Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 970 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Many of the arguments against it do not hold water. There is, of course, the tautology that children cannot vote because they are children. That is a tautology, not an argument; that is usually based on the competency argument. That is an interesting one, because it leads to extreme elitism if you apply it to the whole voting population. What we could say, of course, is, "Yes; if you really agree with that, then we have to test everyone before we see whether they can vote".

Most people in Australia have little in-depth understanding of our political institutions. If it is assumed that someone has to have a reasonable knowledge of our political institutions before they can cast a vote, then few people would be voting. The best way to get young people, and consequently the whole community, informed is to introduce the concept of voting earlier. Once 16 is the voting age, obviously there will be a much greater interest in schools to educate young people about their responsibilities. This Bill is proposing a transitional period of three years so that we can have more voter education in our schools. Over this transition period young people will be entitled to enrol to vote; and, if they so choose, they will then be legally required to vote. There will not be any obligation to enrol over this transition period. There will obviously be benefits for the whole community in the long run if this education starts at an early time.

Another common argument put forward is that children will vote according to their parents' views. That is another unreasoned argument. Research shows quite clearly that very many people vote according to their parents' views up to the time that they die. The reasons people vote for whom they vote for are quite complex, and research has been able to tease out exactly which are the main factors. For that reason, you certainly cannot make the accusation that it is inappropriate for children or young people to vote.

Another argument which is put against the proposal and which I would like to mention is that the right to vote has often been linked with the age at which young people can fight in the armed forces. There is obviously not a logical connection between young people's capacity to fight and their capacity to make political choices. It is a strong emotional argument, however, because what it is saying is that if you are able to die or suffer for a nation - and you are probably male - then you have the right to vote. This is a definition of citizenship based on military service, and it is another interesting one that needs to be looked at carefully. It is about your experience of citizenship; and whether, therefore, according to that experience, that gives you a right to vote.

It is interesting that many of the arguments put forward are arguments that were used in the past against giving women or indigenous people the right to vote; and many of the arguments are an insult to young people, as they were an insult to women and indigenous people. I think it is quite reasonable to argue that the level of understanding of politics among 16-year-olds today is probably similar to the level of understanding among 18-year-olds in the 1970s anyway.

This is not just an erratic idea, as Mr Humphries claimed in the Canberra Times, being put forward by the ACT Greens. Mr Humphries may be interested to hear that the Liberal Minister for Youth Affairs in South Australia has said that lowering the voting age is an important issue which he is giving careful consideration to. He opened up a 008 number for young people to voice their concerns, and the No. 1 issue was the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .