Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today two proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that a letter has been received from Senator Siewert:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

'The suggestion that young Australians aged 18, 19 and 20 be blocked from participating in democracy by raising the voting age to 21.'

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the Clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this issue today, and it's an important issue because we know that right here in this place there is a member of this Senate, Senator Pauline Hanson, who has suggested that young people aged between 18 and 21 should not be allowed to vote. She's said it several times. She said it on national television only two weeks ago. She was given an opportunity to clarify, and she doubled down. Senator Pauline Hanson thinks that young people do not deserve the right to vote. She wants to strip Australians aged 18, 19 and 20 of their right to vote, a right they currently have. That's almost a million young people that Senator Hanson believes don't deserve to have their say, apparently because, in her own words, they don't have jobs, they don't pay taxes and they know nothing about politics. What a load of rubbish! In Australia, of course, you can be working long before you're aged 21. You can get married. You can run a business. You can even sit in the federal parliament currently, and, of course, you can even serve in the Australian Defence Force. It is just unthinkable that Senator Pauline Hanson would suggest that young people don't have a right to have their say.

If it came down to the arguments that Senator Hanson has put out as to why young people shouldn't have a right to vote—she says they're not informed enough to vote and they lack experience, knowledge or intelligence—I tell you what: I wonder what Senator Pauline Hanson would do being right here. She would be the first out the door if it came to having to be informed about the issues that we debate in this place—and quickly after her, may I point out, Senator Malcolm Roberts as well, and probably the rest of her merry, silly men.

The truth is young people are engaged in politics. They desperately want to have their say, and they have every right to. Just in the last couple of months, we've seen almost 100,000 young people sign up to the electoral roll so that they could have their say in the marriage equality postal survey. The majority are voting yes. The question is: why would Senator Hanson want to strip these young people of their right to have their say? Well, it's just like how One Nation want to gag and cut funding to the ABC because they don't like what the ABC reports, and so it follows. One Nation don't like what young people think, what they care about and how they vote. Because they don't like it, they don't want them to have their say.

Once this issue was made public, once Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation confirmed they didn't think young people should have the right to vote, the phones in electorate offices ran hot, letters to the editor were typed out and the social media frenzy was on. Young people across this country are outraged that they risk having their right to vote taken from them.

You might think this is some fringe, crazy idea, but, of course, One Nation sit in this chamber and negotiate day in, day out with the government. They say all the time, 'We want to get our policy through.' They demand concessions from the government. They wanted to cut the ABC. They wanted to beat up on the ABC and the public broadcasters. Now look what's happened: the government have rolled over for them.

So we can't be complacent. Young people have every right to feel terrified and angry that Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation want to disenfranchise them come the next election. It is simply unfair that we live in a nation where we could send somebody to war, where we sign young people up to be in the Defence Force, and yet we have a senator in this parliament who says those same young people don't deserve a right to have their say in a democracy.

It is just mean-spirited, pathetic and gutless that One Nation would say these young people don't deserve their right to have their say because One Nation don't think that young people vote for their political party. Well, guess what: not every person in Australia believes and agrees with what the Greens say, not everybody agrees with and believes in what the government says and not everybody agrees with what any political party in this place says, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to have their say and a right to cast their vote. It is a democracy.

At a time when we should be encouraging more people to participate, particularly young people, it is just gutless and pathetic to have a leader of a political party in this place suggest that over a million current voters should have their vote stripped from them. The arguments for it are that they don't have a job; they don't pay taxes; they don't have any idea of what's going on. Okay, we all know that that's rubbish and not true, but who comes next then?

Once One Nation have stripped the rights for young people to vote, who will they come after next? Will it be Muslim Australians? Asian Australians? If it's about not paying taxes, will it be people on the disability pension? We heard Senator Malcolm Roberts say earlier today that he thinks that people on welfare live better than kings did 200 years ago. Are we going to start taking the right for people to vote away from those who are on welfare benefits?

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let them eat cake!

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it simply: no vote, but let them eat cake? Are these the bright ideas coming from the One Nation political party? You don't like what people say and you don't like how they vote, so you're going to gag them, disenfranchise them and ban them from the electoral roll. It's pathetic, but it's dangerous. Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation are no friends of young Australians.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find myself in an interesting position in this debate, in the middle of two equally silly propositions. On one side we have One Nation, which is very naively and ridiculously proposing to disenfranchise young people by removing their right to vote—to turn back the clock more than 40 years and take away the rights of about a million Australians to vote. That is obviously a ridiculous and silly proposition and, I'll say from the outset, not one that the government endorses or will entertain or will enact.

But equally, on the other side of the coin, we have, in my view, an equally silly notion from the Greens that we should lower the voting age to include 16- and 17-year-olds. I only came in halfway through Senator Hanson-Young's contribution, so I'm not sure if she referred to it in this speech—she certainly didn't in the second half of her speech—but it's an idea that the Greens have promoted in the past that we should lower the voting age to include 16- and 17-year-olds.

We're smack bang in the middle of this debate. On the government benches we believe that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The existing voting age of 18 years makes eminent good sense. There is no need to increase it or lower it. There's no need to disenfranchise young people who already have the vote. To be honest, these ideas are so silly I think I'm going to seriously struggle to fill the 10 minutes that I've been allocated in this debate, but I will do my very best, and there are some important issues that can be discussed here.

As we all know, it's outlined in the Commonwealth Electoral Act that 18 years is the age at which you become entitled to vote. This issue was examined after the 2007 federal election when the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters discussed what the appropriate minimum age should be for provisional enrolment. They did recommend that the minimum age for voluntary provisional enrolment be lowered from 17 to 16 years but did not recommend lowering the voting age.

We believe that 18 is the right and appropriate age and should remain the legal age, because it is the age at which you are considered an adult in so many other areas of life. It is the age at which you are allowed to legally purchase alcohol. You're allowed to legally gamble. You're allowed to become a company director or to sign a contract. It's an age where, if you wish to enlist in military service, you are most commonly first allowed to do so. These are very important decisions in someone's life, and we recognise that at 18 years of age you've amassed sufficient life experience, skills and knowledge to exercise those. It was last changed in 1973 to lower the age to 18, and we don't think that there's any need to revisit that.

My experience when I talk to young people—being a younger person myself—is that the age at which they have a right to vote is not their No. 1 concern. There are certainly plenty of precocious 16- and 17-year-olds—as I was once, as I know Senator McGrath was once, as I know Senator Dastyari was once, not all that long ago—that are very excited and anticipating their right to vote for the first time when they turn 18 and can't wait to have their say. None of them have seriously suggested to me that we should lower the voting or age or have lobbied seriously to do that. What they do approach me about is the issues that impact them. They're more interested in the way government impacts on their lives and the policies that government has that impact their lives than in the process and the detail of how it does so.

When I talk to young people, what I hear from them most consistently is concern about their economic future and a desire to know that, when they graduate from high school or university or any other study that they do, there will be a good job for them to find that they will be able to apply for and receive. They tell me about their concern about their ability to enter the housing market and their ability to pay off a mortgage. They are worried about housing affordability. They raise that with me consistently. They also raise with me the amount of debt that current generations are leaving to future generations.

I make these observations not in any partisan sense. These have always been the concerns of young people. I suspect they always will be the concerns of young people. If we are, in all seriousness, interested in addressing the things most important to young people, we would be much better advised to focus on these practical, real things that impact their lives.

That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that has a very strong focus on providing jobs and a strong performance in providing jobs. In the last 12 months 300,000 jobs were created, which is a remarkable achievement and which will ensure that young people finishing study and looking to enter the workforce for the first time have something to look forward to, a bright economic future to be excited about and something to apply for and strive for.

On housing, we all acknowledge that housing affordability is not good in this day and age. Young people do struggle with it, and my friends and people in my age group are chief amongst those who struggle with it. That's something this government takes very seriously and is addressing. One of the measures in the most recent federal budget was the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which allows young people to utilise the tax-preferred superannuation system to save for a deposit for their first home. This will allow them to save for a deposit more quickly and more easily than they otherwise would have been able to.

On debt, I noticed in the financial statement issued by the finance minister last week that gross debt is now at $560 billion. That's more than anyone in this place should be comfortable with and more than anyone in this place should want. It is something that we should all be working much harder to address and to lower. It is not moral at all to leave young people growing up today with the burdens of debt that this generation has accrued by spending more on consumption today than we have been raising in revenue to meet the costs of. There is nothing moral about that at all. It's something that needs, in my view, far stronger action to address. It's certainly something this government has attempted to address. Had it not been for our attempts, the state of the budget and state of debt would have been far worse today than they are. We've been able to significantly bring down the trajectory of debt increases that were bequeathed by the former government. We've managed to rein that in substantially, and we should be very proud of that, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more work to do.

It is incumbent on this chamber in particular to consider its role in assisting the government to do that. In recent years, many attempts the government has made to reduce spending in order to reduce the deficit and ultimately to begin paying back the debt and reducing the debt within our lifetimes have been thwarted by this chamber or, more accurately, by parties who used their numbers in this chamber to stop the government's attempts. I think they should reflect on that when they come into this place and say that they're here to be advocates on behalf of young people and young people's interests. They should think very carefully about the votes they have made in this place in recent years which have gone very much against the interests of young people who will soon, when they do graduate and take on jobs, begin to pay back not just the expenses of running the government of the day in their lifetimes but the expenses of running the government of our day in our lifetimes because we weren't able to do so. That's a profoundly immoral thing.

To re-emphasise, the government has no plans to lower or increase the age of voting. We think it's a distraction. We think it's unnecessary. We think we should be focused on much more practical and pragmatic issues that are on the top of the minds of most young people—particularly those who don't follow politics every day, who don't watch question time every day and who don't follow us on Twitter but who just want to get on with their lives. They're much more interested—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whoa!

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a hard concept to wrap your head around, Senator Dastyari! I know you in particular would be mortified to know there are young people who haven't seen one of your Facebook videos, but it's true. They are out there, and they're not particularly interested in your videos or my videos or in the voting age. What they are interested in is the economic security they hope to have when they grow up and the economic security they hope to have for their children when they eventually have them. It's worth pointing out the delicious irony, when we hear about the higher rates of engagement of young people with the marriage survey and, of course, the record enrolment of all people—but particularly young people—on the electoral roll as a result of the marriage survey, that those things came about due to a policy staunchly opposed by those opposite and those on the crossbench. In a funny way, young people have been motivated more by participating in this survey than any normal election, than any normal choice between political leaders, because it is an issue that affects them and their friends and they want to have their say on it. I encourage them and congratulate them for doing so.

The government will not be engaging in any consideration of this, recognising that it is, of course, really an attempt from One Nation to play to their base and the Greens to play to their base, when it's incumbent on parties of government to be sensible on these issues and not change things that don't need changing.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's incumbent upon me to begin by addressing the slanderous, offensive and hurtful comments of Senator Paterson moments earlier, when he seemed to say that there are young Australians out there who aren't interested in the social media videos of Australian politicians! I think the senator should take some time to reflect on those comments and perhaps give a personal explanation later in the chamber!

The ridiculousness of the proposition that we're going to actually look at increasing the voting age in this era is a demonstration of how obscenely out of touch One Nation are with a generation of future voting Australians. Not only are their views on issues like climate change clearly out of the ordinary, not only do their views on issues like marriage equality and other matters set them apart from young Australians, but they go so far as to try to disenfranchise them from participating in the political process. I have a different view than my party has on the issue of voting age. I have consistently had a different view from the Labor Party. And, of my many failures in Australian politics and certainly in Labor politics, one of them has been my inability to convince the Labor Party to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. It's a position I have had for a long period of time, it's one I have argued in party circles and it is one for which I have consistently lost every senior party vote that I've tried to win.

But I live in faith and I live in hope. I do believe there is a generation of young Australians that should be enfranchised, a generation of young Australians that can be enfranchised, and I'm sick and tired of this idea that we hear in politics a lot: that young people are not interested in politics or not interested in this and that. I think Senator Paterson was correct when he made the point that they may not be interested in organised politics as we know it but are certainly engaged on issues. They're certainly engaged on issues that matter to them. Have a look at the amount of energy and excitement involved in the postal survey, a survey that many of us believe shouldn't happen and doesn't need to happen. We kept hearing reports that young people weren't going to vote, that they weren't going to participate, that they weren't going to show up, and every bit of anecdotal and empirical evidence—that's right, empirical evidence—that we have available to us shows that they do care, they are interested and they want to engage.

Housing affordability is an issue across Australia. In particular it's an issue in our capital cities. Within our capital cities, perhaps in Sydney more than anywhere else, it is a huge issue. It is another issue where a generation of young Australians does care, is passionate and is interested. The notion that we will change our voting age in this vibrant, successful democracy for the sole purpose of disenfranchising more people is a ridiculous assertion. Frankly, I'd like to one day be in a position where we could be voting to lower it rather than to increase it.

On the issue of lowering it, I want to make one observation on the record. I note that, in cases like the Scottish independence referendum and at other times, there have been trials where different nations have been looking at 16- and 17-year-olds participating in the democratic process. I note that there is a slight misconception that younger voters are necessarily more progressive. I think an interesting observation—there's quite a bit of data that shows this—for those of us on the left of politics who may look at an age group of 18 to 24 and say, 'Well, 16- to 17-year-olds are likely to vote that way,' is that the data that exists actually shows they're disproportionately more conservative and less left wing than their counterparts who are a little bit older than them. There seem to be a lot of conspiracy theories that, when everyone talks about lowering the voting age, it's simply an attempt to put on more centre-left voters with the objective of stacking the system. Frankly, the data proves that it's not.

There is issue after issue that we need to be dealing with as a nation. There are long-term decisions on issues like climate, education, equality, simple economic sensibilities and the burden that will be placed on future generations if we have either debt growing the way it has been or increasing inequality and the consequences of that. To say that in this day and age the response to this should be excluding people from participating in the process, I think, shows just how out of touch One Nation is. Those who are 18 to 21 are making big decisions about their lives, and they have a big role to play in the future of this country.

But I tell you what makes it even more outrageous to be having this debate: today is the day that the New South Wales HSC has started. Can I just say to the many students who are going through the HSC today: it's not as big a deal as you think it is, but I'm glad I never have to go through it again. Still, 15 years later, I will occasionally wake thinking I have a HSC exam that I'm late to.

I admit I don't come to this with the best of records when it comes to attendance. In my final year of school I dishonourably graduated with 100 unexplained absences. That's right: I failed to show up to school on 100 different occasions, which, considering 12 weeks of leave and weekends, is quite an achievement in itself. How I was never expelled remains a mystery, and I'm using the Senate now to thank my year 12 principal, Tony Fugaccia from Baulkham Hills High School, for either having faith in me or realising the paperwork of expulsion wasn't worth it. I went on to university, where I failed at med school. I got kicked out of Sydney Law School by the dean, Gillian Triggs herself, unfairly for the sole transgression of not having shown up to five years of classes. This is the same Gillian Triggs who came on to become Human Rights Commissioner. I say to those in this chamber who speak ill of her: if you think you have a problem with Gillian Triggs, consider what it's like to be kicked out of law school by her. Finally, I finished my studies at the amazing Macquarie University.

My message is that we live in a land of better chances. Even though I wasn't good enough for high school, med school or law school—a decision that Gillian Triggs re-endorsed when recently launching my book—the good people of New South Wales, in their great wisdom, decided that they were going to give me the toughest punishment of all: they'd send me to the Australian Senate to be with you lot. Kids, good luck and best wishes. If you truly, really mess things up, I look forward to welcoming you to the Australian Senate.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure I can't even attempt to match Senator Dastyari's school and university pranks and liveliness, because I didn't know what a high school dropout was until I went to America and discovered that I was one!

I'm in two minds even about standing up and saying anything today in this debate, because I don't want to give any credence to such a loopy One Nation policy as this one. But I will have a go at one area, and that is that Senator Hanson has said that people shouldn't be voting at 18, 19 or 20 because they don't pay taxes. Well, there are some of us here who have been paying taxes since we were 15, when we left school and started work. I suspect that there were teenagers working at Senator Hanson's fish-and-chip shop who probably paid taxes, unless she was paying them under the table. There are a lot of kids who pay taxes at the ages of 15, 16 and 17. Certainly, they should be allowed to vote at 18. I don't agree with the Greens and Senator Dastyari about lowering the age to 16; I think that it should stay at 18. I certainly don't believe in lifting it to 21, but at 18, as other senators have said, you can vote, you can drive and you can get married. If you commit crimes then you will be tried in an adult court. You can gamble and you can go to the pub—all those sorts of things. And also at 18 you can enlist in the military and die for your country. You should be allowed to have the right to vote at any time that an election is called.

All I would say to Senator Hanson is that, when she says that 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds shouldn't have the right to vote in this country, she should go to Gallipoli. Go there, as some of us have done on Anzac Day, and walk through the graveyards in Gallipoli. See those tombstones at the bottom of the cliff there and see the ages of some of those young men who died for us and for the right to vote. They were 19 and 20, and some of them probably even lied about their age and they may have been 17 or 18. So we should leave the voting age at 18 years. I think this is a loopy idea.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in response to the matter of public importance submitted by Senator Siewert, a parliamentary colleague from Western Australia. Senator Siewert would like the chamber to discuss the suggestion—the suggestion—that young Australians aged 18, 19 and 20 be blocked from participating in democracy by raising the voting age to 21. I'm very pleased to be standing here tackling the big issues facing Australia today. I've been particularly entertained by Senator Dastyari's demonstration of his consistent lack of interest in any intellectual development over his lifetime, a record that he continues in the Senate today!

On this matter of public importance, we've heard some very sensible points raised by Senator Paterson, of course. But, as usual, we've heard some pretty serious nonsense—and headline-seeking nonsense at that—from those opposite and also from the Australian Greens. Wasn't it wonderful to see Senator Dastyari and Senator Hanson-Young on a unity ticket, providing the chamber with living proof of the very wise assertion of the poet Ogden Nash that you are only young once but you can stay immature indefinitely.

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you like that? In considering Senator Siewert's highly-loaded question, I note for the chamber that the most significant and memorable postwar changes to the Australian electoral system were to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18, which our parliament legislated in 1973.

We weren't the first country to do this. After World War II this policy was one that was rapidly expanded, echoed and implemented across established democracies worldwide. Switzerland was the final major democracy to lower the voting age from 21 way back in 1991. The Turnbull coalition government strongly believes that a legal voting age of 18 remains the appropriate marker, as at this stage it is the age at which a person is considered an adult in Australia.

I have nevertheless heard the numerous arguments for adjusting the current voting age. Those have pulled in both directions, and there are those, such as Senator Hanson, who argue that a legal voting age of 21 should be reinstated—that young Australians, and I am going to quote Senator Hanson here, 'Don't have any idea, they've never had a job and they have no understanding of politics.' This attempt by Senator Hanson to tar all 18- to 21-year-olds with the same brush, in my view, ignores the contributions that many young adults have made to our nation's development and prosperity over many years.

A reversion of the voting age to 21 is nothing more than a form of social regression. Since as far as back as the Boer War, we have sent Australians under the age of 21 to fight for our country and indeed—as Senator Hinch mentioned—to die for our country. Hundreds of thousands of employed Australians are between the ages of 18 and 21. They pay taxes, and they employ others. Also, over 165,000 young Australians under the age of 21 undertake voluntary work in our community. These are people that deserve a say. Reinstating the voting age to 21 is contrary to parliamentary democracies worldwide and will only hurt Australia's young adults who have made an active choice to participate in our nation's future. They have earned that right through their vast contributions to our country. It would be absolutely ludicrous to take that right away. As far as Senator Hanson is concerned, I think we can look upon this as a cheap attempt to bar, potentially, what she may consider as an unfavourable slice of our population from electoral participation.

True autonomy for most Australians is gained at the age of 18. We can marry at 18. We can drink at 18. We can gamble at 18. We may participate in a contract at 18. We may also appear in an adult court. The line must, however, be drawn somewhere, and common sense alone tells us that the age of 18 is an appropriate point for that line. Society has long accepted this to be true. Yet common sense is only one side of the story.

Another often parroted argument by those who advocate a lower voting age is that by doing so we would encourage political participation among our younger citizens. If this were the case, if there were evidence of this claim, don't think that the Turnbull government would not be looking at it. The Turnbull government would weigh it up. It would consider its implications, and it would make a balanced decision that delivered the greatest overall benefit to our country. This approach is what our party stands for. But, unfortunately, evidence of this claim of potential increased participation does not exist. A previous ANU study looked into this very matter and found that allowing 16- to 17-year-olds the vote would not actually make young people more politically engaged or create a fairer democratic system. This result echoes the findings of a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which, in its inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election, found that the voting age of 18 remains appropriate.

Improving the accessibility of our political system and encouraging young people to get involved with politics are an essential issue for the Turnbull government. This is reflected through more than 16 million people now being enrolled to vote. This is the largest electoral roll since Federation. It includes over 900,000 enrolment transactions just recently processed, between 8 August and 24 August alone.

I therefore advise Senator Hanson, the Australian Greens and Senator Dastyari to read somewhat deeper into the issue of the voting age before they utilise it as some sort of warped form of gerrymandering. The line must be drawn somewhere. If you take a reasoned and balanced view of the issue, one on which political pointscoring is not the primary focus, it is crystal clear that the current voting age is an appropriate and acceptable measure for our society.

Finally, I should inform the chamber that in preparation for my response to this matter of public importance I tasked a young man in my office, Mr Nick Henderson, to research a few of the statistics that I have mentioned today. Over the past few weeks, Mr Henderson has been working as a voluntary intern in my office and is today having his first experience of the strange life we lead in Canberra. Mr Henderson is an economics student at Monash University, where he was a recipient of the Sir John Monash scholarship for excellence and equity. He has also worked part time as a pizza chef, as a barista and in retail. He has volunteered at World Vision, and he has taught English in Cambodia. With a family member with autism, Mr Henderson has taken a personal interest in the rolling out of the NDIS and, in particular, in the certainty of its funding. While Mr Henderson has never been involved in student politics and is not a member of any political party, Mr Henderson is an astute and politically aware young man. Three years ago, Mr Henderson was not Mr Henderson; he was Master Henderson, a schoolboy, and he had done none of these things. He has done all of them since he left school. He's done all of them since he turned 18. Mr Henderson is now 20 years old.

Why would anyone want to deny a young man like Mr Henderson a chance to participate in the future of his country? Why, equally, would society bestow such a significant responsibility before Mr Henderson had the experience of any of the other responsibilities in life? This government will not be engaging with this debate, which is more about enhancing headlines than about enhancing democracy. It is more about better press than it is about better government. The Turnbull government is interested in making the lives of all Australians better, no matter what their age may be, by providing more opportunities, more jobs and a better future for all Australians.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of us in this place should believe in strengthening our democracy, and Senator Hanson and One Nation's suggestion of raising the voting age is beyond ridiculous. Young people in Australia want to be involved in decision-making processes in the same way all other Australians do and should be offered the opportunity to do so on the same footing as other Australians within our existing mandate. Encouraging young people to participate encourages transparency and engagement in community-centred action to improve decision-making processes in our nation. We need to value and acknowledge the contribution of young Australians through our accountable processes here in this parliament. This means that we believe that young people deserve a say at the ballot box about the future of our nation.

According to the most recent census, almost one million young Australians would lose their legal right to vote if the voting age was raised from 18 to 21. That's one million Australians who would be denied the right to vote. I know that Senator Hanson has contended that young people haven't had enough life experience or enough political experience or engagement yet, but the simple fact is that the very act of enrolling to vote—of coming on the roll and voting for the first time—is part of what triggers that engagement. I certainly remember, for my own part, when the Australian Electoral Commission doorknocked my home when I was 17, I was excited to be put on the electoral roll. During my very first vote the following year, I started to take an interest in political affairs, and more and more so until, indeed, I had joined a political party by the time I turned 21—I'd joined the great Australian Labor Party.

What my simple experience demonstrates, like that of millions of other Australians, is you can't arbitrarily delay voting and expect that everyone will be ready after that. You've got to get people on the roll and get them engaged to trigger them to relate to what's being discussed on the TV and relate to the fact that there is an election on. It's not something that you can just turn on once you turn 21.

The simple fact is there are many 16-year-olds today who have an interest and who are willing, ready and able to vote. I think that is, indeed, a worthwhile policy discussion. We should be having more young people engaged in our democracy, not fewer. Young people are active participants in our public life in this nation and active contributors to the taxation system. I had my first taxpaying job before I turned 18. In fact, by the time I had turned 18, I was on my second taxpaying job, having worked on the family orchard before that as a child and played a role within small business.

Those under 18 in our nation currently have no voice on decisions government makes today that impact them in the future, and yet we know that 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds are mandated to engage in adult activities. You can apply from 16 years and six months of age to commence military service at 17. You can get your drivers licence between 16 years and six months and 17, or 18 in Victoria. You can get your pilots licence for balloons and gliders from 16 and for aircraft from 17. You can get your firearms licence from 14 years of age in some states and territories. Young people make independent decisions about medical matters from the age of 16 and can be treated as independent, in terms of leaving home under particular circumstances, from the age of 16. If people under the age of 21 can be sent to war, drive on our roads and live independently, why is it that they can't be trusted to participate in our democracy and have a say at the ballot box?

I raised this issue in my first speech to the Western Australian parliament when I was elected there in 2001. I said very strongly that we should be examining lowering the voting age to 16. I said at the time that, as the majority of people at this age are at least as politically aware as other voters, they have their own articulate views and opinions to which members of parliament should be responsive and accountable. I still believe that this is the case. I can recall that, in the Shorten opposition's policies before the last election, it flagged the idea of expanding the electoral franchise so that more young people have the right to vote at future federal elections. We said that in government we would consider inviting young people to come onto the roll from 16, which you currently can do, and that, once you're on the roll, you would legally be able to exercise the right to vote. It means that we could maintain the very important principle of compulsory voting but give that time for young people when they're ready—and many of them are—to come onto the roll and start to exercise that political and civic engagement, which so many of them are ready to do.

I meet young people every other day in this country, visiting schools, visiting different communities and visiting Girl Guides and Scouts who are very engaged in political discussion, very engaged in their local communities and very ready to vote on the issues before us in our society. We know this from the fact that we have seen more than 65,000 18- to 24-year-olds get on the electoral roll in the marriage postal survey. They are mad keen to have their say on this issue, and yet Senator Hanson would like to take that voice away from about a million young people. So I believe that young people are appalled at what Senator Hanson stands for in this regard, and I guess it's no surprise, really, that Senator Hanson wants to stop them from having their say.

We in this place should be ensuring that young people have a say in our future. Young people should not be disenfranchised from politics. We should be encouraging their participation more than ever. When reflecting on the idea that we need to give young people a greater say, not a lesser say, I truly believe this extends to how we consult with children and young people more broadly in our society. For example, one of the organisations that government funds is the CREATE Foundation. The CREATE Foundation is a very critical organisation that represents the needs of young people in care. These are young people whose parental guardian is the state—who have no other legal parent. They have expressed strong views about how the policies and practices of government treat them in terms of their foster care, their family placements and the day-to-day management of their lives. So, as to the issues of the state, in terms of how we affect young people—be they in care or in education, be it as to their medical care or any aspect of their lives—their views are valid and need to be considered by this place and by every level of government.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me put it on the record: this is not a One Nation policy; it's my personal opinion. So that's on the record, all right? You're all saying it is a One Nation policy. Just get it straight.

I love the hypocrisy in this place! Absolute hypocrisy! You have Labor and the Greens saying, 'Everyone should have their vote'—and they want to lower it to 16 years of age. Well, who wanted to stop the plebiscite on marriage equality? Labor and the Greens. They didn't believe that Australians should actually be voting on it but that it should be up to the parliament. So look at the hypocrisy of it. They say that people should have the right to vote—but not when it comes to a marriage equality bill; no way in the wide world. They wanted to stop that because they know better than the average voter out there!

Yes, the voting age was 21 until it was lowered in 1973 because of national conscription. I like the reference to Turkey and the grave sites. I'm not being disrespectful at all to those people, because my grandfather fought at Gallipoli. The whole fact is: the voting age at that time was 21. Yes, people went and fought for this country, but the times then were totally different because the youth finished school at around 13 years of age, if not younger. These days, the kids are still at school until 18 years of age and then they go straight on to university.

The Greens say that the voting age should be lowered to 16, as have the Labor Party under Bill Shorten. In 2015 he suggested the voting age be lowered to 16. So he is in line with Senator Dastyari.

Anyway, let's just look at this. There are a few countries around the world that do have a voting age of 21. The lowering of the voting age from 17 to 16 was rejected by Luxembourg, by 81 per cent of voters, in June 2016. They didn't want it lowered to that age. Eighty one per cent said no way in the world did they want to do it. And it was actually rejected here in Canberra as well.

Senator Pratt talks about how many people got onto the voting roll: 65,000. Well, isn't that impressive? But the AEC found that, in 2013, in the federal election, 25 per cent of young people aged between 18 and 24 failed to enrol to vote. That's over 400,000 people. Studies show that young voters are not engaged or interested in the electoral process. How many times do we have kids voting—and I'm talking about those who are 18 plus—who have no idea who they're going to vote for or why they should vote for them and no idea of policies, and who ask their parents who they should be voting for? That is the case. I meet people on a regular basis that have no understanding—and I'm not talking about 18- to 21-year-olds; I'm talking about people of older generations who don't even understand the workings of parliament. You ask them the difference between local, state and federal, and they can't even tell you.

Another thing is: this parliament and the political parties in this place have kept people in the dark and treated them like mushrooms when it comes to the preference system, because they don't want them to be informed of where their preferences go. So people are totally confused, not only about voting but even about where their preferences go. It suited the major political parties in this place to keep people in the dark.

Senator Hanson-Young makes a comment that I'm fearmongering or just creating debate so people can have a say on this. I think there are more important things to talk about in this chamber than this because no private senators' bill has been put up by myself or the party to actually reduce the voting age.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, I will just say that Senator Hanson only has 18 seconds to go. She should be heard in peace.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I would say to Senator Hanson-Young: is she terrified of me? No. I suggest she go and look at my Facebook page, Pauline Hanson's Please Explain. She will see over a thousand comments terrified of Senator Hanson-Young and saying why she shouldn't be in this place. (Time expired)

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is so good to know that the proposal to increase the voting age to 21 isn't One Nation policy; it's just Pauline Hanson's personal opinion—personal opinion that is completely out of touch, however, as are almost all of the rest of One Nation's policies when it comes to the interests of young people.

This proposal to increase the voting age to 21 takes us back a very long time. The Australian voting age was reduced to 18 in 1973. That was 44 years ago. Attitudes and our whole way of life have changed so significantly since 1973. Of course, 1973 was the first year of the Whitlam government, after 23 years of conservative rule—conservative rule, I think, that Pauline Hanson's policies would have been more consistent with. In the US, it was the time of the Watergate scandal—that corrupt politician was that long ago. It was the year that the last episode of Laugh In was produced—a show which had that memorable line, 'Very interesting, but stupid', and I think that sums up Pauline Hanson's proposal to increase the voting age to 21. It's not surprising that Senator Hanson wants to discriminate against and disenfranchise a million young Australians. It's consistent with the intolerance and discrimination that One Nation shows every day in this parliament towards people that don't agree with them.

It's absolutely right that young people do not support the hurtful, bigoted, simplistic, racist policies of One Nation. They are sick of being screwed over. They want people to be treated fairly and equitably. Young people want to have a fair go for all. In particular, people between the ages of 18 and 21—or even people between the ages of 16 and 18, who the Greens think should be able to vote—have a view of an Australia that is so different to the view of Australia that One Nation have. I'm not just making this up. There was a survey that was done by Youth Action and the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth shortly before the 2016 election. It surveyed 3,400 12- to 25-year-olds to ask them what was important for them and what policy outcomes they would like to see out of the 2016 election. Not surprisingly, it is a list of policy proposals that are light-years away from and absolutely diametrically opposed to the policy positions of One Nation.

Young people that were surveyed wanted to see high-quality education. They wanted to see increasing funding to education, increasing access to education and more funding and more resources for local unis and TAFEs. One Nation's low-tax, small-government policies would decimate education. Young people wanted to see better access to health services, including better access to mental health and dental health, and that means giving our health services the resources to be able to fund these programs that are so essential for young people. Young people wanted urgent action on the environment and urgent action on global warming, unlike the troglodytes of One Nation, who even refuse to acknowledge that global warming is real and is based in science. These young people are way past that. They know that it's real and that it is their futures that are at stake. They don't want to see the Adani coalmine opened. They want to see action. They want to see us transition to 100 per cent renewable energy. They're the sorts of policies and actions that young people want, and these are the people that Pauline Hanson would disenfranchise. One person said, 'I will inherit this earth, then my children after me, their children after them, and so it continues. I don't want my kids to inherit a wasteland, or to have to ask what stars, rhinos and forests look like because some power-hungry politicians couldn't get their priorities straight. They need to stop playing the game.'

Finally, the particular thing that young people said was a priority for them was social justice, with marriage equality right at the top of the agenda, as well as support for people seeking asylum and Aboriginal rights. One person was quoted as saying, 'I'm gay and trans and very rarely feel safe, and I hope that one day I will.' With the policies of the Greens, they will; with the policies of One Nation, that day would be a very long way away. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.