A strike against democracy
The Supreme Court has not said that 16-year-olds should be able to vote. It said that if you have a clause in your Bill of Rights Act that declares there should be no discrimination on the basis of age (other than justified in a democratic society), then setting the age at 18, rather than 16, unjustly discriminates against 16-year-olds.
This decision takes us places. It means that, if you want to have age-based entitlements, then you have to show that the age is really relevant. There has to be some specific feature of a certain age that doesn’t apply at another age, but which applies for everyone.
We use age as a proxy for a bundle of entitlements because testing individual competence or attributes can be intrusive and cumbersome. The court gave this principle no shrift at all, and in doing so it has struck a blow against a fundamental principle of modern social democracy: the progressive principle of universal entitlement.
Take universal superannuation at the age of 65. Today, entitlement to NZ Super is for everyone regardless of need, contribution to taxes, years worked or life expectancy. A sick 64-year-old goes without NZ Super, while a fit, wealthy, employed 66-year-old collects.
The only way to reconcile the Supreme Court’s new principle is to means-test NZ Super. If entitlement at an age depends on objective reasons for choosing that age, then if you are sickly or poor, you should get a pension but if you have KiwiSaver, no Super for you. Stop saving now.
I can think of a dozen examples once the principle against age discrimination is reduced to require a justification for the discrimination.
You have to be 16 to get a learner driver’s licence, and 16 1⁄2 to get a restricted. We can show that 15-year-olds are less likely to have the motor skills and (I can’t believe I’m writing this) self-control of a 16-year-old.
However, the logic of the court’s ruling is that it is motor skills and judgment that matter – so we can’t give licences only to 16-year-olds then.
I was driving my ‘‘not competent’’ drunk stepfather home from the pub when I was 13, so if competence trumps age I should have had a licence. See you in court, officer.
If you’re 16, parents still have an obligation to house, feed and protect you. The state has the authority to step in if parents fail. Third parties, such as companies and governments, are regulated from exploiting teenagers. Make them adults and the responsibility to provide and protect withers and dies.
The real issue is about when childhood ends and with it the protections in law for children. Voting at 16, and all the other entitlements that would come between 16 and 18, are the rights of adults.
Voting makes children into adults. I want to protect children from worrying about taxes, responsibilities and the need to provide for others.
Heather du Plessis-Allan recently grilled a teenage globe-trotting climate striker in a radio interview about the hypocrisy of the youngster’s position. Du Plessis-Allan was criticised for applying adult standards to a teen. Many of her critics now argue that under-18 teen should be voting.
But if she votes, critics won’t be able to argue that she shouldn’t be held to the same political standards as adults. Comfortable with that?
The prohibition on age discrimination exists because a 60-year-old should not be denied a job in favour of a less qualified 30-year-old. It does not substitute for an argument about when adulthood begins.
In its decision the Supreme Court observes breezily that ‘‘it is clear that the line [of adulthood] has to be drawn somewhere’’. To resolve where to draw the line, the court then rehearsed a claim from an academic that there is little evidence to support 18 as a ‘‘suitable proxy for maturity and competency to vote’’.
In quoting this evidence, it has done subtle but brutal damage to our democracy. Competence, maturity and intelligence should never, ever, be judicially contemplated as a qualification to vote. Voting is the right of all adults. The only issue to determine is: ‘‘Are you an adult?’’
By discussing whether votes attach to competence, the court has ensured that, one day, some class of people will be declared not competent. This is not progressive.
The Bill of Rights states that everyone aged over 18 has the right to vote. The judges literally said that these words mean everyone over the age of 16.
The dissenting judge said the majority has reduced the rights of everyone over 18 by slightly altering the composition of the voting electorate. I would argue it also affected the rights of under-18s to transition from childhood without having the responsibilities of adulthood imposed too soon.