ELECTORAL (VOTING AGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 July 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:15): I think I spoke for a few minutes on this matter previously.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do not wish to speak any further? Is that what you are saying?

Ms CHAPMAN: Does a duck have lips? Is the pope Catholic?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have nine minutes left.

Ms CHAPMAN: What I proposed to raise on this matter was that one of the most recent constitutions in the world under our democratic countries has been Mongolia. In 1992, Mongolia passed its constitution, which this year celebrates its 20^th anniversary. It sets out a number of duties, rights and entitlements of the citizens of Mongolia. What is important is that embraced in that constitution are age provisions for the purposes of voting and also for the purposes of standing for parliament.

In short, the Mongolians decided, in one of the most recent democratic constitutions in the world, that 18 years of age was the appropriate age for their citizens to have the right to vote and that at 21 years of age they would have the right to stand for parliament.

In Australia, and here in South Australia, 18 is the age. We had the debate about whether the age should be reduced from 21 to 18 years, at which time I was, of course, far too young to participate. However, when they did do that, I was a beneficiary of it. It meant that we could have a taste of beer legitimately a few years earlier than 21 years of age. However, with it came a number of aspects of responsibility, including the right to be able to marry without parental consent, the right to vote, and so on.

The member for Fisher has raised a number of aspects which are meritorious in the sense of galvanising and accommodating those in the community between the age of 16 and 18 who have a desire to participate in the political process, including the right to vote. The Mongolians have in recent times assessed that situation. I think it is always important that, when we look at any constitutional reform, we look at what democracies around the world have started with afresh.

I, for example, have frequently referred to the constitution that applies in the Republic of Germany, which is also a federation. When one looks at the involvement and entitlements at various levels of government in federations, I think Germany's constitution is a great example for us to consider. They took some four years after World War II (from 1945 to 1949) to carefully consider the advances all around the world at that time, pick out the best and create a structure, which I think today still has some meritorious aspects that we in Australia would benefit from if we were to embrace it.

The reason I look at new constitutions in evolving and developing democracies around the world is that I think it also helps us to look afresh at what opportunities we have. In Mongolia, they decided that the appropriate age would be 18.

There are some other very interesting aspects of the Mongolian constitution which do not necessarily relate to us, but I will just quickly mention one of them, and that is the right to be able to travel outside the country. That is not something we in Australia have been burdened with in terms of any kind of restriction or impediment. Historically, over the last couple of hundred years, we have had the right to come and go as we please, but there are other countries in the world that have not enjoyed the same privilege. I think it is always helpful for us to look at those other jurisdictions and learn from them.

Perhaps the most persuasive aspect of my opposing this bill and, in fact, I think the opposition's embracing ultimately that position is that we will create a separate system from the federal arena, and this does raise a number of complexities. If there is an argument in relation to bringing a level of responsibility to those in the 16 to 18 age group who want to participate—and I appreciate that it would be voluntary registration under this proposal; it is not to be imposed on some 16 year olds who may be unwilling, uninterested or unable to participate in political debate in this way, including voting rights—it is the fact that it would create an inconsistency. Other speakers have covered that aspect, but I think that it does need to be taken into account.

I commend the member for Fisher for bringing forward this initiative. I think it is always important to listen to the younger people in our community. Just this week, this parliament has welcomed and hosted a number of leading students from South Australian schools in parliamentary debate. It is an opportunity for them to see the environment in which we work and to have a practice run in the context of what we do.

I note from the few instances when I have observed the students during the week that they are conducting themselves with a level of civility and competence which I think would make their tutors and parents proud. I think they formally conclude today or tomorrow—

Mr Pengilly: They will be in here tomorrow.

Ms CHAPMAN: —tomorrow—and members should take the opportunity to come in and recognise the students' presence in this place and to thank them for their interest and participation. The motivation of the member for Fisher to introduce this bill is quite meritorious. I think we should take every opportunity to encourage our younger people to embrace and take up the opportunity to contribute to the public debate.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:23): I thank members who have contributed. I understand the point about a nexus with the federal voting age, but I point out to members that South Australia lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1971, and the federal parliament followed in 1973. So, South Australia set the lead back in 1971 and, as far as I know, the world has not ended by our lowering the age from 21 to 18.

We often hear politicians and others say, 'Give young people a voice.' I believe it is the biggest con of all time, because they might be listened to but nothing is done constructively as a result of their views. The only way in our society where you can really have any input and be listened to in a real sense and have what you are say acted upon is if you have a vote. With anything else—you can have youth parliaments, which I started in this state, and I think they are a great thing—we are kidding ourselves and we are trying to fool young people by saying, 'Let's have a gathering and we will listen to what you have to say,' because we will listen but we will not do anything about it.

There was a summit held in Canberra in 2008, called Australia 2020 Youth Summit, and representatives of young people from around Australia issued a communiqué saying 'To build a more participatory 2020, the age at which people are eligible to vote must be lowered to 16.' That is what young people are saying. At 16 you are old enough to drive, have sex, become a parent, work, pay tax, but you are not allowed to vote. You can join the military under some circumstances at that age or 17. People say, 'You don't deserve a vote because you are not in a position where you are going to fight for your country.' Well, you can actually join the military.

The arguments against giving young people a vote can be summarised in four areas: lack of maturity, not enough life experience on which to base decisions, lack of interest, and ignorance. They are exactly the same arguments that were used against women and people who did not have a white skin, and they are the same arguments now used against young people.

If you want to know where people under the age of 18 can vote: Nicaragua, Brazil, Estonia, the Isle of Man (which I visited in 2005), Austria, the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, Ecuador, and I understand Germany in its provincial elections allows voting by people under the age of 18. The issue about the nexus is the only compelling point at the moment, I think, but it is something that suggests we should be working with the commonwealth to try to bring about a sensible congruence of voting eligibility. I can read the wind in here, and this is—

Mr Pengilly: Tea leaves.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I read those as well, but it is hard if you drink coffee. I understand that this is not going to be supported, so there is no point deliberating further. I think members in years to come will feel that they have missed an opportunity not to progress for the sake of it but to bring in a useful reform which could be linked in with the commonwealth, as happened back in the 1970s.

Second reading negatived.