This is an online exclusive story.
Analysis: Recently, businessman and enthusiastic opinion-sharer Sir Ian Taylor sat down for a yarn with Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick, 29, following the open letter he had written to her explaining how the world works. They appear poles apart politically but found the sort of common ground that made for an excellent photo opportunity. At the end of their chat, Taylor said: “I’m not enemies with anybody. We need to be taking our young people seriously.”
By most standards, Swarbrick is no moppet. But in the government circles in which she moves, she can pass for one. And by default, she ends up speaking on behalf of people much younger than herself who do not have much of a say in the political decisions that affect their lives.
Which is why she is an advocate of lowering the voting age to 16. This is one of the electoral reform issues that has been considered by the Independent Electoral Review which released its draft report on June 6. The Supreme Court has declared the voting age of 18 inconsistent with the NZ Bill of Rights Act . The review also supports lowering the age which has at least saved them from getting into a fight with the Supreme Court.
There’s been relatively little discussion of the proposal, especially in the form taken by most contemporary debate: hysterical apocalyptic panic, such as that elicited by a draft science syllabus that by some accounts is all for banning biology, chemistry and physics and replacing them with witchcraft and coin tossing.
Even though its brief excluded major and pressing issues such as “online voting, alternatives to the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system, the retention of the Māori electorates, local government elections or broader constitutional matters like the re-establishment of an Upper House”, there was plenty left for the Review to talk about.
Its draft report includes 98 recommendations on the matters it was considering: overseas voting, the length of the parliamentary term, the funding of political parties, the party vote and one electorate seat threshold, election advertising and lowering the voting age from 18 to 16.
When it comes to inclusiveness, the Review is leading by example: not only has it provided a 338-page interim report, but there is also an executive summary of the interim report, a webinar you can watch online, and large print, audio, video, multilingual and braille versions.
And in what is perhaps a poignant reflection of literacy levels, there is a simplified, easy-to-read version with helpful, brightly coloured graphics.
Political support, or lack of it, for lowering the voting age tends to fall on predictable left-rightparty lines. Young people’s reputation for being idealistic and optimistic seemed to be a disincentive for entrenched interests to support lowering the age. ACT is very much against it. As is National, with Christopher Luxon apparently aiming squarely for his party’s idea of the youth vote – the 50 to 65-year-old demographic. Greens are for the change, as noted. And it is impossible to tell what Labour thinks with PM Chris Hipkins saying he supports it but won’t pursue it, thus failing to appeal equally to all age groups.
The claim is frequently made that idealistic young people just don’t know enough about life to make informed decisions. But perhaps it would be good to have people who have positive aspirations voting for what they want to see happen.
In fact, there is evidence that young people are taking part in adult activities later than they used to. A paper entitled “The Decline in Adult Activities Among U.S. Adolescents, 1976-2016″ – published in the journal Child Development – came to the conclusion that having sex, dating, drinking alcohol, working for pay, going out without parents and driving are all activities that are being postponed.
It’s also been suggested that economic factors impede young people’s maturity. According to The Atlantic “young people reach adult milestones later when jobs that lead to financial independence are scarce or require additional training”, which is the situation in which many find themselves here.
Also, part of this discussion is the much-quoted belief that brains do not finish developing until the age of 25, which would mean many thousands of unfinished brains – aged 18 to 25 – are already voting. Even if this were true, it would hardly help. No one has suggested raising the voting age to 26. But a more sober analysis of the reports behind this stat suggests that brains are like people – they can stop growing at different stages and ages.
It’s possibly significant that only 9 countries and territories, including, Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and Malta – allow 16-year-olds to vote. But it is hardly definitive. Nelson Mandela wanted the vote extended to 14-year-olds. If we only followed other countries’ electoral practices, we might not have extended suffrage to women until 1931, which is when it was introduced in Spain.
Are 16-year-olds experienced enough to make decisions about who would best represent their interests in government? They are allowed to drive, travel overseas, get married, receive the minimum wage, live separately from their parents, give or withhold medical consent and get a firearms licence. Many of those activities would seem much riskier when undertaken by a 16-year-old than voting.
The decision about lowering or retaining the voting age probably won’t involve you as a referendum is not required to make a change. Whatever happens, it will doubtless prove that you can’t please all of the people all of the time – and that’s democracy at work.
