Justice France said not allowing 16-year-olds to vote was “inconsistent with the bill of rights to be free from discrimination on the basis of age”.
The decision follows from one in the Court of Appeal in 2021, which found there was age discrimination and the Government couldn’t justify that discrimination.
A declaration of inconsistency was at that time declined, however, on the grounds that it was a “quintessentially political” issue.
In today’s decision the Supreme Court had a different view and issued a declaration, meaning it must be debated by Parliament.
Until a law change in August, there was no requirement for such declarations to be considered by politicians.
The new law, put through by Justice Minister Kiri Allan, requires the Attorney-General to notify the House of Representatives of the court’s declaration within six sitting days.
The minister must then present a Government response within six months.
The declaration of inconsistency is also referred to a select committee that must produce its own report and that and the Government’s response have to be debated by MPs.
While a breakthrough for the campaign, it still requires politicians to support the change and there currently appears to be little political appetite aside from the Green Party.
Justice Minister Kiri Allan refused to answer any questions about the decision immediately, issuing only a short statement reading: “As a Government we’re considering the implications of today’s decision.”
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will front a press conference at 4pm following a meeting of the Cabinet and will answer questions on the issue then.
National Party justice spokesman Paul Goldsmith, however, was unequivocal in his opposition to lowering the voting age.
“We don’t agree with the conclusion that the voting age which has been in place for half a century is suddenly unjustified,” he said.
The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1974.
Act Party leader David Seymour was also very quick to rule out supporting any change.
There would always need to be an age threshold to voting and to say not having it at 16 was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights was “illogical”, Seymour said.
Seymour also took a dig at the Supreme Court for again weighing into political topics, after he also criticised the court for going out of its way to incorporate tikanga in its Peter Ellis decision in absence of any Parliamentary direction.
Green Party electoral reform spokeswoman Golriz Ghahraman has long been an advocate of lowering the voting age and included it in her Strengthening Democracy Member’s Bill, which was voted down at first reading in September.
“The judgment of the Court finds that Parliament has for decades been in breach of young people’s basic human rights. Now is the time to do what’s right and strengthen our democracy to include the voices of 16 and 17-year-olds.”
Ghahraman said a change could occur immediately by picking up the parts of her members’ bill, and it could be done in time for the 2023 election.
She said other democracies in Europe, the UK and Canada all have either already extended voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds or are currently changing their laws.
“Complying with the Supreme Court’s call would keep New Zealand’s democracy among the most modern and inclusive.
“Not only would this change create a more representative democracy, but it would also provide more opportunities to engage young people in politics while they’re at school.”
