The same would be true for a 16-year-old if the voting age was lowered. Making the voting age 16 simply gives young citizens the opportunity to vote.
It then falls to society to encourage them to learn who they should vote for. If we want better-educated voters, we should look to improve civic education.
Good habits start young
There are, however, two good arguments in favour of lowering the voting age: it seems to improve voter turnout, and voting from a young age increases the likelihood people will become regular voters, consistently participating in the democratic process.
Both these claims may seem counter-intuitive. After all, isn’t it well known that young people vote in lower numbers than older people? It is. But that may simply be because we don’t give young people the opportunity to vote until it’s too late.
In Austria, which has allowed voting from 16 since 2008, participation rates among young voters improved significantly once the voting age was lowered.
One theory is that 16- and 17-year-olds are often in more stable situations than 18- or 19-year-olds – still in school, usually still living with family. When they are allowed to vote, they are more likely to be supported or encouraged by their family and school.
A strong indicator of whether someone will vote is whether they voted the last time they had the opportunity. Given more young people vote when offered the chance earlier in life, a lower voting age will result in higher levels of lifetime voting.
It is much easier to care about politics when you are allowed to participate in it. Lowering the voting age will give young people more reason to be invested in their political system. Over time, this will make our democracy stronger and more legitimate.
*Nick Munn, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
74 Comments
This issue always generates more heat than light; I remember when many of the same arguments were used to debate for & against lowering the voting age to 18 (which was my first voting election). At that time the Vietnam war & protests had also raised our democratic consciousness.
People need to get the basic democratic principles right first & then the rest will follow.
eg:
- no taxation without representation.
- are you considered old enough to be in a relationship/married & have a child, drive, get a firearms license...
May have this wrong but recall a view in 1974, bearing in mind Vietnam raging which was voluntary service, but if that should change iand you were old enough to be conscripted, go to war & fight, then you were old enough to vote and if so, that resonates pretty fairly. However a line is obviously necessary and personally I believe school children are too young to vote as they are adolescent, unversed in the adult world and easily influenced but if sixteen is actually ok why not thirteen?
I think it needs to be consistent, if you can be tried for a crime as an adult, you can also vote and go to war and kill people. Those three factors should all require you to be old enough to give legal consent and should all be the same. In a rational world it would be obvious.
Indeed, how far down the rabbit hole do you go?
For instance, we could make younger people votes count more, because they will have to live the consequences of their decisions for longer than the older. So a 20yo could have 80 votes, a 30yo 70 votes, all the way to 100 where your vote stops at 1 vote for anyone over 100.
Really we are talking about the philosophy of democracy.
Perhaps having some influence over what is happening in the world will help to ease their worries. I have some interesting debates with my 16 year old. The under 25s see the world very differently to the boomers and gen xers. They are less selfish, more accepting of difference and more environmentally aware. Britain left the EU due to the over 65s vote and look how that has worked out. Perhaps it is the retired that should lose their right to vote? I would rather live in a world ruled by the young and optimistic. I am nearly 50.
Optimism is hope and confidence for the future. Young people are more likely to think about what is right for the planet and society. Older people tend to think in terms of protecting what they have regardless of the impact on others or the environment. These are sweeping generalisations but broadly true. That is why National and Act are against giving 16 year olds the vote, young people haven’t developed sufficient self interest to vote for them yet.
This is simply evolutionary genetic survival trait that I imagine exists in every species that has knowledge of it's offspring and their offspring. It doesn't exist the other way as much harshly because young people know that shaping the world for the old will hurt their chances of their offspring surviving.
You are lucky to have an un-selfish 16 year old. Maybe young people have changed from the wild 1960s when I was a teenager but my clear memory of both school and university was young people were like sheep. Predictable and heavily swayed by peer group pressure. Aged 16 to 18 and you will mainly get votes for the status quo. Admittedly once they start working for their own money and leave home they do start thinking for themselves and can turn revolutionary.
I predate you a bit, but I agree with your sentiment. The thing is though, the sixties were a great transitional period. The world we grew up into had hardly been that much different to that of our parents & grandparents. But suddenly there was the pill, TV, jet travel, the Beatles, no six o’clock swill, and the advent of computerisation, and Coca Cola reached the Sth Island and Playboy mags breached previously unseen territory. The sixteen year old today resultantly, for better or for worse, is an entirely different identity to that of 60 years ago or so.
In one way they will be the same - every 16 year old will vote for free tertiary education and very few will bother about early learning (pre- 5 year old). So even more tax income will be misspent since all the evidence is the latter is the more effective. The 16 year olds will not be troubled that subsidizing tertiary education is transferring money to the middle class while universal child benefit is universal.
Again agreed. And as well it is undeniable that the developments I mentioned earlier, plus many more, have hardly reduced either the the tempo or the pressure that teenagers are experiencing today. Quite the opposite in fact, very much so, given the “new” recreational drugs, availability of technology giving rise the electronic bullying now well in play and sexual activity undreamed of 60 years ago. I am no qualified expert but I would suggest the teens of today on average, unfortunately have a heck of a lot more about them, threatening their stability and happiness.
Statistically slighter closer to affording a home, there is a difference but I don't think it's as much as you are implying. Whatever home they now live in, is going to be substantially better quality in terms of insulation, water, power and amenities than the average 16yo in 1962.
The average 16 yo may or may not be better off but you cannot ignore that what’s on offer to them today presents a lot more than a double edged sword. What’s available on the internet for example, is light years ahead of the expanse of information flow, it’s ready accessibility, compared to sixty years ago and with that the ability to distort negatively just as much as educate positively and resultantly that raises the question of the maturity of the mind at that age, to decide between the two.
My old senior year history teacher would be rubbing his hands with glee at this.
We could scarcely get through a lesson without him reminding us of the eternal debt we all must owe to Michael Savage, or the incredible achievements of the Clark government (what any of this had to do with Oliver Cromwell banning eccles cakes and massacring the Irish I'll never know).
He was visibly upset and downtrodden in class after Key/National won the 2008 election ... many a detention card were handed out that week.
Deranged ratings and ravings aside, he was a superb teacher and did challenge us to go the extra mile in our learning.
It sets an interesting precedent. In terms of the question asked, it was, what is the difference between a 16 yo and an 18 yo.
Supreme court said nothing. Ergo, the difference between a 16 and a 15 is likely to also be nothing...etc....
The actual question that should have been asked (and answered) is at what age can people be considered completely autonomous from their parents? i.e. at what age are you an adult. Obviously there are individual circumstances, but a standard age should be determined.
I believe this impacts far more than just voting, and is something we as a nation should be answering.
In terms of the question asked, it was, what is the difference between a 16 yo and an 18 yo.
Supreme court said nothing.
No, the supreme court did not say there was no difference.
The supreme court said:
1. The current law discriminates between 16 and 18 year olds
2. The current law does not give a justification as to why that discrimination should exist
Parliament, as a result of the legislation that Parliament passed, is now forced to respond to these statements by the supreme court.
The government has chosen to introduce draft legislation to reduce the age to 16 and have a legislative debate, as their response to the supreme court's statements. The government didn't have to respond in that way.
The government has chosen to introduce legalisation to lower the age to 16 rather than do the logical thing which is to defend the age of 18 as they know these younger people will overwhelmingly vote Left (labour and greens).
the only saving grace is that because of previously legislation it has to be a 75% vote in parliament which means it may not pass.
If you are too young to drink, to young to go to war, to young to go to prison, to young to get a loan etc you are too young to vote.
I would suggest a valid justification for NOT reducing the age is that at 16 adolescents are not yet truly independent in their thought. The education system at that age is still prescriptive in it's teaching and overly influential to students.
Teachers have been willing to paste protests all over schools during industrial action so any belief that they could be impartial over voting is misplaced. The burden that may be placed on school children could be unfair.
At 18 at least young adults have made some significant choices for themselves even if it is just the choice between further education and finding a job.
Our justice system actively discriminates on the basis of age providing a more lenient Youth Court for offenders under the age of 18. Presumably this ruling also means all people 16-17 year old should be tried as adults.
Sentencing of 16-17 year old's without mitigation due to their age seems unfair to me, but if it is required under the Bill of Rights...
I personally find alignment of criminal punishment with the voting age the most compelling argument. Here's the relevant rules on how it works: https://youthlaw.co.nz/rights/the-youth-justice-system/#how-old-do-i-ha…
Basically for 14-16 year olds only the very heinous crimes of arson, murder, mainslaughter etc go through adult courts. For 17 year olds the threshold is reduced to "more serious" offending, whatevever that means.
Should we want to keep those existing rules for criminal trial etc, I think the voting age should stay at 18.
Although actually my ideal change is to make it so anyone who turns 18 at any point in the year the election is held, is eligible to vote in that election, eg if they turn 18 the day after the election is held, currently they aren't able to vote, and that seems stupid to me.
I support this approach too.
Keep voting at 18 if you want under 18s to be treated differently with respect to criminal trials and punishment.
I don't buy the argument that on one hand a 16 year old is mature enough to understand the implications of their vote (i.e. they are mentally an adult), but insufficiently mature to face adult punishment for crimes.
You can't have one without the other in my opinion, and I'd put it to the likes of the Green Party MPs and the Make It 16 members to declare whether they support 16 year olds being treated as 18+ adults by the justice system.
Should 16 and 17 year olds be able to get credit cards or car loans (without any parental oversight) and get into substantial debt? If they are to be treated as adults, then why not? This should include their ability to be pursued by creditors and potentially bankrupted for not paying the debt.
Whether you support the alignment of all the "adult things" (prison/justice, financial system access, voting, alcohol & tobacco access etc) or you just cherry pick the voting piece because it's politically expedient is an important consideration.
I had thought that it was parliament's job to make laws. The courts' job is to apply them, not make them. If our government wants to keep the voting age at 18, then tell the court to shove off. However, as our voters get a bit older and a bit more experienced and knowledgeable, Cindy's share of their vote plummets, according to the polls. So if I was her, I would get these young'uns on the voting rolls before the next election. The high school and first year university vote would be her biggest demographic.
Voting at 18 was introduced in 1974, and therefore under the incredulous gaze of Fred Dagg, whose comment at the time as I recall was something like "Lambs get the vote this year, so anything could happen".
I would hope a further change would be a boon to fringe parties like TOP.
I think most of the comments make good points. The bit that resonated with me is the 'taxation without representation" point (note this has appeared on international news, I'm in Holland at the moment). A simple solution would simply to be make anyone under the voting age to be able to earn whatever tax free? I've always felt the lack of a tax free threshold unfairly penalised kids anyway, so this would encourage more to get jobs?
Agree that tax is perhaps the most pertinent argument.
My take on above comments
I don't agree with the criminal age comments, very few are criminals or have contact with the justice system. This despite the dramatic clickbait headlines.
I struggle to see why schools are so patronised when teachers are so obviously groomers for degenerate thinking.
Have the commenters actually met teenagers. In my experience they are out there to find their truth, very anti authoritarian.
It's been a while since I studied the American Revolution at university, but I seem to recall the original meaning of 'no taxation without representation' was more specific (IIRC - and happy to be corrected here - the American colonies as a whole paid tax via stamp duty etc but received no representation in the British parliament, as opposed to just an age group of them).
You could argue that a 16 year old does have representation, as they will live in an electorate with an MP who is meant to advocate on the community's behalf and so on ... of course we use a broader meaning to the phrase now.
I do agree that under 18s should be able to work and earn up to a certain figure without tax. It would encourage uptake of work, and allow them to build up some savings etc before university or adult life.
The supreme court have demonstrated over the last two years or so that they don't have a very good grasp of civil rights.
The word civilisation arises from the word citizen, a citizen was a free man of the city, or state. Without that freedom, and without a judiciary that understands the nature of that freedom, you've lost your civilisation.
Good article with a good deal of truths that Luxon and Seymour seem willing to ignore for political reasons.
I would add one more reason.
The electoral cycle is 3 years. So if the voting age is 18, some whose birthday falls on the right day get to vote at 18, and some will be almost 21 before they get to vote for the first time.
With a 16 year old voting age the median age of the first vote will be 17.5 years, or close to it.
Which is pretty close to the 18 years people accept currently.
The way young people get treated in this country is a disgrace. Let them vote if they want to, even if it is just a third of eligible voters.
I don't think Luxon and Seymour are mature enough to make an apolitical choice and they should be ashamed of their stance.
Your argument is faulty. The exact problem with 18-year-olds would arise with 16-year-old voters. Some would be 19 before they get to vote. I was 19 1/2 before my first election so I wasn't able to vote on a single issue (interest free student loans while studying) until I was already at university.
I'm more in favour of the argument that if you're 18 within 3 months of election day you could enrol on the day. That makes more sense than a blanket drop.
I'm also wary of the 'stable situation' (at home, in school) posited by the author. It's a chimera. Many 20-year-olds live at home. Many students have a political social studies teacher. And they'll more likely be left-leaning.
You say my argument is faulty and then you repeat what I said as fact.
All I am saying is that the median age of first time voters will not be 16 just because they can vote at 16, it is closer to 17.5.
Perhaps you never read the comment, just wanted to make a political statement that somehow young people are more likely to be left leaning.
I would say show me the evidence. There are certainly plenty of young prats around that would more than likely be voting Seymour or Luxon.
This author disappoints me. Rather than trying to find the reasonable arguments both for and against, he reverts to the same old straw man arguments that are easily knocked over. The article also doesn't cover why the age limit isn't dropped even lower. The core of the issue is what age is somebody an adult. This article reveals the answer when it says that most 16-17 year-olds are still living at home and going to school. That is because they are children, and the adults of this world need to take some responsibility and let them be children. Yes there are some 16-17 year-olds that have left home etc, but the rule is set for everyone, not that very small minority.
As for the taxation argument, that is ridiculous. Kids can do part-time work, and it would be silly to deny that. I don't know the rules around taxing children, but if that is the sticking point, then just don't tax them.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.