Labour to propose Parliament votes to lower voting age to 16, but National and ACT say they’ll oppose it, which would make required 75% ‘super-majority’ almost impossible; Possible for councils though
Eh, I use "NZ" all the time -- it's shorter and if I'm on my phone I just don't have the thumb dexterity for extra characters. Also... New Zealand is currently our legal name.
Aotearoa is far more beautiful though -- the sound of it as well as the meaning -- and for all the historical arguments about where it did or didn't originate, it has a rich history. I hope to live to see it become our name.
Not only should 16+ get to vote, but they should get 3 votes until 30; 30-60 get 2 votes; and 60+ get 1 vote. Their 'civics education' will come from the weight of responsibility that they have an outsized influence in their own future
Nov 21, 2022·edited Nov 21, 2022Liked by Bernard Hickey
...I should also add, I feel like all this questioning the independence of media, judiciary, monetary policy etc that is going on - typified by David Seymour's statement about the court 'sticking to their knitting' is super-dangerous: Far, far more dangerous to our democracy than some naive 16-year-old voting for Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis, or whatever else those who don't want a lower voting age are afraid of.
Thanks Tim. I agree the attack on the courts is unattractive. And interesting, given many of ACT’s supporters would support the intervention of the US Supreme Court in recent years….
Yes but, as you've pointed out in the past I believe, that maxim doesn't always hold: The 'ratepayer roll' being a prime example; and there's always the question of whether we all have equitable access to the time and place needed to cast a vote.
Of course, these things can be (theoretically) addressed, but it still leaves us with the unerring reality that political decisions play out over long timeframes, so inherently impact more those who are around longer... The trick might be to think of 'one-person' in the temporal, rather than spatial, sense!
Alternatively, introduce weighted voting based upon number of years left until average life expectancy: eg a 16yo’s vote counts as 66 points, 81yo’s vote as 1 point (definitely one way to radically and rapidly introduce intergenerational equity).
Release please Bernard. The same predominately older white property owning voters are also Climate change deniers and if not stopped will destroy it all for the young.
Honestly, I've stopped believing anyone who claims they're genuinely of the view climate change isn't happening. "Climate change denial" is code for "It won't be my problem and I just don't care that much". So yeah, as it gets harder and harder not to see that anyone alive 20 years from now will be in trouble over this one way or another, it's a position that's going to select for "I am older and a bastard".
Could you shed a bit of light on how the court system works? I'm struggling to understand how the supreme court could rule that not dropping the voting age to 16 is a violation of the bill of rights act, but parliament still needs to make this happen (and 3/4 vote nonetheless!)? Surely if they've ruled this was inconsistent with the law, it would not be allowed to continue?
In NZ we have "Parliamentary Supremacy". It means Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants. Including laws that are inconsistent with other laws.
Of course there's some debate at the academic level about whether Parliament can truly be supreme. I don't think the former Chief Justice—Sian Elias—was a fan. And there's a famous thought experiment that comes up in most 1st year university courses about whether Parliament could legalise torture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v_New_Zealand_Poultry_Board
Thanks Nick B. Parliament has primacy in our system, which doesn’t have a US-style constitution. The Bill of Rights only allows the courts to ‘admonish’ Parliament, rather than actually change anything.
Really interesting - I guess that’s good as it would prevent a court from legislating (as is too often the case in the US) but then there’s really nothing stopping overreach from parliament besides parliament itself is there?
Bit of an invidious question, Warwick -- you're asking Bernard to breach his children's privacy, and simultaneously implying his opinion might be worth less than someone else's, depending on their age. (Or was this a joke? Maybe I'm just snappish this morning?)
Thankyou Warwick and Leaflemming. I’m happy to divulge some things I know won’t hurt or affect my daughters. I’m 55 and my daughters are 29 and 21. They were educated here mostly and are still here. I think about them every day and wonder where they’ll want to live and how they’ll get by. I think constantly about their ability to secure futures for themselves here. This is my place and I want it to be their’s. But I know that housing costing 10 times income and a 2.5 degrees warming of the climate in their lifetimes makes that extremely difficult without some extreme intervention from me. This is the main reason I do this. I’m proud of what we’ve done so far. My idea of extreme intervention is podcasting and writing the shit out our political economy, and I’m lucky enough to be supported by you all to do it, along with the amazing Lynn and my daughters too. But the jury is still well out on their future. I have no valid expectations of grandchildren, but if it happens, I sure as hell want to be right there when and where they grow up. I want to be able to give them all a hug and a night of solid sleep when they need it.
And I want it to be in Aotearoa. I don’t want it to be an occasional zoom call and a Christmas holiday every year or two (covid permitting).
I think the starting point for the right to vote should be everyone gets to vote and there then needs to be a strong justification for why someone should be denied that right. I fail to see a good justification for why 16 and 17 year olds should be denied the vote.
If you are mature enough to vote, then does that mean you are mature enough to face the consequences of your actions in regular court, not the Youth Court?
Ditto the drinking age.
Personally, I believe that 'grown up' rights for teenagers should be allowed in steps and that everything isn't handed out at once: - drivers licences, alcohol, voting, Youth Court, etc.
The demographic tide in the USA skews heavily toward Democrat voting in the younger age groups.I suspect it will be the same here in Aotearoa New Zealand.Except Labour/Green/Te Parti Maori /TOP.In that context National and ACT coming out against lowering the voting age makes perfect sense.Selfish turkeys don't vote for an early Xmas.Also as their dry run in Auckland shows playing to the boomer vote gets good results electorally.
David Seymour has a great idea in only letting taxpayers vote.
We'll convert National Super to being tax-free and have a threshold of the first, say, $15,000 of income being untaxed. Voila, 90% plus of over 65's have just lost their vote.
But hang on you say. Everyone pays GST so everyone is a taxpayer. Why this fixation on income tax being the be-all and end-all of what is thought of as tax?
Great points on voters being engaged in the education system, and helping to sustain habits. I missed out by months for the 2011 election. The policies ended up affecting me with student allowance costs, particularly with the removal of student allowance for post graduate students. At least another 10k of student debt, thanks to that decision of the National government. Same for my wife, who had to take out massive loans for post graduate teaching education, to pay for living costs.
Funny how David Seymour and the libertarian mindset of 'no taxation without representation' doesn't apply here for future taxpayers. Perhaps he would support removal of voting rights for those aged 65, who draw more on our tax (ridiculous claim, I know)?
The irony of course is that many of ACT’s supporters pay little income tax and very low GST relative to their (mostly capital) incomes, which are largely untaxed.
If only the left would state the bleeding obvious that voting from 16 would screw the scrum in its favour. But no, truth eludes them while they cynically waffle about human rights and fairness. What bollocks.....just say yep, works for us cos more voters for us. We all see through the utter contemptuous hypocrisy of the left and its disdain for the great unwashed.
At least the other side admit openly it would not be in their interests...they should also drop the waffle about brains not being fully developed excuses. Plenty of grown-ups who are worse and they vote.
You're right that this is popular wisdom -- though if the right have come out and admitted they're in this for what they can get rather than arguing for some sort of fairness, I guess I've missed it -- but I'm not actually sure we know how 16 year olds would vote. It strikes me as the kind of thing we (all of us armchair pundits) routinely get very wrong indeed.
I think we should let 16 year olds vote because we let them consent to potentially creating another human being and it's rank hypocrisy to say that doesn't make them adults; but I have to admit... I also just want to find out what would happen.
I do a lot of mahi with teens and they tend not to have the obsession with left and right that old people do. Is it not understandable that teens won’t vote for climate change inaction or outright denial? Is it not understandable that they’d vote for policy that might mean they’ll have stable housing. If you break it down (and take a deep breath) it’s not a treat conspiracy. If the so-called right want more votes from young people - maybe stop fucking their future?
I think there are occasions for the word and this is one of the my. My benchmark now is the Financial Times, which uses it to capture the mood and detail of the moment. I’m a happy subscriber.
This. There is not a single adult who wouldn't describe their aversion to youth voting as "protecting youth from their own innocent ignorance"... and yet those same adults seem completely incredulous when a kid, watching their future get increasingly mashed by climate change, division and greed, might take a personal interest in their own protection!
If only the right would say the bleeding obvious that voting from 16 would screw the scrum against them. But no, truth eludes as they cynically distort the arguments. We all see through the utter, contemptuous hypocrisy of the right and it’s disdain for the great unwashed (sorry, correction, “bottom feeders”. There are plenty of grown ups worse than the average 16 year old and, unfortunately, they have the vote. There, fixed it for you
This latest NO from National confirms an unfortunate trend. When one thinks back over the past few months, whether it be 3 Waters, Maori Health Authority, Voting age or RMA reforms (amongst others), whatever Labour proposes, National then opposes. It wasn't always like this, as an opposition party exists to improve legislation as well as oppose some legislation outright. By just threatening to throw out legislation if elected, National is making a rod for it's own back as over the past 50 or so years Labour legislation while in office has instead often been improved by a succeeding National government.
They are opposing them because they are all completely outrageous, which is why they change them late, without telling anyone, and pass them late at night under urgency.
Mmm Matt would you like to expand on the Voting Age or efforts to bring the agricultural emissions into the modern age or the RMA reforms. I think they were well signalled or not outrageous at all. But there again, that would depend on your point of view.
Here's an even better way to reduce the democratic deficit: New Zealand needs to follow the century-long law in Australia, and make voting mandatory for everyone who is eligible to vote and is present in the country on election day. Participating in elections, both national and local, should be a duty of citizenship.
Compare the voter turnout in Australia for the House of Representatives (91.01% in 2016, 91.89% in 2019, 89.62% in 2022) with voter turnout in New Zealand: in 2014 76.77%, in 2017 79.8%, in 2020 81.54% of registered voters.
Break those 2020 numbers down: 89% of people aged 65 to 69 voted, only 74% of those aged between 25 and 34, and even fewer, 65%, of eligible Maori in their late 20s. The young, especially the Maori young, surrender their futures to the old.
And the proportion of eligible voters who vote in local-body elections is only half that low voter turnout for general elections.
In 2017, RNZ interviewed politicians on whether voting should become mandatory. Former National prime minister Jim Bolger said he used to oppose compulsory voting, but now wondered whether it should be "a requirement of citizenship". "You can deface your vote if you like, but you have at least come up there and said ‘I don't like any of them’."
Former Labour prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer said it should be against the law to stay home from the voting booth. "If you are going to live in a democracy, which is supposed to be conducted by the people, for the people, then the people should have some duties. They should participate and they should vote."
In Australia, voting is compulsory in federal elections (since 1924) and in all state elections. In all states except South Australia and Western Australia voting for local council elections is also mandatory.
Tasmania made voting mandatory for council elections only in 2022. "We want to lift the community's engagement with the local government sector, and I am confident the passing of this legislation will do that," Tasmania’s Local Government Minister Nic Street said when he announced the change in June. "By making voting compulsory, we will lift community's perception of local government and its importance by bringing local council elections into line with state and federal elections."
In an essay ‘Australia’s experience of compulsory voting’ (abc.net.au 10feb2022) Matteo Bonotti and Paul Strangio write that: ‘Compulsory voting has a century-long history in this nation. Not only is it a durable feature of Australian democracy, but it is universally applied. Whenever an election is called, whether it be at the national, state or territory level, voters are obliged to turn out....'
They say compulsory voting in Australia has had a century of unambiguous success in achieving high voter turnout.
‘Perhaps most remarkable is how broadly supportive of the practice has been the public. This has been demonstrated by any number of public opinion polls and decades of Australian Election Study survey data….
‘Compulsory voting,’ they argue, ‘can help to realise political legitimacy better than voluntary-voting systems, thanks to its easy use and accessibility, its ability to produce high and socially even turnout, and its propensity to often … encourage greater levels of information, attention, and critical engagement among the public.
'Furthermore, compulsory voting can also contribute to political legitimacy understood in a slightly different way — namely, as the idea that laws and policies are politically legitimate only if they are justified by appealing to reasons that all citizens can accept at some level of idealisation.
'More specifically, in a parliamentary democracy … compulsory voting can contribute to public reasoning and political legitimacy by compelling public officials to pay great attention to a broad range of worldviews, interests, and demands, and, based on that information, provide reasons for laws and policies that appeal to the common good rather than to any specific sectarian interests.’
Here in New Zealand mandatory voting, in both general and local elections, would help to overcome that democratic deficit where the young, the brown, the renters surrender the course of their lives to governments chosen by the old and white and propertied.
I agree John. I would argue that the presence of CGT, higher investment, higher wages, better Union protection and (now) cheaper rents relative to income in Australia prove the point that higher voting rates matter, especially in the last decade or so.
The much better balance between local and central government taxes and investment are an indicator that higher participation at state level because of compulsion.
So, the adults in this country collectively refuse to take responsibility for passing it on to the next generation in at least as good a condition as it was when they became adults. Is the only answer to let children make the decisions?
We can but hope.
I used “NZ” here recently and got told it was offensive. Can someone please explain why that is? I do not want to inadvertently offend people.
Eh, I use "NZ" all the time -- it's shorter and if I'm on my phone I just don't have the thumb dexterity for extra characters. Also... New Zealand is currently our legal name.
Aotearoa is far more beautiful though -- the sound of it as well as the meaning -- and for all the historical arguments about where it did or didn't originate, it has a rich history. I hope to live to see it become our name.
I agree. I also think the initials NZ have great symmetry. Also, you can turn the screen 90 degrees and it’s the same.
Not only should 16+ get to vote, but they should get 3 votes until 30; 30-60 get 2 votes; and 60+ get 1 vote. Their 'civics education' will come from the weight of responsibility that they have an outsized influence in their own future
...I should also add, I feel like all this questioning the independence of media, judiciary, monetary policy etc that is going on - typified by David Seymour's statement about the court 'sticking to their knitting' is super-dangerous: Far, far more dangerous to our democracy than some naive 16-year-old voting for Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis, or whatever else those who don't want a lower voting age are afraid of.
Thanks Tim. I agree the attack on the courts is unattractive. And interesting, given many of ACT’s supporters would support the intervention of the US Supreme Court in recent years….
Haha, yes, ACT - All Contradictory Theories
Interesting idea. Seems to break the one-person-one-vote maxim. Thoughts?
Yes but, as you've pointed out in the past I believe, that maxim doesn't always hold: The 'ratepayer roll' being a prime example; and there's always the question of whether we all have equitable access to the time and place needed to cast a vote.
Of course, these things can be (theoretically) addressed, but it still leaves us with the unerring reality that political decisions play out over long timeframes, so inherently impact more those who are around longer... The trick might be to think of 'one-person' in the temporal, rather than spatial, sense!
Alternatively, introduce weighted voting based upon number of years left until average life expectancy: eg a 16yo’s vote counts as 66 points, 81yo’s vote as 1 point (definitely one way to radically and rapidly introduce intergenerational equity).
Release please Bernard. The same predominately older white property owning voters are also Climate change deniers and if not stopped will destroy it all for the young.
Patrick Medlicott
Honestly, I've stopped believing anyone who claims they're genuinely of the view climate change isn't happening. "Climate change denial" is code for "It won't be my problem and I just don't care that much". So yeah, as it gets harder and harder not to see that anyone alive 20 years from now will be in trouble over this one way or another, it's a position that's going to select for "I am older and a bastard".
I'm with Patrick - please open this one up.
Thankyou Maisie and Patrick. That’s done now. Sorry for the delay.
Could you shed a bit of light on how the court system works? I'm struggling to understand how the supreme court could rule that not dropping the voting age to 16 is a violation of the bill of rights act, but parliament still needs to make this happen (and 3/4 vote nonetheless!)? Surely if they've ruled this was inconsistent with the law, it would not be allowed to continue?
In NZ we have "Parliamentary Supremacy". It means Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants. Including laws that are inconsistent with other laws.
Of course there's some debate at the academic level about whether Parliament can truly be supreme. I don't think the former Chief Justice—Sian Elias—was a fan. And there's a famous thought experiment that comes up in most 1st year university courses about whether Parliament could legalise torture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v_New_Zealand_Poultry_Board
If the Attorney General thinks a law is going to break the Bill of Rights Act they do have inform Parliament. It's called a Section 7 report and you can see them all here: https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/section-7-reports/
But it's just to inform, they can still go on to pass the law.
Thanks Nick B. Parliament has primacy in our system, which doesn’t have a US-style constitution. The Bill of Rights only allows the courts to ‘admonish’ Parliament, rather than actually change anything.
Really interesting - I guess that’s good as it would prevent a court from legislating (as is too often the case in the US) but then there’s really nothing stopping overreach from parliament besides parliament itself is there?
How many children do you have and what are their ages Bernard ?
Bit of an invidious question, Warwick -- you're asking Bernard to breach his children's privacy, and simultaneously implying his opinion might be worth less than someone else's, depending on their age. (Or was this a joke? Maybe I'm just snappish this morning?)
Yes you are, but then who are you to answer a question put to the owner of this blog. Can he not answer for himself ?
Okay mate, I withdraw the attempt to be nice about this -- Bernard's welcome to speak for himself, but in my view your question is way over the line.
Thankyou Warwick and Leaflemming. I’m happy to divulge some things I know won’t hurt or affect my daughters. I’m 55 and my daughters are 29 and 21. They were educated here mostly and are still here. I think about them every day and wonder where they’ll want to live and how they’ll get by. I think constantly about their ability to secure futures for themselves here. This is my place and I want it to be their’s. But I know that housing costing 10 times income and a 2.5 degrees warming of the climate in their lifetimes makes that extremely difficult without some extreme intervention from me. This is the main reason I do this. I’m proud of what we’ve done so far. My idea of extreme intervention is podcasting and writing the shit out our political economy, and I’m lucky enough to be supported by you all to do it, along with the amazing Lynn and my daughters too. But the jury is still well out on their future. I have no valid expectations of grandchildren, but if it happens, I sure as hell want to be right there when and where they grow up. I want to be able to give them all a hug and a night of solid sleep when they need it.
And I want it to be in Aotearoa. I don’t want it to be an occasional zoom call and a Christmas holiday every year or two (covid permitting).
So I am happy to answer those questions. :)
Bernard
I think the starting point for the right to vote should be everyone gets to vote and there then needs to be a strong justification for why someone should be denied that right. I fail to see a good justification for why 16 and 17 year olds should be denied the vote.
If you are mature enough to vote, then does that mean you are mature enough to face the consequences of your actions in regular court, not the Youth Court?
Ditto the drinking age.
Personally, I believe that 'grown up' rights for teenagers should be allowed in steps and that everything isn't handed out at once: - drivers licences, alcohol, voting, Youth Court, etc.
The demographic tide in the USA skews heavily toward Democrat voting in the younger age groups.I suspect it will be the same here in Aotearoa New Zealand.Except Labour/Green/Te Parti Maori /TOP.In that context National and ACT coming out against lowering the voting age makes perfect sense.Selfish turkeys don't vote for an early Xmas.Also as their dry run in Auckland shows playing to the boomer vote gets good results electorally.
David Seymour has a great idea in only letting taxpayers vote.
We'll convert National Super to being tax-free and have a threshold of the first, say, $15,000 of income being untaxed. Voila, 90% plus of over 65's have just lost their vote.
But hang on you say. Everyone pays GST so everyone is a taxpayer. Why this fixation on income tax being the be-all and end-all of what is thought of as tax?
Ha! Thanks Steve. Just imagine if you limited the franchise to landowners and the test was whether they paid tax or not…
Great points on voters being engaged in the education system, and helping to sustain habits. I missed out by months for the 2011 election. The policies ended up affecting me with student allowance costs, particularly with the removal of student allowance for post graduate students. At least another 10k of student debt, thanks to that decision of the National government. Same for my wife, who had to take out massive loans for post graduate teaching education, to pay for living costs.
Funny how David Seymour and the libertarian mindset of 'no taxation without representation' doesn't apply here for future taxpayers. Perhaps he would support removal of voting rights for those aged 65, who draw more on our tax (ridiculous claim, I know)?
The irony of course is that many of ACT’s supporters pay little income tax and very low GST relative to their (mostly capital) incomes, which are largely untaxed.
If only the left would state the bleeding obvious that voting from 16 would screw the scrum in its favour. But no, truth eludes them while they cynically waffle about human rights and fairness. What bollocks.....just say yep, works for us cos more voters for us. We all see through the utter contemptuous hypocrisy of the left and its disdain for the great unwashed.
At least the other side admit openly it would not be in their interests...they should also drop the waffle about brains not being fully developed excuses. Plenty of grown-ups who are worse and they vote.
You're right that this is popular wisdom -- though if the right have come out and admitted they're in this for what they can get rather than arguing for some sort of fairness, I guess I've missed it -- but I'm not actually sure we know how 16 year olds would vote. It strikes me as the kind of thing we (all of us armchair pundits) routinely get very wrong indeed.
I think we should let 16 year olds vote because we let them consent to potentially creating another human being and it's rank hypocrisy to say that doesn't make them adults; but I have to admit... I also just want to find out what would happen.
I do a lot of mahi with teens and they tend not to have the obsession with left and right that old people do. Is it not understandable that teens won’t vote for climate change inaction or outright denial? Is it not understandable that they’d vote for policy that might mean they’ll have stable housing. If you break it down (and take a deep breath) it’s not a treat conspiracy. If the so-called right want more votes from young people - maybe stop fucking their future?
Please, no bad language.
There are many words that would describe the future.
Yeah about absolutely FUCKING it is the most accurate one.
Right on Emily!
I think there are occasions for the word and this is one of the my. My benchmark now is the Financial Times, which uses it to capture the mood and detail of the moment. I’m a happy subscriber.
Fucking is having sexual intercourse, which is mostly a pleasurable experience.
What the so-called right are doing is not a pleasurable experience for planet earth
or for the future generations on planet earth.
Therefore I disagree with your use of the word in this context.
I can almost guarantee that if Luxon and Seymour are doing the fucking it’s not a good experience Robert.
I hope Luxon's wife disagrees.
This. There is not a single adult who wouldn't describe their aversion to youth voting as "protecting youth from their own innocent ignorance"... and yet those same adults seem completely incredulous when a kid, watching their future get increasingly mashed by climate change, division and greed, might take a personal interest in their own protection!
If only the right would say the bleeding obvious that voting from 16 would screw the scrum against them. But no, truth eludes as they cynically distort the arguments. We all see through the utter, contemptuous hypocrisy of the right and it’s disdain for the great unwashed (sorry, correction, “bottom feeders”. There are plenty of grown ups worse than the average 16 year old and, unfortunately, they have the vote. There, fixed it for you
This latest NO from National confirms an unfortunate trend. When one thinks back over the past few months, whether it be 3 Waters, Maori Health Authority, Voting age or RMA reforms (amongst others), whatever Labour proposes, National then opposes. It wasn't always like this, as an opposition party exists to improve legislation as well as oppose some legislation outright. By just threatening to throw out legislation if elected, National is making a rod for it's own back as over the past 50 or so years Labour legislation while in office has instead often been improved by a succeeding National government.
They are opposing them because they are all completely outrageous, which is why they change them late, without telling anyone, and pass them late at night under urgency.
Mmm Matt would you like to expand on the Voting Age or efforts to bring the agricultural emissions into the modern age or the RMA reforms. I think they were well signalled or not outrageous at all. But there again, that would depend on your point of view.
Fair point on the rythm of change.
Here's an even better way to reduce the democratic deficit: New Zealand needs to follow the century-long law in Australia, and make voting mandatory for everyone who is eligible to vote and is present in the country on election day. Participating in elections, both national and local, should be a duty of citizenship.
Compare the voter turnout in Australia for the House of Representatives (91.01% in 2016, 91.89% in 2019, 89.62% in 2022) with voter turnout in New Zealand: in 2014 76.77%, in 2017 79.8%, in 2020 81.54% of registered voters.
Break those 2020 numbers down: 89% of people aged 65 to 69 voted, only 74% of those aged between 25 and 34, and even fewer, 65%, of eligible Maori in their late 20s. The young, especially the Maori young, surrender their futures to the old.
And the proportion of eligible voters who vote in local-body elections is only half that low voter turnout for general elections.
In 2017, RNZ interviewed politicians on whether voting should become mandatory. Former National prime minister Jim Bolger said he used to oppose compulsory voting, but now wondered whether it should be "a requirement of citizenship". "You can deface your vote if you like, but you have at least come up there and said ‘I don't like any of them’."
Former Labour prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer said it should be against the law to stay home from the voting booth. "If you are going to live in a democracy, which is supposed to be conducted by the people, for the people, then the people should have some duties. They should participate and they should vote."
In Australia, voting is compulsory in federal elections (since 1924) and in all state elections. In all states except South Australia and Western Australia voting for local council elections is also mandatory.
Tasmania made voting mandatory for council elections only in 2022. "We want to lift the community's engagement with the local government sector, and I am confident the passing of this legislation will do that," Tasmania’s Local Government Minister Nic Street said when he announced the change in June. "By making voting compulsory, we will lift community's perception of local government and its importance by bringing local council elections into line with state and federal elections."
In an essay ‘Australia’s experience of compulsory voting’ (abc.net.au 10feb2022) Matteo Bonotti and Paul Strangio write that: ‘Compulsory voting has a century-long history in this nation. Not only is it a durable feature of Australian democracy, but it is universally applied. Whenever an election is called, whether it be at the national, state or territory level, voters are obliged to turn out....'
They say compulsory voting in Australia has had a century of unambiguous success in achieving high voter turnout.
‘Perhaps most remarkable is how broadly supportive of the practice has been the public. This has been demonstrated by any number of public opinion polls and decades of Australian Election Study survey data….
‘Compulsory voting,’ they argue, ‘can help to realise political legitimacy better than voluntary-voting systems, thanks to its easy use and accessibility, its ability to produce high and socially even turnout, and its propensity to often … encourage greater levels of information, attention, and critical engagement among the public.
'Furthermore, compulsory voting can also contribute to political legitimacy understood in a slightly different way — namely, as the idea that laws and policies are politically legitimate only if they are justified by appealing to reasons that all citizens can accept at some level of idealisation.
'More specifically, in a parliamentary democracy … compulsory voting can contribute to public reasoning and political legitimacy by compelling public officials to pay great attention to a broad range of worldviews, interests, and demands, and, based on that information, provide reasons for laws and policies that appeal to the common good rather than to any specific sectarian interests.’
Here in New Zealand mandatory voting, in both general and local elections, would help to overcome that democratic deficit where the young, the brown, the renters surrender the course of their lives to governments chosen by the old and white and propertied.
Couldn’t agree. Start a movement. Open a Petion!
Great suggestion. This would not require a 75% majority in parliament to pass?
It would, and the parties that oppose votes for 16-year-olds will oppose mandatory voting too.
While I broadly agree more people should vote, I do wonder if forcing people might, ironically, be a bit undemocratic?
Thanks Tim. You argue it’s a rights and responsibilities issue. Voting should be seen as a civic responsibility, as well as a right.
Bummer!
My earlier reply shoulda read Couldn’t agree more!
I agree John. I would argue that the presence of CGT, higher investment, higher wages, better Union protection and (now) cheaper rents relative to income in Australia prove the point that higher voting rates matter, especially in the last decade or so.
The much better balance between local and central government taxes and investment are an indicator that higher participation at state level because of compulsion.
So, the adults in this country collectively refuse to take responsibility for passing it on to the next generation in at least as good a condition as it was when they became adults. Is the only answer to let children make the decisions?
Why is it such a big deal, let them vote
Those pushing against it in Parliament is a fine indicator of who doesn't represent their interests
Such a great post Bernard thank you so much.
Thankyou Emily.