Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

All of us in this place should believe in strengthening our democracy, and Senator Hanson and One Nation's suggestion of raising the voting age is beyond ridiculous. Young people in Australia want to be involved in decision-making processes in the same way all other Australians do and should be offered the opportunity to do so on the same footing as other Australians within our existing mandate. Encouraging young people to participate encourages transparency and engagement in community-centred action to improve decision-making processes in our nation. We need to value and acknowledge the contribution of young Australians through our accountable processes here in this parliament. This means that we believe that young people deserve a say at the ballot box about the future of our nation.

According to the most recent census, almost one million young Australians would lose their legal right to vote if the voting age was raised from 18 to 21. That's one million Australians who would be denied the right to vote. I know that Senator Hanson has contended that young people haven't had enough life experience or enough political experience or engagement yet, but the simple fact is that the very act of enrolling to vote—of coming on the roll and voting for the first time—is part of what triggers that engagement. I certainly remember, for my own part, when the Australian Electoral Commission doorknocked my home when I was 17, I was excited to be put on the electoral roll. During my very first vote the following year, I started to take an interest in political affairs, and more and more so until, indeed, I had joined a political party by the time I turned 21—I'd joined the great Australian Labor Party.

What my simple experience demonstrates, like that of millions of other Australians, is you can't arbitrarily delay voting and expect that everyone will be ready after that. You've got to get people on the roll and get them engaged to trigger them to relate to what's being discussed on the TV and relate to the fact that there is an election on. It's not something that you can just turn on once you turn 21.

The simple fact is there are many 16-year-olds today who have an interest and who are willing, ready and able to vote. I think that is, indeed, a worthwhile policy discussion. We should be having more young people engaged in our democracy, not fewer. Young people are active participants in our public life in this nation and active contributors to the taxation system. I had my first taxpaying job before I turned 18. In fact, by the time I had turned 18, I was on my second taxpaying job, having worked on the family orchard before that as a child and played a role within small business.

Those under 18 in our nation currently have no voice on decisions government makes today that impact them in the future, and yet we know that 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds are mandated to engage in adult activities. You can apply from 16 years and six months of age to commence military service at 17. You can get your drivers licence between 16 years and six months and 17, or 18 in Victoria. You can get your pilots licence for balloons and gliders from 16 and for aircraft from 17. You can get your firearms licence from 14 years of age in some states and territories. Young people make independent decisions about medical matters from the age of 16 and can be treated as independent, in terms of leaving home under particular circumstances, from the age of 16. If people under the age of 21 can be sent to war, drive on our roads and live independently, why is it that they can't be trusted to participate in our democracy and have a say at the ballot box?

I raised this issue in my first speech to the Western Australian parliament when I was elected there in 2001. I said very strongly that we should be examining lowering the voting age to 16. I said at the time that, as the majority of people at this age are at least as politically aware as other voters, they have their own articulate views and opinions to which members of parliament should be responsive and accountable. I still believe that this is the case. I can recall that, in the Shorten opposition's policies before the last election, it flagged the idea of expanding the electoral franchise so that more young people have the right to vote at future federal elections. We said that in government we would consider inviting young people to come onto the roll from 16, which you currently can do, and that, once you're on the roll, you would legally be able to exercise the right to vote. It means that we could maintain the very important principle of compulsory voting but give that time for young people when they're ready—and many of them are—to come onto the roll and start to exercise that political and civic engagement, which so many of them are ready to do.

I meet young people every other day in this country, visiting schools, visiting different communities and visiting Girl Guides and Scouts who are very engaged in political discussion, very engaged in their local communities and very ready to vote on the issues before us in our society. We know this from the fact that we have seen more than 65,000 18- to 24-year-olds get on the electoral roll in the marriage postal survey. They are mad keen to have their say on this issue, and yet Senator Hanson would like to take that voice away from about a million young people. So I believe that young people are appalled at what Senator Hanson stands for in this regard, and I guess it's no surprise, really, that Senator Hanson wants to stop them from having their say.

We in this place should be ensuring that young people have a say in our future. Young people should not be disenfranchised from politics. We should be encouraging their participation more than ever. When reflecting on the idea that we need to give young people a greater say, not a lesser say, I truly believe this extends to how we consult with children and young people more broadly in our society. For example, one of the organisations that government funds is the CREATE Foundation. The CREATE Foundation is a very critical organisation that represents the needs of young people in care. These are young people whose parental guardian is the state—who have no other legal parent. They have expressed strong views about how the policies and practices of government treat them in terms of their foster care, their family placements and the day-to-day management of their lives. So, as to the issues of the state, in terms of how we affect young people—be they in care or in education, be it as to their medical care or any aspect of their lives—their views are valid and need to be considered by this place and by every level of government.