Yes, you read that right: 16. Because if Jesus had had a say in New Zealand politics, he would proclaim, “Let the little children come to the ballot box, for theirs is the kingdom of representative democracy.”
Only fools would criticise our government for being childish. Because, as history shows us, children are capable of remarkable things.
We need only remember Joan of Arc. By the tender age of 17, she was leading armies and changing the course of French history. Had she been a New Zealander today, under the current voting age, her talents would have been squandered on TikTok.
Or consider the Children’s Crusade of 1212. Led by ambitious youngsters, this crusade may not have been a success but it proved that youth should not be shackled by ageist legislation. If a 12-year-old could attempt to retake Jerusalem, why can’t a 16-year-old vote on rubbish collection in Auckland?
And, of course, there is Mozart. Composing music at five, imagine what he could have achieved as a city councillor at 16. He would probably have composed a symphony solely to combat urban noise pollution.
All that said let us not get carried away with these intoxicating examples of youthful achievement. There are some downsides too, because this bill could have unforeseen consequences.
After all, 16-year-olds may be mature enough to decide the future of their local community, but are they mature enough to deal with the local council’s perpetual ineptitude? And how could they face the existential dread of a poorly maintained local park or the horror of delayed roadworks?
The truth is our children will grow up soon enough.
The joys of youth, like being largely irresponsible and not having to support themselves, are fleeting. These joys will never come back unless they later become a backbench MP.
So, why thrust upon children the adult burdens of civic responsibilities? Let them be children for a bit longer before they inherit the tiresome task of dealing with, say, the government.
The move to lower the voting age to 16 is an ambitious endeavour, steeped in wisdom and with many historic precedents of children doing remarkable things.
But perhaps, just perhaps, we should leave children to enjoy their youth.
Because rest assured, the mundanity of adult responsibilities, such as fighting with your local council, will catch up to them soon enough.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
Or consider the Children’s Crusade of 1212. Led by ambitious youngsters, this crusade may not have been a success but it proved that youth should not be shackled by ageist legislation. If a 12-year-old could attempt to retake Jerusalem, why can’t a 16-year-old vote on rubbish collection in Auckland?
And, of course, there is Mozart. Composing music at five, imagine what he could have achieved as a city councillor at 16. He would probably have composed a symphony solely to combat urban noise pollution.
All that said let us not get carried away with these intoxicating examples of youthful achievement. There are some downsides too, because this bill could have unforeseen consequences.
After all, 16-year-olds may be mature enough to decide the future of their local community, but are they mature enough to deal with the local council’s perpetual ineptitude? And how could they face the existential dread of a poorly maintained local park or the horror of delayed roadworks?
The truth is our children will grow up soon enough.
The joys of youth, like being largely irresponsible and not having to support themselves, are fleeting. These joys will never come back unless they later become a backbench MP.
So, why thrust upon children the adult burdens of civic responsibilities? Let them be children for a bit longer before they inherit the tiresome task of dealing with, say, the government.
The move to lower the voting age to 16 is an ambitious endeavour, steeped in wisdom and with many historic precedents of children doing remarkable things.
But perhaps, just perhaps, we should leave children to enjoy their youth.
Because rest assured, the mundanity of adult responsibilities, such as fighting with your local council, will catch up to them soon enough.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
8 comments:
Nice
God forbid we ever let children vote in a general election.
Will they be able to read the voting paper ? At least a third will have difficulty. How embarrassing to have to ask a literate grown -up . Will we have forms with photos and finger prints for signing?
Since the typical 18+ turnout at local elections is generally low, I can't see any reason why 16 & 17 year-olds would be interested in voting in significant numbers either.
That's not an excuse to approve of this poorly thought out law change. It should be repealed ASAP but it probably won't be.
Its not poorly thought out its a plan to bias the elections to the left.
16 year olds are still very much under the influence of parents, and teachers implementing a curriculum decided by the government of the day. No way can their vote be considered to the result of considered thought and reason.
Voter turnout for Local Body elections is usually lower than for Central Govt. This is just the thin end of the wedge, even Blind Freedy can see where this goes. Once we have LB voters of age 16, "Oh, why do we not have 16 year-olds voting for Parliament?" Why indeed.
The thing that makes everyone angry is the super sneaky stealth attack to get the legislation passed.
I noticed that this article has more comments than usual and none are supportive so here is a policy that is another nail in Labour's coffin.
MC
While some children (yes, under 18 year-olds are) might pay some indirect tax through after school or weekend jobs, other than perhaps being the beneficiary of an estate (or someone attempting a tax dodge?), show me the typical 16 - 18 year-old that pays rates? If you're not and never have contributed to the cost of the services, why should you get a right to elect a representative to say how the money is spent? I agree with MC above and it's just another example of a crooked and desperate leftist Govt looking to introduce a 'stacked deck' via the backdoor.
"Open and transparent" - what a joke.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.