The Court has now waded into the long-running debate of lowering the voting age in New Zealand—a delicate and complex problem. The Court’s declaration means Parliament now has a legal obligation to consider the issue.
In response, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that she intends to introduce a bill to lower the voting age to 16 years.
Teenagers of that age are still considered to be “children” because Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “a child means every human being below the age of 18 years.”
The issue is difficult and sensitive.
Difficult because whatever age is selected as the voting age, it will inevitably involve a discretionary and arbitrary decision—but the line must be drawn somewhere.
Sensitive, because of the alleged inconsistencies of the current voting age of 18 with New Zealand’s human rights legislation and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which the right to vote facilitates the free expression of the will of the electors.
The fate of the bill will undoubtedly be closely watched by proponents and opponents of comparable proposed legislation in Australia.
In 2018, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 recommended lowering the voting age to 16 years. It envisaged giving 16- and 17-year-old teenagers the right to voluntary voting.
Emotive Arguments for Lowering Voting Age
Proponents of lowering the voting age have advanced appealing but emotive arguments. Among these, the nebulous notion of “equity” is relied upon to lower the voting age: if a person can be conscripted to fight in a war and potentially sacrifice their life for their country, they should have the right to vote.In addition, proponents argue that teenagers, aged 16 or 17, have a stake in the future of the country and, hence, should be given a voice in the adoption of laws and policies that affect their lives.
In contrast, opponents of the lowering of the voting age to 16- and 17-year-old teenagers argue that most children in these age groups are not mature enough to make an informed political decision.
In Australia, statistics indicate that many young people are barely able to read or write, and therefore, the claim that they are capable of making an informed choice on election day is as bold as it is misleading.
The recent NAPLAN results worryingly reveal that 13.5 percent of boys in Year 9 did not achieve the National Minimum Standard for reading, with decreasing spelling ability at that level.
Furthermore, knowledge of the world’s history, the political system, and its institutions are problematic.
Ignorance of the country’s representative form of democracy, and the role of Parliament in it, functions as an effective barrier to any meaningful participation in the affairs of the nation.
“Teenagers don’t understand several important basics of civic life according to new test results—and they are getting worse.
“Results from the most recent National Assessment Program—Civics and Citizenship, revealed most Year 10 boys and girls couldn’t understand numerous basic parts of how the nation works.
Young Voters Are Drawn to Left-Leaning Parties
A deficient education system may have contributed to this disappointing state of affairs. But the real reason for opposing a lowering of the voting age may be seen when the fact that young voters are far more likely to favour left-leaning Labour and Greens parties is considered.In lowering the voting age, left-wing parties would thus be able to harvest extra votes.
This is a reasonable assumption to make considering that today’s teenagers are the product of a politicised education system that indoctrinates young impressionable minds with left-wing ideas and, hence, they are likely to slavishly adopt the rhetoric of left-of-centre parties.
In an Australian context, any dissent on issues relating to the Voice, critical race theory, gender transitioning, affirmative action, vaccine mandates, and other fashionable, but politically naïve developments, would be absorbed as unassailable gospel.
This applies particularly to climate change, which according to the Make It 16 campaigners will “disproportionally affect them and their futures.”
A woke education, coupled with the failure to acquire knowledge of history and the sacrifices made by our ancestors, would guarantee a gigantic windfall for left-wing parties.
In other words, the age group targeted by the New Zealand bill cannot make an informed electoral choice sensibly because they do not have the mental competence to reflect on the vital concepts that support a democratic form of government.
The proposal to extend the voting age to 16- and 17-years old teenagers is thus a bad idea which distorts the concept of democracy.
