Young deserve their say in running NZ

Should we lower the voting age to 16? The Supreme Court this week said yes. But it’s only reason for saying so was that it had been given no reason not to do so.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act outlaws age discrimination unless there is a good reason for it.

The Attorney General (which means the Crown Law Office) opposed a petition to let 16 and 17 year-olds vote but offered no reason.

So the court has declared the Electoral Act’s discrimination against them to be contrary to the Bill of Rights. If we were a liberal democracy like Canada and Australia, that ruling would be decisive. “Liberal” means having a constitution that enables judges to protect minorities from majority rule.

But we are just a democracy. The majority always rules. Here the Supreme Court’s declaration only means Parliament is obliged to consider the question, and since a change in the voting age requires a 75 per cent majority in Parliament, National’s votes will be decisive.

Labour and the Greens like the idea of senior secondary school students voting, no doubt assuming their support. National and Act dislike the idea, no doubt for the same reason. I think both sides might be surprised.

I know my views were more mature at 16 and 17 than they became a few years later and I think most of my classmates at school in 1968-69 would say the same. Those were big years for youth, bigger than today’s extinction rebellion I suspect.

There were sit-ins and riots at European and American universities, hippies had turned into urban guerrillas, Woodstock happened.

At school we enjoyed the music and had plenty of political discussion inside and outside the classroom but I don’t remember anyone in the class being too carried away by the excitements of the times. We could think for ourselves.

In more recent years I have occasionally spoken to senior secondary school classes and been struck by their maturity and common sense. I have no doubt they would be conscientious voters.

At their age I would have loved a vote. I followed the 1969 election avidly, even attending Keith Holyoake’s public meeting in the Christchurch Civic Theatre where university students gave him hell. I would have been a better voter that year than I was by 1972.

University challenges a settled view and that is a good thing.

It forces you to re-examine assumptions, accept wisdoms that are often counter-intuitive, and leaves you with more questions than answers. It is not quite so good at helping you come to a decision.

Sometimes it is not until you adopt a different view and express it, that its limitations and fallacies become clear.

I’m not suggesting voting rights should be suspended during tertiary education though it is tempting. I am suggesting 16 and 17 year olds could improve the teenaged vote overall.

And there is another reason I like the idea. I suffer generational guilt. My generation of voters has always had numerical strength.

With it we have made New Zealand a stronger economy but at a cost to some of the benefits we had as children, young job-seekers and home buyers.

We are now retiring with sacrosanct superannuation, freehold houses and, for many, multiple rental houses too.

The rent is paid by a younger generation that has seen house prices soar beyond reach of many.

Now, that generation and the next is also facing the costs of the Covid pandemic, in mortgage interest rates to counter the inflationary consequences and, possibly worse, the educational consequences for their children.

I have real fear for the as-yetunknown educational consequences for the generation that has lost so much school time over the past two years, and continues to stay away with the slightest sniffle.

Their schooling has been sacrificed for my generation’s health, the virus posed little threat to kids.

Young eligible voters do not turn up to vote in the same proportions as older voters, probable because they are not interested, or don’t feel informed, or can’t decide.

Good for them. It means the young who do vote are more likely to be serious, thinking, inquiring voters. I’d like to boost their numbers.

Since National and Act are opposed to lowering the age it will not happen. They will not even have to come up with a reason since they know there is not much public enthusiasm for it.

The petition gained less than 7,500 signatures, which is pitiful really.

It suggests not much support even among 16 and 17 year-olds. Or perhaps they are old enough to fear the responsibility, which would be a good reason to give them a vote.