Motions — Voting Age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001

I move, That the House take note of the Declaration of inconsistency: Voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001.

We are here to debate the declaration of inconsistency relating to the voting age for both parliamentary and local elections, the Justice Committee’s report on the declaration, and the Government’s response to the declaration. This is the first time the House has followed the new procedures in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for responding to a declaration of inconsistency. A declaration of inconsistency is a formal statement by a court or tribunal that an Act is inconsistent with fundamental human rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In November 2022, the Supreme Court issued a declaration of inconsistency, stating that the voting age as 18, set out on the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the inconsistency had not been justified. The inconsistency arises because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sets out to be free from discrimination on the basis of age for those aged 16 and older.

I would like to thank the Justice Committee for its report on the declaration. The committee received over 500 submissions and heard from 23 submitters. The committee recommended by majority that the Government amend the Local Electoral Act and investigate lowering the minimum voting age in general elections to 16. The majority said that the right to be free from age discrimination should only be limited by good justifications. Both the majority of the committee and the Supreme Court cited evidence provided by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in its report to the High Court. The evidence cited is that people in their mid-teens are generally able to make deliberative decisions such as voting decisions, even if their ability to make more emotionally charged decisions remains underdeveloped. The majority on the committee also discussed the potential for a younger voting age to instil life-long voting habits.

On 14 August, the Minister of Local Government and I tabled the Government response to the declaration. After considering the declaration of inconsistency and the report produced by the Justice Committee, it is the Government’s view that the inconsistency should be eliminated to the extent possible. As part of the Government response, the Minister of Local Government introduced the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. This bill will lower the voting age to 16 for local elections only.

There are strong arguments in favour of lowering the voting age: 16- and 17-year-olds are far more likely to be living at home, be connected to their community, and have a stable address than those just a few years older. New Zealand, along with the rest of the world, is facing significant issues such as climate change. Young people need to be involved in conversations about these issues and their views need to be heard, including through the ballot box.

I know there are some concerns about whether 16- and 17-year-olds are old enough for this sort of responsibility, but let’s stop and think about some of the things we already allow 16-year-olds to do. Sixteen-year-olds can be held criminally responsible for breaking the law, they can choose to leave home, they can choose where they want to live, choose to leave school, choose to refuse medical treatment, apply for a driver’s licence, apply for a firearms licence, and get an adult passport, and yet we don’t allow them to vote for their local councillor.

As signalled by the Prime Minister in March of this year, the Government has decided to focus on lowering the voting age for local elections only. The bill reflects the differences between how the voting age is set out in legislation. The provisions of the Electoral Act that set the voting age at 18 for parliamentary elections can only be amended if 75 percent of members in the House agree or there is a majority in a referendum. Preparing and progressing a bill that has no prospect of being passed into law would be a costly and time-consuming exercise that would not lead to any practical change. In contrast, the voting age for local government elections can be amended by a simple majority. That is why the Government has decided to focus on a bill that lowers the voting age to 16 for local elections only. I hope that members will take a rights- and evidence-based approach to the future debate on this bill. We stand here as representatives of all our constituents, not just the ones that are eligible to vote for us.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge Make It 16, the advocacy group that initiated this case in the courts and the many other groups and individuals who have been calling on the voting age to be lowered for some time. The advocacy by youth on this issue shows that young people can lead important conversations about the changes that directly impact upon them and I commend them for this work.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to speak on this debate where we’re debating whether the House should take note of the Supreme Court’s declaration—which we agree the House should note. I do want to start by acknowledging the supporters of Make It 16, who may be here and who may be tuning in to this debate. Good on them for having a go and for making their case and for everything that they threw into it. We fundamentally don’t agree with the proposition being put forward, but in a free and open society they should be able to and they should be able to make their case, and good luck to them.

What we saw through the course of the legal consequences of that was a wide range of opinions, actually, through the court process. In August 2020, the High Court looked at the matter and said that 18 was in the range of reasonable alternatives. It found that there was a reasonable limit on the right to be free from age-related discrimination, and declined to issue a declaration of inconsistency. So that was the High Court.

Then it went to the Court of Appeal in December 2021. The Court of Appeal looked at it. It disagreed with the High Court and said that the Attorney-General had not showed that the inconsistency with the Human Rights Act around freedom from discrimination was justified—i.e., that the Attorney-General hadn’t made the case. But, despite its finding, the Court of Appeal declined to make a declaration, noting the political nature of the issue—i.e., it concluded that it was something that the normal political decision-making processes through Parliament should work out for itself, and it wasn’t for the courts to get involved.

Then, in November 2022, the Supreme Court had its go and it agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Attorney-General hadn’t justified the inconsistency with the discrimination of people aged 16 and 17, and that the case hadn’t been made. But, in contrast to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court decided to make that declaration of consistency. But, of course, within the Supreme Court, there was a dissenting view from Justice Kós, who had a different interpretation, which is to say that he considered that in section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it referred to the age of 18, and that trumped section 19, which had the right to freedom from discrimination, such as is outlined in the human rights legislation. And so he thought that it didn’t need to be justified in that way. So anyway, we ended up with the Supreme Court saying that the rights of 16- and 17-year-olds being discriminated against—which is something that’s covered in the human rights legislation—hadn’t been justified.

Then, we got all the media reports and all the commentary, which is to say that the Supreme Court says it’s unjustified—this breach of human rights. And then you got into a bit of a semantics argument, because the Supreme Court, in its decision, was quite clear that it didn’t say that it couldn’t be justified, it’s just that it hadn’t been justified, because the Crown lawyers hadn’t gone out there and tried to make the case as to why 16- and 17-year-olds should be treated differently. It had, in fact, defended the case on a completely different ground, which is to say that it’s none of the court’s business; it’s for Parliament to decide the voting age—that was its view. And so it didn’t even attempt to justify it. So there wasn’t a meeting of minds between the Crown, the Government, and the courts—with the Crown making the argument it’s for Parliament to decide what the voting age is, and the court ultimately deciding that it didn’t actually make the effort to justify the discrimination against 16-and 17-year-olds. So that’s where we’re at.

So what are we left to do with it in Parliament? I think the appropriate thing to do is to take note of that declaration from the Supreme Court. By the way, it’s the first one we’ve had under this new regime. So it is important that we have this debate, we consider it carefully, and it’s absolutely appropriate that we sit down in the Justice Committee, take submissions, and give it proper thought and attention. It’s also appropriate that the Government respond.

Our fundamental view on this side of the House is that, you know, we’re more in the camp of the Court of Appeal, which is to say—well, you can say what you like about whether it was justified or not, but, ultimately, it’s something that should be dealt with within the political arena, as it has been in the past and will be in the future. Ultimately, it’s democratically elected Governments that are accountable to the public, that have to make a decision about this.

When you think about the age of voting, you can make a case for 16-year-olds voting, you can make a case for 18-year-olds voting, you can make a case for 15-year-olds—there’s a wide variety of cases, but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. We’ve drawn it at 18. The only point I’d make is that 16- and 17-year-olds are treated extremely differently when it comes to the justice system—in the Youth Court and so forth—and so there is a—

Golriz Ghahraman: Seventeen-year-olds are in adult courts—all of them; every single one, actually.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And I’m being heckled by the Greens. Well, that’s OK. That’s how it should be in the Parliament. We should be heckled from time to time, and that’s absolutely appropriate. So we think 18 is sufficient.

Look, there’s a wide variety of views. In fact, going around schools, the group of people who are most opposed to 16- and 17-year-olds voting, it seems to me, are the 18-year-olds, who tend to say quite frequently that “No way—no way—should we be voting at 16. Now that I’m 18, we should be voting.”—and that’s appropriate.

So, look, we can have these debates, but the primary point I would be making is that this speaks volumes, ultimately, for where this Government’s headspace is at in the justice area. In the last week of Parliament—as in what we hope will be the dying stages of this Labour Government of six years—where, in the justice space, there are real serious issues around violent crime, around youth crime, and huge backlogs and delays to justice, so that people’s lives are being kept on hold for years, awaiting justice, we have a Government that is focused on things such as reducing the voting age to 16, which, if you look at where public opinion is at and what the public wants the Government focused on, is not a high priority.

Then we come to the Government’s response, where they say, “Well, we basically agree, but we can’t change the constitutional arrangements because there is a high threshold for changing the voting age in general elections.” But, fortunately, they discovered that they could do it at local elections without having a supermajority—hence they are introducing a bill, which we’ll be debating next, on reducing the voting age to 16 for local elections. We can’t see any logic at all for having a different voting age for general elections and local elections. The Minister of Justice was saying something about people being more likely to be living at home when they’re 16, but I couldn’t quite understand the logic behind that argument at all. It makes sense to keep the voting ages aligned. We see no great push on the part of New Zealanders as a whole to reduce the voting age to 16 at this time.

We would wish that the justice Minister and the justice sector and the justice officials would be focused on those pressing issues that we face in the justice space, around violent crime, around youth crime, and around delays to justice in the court system. They’ve got more than enough to deal with there, rather than being distracted with this and banning hate speech, and a whole lot of other things that they have been distracted with over the past few years. So I think this has been a useful exercise that we’ve been through, and it’s absolutely appropriate that in Parliament we take any declaration from the Supreme Court very seriously, and we have. So it is an honour to be part of this debate. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I want to acknowledge the young people in the gallery today—you might be watching or listening at home—who want to participate in New Zealand’s liberal democracy and who want to have the opportunity to vote. I really, really appreciate your enthusiasm.

However, the law currently says that that franchise is not available until you’re 18 years old. I recognise that, for some of you, you feel you want to make a contribution now, to choose with the vote the political party that best represents your interests. And you may question, given what you feel is your maturity and your ability to make decisions about so many other aspects in your life, why it is that you’re not afforded this particular right. In many ways, voting is the ultimate last rite of passage for New Zealanders, isn’t it? It used to be a 21st birthday party, because 21 was the age where you could legally drink. It used to be 15—15 for some of us—which was the age when we could obtain a driver’s licence. But 18 is the age that Parliament has decided.

Now, even though the various courts have pointed out, quite rightly, that the fact that 16-year-olds are not able to vote is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I would also point out that that is not uncommon—much legislation is introduced to Parliament that is not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Where it is inconsistent, the Ministry of Justice provides a report to Parliament, called a “bill of rights assessment”. A New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance report is often provided where a piece of legislation infringes on rights that are set out but for good reason, but it’s always up to Parliament to balance what that reason is.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for scrutinising proposed legislation to look at whether it meets New Zealand Bill of Rights Act requirements. The Ministry of Justice advises the AttorneyGeneral on all bills—so they do this for all bills, with the exception of appropriation bills, which are the ones that the Government uses to legitimise its Budgets. It assesses all legislation to confirm whether it’s consistent with the Act, and if the Attorney-General agrees that there are any issues, then they must notify the House.

Now, the section 7 reports, prepared by the Ministry of Justice, are not binding on the House, they’re not binding on Governments, but they present very clear alternatives. If there are to be laws passed by this House which infringe on people’s rights or treat people differently for any reason, then the bar, the threshold, needs to be very high. But it’s up to Parliament, which is sovereign, to make those decisions.

In this case, ACT’s justice spokesperson, Nicole McKee, who sat on this committee and considered this report, proposed that ACT should not support the conclusions and recommendations that the Government amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 to provide for a minimum voting age of 16 years in local elections. ACT does not agree with that, I’m sorry. And ACT does not agree with the Government investigating lowering the minimum voting age in general elections to 16.

There are a number of reasons for that. It’s because, firstly, 16-year-olds, ACT believes, have a whole lot of other things that they should be focused on with their lives, such as study, work, sport, community life, community work, and that voting in parliamentary elections is something that can reasonably be delayed until you reach the age of 18 without any risk of infringing your rights in any great way.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Really—really?

SIMON COURT: Yeah, really—really.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: It’s not what the Supreme Court said.

SIMON COURT: Well, ACT disagrees with the Supreme Court. But we do agree with Justice Kós, who explained that section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which specifically states that 18-year-olds have the right to vote, does trump section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as to freedom from discrimination. And it is correct that when a bill is set out, the principles and purpose of the bill are in the early clauses—say, 3, 4, and 5—and that the other matters that explain how a bill works are in subsequent clauses, and there is a hierarchy to assessing those clauses. So ACT would agree with Justice Kós that section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does trump section 19. But, of course, it’s up to Parliament to decide, and ACT believes that the status quo is acceptable.

We do appreciate your passion and enthusiasm for participating in parliamentary democracy by being able to cast your vote. Eighteen isn’t that long to wait. We hope, when you turn up, you’ll appreciate the reasoned, rational, liberal arguments put forward by the ACT Party and you cast your party vote for ACT when you get a chance. With, that, I’d like to close our submission. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to rise to notice that this is actually a historic debate. It’s a historic day. This is the first time that this Parliament is debating a declaration of inconsistency in legislation with our fundamental rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, pursuant to legislation that this same Parliament passed last year unanimously, that we all agreed, that where one of the higher courts in our nation considers our fundamental rights and finds that legislation—even legislation that all supreme method of regulating that has been passed by Parliament, either present or past—that we should stop and take notice.

We shouldn’t just take notice. We should have a select committee process, knowing that that breach is live, receive a report, as we’ve done, and debate that report in this House with the knowledge that we have today that our electoral laws are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision on age discrimination. We now get to decide whether we will continue to breach, or whether we will correct that wrong.

To say that someone’s fundamental right to vote—arguably the right that underpins fulfilment of all our other rights—the right to have a say in the way that all of our other interests are governed is something that we can put off for people, that it’s not urgent, that Parliament shouldn’t urgently take note and introduce legislation to correct it, is absolutely wild to me. What if it was happening to one of us? If someone said to one of us, “Your right to vote—which you have, as recognised by the Supreme Court—is going to be suspended for two years while we deal with other stuff.”, we would find that egregious.

So I do commend the Minister for introducing a bill which we will debate after this report has been debated, so I don’t intend to go too far into the merits of local election voting rights for young people. I would only say that I wish it was called “extending” or “expanding” the voting right rather than “lowering” the age. But that’s what we’re debating today. We need to take notice. We’re breaching a fundamental right that for some New Zealanders we get to either fulfil or delay for two years.

Others have talked about the types of other legal rights or obligations—let’s face it—that young people have that sit inconsistently with this breach. So anywhere from the ability to leave school, to drive a car, to have sex, to—and I would say, actually, surprisingly, National and ACT overlooking this is something that should be noted—they work and pay tax, guys. Young people are being taxed without a right to representation. How does that sit with the proponents of taxpayers’ rights?

Well, it doesn’t sit right with the Supreme Court or the Electoral Commission. We’ve had reports over and over again from experts. We know that overseas, where young people can vote, engagement has gone up. We know—and I think this is what the Minister was outlining—that if young people become eligible to vote whilst they’re still all at school, living at home in one place where we can introduce civics education, where we can give them their enrolment packs, that they are much more likely to vote in the first election when they become eligible. There is solid evidence to say that those who do vote in that first election will continue to vote. So you’re creating voters who are not just young but lifetime voters. You’re strengthening our democracy for generations and generations to come.

I will say this about the test that the Supreme Court, and every court, undertakes when we look at fulfilment of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights: they can be impeded upon only to an extent that’s justifiable in a democratic society. The reason that this test needs to be set at a very, very, very high standard is that our rights are universal—they don’t depend on us showing any merit, moral goodness, knowledge, level of education.

We don’t talk about the classic rights to free speech or to have a fair trial, or even the economic and social rights that this other side of the House may not like—like the right to housing, the right to education—and we certainly don’t talk about the right to vote being subject to a necessary test of education, experience, or understanding. That is a slippery slope, and that is why the Supreme Court has found, has stood together with all of the experts on both electoral law, human rights law, and the young people who, en masse, have worked tirelessly to tell us that they are interested, that they know that they have this right, that they want it, and they won’t stop until we recognise and fulfil that right.

The reason this is limited to local elections is that we need a supermajority for the whole lot. It’s not good enough. We won’t stop working until all young people, 16- and 17-year-olds, are free from age discrimination in their voting rights. But to say that we can do a little bit when we find out that a fundamental right is breached is absolutely the right thing to do.

So I commend the report and we breathe a sigh of relief for this small step, a first step, not only in this House, recognising that the courts get to tell us when we’ve breached, but to meaningfully debate those breaches and do all we can to fulfil the fundamental rights of New Zealanders we are here as lawmakers to protect. Our mandate depends on our ability to protect and fulfil those rights. So I commend it to the House

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this extremely important constitutional matter as the chair of the Justice Committee, to whom this first declaration of inconsistency was referred. I will make some brief remarks about our report, but first, given the constitutional significance of this debate, I did want to acknowledge two constitutional personalities.

For two glorious months when I was 23, I had the office right opposite Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s, where I worked as a graduate solicitor. For two months while I was there, I probably did the least work that I’ve ever done, because I couldn’t help listening to Sir Geoffrey on the phone. It was pure public law theatre. Sir Geoffrey was, of course, the architect of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and since its passage, in 1990, he has repeatedly spoken about the need for our constitution to evolve and mature. So it is a great privilege to be able to speak today at a time when we are considering our first declaration of inconsistency.

The second constitutional personality I’d like to acknowledge are sitting, in part, in the gallery with us today. Can I acknowledge the Make It 16 campaign. Your organisation, your engagement, your intellect, and your grit has demonstrated true campaigning prowess. Not only did you campaign but you took your case through every layer of the hierarchy of our courts, and that was powerful to watch. But it also bolstered your own argument that 16-year-olds’ voices should be heard in the political space. As we heard submissions, there were a lot of different views, but some very powerful views from young people, including those in Make It 16—also some very robust views from the Children’s Commissioner.

The committee ended up making two strong recommendations, which we’ve heard about, one in relation to the Local Electoral Act and the other that the Government investigate lowering the minimum voting age in general elections to 16, taking into consideration the legal consequences, of course, as well. I think it is rather poetic that the very next bill that we will be considering gives effect to the advocacy and the recommendations of the Justice Committee by proposing that change. Because it’s the next bill, I won’t dwell on many of the arguments that others in the House have, because I will, I hope, have the opportunity to speak to that in the next bill. But, given the significance of the constitutional shift that we’re seeing here today, I may make some brief remarks on constitutional process.

In the 18th century, it was the Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu who argued, as the centrepiece for his thinking, that a fair society means that power shouldn’t be over concentrated but should exist, as he called it, in a “trias politica”. His was a concept of government divided into legislative, executive, and judicial branches acting independently of each other. And, while these three branches are fundamental to our democracy, they don’t operate in silos. The change that we made in December last year legislated for the process that we have been going through. It creates a bridge between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. It allows important conversations on our constitutional make-up.

Although this is the first time we’ve considered a declaration of inconsistency, the committee, I think, felt that it was an unusual set of decisions through the courts, because it wasn’t so much about the substance of the issue itself. In my reading of the courts’ decisions, what every single layer of the courts did was point their finger squarely back at Parliament. They were saying this is an important issue for Parliament to consider. The first two courts, the High Court and then the Court of Appeal, did that by choosing not to issue a declaration of inconsistency—ironically. The Supreme Court brought it straight to our door. And when they do that, we have an obligation to consider the merits of the substantive issues in front of us, not whether the courts got it right, not the detail of those court decisions. We have to acknowledge the fact that the courts were saying, “It is time. It’s time to consider whether 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local body and in central.” And we did.

Committee members across the House were actually very engaged with the number of submissions that came in front of us. And, for the majority of us, we were persuaded by the arguments made by Make It 16 and people like the Children’s Commissioner, who made sound arguments for a split age restriction on the basis of hot and cold cognition. We are not the first to do this. We were also persuaded by the arguments from Scotland, who already have this in place but, not only that, have engaged in research that demonstrates that if 16-year-olds vote—if they can vote at 16—they are more likely to continue to vote.

I began by talking about the bridge between the arms of government—and today, in many ways, we stand here on the bridge—but this isn’t just about referring a matter back to Parliament for discussion. There is a creation, when the judiciary takes steps like this, of an adjacent possibility. What it does is it creates a spotlight on an issue. It makes us consider what to do next. So I’ll end there by again saying that I think it is so poetic that the very next bill we consider will be a direct result of your advocacy.

Well, I love tenacious people, and you have to say that the Make It 16 campaign has been a lesson in tenacity. It’s been one that has gone on for a considerable period of time and went all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don’t intend to repeat the potted history of the court process that has been covered by previous speakers, but I think it’s worth pointing out that, as some have already said, age in law is arbitrary. The Minister of Justice, in moving this motion—which we support, although we don’t support the findings of the report—pointed out all of the things that a 16-year-old can do.

I’ll point out a few things that a 16-year-old can’t do, even after any change in legislation. Now, they may sound flippant, but the purpose is to highlight the arbitrariness of age: can’t get a full driver’s licence; can’t buy a Lotto ticket; can’t enter into contracts, and I’ll come back to that in the context of local council; can’t buy alcohol; can’t buy firecrackers; can’t enter a casino; can’t buy cigarettes.

Now, some would say that’s appropriate, a justified limitation on their human rights; that’s the issue we’re debating. But I would also point out that the age of majority in law in New Zealand, as I understand it, is 20. The Age of Majority Act 1970 is still in force, which says that the age of full majority is 20.

We are going to have these discussions at the boundary, and I was fascinated at the Make It 16 campaign’s submission that “the future affects them more than anybody”—that’s true; they’re going to live longer, on average, than most of us.

But why not 15? Now, I’m not being flippant in saying that, because the very same principle applies and is justified on the basis that a 15-year-old—

Arena Williams: It doesn’t.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I’m amazed at the reaction over the other side, just to, one day, potentially, a 15-year-old whose birthday is the day after the election can’t vote but a 16year-old can on their 16th birthday. That’s the arbitrary nature of it. But the justification for 15 would be that they would turn 18 in the term of the subsequent Parliament. It’s an easy argument to make, only it wasn’t made.

Now, the really interesting thing about the case that was made was that it was the Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act that was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But if one takes that to its logical conclusion on the grounds that 18 is discriminatory, then we get into this rather odd circular argument that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sets the age to vote in this country. Well, it doesn’t actually do that—what it says is it gives a right to every citizen over the age of 18. So the counterfactual to that is that it removes that right to every citizen under the age of 18. And so the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is, essentially, inconsistent with itself. Now, that is a legal oddity in my view.

Now, I was a member of the Privileges Committee that had referred to it the question of the declaration of inconsistency with the case of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and the Attorney-General and Taylor. Now, I happened, long in the tooth that I am, to have also been in Parliament when the legislation that gave rise to that declaration of inconsistency was passed. It was a member’s bill in the name of Paul Quinn, probably back—well, it must have been before 2011, so 2009 or 2010, where the right of prisoners to vote was removed. There is still an arbitrary removal of the right to vote if you’re in prison for longer than three years, but this removed that threshold.

Now, this is relevant because it goes to what we’re actually doing here. The genesis was that case. But the bill itself had a section 7 BORA vet against it anyway, so the House was very mindful that the bill it was considering could be determined by the courts to be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is a measure of the sovereignty of this place that it passed that law, notwithstanding that knowledge, and that’s a really important principle.

Now, Vanushi Walters talked glowingly of the court’s decisions, and she has every right to do that. But Parliament remains sovereign on this question, and when we, as a Privileges Committee, considered this particular point, I stressed—and it did kind of get into the report that led to the legislation that was passed unanimously—that it’s a different thing if the courts make a declaration of inconsistency where there has been no BORA vet from one where it has and that a different process should take place, because, actually, what Parliament has done is already considered that. And yes, it’s still appropriate to refer it to the Government, the executive, and for a select committee to have a consideration of that declaration. But the process would be different if the Taylor case was declared inconsistent under this new legislation, because, actually, Parliament already considered that point, and it should be a much more expeditious process.

In this case, that didn’t happen. In fact, the two pieces of legislation that were passed, the Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act, straddled the BORA—in fact, no, they might both be after it. So they were cognisant of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when they were passed and there was no vet then, which is really interesting. So it’s appropriate that we do have the select committee process that we’ve gone through. It’s not appropriate that the Crown then roll over to the court’s decisions. This is a sovereign place. This place decides what legislation comes and goes, not the courts, when it comes to anything other than judge-made law.

I’m just a little bit worried about the nature of some of the speeches that we’ve heard this afternoon that seem to be perhaps less than strident in that vital constitutional principle. We may well decide, either by majority with the Local Electoral Act or with the reserved provisions of the Electoral Act, to make a change, but we do so because this House decides that.

Arena Williams: That’s what the Supreme Court said.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that’s right. And it’s very interesting that the Supreme Court also made the point that the Crown, in its submission, didn’t actually argue the justification; it just said, “Parliament makes laws. Parliament is sovereign.” So it kind of may well have convinced the courts if it sought to do so. So in a way, the declaration made itself, because the Crown didn’t argue against the position that it was justified in the circumstances. It just said, “Well, Parliament’s made the law.” Perhaps the defence in the case could have been different. I’ll just say it in that way.

Now, I’ll finish by coming back to the question of being 18 to borrow money—and the lawyers in the Chamber may correct me. I’m not sure a person under the age of 18 can buy a house, can have real property in their name. Now, that’s a very interesting issue on two counts.

Again, it’s a breach of their human right to own property, real property, but also, ironically, in the local council elections. Ms Walters talks about taxation and representation—and by the way 15-year-olds can work and pay tax as well. But local council elections are generally ratepayer elections. And the irony of putting it to 16 is that those 16-year-olds will never be able to own a property under current law and therefore won’t be ratepayers. Their parents might be, but depending on how many 16- to 18-year-olds are in the household, there may be several more votes than the ratepayer base—some would argue—could justify.

That said, this is an important discussion to have. I’m glad we’re having it, but I think we should be very, very cautious not to undermine the absolute sovereignty of this place to decide important issues like how old one should be when we vote.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am taking a short call to address two, just two, of the points arisen in this debate. The first point is a point made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse when he said that age in law is arbitrary. He took us through his reasoning in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act, and there’s an important point here which we need to note, which is: in the Human Rights Act there is a group—within age—who can be discriminated against. Those are under 16-year-olds. That’s section 21(1)(i)(iii), Mr Woodhouse, that provides for Parliament making decisions about under 16-year-olds which may be different from their counterparts who are 18. That is why, in law, it’s wrong to say that age is arbitrary when we’re looking at the voting rights of 18-year-olds. In fact, in all of the court’s decisions, it was important that this age of 18 was arbitrary, but under 16 one might make a case for a different decision.

The point here is that these decisions, when we do draw a line in the sand in Parliament—which Parliament is perfectly entitled to do, around age—they should be made with reason and backed by evidence. The point Mr Woodhouse made about the Crown not advancing a position that the age of 16 was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act might have something to do with the absolute lack of a case made by the Opposition benches about why 16-year-olds shouldn’t be able to vote.

There is no case why 16-year-olds shouldn’t be able to vote. The evidence is quite the contrary to that. The Minister made that case in her statement when she said that people in their mid-teens are able to make deliberative decisions but their capacity to make more emotionally charged decisions is limited. That was the evidence heard by the select committee from the Children’s Commissioner in their hot and cold cognitive analysis. The Children’s Commissioner presented to the Justice Committee that the evidence shows that cognitive abilities reach adult levels at different ages for different types of decision making. In this regard, the committee found that the distinction drawn between hot and cold cognition was useful, and voting was cited as an example of decision-making processes that utilise cold cognition. That’s the kind of decisions we young people can make, a decision about the things which affect them in their lives, which affect their futures and the kind of New Zealand that they want to live in.

On this side of the House we believe that young people are perfectly well set up to make those decisions in their lives and for their communities. There is no evidence to the contrary and that’s not being advanced by the Opposition in this debate.

The second point, and there’s only two points because I will be brief, is the point that the Hon Paul Goldsmith raised. When the Green Party was heckling him, he said, “That’s how it should be in Parliament; we should be heckled.” Who’s doing the heckling? When we look around this House, can we say that it is representative of the New Zealand that we seek to serve as parliamentarians? Can we say that the voices here, who we would abrogate their rights, are doing the heckling? Absolutely not, because the 16-year-olds who have made their voices heard—Make It 16 campaign—who have been out there on the streets, petitioning MPs, making their case online, taking it to the schools; they are not here to heckle the Hon Paul Goldsmith, they are not here to participate in this debate, and so I say I support their campaign, and that’s why it’s been a privilege to speak on this debate.