KEY POINTS:
Here is an earlier selection of Your Views:
Gimme the right to vote!
If you're old enough to legally have sex, leave school and drive a car, work and pay taxes, why not be allowed to vote? NZ is slowly becoming an ageing senile population of geriatrics. Most of the government spending is going into the elderly because that is where the politicians get their votes. Geriatrics is a branch of medicine dealing with the diseases, debilities, and care of aged persons such as dementia etc. I would suggest that having a population of young people who can legally vote at 16 (I doubt they will exercise their right to vote) will restore some arsenal of democracy and fairness. Money needs to be spent on social teenage welfare programs like high abortion rates, sexually transmitted diseases, teenage suicide rate, drunk driving etc. More money needs to be spent on education, grants, and subsidies etc for teenagers where it counts, at 16 years onwards. Plus we pay the bulk of taxes for all your oldies in retirement.
Keeping teenagers high in debt for student loans and making them hopeless makes it easier for people to follow orders. When you have the vote you get affirmative action, plus we will get younger politicians, sexy and good looking like me.
Zpete (Mt Wellington)
That woman gets $150,000 bucks to push her fancy.
She should resign forthwith. "At 16, young people can get married, have children, and be taxed." she says. Same goes for 10-year-olds. Get a life Ms Bradford. Better get outta parliament. You were not voted for.
Seamus Brady
This is a excellent step in the right direction. Voter turnout has steadily decreased from over 90 per cent in the 1950's to 76 per cent in 2005, with youth being the main demographic who are not voting. The danger in this trend is if eligible youth aren't showing up, over the coming years as their generation gets older, the level of participation in elections will be dramatically fewer than earlier generations before them, greatly weakening the strength of New Zealand's democracy and the mandate of the elected government. Once again it is looking that 80 per cent of the population are getting the wrong end of the legislation stick. The main component of the proposal it that it will be accompanied with civics education where youth will become aware and knowledgeable of their responsibility within society and New Zealand's democracy. In doing so the level of detachment and apathy towards politics would be greatly reduced and the likelihood of them participating in the next and future elections with an informed and knowledgeable vote (probably far superior than many who vote nowadays) will increase as will voter turnout, strengthening New Zealand's democracy and the standing of youth in society.
B
The best thing the Greens could do is get rid of Sue Bradford. Her ideas on some issues are ridiculous. 16 to vote? 16-year-olds do not have enough political awareness to make an informed decision on who to vote for. This country's political situation just seems to worsen by the day. Australia here I come!
Jerry Flay
What is frightening about this is when Ms Bradford launched her last bill we all laughed and said don't be so silly. Sixteen-year-olds are the age group most easily seduced by marketing and slick advertising. NZ elections would be reduced to who uses the best agency and bear no relation to the reality of government. Having given La Bradford her pound of flesh, hopefully Helen Clarke will be smart enough to tell her to shut up this time.
Wayne
Has Sue Bradford gone completely mad. Never mind the smacking bill someone needs to check on what she is inhaling!
Jane
I'm not sure what I think about 16-year-olds voting, but I do think the idea of civics education is an interesting idea. Many New Zealanders could benefit from knowing more about how MMP and Parliament works - and how they could be involved in the political process. This might encourage greater public participation. At least it's an idea to consider. Maybe civics education could lift the quality of our political debate above insults and name calling?
Blue
What a stupid idea. At 16 they kids are still trying to find who they are - as long as there is food clothes and what they need. What do they care about politics? What was she doing at 16?
Movez (Auckland)
Greens, you are just interested in the vote banks Please think quality not quantity.
Marky Mark (Auckland)
This is simply a vote drive by the Greens. They know that if they make 16-year-olds aware that they are trying to legalise marijuana they can win extra votes. 16-year-olds don't give 'a monkey' about the environment, the so-called key point the Green's stand for. They will vote for the Greens based on one ideal, that all young people have, rather than the party and their policies as a whole. It will boost their votes and further deplete the chance of any one party driving our country forward, without the heavy reliance on the smaller parties to support policy.
Annika
16-year-olds these days don't have the responsibility Sue Bradford claims they do. They can't get married unless they have parental consent, and we're all taxed from the minute we have money. Most 16-year-olds don't understand they way a country is run (even some 18-year-olds don't) and giving them the vote will not lead to them acting more responsibly as citizens as they claim. Maybe they, as a group, should act more responsibly before we give them the chance to vote. What is with Sue Bradford trying to score bonus points with everyone below the current voting age? First the non-smacking bill, now this, what next?
Sezah (Auckland)
I don't think that they should lower the voting age to 16. At this age I don't believe that there is a high enough interest in politics. This is also a something you look forward to when you turn 18, being able to vote, drink and being considered an adult. At 18 I was not able to vote as my birthday fell after the elections, I did not feel as if I had missed out because I did not have a high interest in politics. True, 16-year- olds already have a lot of "adult" privileges (getting married or having a child), although I am not a parent myself I would not like my 16-year-old to undertake these adult responsibilities. Recent news showed New Zealand having one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, this could be because in modern NZ society we are treating our young teenagers as 'mini' adults. Maybe we should be focussing on letting our young teens be young!
Steve
Great idea, my only concern is, now I can't smack them, how do I ensure they don't vote for the fruit loops?
Fed Up
First the ridiculous smacking bill and now this. Does Ms Bradford have her head in the clouds or something? Is she living in some fantasy land? I'm 18 years old and fresh out of college and I can tell you, that in this modern society the majority of 16-year-olds know absolutely nothing about real life. They can't even drive a car without causing problems. In some circumstances, it's a miracle they can even tie their shoe laces. But Ms Bradford thinks they are fit to decide on which political party is fit to run the country. To be honest, 18-year-olds in this day and age are not much more mature. So really - 16? I'd be surprised if they could name the Prime Minister let alone take the time to review each party and what they are offering. So, no - the voting age is appropriate as it is. Let's stop wasting time on these "issues" and focus more on the real problems. There are far more pressing issues that beg attention than garbage like this.
Marie
Sue Bradford needs to wake up. It doesn't make sense to lower the age as they are still children. If they aren't classed as adult enough to drink, what makes her think they are adult enough to vote? If anything, she should be looking at the number of boy racers there are in the country and the damage that is done by 16-year-olds who think they can drive. Why not look at putting the driving age up to stop the pointless accidents that cost rate payers $1000s of dollars per year to repair damages done.
Bewildered (Auckland)
I'm not quite sure how I'm feeling after reading that now Sue Bradford wants to lower the voting age to 16. Surprised? confused? Bewildered? Has Sue Bradford met any 16-year-olds lately? Just because 16-year-olds can be taxed, get married etc, doesn't mean that they should. At 16 you are still finding out who you are and what you want in life, most 16-year-olds don't really have a clue about either. Its not until you get a bit older that you realise what is important to you which greatly impacts on which way you vote. If we start giving kids the right to vote, do we give them the right to drink alcohol as well? Let's bring the drinking age to 16 then, if they're adult enough to help choose who runs the country, surely they are mature enough to regulate their own drinking?
Bronwyn Myers
As if a 16-year-old gives a hoot about politics. They have more things to worry about hopefully getting an education and job looking. They haven;t even matured properly to know what is best for the country heck some adults don't even know that.
Derrick Moore
What a ridiculous concept. 16-year-olds can barely decide what to wear each day let alone make informed decisions about who will lead the country. The second and more important part of the bill (I can't believe I actually agree with something Sue Bradford is proposing) regarding civics education is about the only intelligent thing the Greens (especially Sue Bradford) have come out with, ever, period. Civics should be taught to all students as a compulsory subject. It is our responsibility to teach kids the value of our society, the value of democracy and more importantly the responsibilities of being a New Zealander. 16-year-olds voting is downright scary.
Peter S
The Greens can't trust school children to choose healthy food, and yet they want to give them the vote? I'm also left wondering what part of caring for the environment the anti-smacking legislation and lowering the voting age come under? Bradford exposes the Green's true agendas. They want to control, and now they want to legislate to be able to teach our children politics too. Of course the politics taught will be totally unbiased. Yeah right!
Adrian
16-year-olds can't even look after themselves as shown in the numerous drunk driving and boyracer incidents shown in the news, so why should they have the vote that affects our country?
dropkick
What an absurd suggestion. It is obvious this person either has a vivid imagination or is just plain stupid, the latter suggests as the likely. For goodness sake get on with the serious business you were elected for.
Travis B
Someone needs to sort out Sue Bradford. She is an idiot.
Marie
Sue Bradford needs to wake up - doesn't make sense to lower the age - as they are still children, if they aren't classed as adult enough to drink . What makes her think they are adult enough to vote? If anything she should be looking at the number of boy racers there are in the country and the damage that is done, but 16yr olds who think they can drive. Why not look at putting the driving age up to stop the pointless accidents that cost rate payers $1000's of dollars per year to repair damages done?
Tony
The Greens get more laughable by the day. First they say kids can't make the correct choice of foods so take the fizzy drinks, pies and chips out of the tuck shops but then they come out with let a sixteen old decide who is going to run the country. What planet are they on ! The sooner they are gone the better
CAF from USA
Our experience in the USA is that lowered voting age (ours is 18, down from 21) makes no difference in elections because kids just don't vote in large numbers and they generally vote the same way their parents vote. That strikes me as very strange but it is still true. My personal feeling is, voting is the highest responsibility within any democratic society and suffrage should be granted as a last significant right at an age of reasonable maturity - age 21. Before that, I honestly do not think it can be appreciated or well used.
Albert
The subject should be: should Sue Bradford be sacked from parliament and removed from politics permanently? She's a waste of taxpayers money and time in parliament.
JG
Seeing how well they've done since we lowered the legal age to buy alcohol, I'm seriously doubting that even 18-year-olds should have a vote! A 16-year-old can't be prosecuted as an adult, so no! If Sue Bradford wants children to have a voice, she has to create legislation that gives them responsibility as well. My five-year-old pays tax on her savings, does she want her to vote too? 16-year-olds can only marry with permission, they can't buy alcohol, they can't buy cigarettes, they aren't recognised as adults under criminal law or civil law, they can't sign contracts or take on HPs, so no, no, no!
J. Letts
Is Sue Bradford so distressed at the outcome of the anti-smacking that she needs to find something even more ridiculous to occupy herself with. 16-year-olds, as she quite rightly states, are legally able to get married, have children, pay taxes, drive cars and live "independent " lives. How many of the decisions to have children are out of choice but a decision following poor choices with the regard to sexual activity and how many of these young people actually support those children. I hazard not many [even tempted to say not any!]. You and I, the adult taxpayers, a WINZ benefit or the 16-year-olds parents/grandparent are likely carrying the can. A 16-year-old may look like and adult [only some] but a 16-year-old is a child, no matter which way you look at it. And I wonder how many would really be interested in voting? Far more fun to be had doing something else. Vote? Whatever.
Arron
The left are running scared given the recent polls and this attempt to lower the voting age is only because younger people tend to vote more left of centre. Voting should not be an automatic right and you should have to pass some sort of test in order to demonstrate that you have the intelligence required to cast a vote that will influence the governance of this country. This should be a multi-choice test, at a reasonable easy level (the equivalent of a 100 level university paper) covering economics and the relevant arguments of both capitalism and socialism. Only when people truly understand the possible economic outcomes of the implementation of policy should they have a right to have their say. It is ridiculous that the vote of an uneducated dole bludger should be worth as much as a university educated professional.
Andrew
More state corruption of the mind!
SB
Looking at this from a totally unbiased view (that is not incorporating what I think of Sue Bradford) I think this is an interesting idea. Of course, in order for it to be effective there would need to be a total revamp in the education system which would include teaching NZ history and politics from a much earlier age. I think if they had a better understanding of the system they would be perfectly capable of voting. On the other side of the spectrum, I think that if people who are under 18 can not vote they should not be made to pay tax either.
West
No. They can get married at 16 - they do not know what they are doing. They "can have sex at 16" - look at the numbers of unwanted children and abortions, a disgrace and an injustice to the poor kid victims. They drink at 18 - they show that they are not responsible. They drive at 16 - they are major causes of accidents and public menace. Unfortunately 16-18-year-olds are not showing the maturity to handle the privileges already given them already, why give them something else to prove they can't deal with?
Andrew Atkin
Everyone should have the vote - even babies! However, young children should, of course, vote indirectly through their parents (mum and dad effectively vote on their behalf - using an electronic system, I will add). I believe that indirect representation for children, through their parents, is better than no representation at all. This would give us the closest practical thing to a true democracy, and lead to giving children the political/social investment that they deserve. And indeed, the latter would be very good for the long-term prosperity of our society.
Margot
Does a 16 year old care about politics? I think not and so they will only vote for who offers them free money to do nothing (Labour). It really doesn't matter what the lovely Sue Bradford says anymore. She won't be there next year. And if for some insane reason she is, I'll be dropping NZ like a hot rock like so many other thousands and moving to Australia.
Rod (Auckland)
There are so many and more important things to do. There are so many problems people are experiencing in this country. In short, there are more important things the law maker can achieve rather than lowering age limits etc etc. Some of our law makers are not doing their job really well. Not really smart to be in their position. Smacking bill, lowering drinking age, lowering voting age and get married at early age, what a mess and useless thinking.
Murray Irwin
No. Kids are neither interested nor sufficiently informed to add anything to the process.
Greg
Should voting age be 16? No. They can get married at 16 - they do not know what they are doing. They "can have sex at 16" - look at the numbers of unwanted children and abortions, a disgrace and an injustice to the poor kid victims. They drink at 18 - they show that they are not responsible. They drive at 16 - they are major causes of accidents and public menace. Unfortunately 16-18 year olds are not showing the maturity to handle the privileges already given them already, why give them something else to prove they can't deal with?
Bruce
No. If anything I'd raise the age. It is completely unsurprising to me that this law will come from the Greens.
Granmudder
I don't think Sue Bradford has enough work to do. The smacking bill just wasted so much time and now she wants another soapbox. One minute 16-year-olds are 'children' and next 'adults' - make your mind up and get on to something far more serious like raising the driving age to 18 and you just might make a difference out there! Plus there may be a few more kids left to vote at 18.