Page 804 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And it is very much part of the debate. It is interesting that Dr Foskey would not propose compulsory voting. If you are over 18, voting is compulsory; if you are under 18, voting is not compulsory. That is the position that the Greens put. That has implications. Why, for a cohort of voters—if these young people are mature, have the capacity to participate, are more willing to participate—would we change the nature of the voting system for under-18 voters and leave it as it is for over-18 voters? What are the implications of that?
What are the implications of chipping away at the notion of compulsory voting, something that has served Australia particularly well? Should we embrace or engage in a process that says, “There are cases where compulsory voting perhaps is less than ideal”? To the extent that the Greens reveal a particular agenda, we would propose that this is compulsory voting. I guess my anxiety is perhaps raised a level higher than it might have been on the suggestion that we reduce the voting age to 16.
I strongly support compulsory voting; we will always strongly support compulsory voting. It has served Australia particularly well. If there are suggestions that we should, for a particular cohort of voters, abandon our commitment to compulsory voting, then that is something that I have serious issue with. I have serious issue with that particular proposal, and it would certainly weaken my support for a proposal to introduce voting for 16-year-olds on the basis that it was not a compulsory scheme.
Even then there are issues. We have entrenched compulsory voting in the ACT. It is an entrenched requirement. It is not a requirement under the self-government act, but we have entrenched it as part of our Hare-Clarke arrangements. There are particular implications there.
There are other issues that would need to be investigated and fleshed out. We would have to create, if we were the only jurisdiction in Australia to lower the voting age to 16, a separate electoral roll. There are significant implications for us as a jurisdiction. Cost is an issue. That is the essential issue. When I say “significant implications”, I mean cost implications as well as some of the practical aspects of creating a separate electoral roll.
The ACT relies on the commonwealth roll. I would not like to think that we should not pursue, discuss or inquire into the reduction of the voting age because we would have to create a second electoral roll. It is doable, but is it desirable? Is it a valid or legitimate cost for the benefits that might be achieved in reducing the age? I raise it as an issue—and it is a serious issue—as it would require the ACT to create a separate electoral roll. There are implications that cannot be dismissed by saying, “So what? The greater good!” I do not dismiss it. I say it is an issue.
There is also an issue that we need to dwell on—and I make no judgment on this; I raise it again as an issue—if one agrees to lower the voting age to 16. One of course, I would have thought logically, would need to lower to 16 the age at which one could present as a candidate. Without being judgmental at all, we, as legislators, would need to think of the consequences of accepting 16-year-olds as members of this Assembly. It might be cruel and unusual treatment in the eyes of some. There are, I would have thought, implications for us in relation to our responsibility for children in this territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .