HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-06-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTORAL (VOTING AGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2012.)

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (11:23): I rise to oppose the bill. The reason I do so is that most countries in the world have a minimum voting age of 18, including those countries which have most in common with Australia: Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, I recall when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in about 1971, and the reason for that at the time was that the federal Liberal government had applied National Service to young men; some of them were required to serve in a war in Vietnam, and it was considered wrong to send voteless 18 year olds, 19 year olds, and 20 year olds to serve in Australia's armed forces overseas under conditions of conscription.

But no-one is suggesting that we are about to conscript 16 and 17 year olds for overseas service, so the same argument for lowering the voting age does not apply. Moreover, if 16 and 17 year olds were enfranchised for state elections, we would have difficulties with electoral roll management. I think it is best that the eligibility criteria be the same for commonwealth and state parliaments because that facilitates the keeping of a joint electoral role. I understand, however, that there are some countries that do allow people under 18 to vote. The Islamic Republic of Iran, I am told, has a minimum voting age of 15, but there are few countries in this category.

I think among the arguments against this provision is that younger people have fewer life experiences on which to draw when they come to vote, and this really is recognised by the law in setting the age at 18. A person who is less than 18 years of age cannot make a will, or be the executor of a will; enter into any contract, other than one for necessities; sue and be sued in person; get married or witness a marriage; change a name without parental consent; view restricted films, publications and computer games; purchase alcohol or drink alcohol in licensed premises; or purchase tobacco, but the member for Fisher now proposes that we allow people in that category to vote.

The member for Fisher no doubt argues that 16 year olds and 17 year olds are affected by the policies of the government, but that is true also of 14 and 15 year olds and, as far as I can see, no-one is advocating lowering the voting age to 14. I mentioned earlier the practical consideration of a joint electoral role. I think it would lead to some confusion having 16 and 17 year olds voting for a state election but ineligible to vote for a federal election. I am not sure if this provision of the member for Fisher would allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote for local government.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Yes, it would.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It would, well, at least there would be no confusion between state and local government. We would have to accommodate these 16 and 17 year olds on a special separate or supplementary electoral roll and, as I understand it, the member for Fisher is not proposing to make it compulsory for them to enrol, so, whereas it is compulsory for people 18 years and above to enrol to vote, it would not be compulsory for those aged 15 and 16. I think it would introduce too many inconsistencies, and so I for one will be voting against the bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:29): I thank the member for Fisher for bringing this bill to the attention of the parliament because he highlights the importance of participation of our young people in decisions that affect them not only now but in the future. The opposition has given some long consideration to this because, although it is not the first time that this type of proposal has been presented—that is, to introduce the opportunity, as distinct from the compulsion, to enrol to vote—it is one that comes with some aspects of complication.

The member for Croydon has outlined some of those, in particular, the inconsistency with recognising young people for the purposes of enrolling to vote, as distinct from the prohibition against 16 or 17 year olds being able to participate in juries. I seek leave to continue to remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT