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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 971 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

right to vote. Is this a cynical exercise in getting votes, or is this a politician who actually has an interest in democracy? Why are we so cynical? This is about democracy. Maybe the Liberal person in South Australia is sincere; but the Greens must be cynical.

A New Zealand royal commission in 1988 considered that a strong case could be made for lowering the voting age to 16. They rejected the idea that young people lack the capacity to make political judgments. The Liberal and Social Democratic Party in England supported a reduction in the voting age to 16. Richard Jones, a former Democrat in New South Wales, has announced his intention to table a private members Bill to that effect in New South Wales. Both the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, which is a peak community group dealing with youth issues, and the National Children's and Youth Law Centre at New South Wales University have discussion papers on the issue, and both are favourably inclined towards lowering the voting age. The Youth Affairs Council of South Australia has produced an extensive document called "A Piece of the Action". In this report, 85 per cent of young people surveyed wanted to know more about politics and have more control over political decisions.

In this Bill we have established that the age at which young people can vote is 16. We acknowledge that the choice of 16 is somewhat arbitrary, and we are not locked into this age. There are good reasons why it could be argued that it should be 15 or even 14. Nelson Mandela has proposed lowering the voting age to 14. At the moment everyone under the age of 18 is lumped together as children; from 0 to 18, you are children. Obviously, in reality, it is usually divided into much smaller sections, and a 16-year-old has a lot more in common with a 19-year-old than with a three-year-old. There are obviously discrete stages of development, and it is a nonsense to try to continue to legally lock them into one group. In our legal institutions there is not an instantaneous transformation from childhood to adulthood - it is an evolving process - and neither should there be in our democratic institutions.

The Greens think it is appropriate that this Bill go to a committee. I think it is highly unjustified that my colleagues have spoken so negatively about this proposal before any of the arguments were even put. Why not debate this issue? It is an important part of the debate about government and participation in the ACT.

Mr Osborne: Not all your colleagues.

MS TUCKER: Not Mr Osborne. Mr Osborne has been very reasonable, and I apologise. I did not mean to include you in the general mass there. Mr Moore has even conceded that he has not quite made up his mind, which is slightly encouraging.

This Bill also ties in with initiatives that the Government is promoting, such as "Governing Canberra". If we are talking about the shape and nature of government in the ACT, the Greens believe that it is appropriate to also raise the issue of not only how we involve people in the political process but also who. I would like to conclude by reading this quote from Moira Rayner, the former Equal Opportunity Commissioner of Victoria:

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