The age of wisdom

It was a watershed. Of sorts. The Supreme Court ruled this week that a legal voting age of 18 in New Zealand was unjustified discrimination. It found that, in contrast to the lower courts that considered the matter and (according to numerous polls) the will of most voters, there were grounds to consider reducing the age as low as 16.

The decision was based on a section of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that protects against age discrimination. Unlike many other countries, in New Zealand this protection begins at 16.

The court found that, in that case, the attorneygeneral (the respondent in the case) needed to establish why the voting age should be 18, rather than something younger, but hadn’t done so. The attorney-general may be able to offer an explanation subsequently, the court said, but in the meantime Parliament was required to respond to the judgment.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced plans on Monday for draft legislation.

This flurry of activity opened up numerous avenues of discussion, most of which were immediately closed. The chances of the voting age being lowered in the near future are essentially nil.

For one, the current limit is part of the Electoral Act, and changing it would require 75% support in Parliament. National and ACT have already voiced their opposition, rendering it moot for now.

Ardern said she would support a change. This, again, is somewhat redundant, though the prime minister may have her conviction tested if similar reform is pursued at the local government level. The Local Electoral Act is not subject to a super-majority, meaning Labour could pass the change itself.

Lowering the voting age has already been suggested as part of a recent review into increasing participation at local elections, and the leaders of campaign group Make It 16 have indicated this is their priority.

The bigger question is a party political one. The argument around extended enfranchisement has traditionally fallen along ideological lines. Younger voters skew liberal and favour change; older voters veer conservative and oppose it. Justice Stephen Ko´s acknowledged as much in his partial dissent to the Supreme Court judgment. ‘‘Altering voter age is not a neutral political action,’’ he wrote. ‘‘Whichever direction it goes in is likely to benefit some parties disproportionately.’’

National, ACT, Labour and the rest are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but with the outcome all but decided already, it would be refreshing to hear the bill debated with less than the usual self-interest.

Early signs are not promising. National has already wheeled out claims of judicial activism by the court. ‘‘[It] has overreached here by intruding into something that is fundamentally the realm of Parliament,’’ National MP Chris Bishop said. Green MP Golriz Ghahraman was duly astonished at such opposition to a ‘‘very, very ordinary exercise of the role of the judicial branch of government’’.

So far, so predictable. Note to all MPs – some candour on this matter would be appreciated.

Though perhaps not quite in the vein of ACT leader David Seymour, who dispensed with any pretence of constitutionality when he said, ‘‘We don’t want 120,000 more voters who pay no tax voting for lots more spending,’’ to which he might have added, ‘‘and who probably won’t vote for us’’.

... it would be refreshing to hear the bill debated with less than the usual selfinterest.