The Supreme Court has just lobbed a grenade into New Zealand politics by ruling that denying 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote was not only discrimination on the basis of age but also had not been justified and was therefore a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
The declaration requested was made. It is now for Parliament to work out how to deal with the issue.
The Government’s response was swift. Cabinet today decided that legislation should be introduced into Parliament to see what happens.
The drafting will be interesting. The age provision in the Electoral Act is entrenched, that is a three quarter majority of MPs is needed. But the Local Electoral Act provisions are not entrenched so a bare majority is sufficient to pass any necessary changes.
Although the process for a 16 year old to vote in a local body election will be daunting. My initial impression is that they will have to enroll separately as a residential elector before the election.
National’s and Act’s responses were also swift.
Paul Goldsmith showed how little he knew about the subject by spouting nonsense.
His press statement was also gibberish. From the National Party website:
National does not support any lowering of the voting age, National’s Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.
“Decisions around the voting age, like other electoral laws, are decisions for a democratically accountable Parliament to make.
“Many aspects of our electoral law are decided by referendum or a super-majority of the Parliament because of their constitutional importance.
“National’s priorities in justice are reducing violent, youth and gang crime, as well as clearing Court backlogs.
“With violent crime up by 21 per cent, a 50 per cent increase in gang membership and a 500 per cent increase in ram-raids, these are pressing matters the Labour Government are failing to get under control.
“That is why National announced its plan to crack down on serious repeat youth offenders like ram-raiders to turn their lives around and to protect the public.
“Many other countries have a voting age of 18, and National has seen no compelling case to lower the age.”
The ability of National to bring everything around to youth crime is extraordinary.
Act’s response was even weirder.
“ACT rejects calls to lower the voting age to 16 following the Supreme Court’s ruling,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.
“We don’t want 120,000 more voters who pay no tax voting for lots more spending. The Supreme Court needs to stick to its knitting and quit the judicial activism.
“Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, the voting age is an entrenched provision in the Electoral Act 1993 so it would require 75 per cent of MPs to vote for the change. In other words, it won’t happen.
“The general public don’t want it either. A 2020 1 News poll found that just 13 per cent of New Zealanders want the age lowered.
“There is nothing stopping 16-year-olds from getting involved in politics already if they’re so inclined and ACT encourages them to do so. The more political savvy and tuned in people are when they do become eligible to vote the better.
“My proposition to 16 and 17 year old voters is this. There’s only a two out of three chance that you’ll get an extra vote out of this, but you will pay extra tax for whatever crazy thing 16 and 17 year olds voted for at the last election.
“If Parliament does consider lowering the voting age ACT will be voting against it.”
Lots of 16 and 17 year olds pay tax. And to accuse the supreme court in the land of judicial activism when it is interpreting laws that Parliament has made is populist nonsense.
There are some serious constitutional issues at play here and for the right to come out and summarily rule change out is typical but at the same time highly disrespectful. I hope young people remember the contempt that Act showed when considering in the future the exercise of their democratic rights.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress