Page 809 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
from whether or not Australia should sell uranium to India and what I thought about the industrial relations changes, to the future of public transport in the ACT and, surprisingly enough, whether I thought young people aged 16 and 17 should be allowed to vote. I told the students that I am keen to see young people engaged in the political process; that I am eager to see young people take an interest in current, local and national affairs; and that I want to see young people make themselves aware of the process of voting and how governments work. I stated that this might involve young people being allowed to vote, although this raises many questions of which two are uppermost: whether it is advisable to give young people this responsibility and whether indeed it is possible.
However, two things were confirmed for me that morning when I met with this group of students. The first is that young people are interested in current affairs and in engaging in the political process. Before I go on to the second thing, I might just tell a brief story which is close to home for me, concerning the first recollection that my husband had of writing an essay at school. At the age of eight he was told he could write an essay about anything, so he chose to write his essay about the New South Wales elections at that time. So I can see that many people start being interested in politics at a very early age. Secondly, if young people are properly educated in the political process, then allowing them to vote might, all things being equal, be a reasonable thing to do.
I agree with Dr Foskey that not all 18-year-olds are informed in the way they vote or care particularly about politics until the process really affects them. However, as I and others have said, we will need to consider carefully the many implications that would arise from giving the vote to young people under the age of 18. As Mr Stanhope has already flagged, there may be issues if the ACT is out of step with every other jurisdiction. There may be issues related to whether or not we make voting for 16 and 17-year-olds compulsory and everything that flows from that. If it is not compulsory, as Dr Foskey seems to be suggesting, should we have a two-tier arrangement? I think not.
There are a number of logistical issues that would need to be tackled before we could implement change. We would need to engage in a significant education campaign. As has already been said, we would need to change the arrangements regarding the sharing of the electorate rolls between the ACT and the commonwealth. We would need to consider the fact that a significant number of extra voters in an election would obviously require additional funding. These issues will require careful and thorough investigation.
I understand that Dr Foskey is very keen to see her suggestions become reality as soon as possible. She clearly expressed her motivation to make this happen when she asserted that it was young people who had more passion about the environment. Excuse the pun, Mr Speaker, but is Dr Foskey looking for new greenfields of Green voters? We will need to carefully consult with young people about whether or not this is something they would seriously consider. We need to take the time to ask 16 and 17-year-olds whether or not they want the responsibility of voting. Do not get me wrong: I am sure there are quite a few young people who would value the opportunity to vote, but just how many of them are there? How many people would prefer not to have the responsibility of voting yet? Do 16 and 17-year-olds feel that voting should be compulsory? Do they believe that this is an unreasonable burden? Would they prefer to be given a voice and be part of the democratic process of our society in other ways?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .