Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say I am thrilled to speak to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 this afternoon. For far too long, politics has failed to properly represent young people or the issues we care about. There are many within this place and beyond who think young people don't care about our world or haven't earned the right to participate in our society from a perceived lack of experience or maturity. There are those who do not or cannot look to the future and, for that reason, see young people as a threat. In fact, many in this place see the disengagement of my generation from politics as politically convenient, even ideal. Young people need some political capital. Young people need some leverage.

There are almost 600,000 of us who are, by and large, deemed to be adults by our society and yet cannot participate in the decisions being made about their future. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds can work full time, pay tax, contribute to superannuation, drive a car and own a car and therefore pay stamp duty to contribute to maintenance of our roads and public transport infrastructure. They can legally have sex and make medical decisions about their bodies. They can join our political parties, all except, of course, the absent Ms Hanson's party. In many cases, they can be treated as an adult by our criminal justice system. In short, they cannot vote although they are treated in many ways by our society as adults.

The rise of digital media means that my generation is plugged into the 24-hour news cycle and is taking part in actions and activism to shape their world. They care deeply about the issues and they care deeply about the future of all of us. They don't see politics as representative of them at this current time, but this is our problem as legislators, not theirs as citizens. In the last few years there has been a surge of young people making their voices heard about issues that matter to them. The marriage equality plebiscite and Justice for Elijah are just two key examples from the Australian context. From a global perspective, March For Our Lives and the Black Lives Matter movements have been led from the front by young people.

My generation will have to live with the consequences of the decisions made in this place for the longest time. The fact that I am the youngest person in this place by close to a decade, and that I am the only person under the age of 30, speaks volumes about the lack of representation of Australia's young people in our political system. It is time we recognised 16- and 17-year-olds and their contribution. It is time we recognised they should have the right to a vote and that they make an enormous contribution to our society.

This a matter of importance not just for my generation but for everyone in this place who has a child or has grandchildren and is concerned about the world they will inherit—the world that we are crafting here. Your children and grandchildren will live with the consequences of the decisions we make in this place. On some days, that is a rather terrifying thought. It is true in Australia that young people aged between 18 and 24 are more disengaged from politics than other demographics, but they are not alone in their feeling of disenfranchisement, their feeling of frustration and their feeling that this place and the governments that reside in it can, should and must do so much better. Imagine if your life and your future were being shaped by others and yet you had no say? Young people care deeply about issues and they care deeply about their future. It is politics that does not care about them. It is our political system that is letting them down.

It is not hard to understand why, when you consider that the average age of a politician in this place is over 51 and when you consider that there are only three of us under the age of 35, and yet that same age bracket, the under 35s, represent more than 40 per cent of the population. This is not genuine representation. It is little wonder that young people feel ignored and shut out. Yet, the old parties—the Liberal Party, the National Party, and, sadly, Shorten's Labor Party—spend most of their time squabbling over who can give the biggest tax cuts, trying to buy votes for the next election instead of implementing policies to create a positive, fair future for the next generation.

What this bill seeks to do is lower the voting age to 16 in Australia, whilst leaving the age of compulsory voting at 18. This will serve as a grace period for young people, allowing us to familiarise ourselves with our electoral process without the fear of being penalised. It will facilitate greater civics education and allow teachers to bring the democratic process, not partisan politics, into the classroom in a tangible way. It will foster a culture of civic participation among young people, leaving them in good stead for the rest of their lives, as we know that voting is, in fact, a habit. We want them to form this habit early, so that it stays with them.

To give the chamber an example, in Scotland during the independence referendum in 2014 a decision was made to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote and to participant for the first time. Almost 80 per cent of that age group turned out—and the cohort now continues to turn out—at much higher rates than their predecessors, who weren't given an earlier opportunity. In Austria, the 16- and 17-year-old demographic has a higher level of participation than the 18- to 25-year-old demographic, proving that this kind of reform works.

Finally, this bill seeks to update our archaic electoral practices that say you are not allowed to participate on election day if you have not updated your details on the electoral roll. It is 2018, and we should be flexible enough in our system to allow people to do so at a polling place on polling day.

It is time to lower the voting age to 16 in Australia and show our young people that we here in this place hear them, that we care about their opinions and that we are working for their future. I thank the chamber for its time.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this issue and to thank Senator Steele-John for the opportunity to speak to him earlier today about this bill and his cooperation in some of the things that we are planning to do to advance the particular proposal that the Greens have brought forward to the chamber. I did indicate to Senator Steele-John that we did have some concerns about the way in which the legislation was introduced into the parliament only a few days ago. When we come to consider something as significant as this particular change, from the Labor Party's point of view, we would have preferred more time to consider the implications of the legislation. More particularly, we would have preferred—as you would know, Acting Deputy President Gallacher—to go through all of the appropriate party processes that are required to settle on a particular course of action within the Labor Party.

I'm pleased that, in having some discussions with Senator Steele-John, we've reached agreement that—and I think the government supports this position—the issues that are addressed in this bill should be given full and proper consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That is the appropriate committee, as it deals with these sorts of issues, and it's an opportunity for the committee to look at the proposals in finer detail, rather than for us to be required to vote on the issue after only having seen the bill a few days ago and without what I would consider to be more detailed consideration.

It's important to say that the Australian Labor Party has a proud history of advocating for the extension of the electoral franchise. It was the Labor government in 2012 who introduced automatic enrolment provisions, extending the right to vote to thousands of disenfranchised voters across the country. Similarly, prior to the last election, the Labor Party announced a broad strategy to engage young Australians in the political system and to empower them to drive and guide change. There are a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds who work, pay tax, earn penalty rates, drive on our roads and use public services. We owe it to them to give respectful consideration to this, and we're happy to have that conversation.

At the time of announcing the 2016 election policy, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, committed that an incoming Labor government would consult on the issue appropriately prior to recommending a change in the legislative provisions. It is still our belief that this important and substantial issue, which carries with it significant implications, requires appropriate consultation. Therefore, it is not adequate to simply debate legislation without a considered review process. It is the Labor opposition's position that we strongly recommend that the issues canvassed in the Greens' bill be referred to the committee for review, specifically to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It's extremely important that we engage young Australians. It has probably never more important than it is right now, when we have a government that has declared war on young people. This bill has a number of facets that each deserve to be discussed, consulted on and investigated in a thorough way. It's for this purpose that we believe that the JSCEM committee is the appropriate one for the review.

Turning to the Greens bill itself, the bill seeks to do three main things: lower the voting age in Australia from 18, as it is currently, to 16; introduce voluntary voting for 16- and 17-year-olds; and introduce election day enrolment for all Australians. It also seeks to lower the enrolment age from 16 to 14. Each of those provisions potentially has significant implications for our electoral system, and, as such, should be considered carefully through an informed review process. Debating them here today at very short notice does not do justice to the importance of engaging with young Australians and, more broadly, the extension of the electoral franchise in this country.

We're here today to talk about the bill that the Greens have put forward, and there are a number of issues that I think we need to explore. The Future of Australian Governance stream at the Australia 2020 Summit called for optional enrolment to vote and voting to be introduced for Australians aged 16-18 years. The communique from the Australia 2020 Youth Summit in 2008 recommended:

To build a more participatory 2020, the age at which people are eligible to vote must be lowered to 16. Sixteen-year-olds work, pay income tax, pay GST, drive, and can join the army. They must be enfranchised so they can have a say in Government policies that affect them.

Those are some of the arguments that have been advanced in favour of lowering the voting age in some way. Others include: that youth have a substantial enough stake in the nation's governance to justify being given a voice in how the nation is governed; that 16- and 17-year-olds are sufficiently mature and sufficiently educated to vote; and that a reduced voting age could improve the relevance and, hence, effectiveness of existing civic education programs and lead to more political engagement and participation.

There have, of course, also been several arguments advanced against the idea of lowering the voting age. Those arguments include: that the public do not support lowering the voting age; that, internationally, very few countries have lowered the voting age beyond the age of 18; that youth may have insufficient maturity or life experience to vote; and that some young people show high levels of apathy about politics.

There are, of course, numerous ways in which Australia could seek to enfranchise youth. Various proposals and ideas exist, and no doubt there are aspects of other models that are worthy of investigation through an appropriate review of this bill. Some of those alternatives have included: compulsory voting to be extended to 16- or 17-year-olds; 16- or 17-year-olds be permitted to vote on a voluntary basis; voluntary enrolment for 16- and 17-year-olds, with voting to be compulsory for those who are enrolled; the right to vote at 16 or 17 be for those who are exercising or affected by other rights and responsibilities, such as joining the armed forces, working full time or paying tax; or different voting ages for different levels of government like in Germany and Italy, where the voting age is lower for local elections than for national elections.

I'd like to make some comments about the issue of voluntary voting. The idea of introducing an element of voluntary voting to Australia's electoral system is one that definitely needs to be very carefully considered. Even if voluntary voting were to only be made available to 16- and 17-year-olds, it would have the potential to significantly impact on our electoral system. The transition from voluntary voting as a 16- or 17-year-old to compulsory voting at 18 years of age has the potential to introduce confusion. We know that, even without lowering the voting age, there are a number of young Australians who, for various reasons, are not enrolled to vote. There are also a number who are enrolled but do not exercise their right to vote. To introduce a voluntary lead-in could exacerbate this. Again, the complexities of this particular aspect of what the Greens are proposing require serious consideration, which would be best achieved by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

There's also the issue of election day enrolment. That's another issue which I think needs some attention, as I've indicated to Senator Steele-John. One idea is enrolment on election day. As I mentioned earlier, Labor have a proud history of advocating for the extension of the electoral franchise, which is why we introduced automatic enrolment provisions in 2012. Election day enrolment in some US states and in Canada usually requires electors to provide a prescribed proof of identity document to the staff to establish their eligibility before being registered and allowed to vote. For example, in Minnesota, which introduced election day registration in 1973, eligible electors who have not registered by the close of registration, which is 21 days before the election day, are required to appear in person at the polling place for the precinct in which they reside, complete an application to register, make an oath in the prescribed form and provide proof of residence.

Arguments advanced in favour of election day enrolment in those places that use it have included increased voter turnout and reduced barriers to electoral participation. However, Australia's compulsory voting system means that we generally have higher voter turnout, and Labor's automatic enrolment forms have already significantly reduced barriers to electoral participation. Those arguments for election day enrolment are probably less relevant here in Australia. Arguments against election day enrolment in jurisdictions that allow it have concluded that it does not allow sufficient scrutiny of the voter's credentials, that it might allow people to cast multiple votes at different polling places and that a lack of voter interest and motivation are more significant barriers to participation than enrolment requirements.

In Australia, arguments against election day enrolment might include that one of the key benefits of the present system is that the qualifications of a person seeking to enrol are tested and verified in a structured way in advance of polling day. Election day enrolment would significantly impact on the efficiency of the polling process, with a greater number of voters having to fill out a greater number of forms at the polling booth. That complexity in determining a person's qualifications might make it necessary for some people to cast a declaration vote, which would have implications for the speed at which the election result could be finalised. Also, it could result in an overreliance on election day of electors enrolling or updating their enrolment details rather than updating their details when their address changes.

The resources that are required to facilitate election day enrolment must also be considered. Elections already require a huge nationwide deployment of significant resources at significant expense to the taxpayer. Introducing additional processes which will require additional resources and additional funding should not be contemplated without detailed research into the potential costs and other resourcing requirements.

Our parliament makes decisions that have incredibly important implications for the future of our nation, decisions that shape the future for all Australians. It is, of course, our young people who will live that future and so we have a great responsibility to carefully consider matters that will have an impact on young Australians as we deliberate on and debate policies in this place. Labor have always and will always seek to engage with young people on their hopes, dreams and visions for the future of Australia, because we understand it is their future. That's why it's important that we engage young people with democracy and encourage and empower them to understand that their voice counts too. We listen, but, sadly for young Australians, all too often their voices fall on deaf ears when it comes to the government in this country.

We've seen on a regular basis the appalling disconnect between the Turnbull government and young Australians. We've seen the $17 billion that Malcolm Turnbull is slashing from our schools—$17 billion denied to Australian schoolchildren just so Malcolm Turnbull can give his big business buddies and the banks a tax handout. Labor will restore every dollar of that $17 billion that Mr Turnbull has cut from schools. We will always put schools and services before banks. We've seen the Turnbull government's complete disregard for young Australians in its $2.2 billion cut to university funding. Everything that Malcolm Turnbull does makes it harder for Australians to go to university. These cuts mean that fees will go up, and they effectively cap the number of places. Malcolm Turnbull went to university for free to get his law degree but now thinks too many kids do law, and wants those that do to pay more for it. He will do anything to protect what he thinks should be an exclusive club for the rich. This government has also slashed about $3 billion in recent years from TAFE and apprenticeship funding. They're spending billions of dollars less on schools and university education, ensuring that fewer young Australians can go to university at a time when they're slashing billions from other forms of postsecondary education and vocational training. Labor understands the importance of educational opportunities for young Australians. That's why we'll conduct a national postsecondary school inquiry.

This government has presided over a penalty rate cut for hundreds of thousands of Australian workers, many of them young people trying to pay their way through university, which is only going to be more expensive thanks to the Liberal cuts. Millionaire Malcolm Turnbull thinks the answer to housing affordability issues—another matter that is particularly pressing for many young Australians—is for their parents to shell out and buy them a house. No doubt he can afford to do that, but most Australian parents can't, and most young Australians know that. That's the point at the heart of why Labor is and has always been acutely aware of how important it is that we engage with and represent young Australians. The alternative for young Australians is an arrogant, out-of-touch Liberal Prime Minister who is more interested in giving billions of dollars to big business and big banks than he is in helping young Australians get a quality education, find a good job and be able to afford a house.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell has just offered no real position from the opposition on the issues raised by the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 and has instead decided to spend his time sledging the government on a range of matters not truly raised by the bill itself.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have offered a very direct position in respect of this matter: the reference to JSCEM.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to afford this chamber the respect of dealing with the issues raised by the bill. Senator Steele-John's proposals are well intentioned. The desire to engage young people with democracy is exceptionally important. It is a principle the government supports wholeheartedly, and it's why we see so much support from the government for the programs already in place to raise the profile of civics in the education system. It is an important part of the curriculum that is taught within Australian schools. The AEC's National Electoral Education Centre at Old Parliament House provides face-to-face education programs for about 90,000 students each year. There is the Democracy Rules resource provided by the government, also through the AEC, to help with education on these issues. The ABC provides a wonderful resource, with materials for primary and secondary educators to use, to share the story and the rules of democracy with young people. The AEC provides classroom resources and student education, and the Museum of Australian Democracy hosts thousands of students a year, not to mention the many schoolchildren who come through this parliament every day, learning about the electoral system. There's the National Indigenous Youth Parliament, hosted by the AEC to help improve electoral participation by young Indigenous people. All of these programs have in their heart the importance of engaging young people with democracy.

But, if we look at what is proposed by this bill, we need to ask quite sincerely whether or not it is going to achieve that important end, and it doesn't. Let's start with some of the data. A study that was conducted on behalf of the ACT Legislative Assembly in 2007, released in September, researched the level of interest of young people in a lowering of the age of receiving the franchise. It observed that, when young people are first entitled to enrol to vote, which is at the age of 17—that doesn't give them the vote, of course; it just gives them the opportunity to join the roll in preparation for their ability to vote at the age of 18—only 27 per cent of young people seize that opportunity. Now, it is an optional measure at that age, and that does affect the data. We must take that into account and look at it fairly. That study noted that the Democratic Audit of Australia saw that there was no clear demand evident from young people for a lowering of the voting age to 16 and that young people do not seem to consider the franchise to be among their top priorities at present.

If we turn to some of the other research that's been conducted on this subject, in the study by Professor Ian McAllister in The politics of lowering the voting age in Australia: evaluating the evidence, the arguments for and against the lowering of the voting age were canvassed and, importantly, data examining the support in the community and among young people for such a measure was given some scrutiny. We start with this: among the voting population as a whole, what appetite was there for the lowering of the voting age? Well, three per cent of voters thought it would be worthwhile to lower the voting age to 16, and a further three per cent were softer on that point. They thought it probably would be worth lowering the voting age to 16. That contrasts with 22 per cent of people believing that it should probably stay at 18 and 72 per cent of people saying it definitely should stay at the age of 18.

We need to examine the reasons behind those strongly held views in the Australian community. Arguments about equity were front of mind the last time the issue of whether or not to lower the voting age in Australia came to the fore—and, of course, resulted in the lowering of the voting age to 18. In that circumstance, there was the historical context of many young Australians having gone to war and fought at ages younger than that at which they would have been able to vote. Similar equity arguments have been made to justify lowering the voting age now to 16.

Let's look at some of those comparative measures. In Australia, the age of appearing in an adult court, the age at which one is regarded as criminally responsible as an adult in most circumstances, and the age at which one is free to marry without requiring any special permissions are 18 in almost all circumstances. There are some other government regulated activities that have a lower minimum age. One can obtain a driver's licence earlier, and one can seek to engage in some military service at 17. There are very few activities which have a minimum age of 16, with the exception of the age of consent and, in some circumstances, the holding of a firearms licence. So there really isn't the same weight behind the equity argument at present.

If we look to the argument that suggests it might enhance political participation, the evidence doesn't really support the proposition that political participation by young people would be enhanced by such a measure. If we compare it to countries with voluntary voting—and I note that that's slightly different to Australia's circumstances—there are arguments to suggest that lowering the age will increase voter turnout, because the earlier in life one forms the habit of voting, taking an interest in the electoral process, the more likely it is that that habit will continue throughout life. But none of the voter turnout information from those other jurisdictions supports that proposition. A study of 324 national elections across 91 countries shows that, when everything is equal, turnout is reduced by almost two points every time the voting age is lowered by one year. So, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18: reduced turnout by five percentage points. That is supported by studies by Blais, Dobrzynska and Franklin—all of those analysed in Professor McAllister's report. All of that indicates that political participation would not be enhanced simply by a measure to reduce the voting age. In every jurisdiction where that proposition has been tested it has failed.

Of course, a turnout test is not a perfect analogue for the Australian system, because we have a system of compulsory voting. But we can model the effects of age on electoral participation by using a question that has been asked of young people: whether they would vote if it were voluntary. Again, those surveys demonstrate that the opportunity simply would not be seized by any significant proportion of young people. So we need to find other ways to make sure we are consistently and effectively engaging people in the democratic process from a young age so that they are ready to seize the opportunity to vote and to do so with enthusiasm when they reach the age of 18.

The government doesn't support lowering the age at which one begins to vote from 18 to 16, simply because the evidence does not support the idea that it would enhance participation by younger people. Given that 18 is the age at which a person is considered to be an adult in Australia and it's a legal age for the purposes I've already identified—but also the age at which one can conduct other matters of responsibility, like purchasing alcohol, engaging in gambling and becoming a company director—it is consistent to maintain the voting age at 18. When one enrols in the Australian Defence Forces at an age younger than 18 they can do it only subject to special conditions, and it must be approved by a parent or guardian, to reflect the fact that that person, despite the honour of their intention to serve their country, is still of a young age and is still developing maturity.

The same principle stands behind the requirement that one obtain permission to marry between the ages of 16 and 18. The same principle stands behind the limitation on criminal responsibility of young people until they reach the age of 18. They are not treated as adults before the courts until they reach that point. When aged under 18, a person has a limited ability to enter into contracts—and, in the narrow circumstances in which they can, they're afforded additional legal protections, because they have not yet reached the stage at which they are expected to have the maturity to take full responsibility for those decisions. The good news is that younger Australians do have some outstanding opportunities to engage with the political process and to participate in important national debates should they wish to. And they do have the opportunity to join political parties and political activity groups so that they can start to have their say in the process if that's their desire. For all of those reasons, the government maintains that 18 is the appropriate age at which a young person should gain the opportunity and the responsibility to vote in Australian elections.

There is a second component to the bill that is before this chamber. That is that the arrangements for the close of rolls should be changed to allow a person to update their enrolment or make their enrolment right up to and on the day of an election. The government supports the existing arrangements in place for the close of rolls. They close at 8.00 pm on the seventh day after the date of the issue of the writ. The suspension period between the close of rolls and polling day has been a really important part of Australian electoral law since federation, and that's for good reasons. It ensures the orderly and efficient conduct of elections. It ensures that there is accuracy, integrity and certainty in the electoral rolls produced for polling day. It minimises voter fraud by having a settled and verified roll in place in advance of polling day. Very importantly, given the volumes of people who poll on election day, it ensures that there aren't delays both at polling booths and in the declaration of results following election day.

Of course, technology has made it so much easier for voters to enrol or update their enrolment. There are information campaigns run by the AEC around election time to ensure there is an awareness of the responsibility to enrol, and internet-based means of enrolling and updating enrolments have made it much easier for citizens to discharge these responsibilities. The AEC has worked with ABC's triple j on the Rock Enrol campaigns to ensure that young voters are particularly targeted in the efforts to ensure enrolment occurs in the lead-up to elections. All of these are targeted measures designed to ensure that young people who have reached the age of 18 have a maximum presence when it comes to electoral processes.

Another reason that the government does not support the bill that is before the chamber is that it appears that none of the changes proposed by the bill have been costed. It does also appear that the implementation of the changes, and ensuring that there was public awareness of them, would impose additional burdens on the AEC that could be expected to have additional cost.

For all of those reasons, the bill that is before the chamber is not supported by the government. That said, the government remains steadfast in its support of young people's education in the importance of democratic processes and the making available of resources for teachers and citizens to be able to find out all they need about the democratic process. We remain extremely enthusiastic about the role that young people play in democracy from the moment at which they seize the right to be able to vote in elections at the age of 18.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice has the call. Sorry, just take a seat, Senator Rice. Senator Farrell, on a point of order?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I don't want to interrupt Senator Rice unduly, but I've just been advised that BuzzFeed is reporting that in my speech I allegedly opposed this bill. I just want to make it very clear that I didn't seek to oppose the bill.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be time at end of proceedings to make personal statements.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand, but I thought given the nature of social media—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will need to seek leave to do that.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make it very clear that the reports on BuzzFeed are completely inaccurate. The Labor Party is not opposing this bill. I went through all of the arguments in favour and against as part of my summary, and we've made it very clear that we want a full and proper investigation into the bill. We have proposed to do that, with the support of the Greens, through the JSCEM process. I would request, to the extent that it's possible, to get the record corrected by BuzzFeed and that they do so as quickly as possible.

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

I'm pleased to hear that we have the support of Labor for this important bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018. I am absolutely so pleased to be standing up here speaking in support of the Greens bill for lowering the voting age and increasing voter participation, because we have a huge democratic deficit here in our parliament. If you look around at the people who are representing Australians in the Senate today, they are overwhelmingly older people. I am one of the younger people here. They are overwhelmingly male. They are overwhelmingly white. We need to be doing everything we can to be increasing the diversity in our parliament, whether it's through younger people, females or people of different cultural backgrounds. This bill is critically important for increasing that engagement with politics for young people and, in fact, all people. The measures that are in the bill to allow voters to enrol on the day of an election and to update their details on the day of an election are just as important as the measures to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote.

Before I go into some of the reasons as to why the Greens think that this is incredibly important action to be taking, I want to respond to some of the issues and concerns raised by the Labor Party and the government. I was pleased to hear Senator Farrell's clarification that Labor are supporting this bill—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We proposed the reference.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Farrell! You had your chance. There is time at the end of the proceedings.

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

I won't try to verbal you, Senator Farrell. I'm pleased to hear the Labor Party is supporting the reference of this bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In fact, the Greens are very keen for this bill to have a full inquiry into it, because we believe in democracy. We believe in hearing lots of voices. We want to hear all of the arguments being put. Frankly, by referring the bill we're going to get much more substance and many more of the actual reasons as to why this bill is a sensible way to go than in some of the arguments that have been put here this afternoon—in particular, the arguments that were put forward by Senator Stoker.

Firstly, most of her debating points cherrypicked tiny bits of data. I suppose I shouldn't really have been surprised. It is what the government has been doing all week and all month on the debate over the tax cuts—trying to mislead the community with a very warped, cherrypicked version of reality and trying to argue that having tax cuts that are worth $144 billion aren't going to impact on services, for example, for young people. It's completely false.

Secondly, it was very interesting to note that most of Senator Stoker's arguments came from some research that was undertaken in 2007. I think it's very pertinent to note, when we are talking about the engagement of young people, that that was 11 years ago. In fact, in 2007 Senator Steele-John, who is here with us today, was 13 years old! A lot has happened since 2007 in this space around the world. So relying on research that was undertaken in 2007 is not giving us an accurate understanding of the latest research globally into the importance of allowing young people to vote. In particular, the other study that she was quoting, the McAllister study, was undertaken before there had been two significant changes in voting age in other jurisdictions around the world—in Austria and particularly in Scotland.

In Scotland, when they introduced optional voting for 16- and 17-year-olds in the Scottish referendum they had an 80 per cent turnout. Despite it being voluntary—and, in fact, despite Scottish voting being voluntary overall—they had an 80 per cent turnout of 16- and 17-year-olds in that referendum. There was so much support for voting by Scottish young people that they are now looking at making it a feature of their general elections. So I think that is an incredibly valuable piece of research which Senator Stoker omitted to share with the Senate here today.

Young people: they pay taxes, they own and drive cars, they make decisions about their own bodies and, as we've been told, they can join political parties, including the Liberal Party. They can make decisions on Liberal Party policy, or at least have input into Liberal Party policy—not that I think that current Liberal Party policy on a whole range of issues, particularly increasing inequality, privatising the ABC and things like that, probably had much input from young people for those decisions.

Basically, we know that young people are keen to be involved. They are thoughtful, and the key issue, I think, as to why there is so much resistance to having 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote is that they have not yet been weighed down by cynicism, not yet weighed down by this sense that, 'Oh well, we can't change anything, so we'll not engage with the political process.' The young people that I know—and in fact I know many young people who are involved with the Greens; they have done work experience with me—are as active and engaged in politics as anybody in our society, and they really don't understand and have this immense sense of frustration about why they aren't able to be involved in the political process of voting. They know that the decisions that are being made are going to affect their lives.

In fact, there is much more justification for young people being able to vote—not that I would say that people at the very end of their lives shouldn't be able to vote—in terms of having that view forward and of thinking about the future. The rationale for 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to make decisions, to be involved and to have representation on decisions that are going to deeply affect their lives is overwhelming.

And we need to have their voices here. We need to have their voices in our parliaments, we need to have their voices as voters, and, by having that engagement, we need to encourage more people to stand for election and be involved in political processes so that we can improve the diversity here. There are so many strong reasons as to why that engagement and getting that political engagement happening at 16 and 17 is effective. A key thing is that people are engaging with these issues of politics when they are at school in years 9, 10, 11 and 12. That is the time when they are building their understanding about the world, and we could have a system where you've got kids in years 10, 11 and 12 not only learning about the world but actually then having the opportunity to enrol to vote. Senator Stoker told us about the low enrolment of people when they turn 18. We would be able to increase the enrolment to vote much more substantially if, when they were studying the issues of the day—whether climate change or marriage equality or poverty—they could be saying, 'Hey, I've got the opportunity to have a say and do something about this.' Enrol-to-vote forms could be available at schools for young people to fill out.

As part of that engagement, people would be discussing elections. Imagine if you were a year 10 student studying politics or science—or the whole curriculum—in the lead-up to the next federal election. That is a wonderful way of actually engaging people: 'Hey, not only am I concerned about learning about these things, but I can actually act on them, I can get involved in the political process, I can enrol to vote and I can vote!' Then they can look forward to actually seeing representatives truly represent them in the parliament. We know that when people are passionate and engaged and are given that opportunity and the sense of empowerment that they can be involved and can help change things, they act.

The postal survey on marriage equality last year was not the right way to make the decision on marriage equality. It was a horrible, hateful process that we shouldn't have been put through, but we know that the turnout of young people who wanted to have their say on that was amazing. There were 100,000 new voters who'd gone on the electoral roll because they had that sense of empowerment. Here was something that they really could act on. People who had been disengaged from the political process up until then enrolled to vote, and they went out there and had their say in the postal survey because they knew that the issue of marriage equality was something that they cared about, were passionate about and wanted to see changed in Australia as part of creating a fairer, more just society.

I have had two young people in my life, my two sons, who are now well above that 16- and 17-year-old age, but it's not that long ago. I remember having conversations around the dining room table with them and their friends about the issues of climate change and their sense that they wanted to be able to act. Young people are now involved with wonderful organisations like the Australian Youth Climate Coalition because they want to be able to have a say. They should be able to vote. They have just as much of a valid point of view and a perspective that needs to be represented on these issues as other people.

It is not just some 16- and 17-year-olds who are feeling cynical and disengaged and not involved in politics. We are told that they don't want to vote or they won't be engaged. As well as the 16- and 17-year-olds, I know 26-year-olds, 36-year-olds, 46-year-olds and people right up to 76-year-old who are equally disengaged. Yes, we need to be working out how to engage all of them. But there is such a strong reason—given that 16- and 17-year-olds are paying taxes and that it is their society that we are making decisions on—that they should be enfranchised to be able to have a say.

Critically, those issues are ones that they feel very deeply. If you're a 16-year-old and you're looking at the issues of dangerous climate change, you know that by the time you are the age of those of us here in the Senate, by the time you are 40 or 50, the impacts are going to be very real and we are going to have gone way past the two degrees of warming which current government policy is heading us towards. Current government policy is going to head us to three, four or more degrees of warming within the lifetime of young people. So they ought to be able to have a say on that. They ought to be able to have a say as to whether it's right that the Great Barrier Reef should die, that agricultural production in this country is going to dive and that our wheat-growing areas—say, around Dubbo—are going to have the growing conditions and climate of the central deserts. Young people who are 16 or 17 care about this. They also care about and deserve to have a say about the future of the natural environments. I have had the great privilege of being able to see wonderful old forest and wonderful animals like Leadbeater's possums, greater gliders and powerful owls, and to experience all of that incredible diversity of our natural environment. Within the decades in the future of a 16-year-old, sadly, that may not be the case for them on the current trajectory that we're on.

I think it is critical, given the outlook over the lifetimes of young people in our society today, that they deserve to be enfranchised and to be able to have a say, be empowered, be involved and take part in our democracy. Doing so—having their voices in our democratic system and having that greater diversity—means we're going to end up with much better outcomes by involving the voices of young people, just like involving the voices of people of great cultural diversity and the voices of women, including women who have children. In saying that, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, whose baby girl has just been born. What a wonderful thing to be having that sort of diversity in our parliaments—having the diversity of a huge range of Australian society represented here in our parliament. Lowering the voting age, having optional voting for 16 and 17-year-olds, is a really important factor. It's a really important and powerful lever in building towards a more participatory democracy to have greater involvement of a greater range of people in our democracy. To be giving people, whether it's a 16-year-old or a 66-year-old, the sense that they can be involved, they can vote and they can be represented is important, and that the decisions that our parliaments make are going to be taking the issues of the future, having the outlook, being concerned about a future for all Australians and working for an overall fairer, more caring and more sustainable Australia.

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

I rise today to speak on the bill introduced to this place by our parliamentary colleague from WA Senator Steele-John. Senator Steel-John's bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018, proposes a suite of very well-meaning but misguided measures. Senator Steele-John seeks first to lower the minimum age of a voter in Australian federal elections and referenda from 18 to 16 years of age. However, the bill maintains the minimum age of compulsory voting and eligibility to stand as a federal parliamentarian at 18 years of age.

I am genuinely heartened to know that Senator Steele-John as our youngest senator understands the importance of engaging young people in the political process. I too share his passion for nurturing young people who are politically minded. I too recognise that we in parliament ignore young people at our peril. That does not, however, mean that we need to lower the compulsory voting age.

Senator Steele-John is turning 24 this year, am I right?—

Senator Steele-John interjecting—

I understand that he is far closer to the eligible voting age that he is proposing than I am—no matter what I look like! Nevertheless, I would put to Senator Steele-John that, despite being nearly double his age, my rickety old 47-year-old self probably has far more exposure in my everyday life to the lives, the hopes, the dreams and the fears of 16-year-olds than Senator Steele-John does, because my life resolves around a 16-year-old.

I would like to at least verbally introduce the chamber to my eldest son, Harry, who is 16 years old. If Senator Steele-John has his way, my Harry will be given the right to vote. Harry is a terrific kid and I am very, very proud of him. If props were allowed in the Senate chamber I would be showing you photographs right now from when he was a baby right through to the age of 16. He was a beautiful, happy and easygoing baby. He was a charming and gentle toddler. He was a very enthusiastic and popular child. Now he is a teenager and adolescence is a role to which he has taken like a duck to water. While he's not eating he is, in fact, just staring into the fridge. He has a life within his telephone that I could not ever possibly fully understand. He has a cupboard full of clothes and yet he wears the same thing every single day, and most of the time it involves a pair of sports shorts even when it's practically snowing outside. He is no longer the chatterbox of his childhood. In fact, 16-year-old Harry is the master of the monosyllable, although sometimes on a good day I do get a full sentence.

I'm sounding very harsh on him, but I actually I'm a very, very proud mother and I'm very proud of the man that he is growing into. Harry is a hero to his younger brother and his younger sister. He has an innate kindness and gentleness that shines through him when he is with his two young nephews. He is clearly aware of his emerging responsibility and his strength, and that is fully evident when he is with his grandparents, who love him fiercely and unconditionally. He is a keen and talented sportsman, whether it be rowing, football or tennis. He is lithe and graceful whether he is on the water or on the field. He is also an artist. He is quite the athlete and a perfectionist. He has an eye for detail and a rare sense of perspective for someone so young. He is popular and he has a lovely group of friends, which increasingly seems to include very attractive, happy and confident girls—I'm not sure how I feel about that just yet! It's understandable though, and I do speak with a mother's bias, because he is emerging from those gormless and awkward years of puberty as a very handsome young man—although, I'd just love him to cut his hair! For a 16-year-old he has a terrific sense of humour, and even as recently as a week ago he had me laughing so hard that tears were rolling down my face.

He is doing very well at school. He's not a naturally studious kid—I'll put that out there. Most of the time he has to be dragged kicking and screaming to his homework, but he's naturally curious and sometimes piercingly insightful. He's regularly stubbornly opinionated, most often about issues he knows very little about or that he's learnt about from Instagram or YouTube.

Harry studies politics at high school. It's a comprehensive course and it includes many facets of Australian and global politics. He's currently studying ideas, actors and power in politics. I did actually speak to his politics teacher this morning to find out exactly what it was that he was engaging in right now. So he has been introduced to the political spectrum—the Left and the Right—the radical views of all sides; political systems, including Liberal democracy, socialism, fascism, authoritarianism and theocracy; and the characteristics of the Australian political system. He is currently investigating a case study of a non-democratic system to compare and contrast the ways that political systems operate, to develop a much deeper understanding of the Australian democracy in a global setting. This is truly preparing Harry for his voting life. It's giving him a deep understanding of our systems and politics at play.

Despite being a wonderful young person with his own unique perspectives and opinions, despite learning about our political system, our democracy and its alternatives, despite being brought up in a house where politics is part of life and the inevitable topic of conversation, and despite having a mother who is a politician herself, Harry is not ready to vote. At 16-years-old there are still so many aspect of life that he is yet to experience and so many that he's simply not ready for. Either by the laws of our land or as a matter of simple maturity and judgement, there are so many parts of adult life that a 16-year-old cannot do. A 16-year-old is not ready to marry. He's not ready to serve in the military. He's not ready for unvetted access to alcohol, although he gives it a good crack occasionally, I think. He's not ready for unvetted access to gambling. He's not ready for a credit card. He's not ready to sign a contract. He's not ready for a full driver's licence. He's not ready to enter licensed venues. He's not ready to donate blood without permission. He's not ready to rent a house. He's not ready to purchase a house. He's not ready to get a tattoo or a piercing. He's not ready to go skydiving. He's not ready to even buy a pet. He's not ready for jury duty. The list could go on and on and on. However, just because young people are not ready to vote or are not able to vote, that does not for one second mean that young people are not well represented in this place, because young people are represented. They're represented here every single day.

As every member of parliament will attest, just because I don't look like you or I don't live your life experience every day does not mean I cannot do my utmost to walk a mile in your shoes and represent your interests. At least everyone in this place can say they were 16-years-old once. Moreover, what more could these people under 18 want from having a vote in this place that they haven't already got? What voice do they not already have? If it's climate change that they're passionate about, as Senator Rice attested, there are certainly members of this place that are there ready for them. If it's STEM and technology that they're interested in, again, there are members in this place that are there fighting for those interests already. If it is tax relief for those who need it the most that they are most interested in—I'd be surprised if that was their foremost interest, but if that was it—I can assure them that there are many members on this side of the chamber that are very keen to see that happen. We're happy to voice that opinion for them. Just because you're 16 or 17 years of age, it does not mean you don't have a voice; it just means you're not quite ready to vote.

This is not a new debate. A 2012 report entitled The Politics of lowering the voting age in Australia: evaluating the evidencehas already been cited in this chamber this evening. The findings in the report suggest:

… that there is only partial support for lowering the voting age in order to bring it into line with other government-regulated activities.

That report said:

There is no evidence that lowering the voting age would increase political participation; indeed, the evidence points in the opposite direction. And despite the rapid expansion of university education, young people—

apparently—

are no more politically knowledgeable today than they were in the past.

The arguments for lowering the voting age simply don't stack up to empirical scrutiny.

So will allowing 16- or 17-year-olds a vote enhance political participation? There is an argument to suggest that in those countries that have voluntary voting, lowering the voting age will increase the voter turnout, that it establishes a habit of a lifetime and that the habit will be more likely to create an interest that will continue throughout their lives. Particularly as voter turnout has declined across all established democracies, one way of arresting that decline might be to introduce a lower voting age. However, that argument also does not stack up. It is simply not supported by the evidence. Many have shown, in fact, that turnout increases with age, so, all other things being equal, turnout should be higher if the minimum voting age is in fact 21.

It's interesting that Senator Rice referred before to the postal plebiscite and how we had an extraordinary turnout of young people in the postal plebiscite last year. That is absolutely true. It was a terrific voter turnout. However, what Senator Rice failed to mention is that the voter turnout in this non-compulsory plebiscite was in fact much higher for people over the age of 40 than it was for the people between the ages of 18 and 30. So that argument simply does not stack up. It's terrific to have more young voters on our roll. It's terrific to have more young voters participating in our democracy. But I don't think that it is going to establish a voter pattern of a lifetime.

In studies of national elections across 91 countries it was found that, everything else being equal, turnout is in fact reduced by almost two points when the voting age is lowered by one year. That potentially would suggest lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 reduces turnout by around five percentage points, so the argument simply does not wash.

Furthermore, the Australian public is strongly opposed to lowering the voting age. In 2010 an Australian election study found that a whopping 94 per cent of respondents were opposed to any change to the age of voting eligibility and 72 per cent said the age should definitely stay at 18. If anything, the Australian public opinion is emphatically opposed to lowering the age that is found elsewhere. In fact, overall, just six per cent of the electorate favoured any change at all. In keeping with public sentiment, in 2007 the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters rejected the proposal to lower the voting age. This is not a new debate. We've had this debate before.

It made perfect sense back in 1974 to change the eligible voting age to 18. When that change was made 43 years ago, it was bipartisan in nature and, on the matter of the principle of the legislation, both sides agreed. By lowering the age requirement from 21 to 18, the voting age became aligned with the age at which one becomes an adult in the eyes of the courts and the law. It is also the age at which we allow Australians to engage in other activities which require physical, emotional and intellectual development. We trust people at the age of 18 to be mature enough to get married. We allow them to engage in potentially dangerous activities like drinking and gambling. Even the brightest of young Australians cannot be a company director until they are the age of 18. In general, the Australian law recognises that individuals 18 and over have full legal capacity.

Under 18, people are generally considered minors and restricted in their autonomy and decision-making. For example, they can't serve in the Australian Defence Force if they are under the age of 18, subject to very special conditions, and potentially any participation must be approved in writing by parents or legal guardians. Those under the age of 18 attending school excursions or programs must receive written consent by parents or legal guardians. At one stage today, when I was talking to Harry's politics teacher, I said that maybe I could mention a couple of other kids in the class, but, no, I couldn't do that. I can't even mention the name of a child under the age of 18 in the Senate chamber to put on the Hansard transcript without the parents' permission. These kids are minors; it's important to remember that.

Just because those under 18 are not able to vote does not mean we don't want them politically engaged, and there are of opportunities to do so. Of course, the best example of that is the Liberal Party!

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Why do I hear laughter!

When the Liberal Party was founded by Sir Robert Menzies in 1944, the role of the Young Liberal Movement was so important. It was a key priority and a pillar of the party's formation. I'm not talking about shrill student protests or activism on university campuses but about meaningful policy contributions flowing to the most senior ranks of the party. Young voices can, in the right party, be taken very seriously.

Outside of the party system there are other fora too. In my home state of Victoria, opportunities for youth political engagement abound. One example is the brilliant Victorian Youth Parliament, where every year over 150 young people aged between 16 and 25 from metropolitan areas, the suburbs, and regional and rural Victoria all come together for a week to debate the issues that are important to them in the houses of parliament of Victoria. The Youth Parliament doesn't stop at debate; participants gain an understanding of political history, why we have the systems that we have and what democracy is.

Another, more global, example is the UN youth summit program. In fact, UN Youth Australia is one of Australia's largest youth-led organisations. There is the National Schools Constitutional Convention and the National Student Leadership Forum on Faith and Values, which is now in its 22nd year. If a person below the age of 18 is seeking political engagement—the opportunity to be heard, to meet like minds and to test their arguments—there are fora such as these where they can do just that. When young participants do cast their vote for the first time at the ballot box, they can do so knowing that their opinions have been tested.

I do briefly want to draw the chamber's attention to the issues that are addressed in schedule 2 of the bill before us, which provides that Australians who are eligible to vote but who are not yet on the electoral roll or are not enrolled at their correct address can enrol to vote or update their address at a polling centre on election day, or at an early voting centre, and will be deemed to be enrolled at that address and eligible to cast a provisional vote at that time. This suggestion demonstrates a genuine absence of understanding of the administrative and logistical difficulties that are attendant on conducting an election. Our staff at the Australian Electoral Commission have a mammoth task in organising and administering an election in itself, as well as in reconciling the voting records after votes are cast. Perhaps it is Senator Steele-John's youthful enthusiasm—or perhaps it is simply his party affiliation—that renders him unencumbered by the practical concerns of government. However—

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ooh!

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

Ooh-hoo! Did you like that? However, it is no small task to add voters to the electoral roll, for it involves cross-checking many layers of data across multiple agencies. Enrolment currently is not done in real time because of the associated administrative burden. The administrative costs and the inconvenience to other voters already waiting in very, very long lines to fulfil their democratic duty would be simply too great. Enrolling even a small number of voters on election day, the best-case scenario for the AEC under Senator Steele-John's proposition, would place a completely unnecessary administrative and fiscal burden on the Australian Electoral Commission and other government agencies.

In the couple of minutes I have left, I would like to return to one of the most precious things in my life, my 16-year-old son, Harry, the master of the monosyllable. Despite a very worthwhile discussion, Senator Steele-John, for which I am very grateful and thank you sincerely, I do think that the chamber will eventually agree that my Harry, darling Harry, should not be allowed to vote. But I don't think Harry and his peers should be concerned with that outcome, because his voice and the voices of his generation, their needs and their futures are foremost in the minds of everybody here. I believe that what young Australians need most is not the eligibility to vote from a younger age but a robust economy; a sense that their efforts will be rewarded; and a prosperous, hopeful, peaceful and safe country. I think these are the priorities for our 16- and 17-year-olds—not whether they can vote but what we can do to help them, the next generation. And I believe that that is what the Turnbull government is indeed delivering.

Madam Deputy President, and Senator Steele-John, there are 76 people in this place and 150 in the other place who, while they may very well disagree about the path, want Harry and his generation's future to be as bright as humanly possible. They want to give them every opportunity to thrive, to grow, to flourish and to succeed. Sixteen-year-olds don't need a vote. What they need most of all is responsible parliamentarians with sound minds, courageous spirits—as is yours, Senator Steele-John—and good hearts to pave that path for them.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to Senator Steele-John's private member's bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018. At the heart of this bill is a really important issue: participation in democracy that is Australia's electoral system, and I'm grateful to Senator Steele-John for allowing me this opportunity to talk about the issue. Given the confusion that surrounded the views in terms of Senator Farrell's contribution, I want to make it very clear from the outset that the Labor position in respect of this bill is that we believe the appropriate course in order for it to be progressed is for it to be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—which you very ably chair, Madam Deputy President. That committee has done some very good work in recent times. It has addressed some of the topical issues of the day—issues of foreign donations and section 44 of the Constitution. A lot of Australians may not be aware that that particular committee operates in a very collaborative way most of the time on the very rarely partisan issues that are dealt with. In fact, there are very often bipartisan views on some very unexpected matters. So it is a well-functioning committee. It's a longstanding committee, and I think it is the committee that will do proper justice to this particular issue, because it is one that deserves additional consideration. Senator Steele-John might be aware that the sorts of issues he raises in this bill were taken by Labor to the last federal election. So, we were a bit disappointed to see this bill sitting on the Notice Paper from Monday to Thursday, allowing us only a very short period of time to debate its merits. And I do want to reiterate the point that I think this is a bill that should receive the appropriate scrutiny. It's our view that these issues should be properly considered by the committee.

When it comes to the Labor Party's position on this issue, historically we have had a very proud track record of advocating for the extension of the electoral franchise. And let's not forget that it was the Labor government in 2012 who introduced the automatic enrolment provisions, extending the right to vote to thousands of disenfranchised voters across the country. Prior to the last election the Labor Party announced a broad strategy to engage young Australians in the political system and to empower them to drive and to guide change. There are a couple of excerpts from those announcements that I think are worth citing. Firstly, the research by the Whitlam Institute showed that young people want to be involved in decision-making processes and should be offered opportunities to do so within existing political structures—I'll come back to that issue later on. We also highlighted the fact that encouraging their participation will encourage greater transparency and engagement, inspire short-term issues-based or community-centred action to improve longer-term decision-making processes, and value and acknowledge the contribution of young people through a process of accountability back to those young people.

We do know that young people are active participants in public life and active contributors to, amongst other things, the taxation system. According to the Australian census figures and taxation statistics, in 2012-13 over 17,000 Australians aged under 18 paid over $41 million in income tax alone. This does not take into account indirect taxes paid by young Australians—for example, the GST.

Our policy announcement also made reference to the fact that 16- and 17-year-olds are already permitted to engage in a range of adult activities, which have been canvassed previously. They can apply for the military from the age of 16 years and six months, to commence service at the age of 17; for a drivers licence from between 16 years and six months and 17, or 18 in the case of Victoria; for a private pilot licence from the age of 16 for balloons and gliders and 17 for other aircraft; and for a firearms licence at 14 years, although there is some variation across the states and territories. They can make independent decisions about medical matters and the decision to leave home at the age of 16. As we said back then, if 16- and 17-year-olds can be trusted to join the military, to drive on our roads and to live independently, they should also be trusted to directly participate in our representative democracy by having their say at the ballot box. We also said that directly involving 16- and 17-year-olds in our democracy is an opportunity to engage young people in an important conversation about civic responsibility and community values and expectations, and to help them become productive members of society. We believe that we owe it to all those 16- and 17-year-olds who work, pay tax, earn penalty rates, drive on our roads and use public services to give respectful consideration to this proposal, and we're happy to keep having that conversation.

While I'm talking about what some might consider to be anomalies, let's not forget that, under many of the industrial awards that apply to Australians—in retail, for example, and other industries—when you're 18 years of age and for all intents and purposes an adult under our system, you're getting 70 per cent of the rate of pay of a 21-year-old. There are some anomalies that I think many young people would want to see addressed. Thankfully there is an industrial campaign by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association to address that. If anybody would like more information about that, they can visit 100percentpay.com.au. As I said, the engagement of young people in the system enables those types of issues to be addressed. Young people can get involved in that campaign. Joining the SDA is another opportunity for people to show their support for that initiative. Because of the work of the SDA on the retail award, 20-year-olds now have the benefit of the 100 per cent rate of pay.

We believe that a number of issues about lowering the voting age need to be canvassed, and we undertook at the last election to consult with government, community leaders and young people across the country prior to recommending a change in the legislative provision. In that sense we are being consistent. We believe there is an important need for consultation and for stakeholders to be involved in this decision. It is our belief that this issue should be afforded appropriate attention, and therefore it's not adequate to simply debate legislation without a considered review process. For that reason we're not in a position to support it at this point, but as I said, we think it should be carefully considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

When thinking about the current bill, we have a number of issues which time doesn't permit me to go into, but I would have liked to have raised that the voluntary nature proposed in this bill for voting under the age of 18 has the potential to cause some confusion. I think the compulsory voting system we have in this country is a very worthwhile one. It has led to overwhelming engagement in the voting process, and I would be personally concerned if there were any steps to diminish that. I'm not suggesting Senator Steele-John has that motivation, but it is important that we maintain that compulsory voting system. I also had some concerns about the 'rock up and enrol' provision, and time doesn't permit me to speak further on that. I would have loved to have talked about the corresponding need for civics and citizenship education to be part of any conversation about changing the voting age.

I ask that the Senate support the referral of the bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters so that it receives the appropriate analysis. We would especially like to see the principles of engaging young people in the electoral system considered in conjunction with the work done in the inquiry into electoral education, an inquiry that you know that I'm very concerned about.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 6 pm, debate is interrupted.