Nojoumian, Niki --- "The Case For Lowering The Voting Age In Australia" [2023] UNSWLawJlStuS 7; (2023) UNSWLJ Student Series No 23-7

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series

Despite compulsory voting requirements, a steep decline in youth participation in Australia is observed.^[1] Australian parliament has been consistently urged to decrease the voting age to 16, a bill once presented and supported by the Labor Party and Australian Greens in 2018.^[2] While the 2018 bill was unsuccessful, the Australian Greens have once again in 2022 announced a bill to lower the voting age to 16. In the wake of Australian Parliament being encouraged to decrease the voting age to 16, this article will examine the adequacy surrounding existing regulation, recommending appropriate opportunities for reform.

I THE EXISTING APPROACH TO LEGAL REGULATION

The Australian Constitution does not guarantee an express right to vote.^[3] Instead sections 7 and 24 only guarantee an implied right to universal suffrage, interpreted through the phrase ‘directly chosen by the people’.^[4] As the Constitution is not prescriptive on who is excluded from the franchise, broad decision-making powers are left to parliament.^[5] As identified in the case of Lange, the Constitution ensures that the system of responsible and representative government is held.^[6] This system ensures that confidence in government is expressed by ‘the people’ through the electoral process. Not only has the phrase ‘the people’ evolved overtime, empowering government to exclude groups from the franchise if given ‘substantial reason’^[7], but section 51(xxxvi) also confers the parliament power to legislate on the qualification of electors and federal elections more generally.^[8] Persons eligible to vote are Australian citizens who have attained 18 years of age, per section 93 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.^[9]

It is important to note that the voting age in Australia was reduced from 21 years of age to 18 in 1973.^[10] The reduction in the age requirement was sought to seek equity with the military age of conscription.^[11] When looking at the underpinning theory of political equality, founded by John Stuart Mill [1869], the ability to vote should be conferred upon the citizen who acquires the responsibilities of adulthood under law.^[12] This change was presented in the context of the Vietnam War (1955-1975), where Australian men from the age of 18 were conscripted to war and yet unable to vote.^[13] It was eventually accepted that as young Australians paid taxes, could marry and fight, they were informed, confident and critical enough to vote at 18.^[14] Additionally, it was argued that reducing the voting age would increase electoral participation and inculcate civic values at an early age.^[15] The voting age was reduced in lieu.

The accepted international standard is presently for 18-year-old citizens to vote.^[16] Currently, 86% of countries have set the legal voting age ser at 18.^[17] Institutions such as the Electoral Knowledge Network and the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance consider it appropriate and necessary to set boundaries to the franchise and voting age.^[18] These boundaries are set due to the philosophical conception that voting is a responsibility associated with adulthood.^[19] At present, the United Nations defines that adulthood is reached at 18 years of age.^[20] Adult rights and responsibilities such as leaving school, attaining full-time employment and drinking alcohol are acquired at 18 years.^[21]

There is a growing trend where other nations have begun reducing the voting age to 16 for national and local elections. The leading nation in this field is Austria, lowering the voting age for all nationwide elections to 16 years in 2007.^[22] With an increasing ageing population, the need to increase youth participation was prominent in Austria. Such electoral reform was accompanied with compulsory civic and citizenship education in the school curriculum.^[23] An independent commission (the Zentrum Polis), financed by the Austrian Ministry of Education was established.^[24] The aim of the Zentrum Polis is to support and train teachers when implementing basic principles of political education in school.^[25] Analysis on the effect of the lowered voting age in Austria will be conducted later in this article. As of 2018, young people in Latin America have also been enfranchised; Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua have all reduced the voting age to 16.^[26] Notably, changes to the voting age in Latin America occurred far earlier than other western nations, with Cuba, Nicaragua and Brazil granting voting rights in 1970 and 1980.^[27] Scotland also provides as a unique case study, implementing a careful two-step approach.^[28] First, by reducing the voting age only for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, and second, reforming voting for the general franchise in 2016.

The debate to decrease the voting age to 16 is also underway in various jurisdictions. Given the federal structure of the United States, the story of reducing the voting has lacked uniformity.^[29] In 2013, various counties in Maryland have reduced the voting age to 16 for local county elections.^[30] As a result, various states such as California and Washington DC have considered lowering the voting age and the debate is being taken seriously. The debate to lower the voting age is prevalent in Aotearoa New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom, nations considered to be largely similar in size and politics to Australia.^[31] In 2021, a case was brought before the High Court of Aotearoa New Zealand, claiming that the voting age was inconsistent with the nations Bill of Rights.^[32] The Supreme Court determined that ‘there was no justification to exclude 16- and 17-year-old from voting’.^[33] In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the existing voting age of 18 was inconsistent with New Zealand’s Bill of Rights.^[34] More specifically, the court determined the right of 16-year old’s and over to be free from age discrimination.^[35] As a result of this ruling, the New Zealand government has begun drafting legislation to lower the voting age.^[36] Given that lowering the voting age is a political issue, this ruling does not guarantee the lowering of the voting age in New Zealand. Instead, any electoral reform in New Zealand still requires 75% of parliamentary support.^[37] The likely obstacle for New Zealand’s government is the ideological values held by various parties that ultimately affirm their opposition to or support for reform.^[38] More analysis on obstacles for reform will be covered later in this article. The debate to lower the voting age is being taken seriously in various jurisdictions through public debate, legal challenges, and numerous inquiries. The thrust to lower the voting age internationally is strong and Australia should follow alongside.

II SUGGESTED PROPSALS OF REFORM

The most compelling proposal for reform is through adopting a ‘cautious and incremental path’.^[39] Various proposals acknowledge the need for increased civic education but differ on the necessity of compulsory voting for 16–17-year-olds.

As the current age to enrol and vote is 16 years of age, it is recommended for enrolment to be lowered to 14 years.^[40] Given that the electoral roll is a public document, to align with child safety, a special roll should be set for 14 to 16-year-olds.^[41] The parliamentary committee suggests that the enrolment details of young people under 16 is to be kept confidential.^[42]

What is unique to Australia’s political landscape, is whether voting for young people should be voluntary. Comparatively, in Austria (where 16-year old’s are enfranchised) and New Zealand (where there is a high likely hood of enfranchisement), voting is not a compulsory activity. Unlike earlier examples, compulsory voting is a core democratic value in Australia.^[43]

As suggested in the 2022 Parliamentary Inquiry to lower the voting age, Professor Williams advocates making voting voluntary for young people aged 16-17 years of age.^[44] Making voting non-compulsory provides interested young people with the option to vote. This works to provide a transitionary phase for young people who are interested in exercising their right.^[45] Creating a soft entry to vote instils feelings of autonomy for young people to make their own informed decisions.^[46] In favour of voluntary voting, the Australian Greens Party argued that a soft launch into voting allowed young people to familiarise themselves with the process, without the fear of being penalised.^[47]

Despite popular support for involuntary voting, the Joint Standing Committee recommended in favour of compulsory voting, coupled with increased civic education.^[48] In line with Australian democratic values, the committee stipulated that the right to vote is paired with the responsibility to vote.^[49] This approach was strongly endorsed by the Australian Labor party as they wished to avoid undermining ‘equality of political participation’.^[50] To create good habits and civic education from an early age, compulsory voting should be implemented for all Australian citizens from 16 years of age. To still offer a soft entry, it was suggested that the Australian Electoral Commission is granted with discretionary power to wave fines for non-voting young people.^[51]

A reform that provides a middle ground to the above contrasting recommendations is one suggested by Professor Williams in the Senate Committee Inquiry.^[52] Professor Williams suggested that for two election cycles voting to be voluntary for young people, still giving them a soft entry into the political landscape. Many young people outlined the stress of voting and researching political parties for the first time.^[53] Williams emphasises that the initial voluntary aspect of voting is recommended due to the logistics of initially increasing civic education in schools, rather than undermining an Australian core democratic value. It is likely that this transitionary period is the most likely avenue for reform.

The Senate Committee recommends for the increased electoral education of young people, making sure they understand their voting obligations.^[54] Beyond family biases, many young people have low standards of civic knowledge and minimal understanding of political parties. To date, young people have never been encouraged to take an avid interest into politics.^[55] Similar to Austria’s system of Civic Education, it has been recommended for civic education to be embedded within the education system from primary school, rather than a segregated course curriculum.^[56] Enrolment education is to be also incorporated into school civic education. ^[57] Dr Lesley Pruitt recommends a ‘co-design system’ where young people are consulted and take a leading role in how civic education is implemented.^[58]

III EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS

This article will evaluate five main arguments in favour of lowering the voting age. These arguments being:

The strongest argument in favour of lowering the voting age extends to equity. Akin to the age reduction from 21 to 18, young people should vote on issues that directly affect them.^[59] As noted in Table 1, in Australia, young people aged 16-17 can collectively pay tax, commence military service, obtain a driver’s licence and consent to sex.^[60] All previous examples are considered traditional markers of ‘adulthood’. McAllister’s table below demonstrates that adulthood is a ‘process rather than an event’.^[61] There is no fixed point where one accumulates all responsibilities associated with ‘adulthood’, responsibilities associated with that of adulthood are accumulated.^[62] In fact, according to McAllister’s graph there is no fixed age of responsibility even within Australia, given the noted variation between states.

Figure 1: Ian McAllister’s table of minimum age for each regulated activity^[63]

Responsibility	Age	Notes
Age in adult Court	18	17 in Queensland
Marriage	18	16 if both parents consent
Alcohol Consumption	18	Possession and Consumption
Military Service	17	Application can be made from 16 years and 6 months
Vehicle Licence	17	16 years and 6 months in the Northern Territory
Sexual Consent	16	17 in Tasmania
Pilots Licence	17	16 for balloons and gliders
Firearms Licence	14	Variations between different states and territories

Akin to the 1997 ‘old enough to vote, old enough to fight’ slogan, reform will better fit the principle of representative government. Young people are trying to keep politicians accountable on matters that affect them through alternative means.^[64] Debates surrounding lowering the voting age also extend to issues of climate change. The recent Australian case of Sharma and Others v Minister for Environment demonstrates that there are a variety of political issues that equally affect young people.^[65] In the case of Sharma, eight young people filed a class action, seeking an injunction to prevent the extension of the Whitehaven Vickery Coal mine.^[66] The plaintiffs, representing the interests of people under the age of 18, argued that the minister of environment owed a duty of care to young people.^[67] While the Full Federal Court declined to issue an injunction on the coal mine extension, the court did establish that the risks of global warming and climate change to children remain.^[68] Though this case did not find sufficient “closeness” between the Minister for Environment and the futures of children, it demonstrates that young people care enough about political issues to bring legal actions.^[69] Comparable to the concerns of young people about Australia’s position in the Vietnam War, young people are affected by green politics. We can see that the system of government doesn’t seem to represent the needs of young people, despite their calls to action.

The argument made against the equity evaluation is twofold. First that tourists and temporary residents also pay tax and do not have the right to vote.^[70] Second, as most young people are in school and are financially dependent on parents and guardians and would likely only pay indirect tax.^[71] Importantly, both arguments only extend to taxation and are extremely limited in strength. While it has not been covered in this article, the debate to also extend voting rights to permanent residents is alive and is not mutually exclusive to the discussion within this article.^[72] One could equally argue that reform is also available to extend voting rights to permanent residents in Australia. Additionally, while tourists pay tax and do not have voting rights within Australia, this is not to say that they do not have voting rights in their country of citizenship, where they likely pay the most tax. As identified above in this article, the age to vote varies internationally and it is not the purpose of this article to analyse every avenue of reform. Last, it would be a mistake to generalise that young people would only pay indirect tax. Many young people hold casual jobs while at school. Given that age to leave school to attend Tafe and receive vocational education is 16 years, many young people hold full time jobs while they commence this study. Therefore, any arguments made against equity are extremely limited in strength and have only extended to taxation.

Conversations surrounding lowering the voting age is stymied based on arguments surrounding the “political maturity” of young people. The conventional argument against lowering the voting age is that young people are not politically mature enough to be trusted to vote.^[73] Commentators who argue against lowering the voting age rely on a ‘common sense approach’, limiting all young people as individuals devoid of political knowledge, good judgement and cognitive capacity.^[74] At 16 years, most young people are still in school, basing their everyday decisions on impulse and emotion.^[75] It is feared that young people may develop an over reliance on surrounding ‘adult’ figures due to their inability to make good voting judgements. Given that realistically young people have minimal personal political opinions, they may succumb to peer pressure and base their political preferences on surrounding friends and family. Ian McAllister argues that young people carry a general level of political ignorance, knowing less than the average of age voter.^[76] Empirical data provided by Chan and Clayton in 2006 found that the young people of Britain had lower political knowledge when compared to their adult counterparts.^[77]

In reality, arguments surrounding the political maturity of young people are outdated. The empirical data presented by McAllister in Figure 2 dates back to 2010, over 12 years ago.^[78] Young people are more politically educated, connected and mature than any previous generation.^[79] The expansion of the education system has increased the opportunity for most young people in Australia to either attend university or Tafe. Research in dispute fails to recognise the growing role that social media (such as YouTube, Instagram, and twitter) plays in educating and involving young people in politics.^[80] The convenience of social media means that young people are more politically aware than ever before. Again, the case of Sharma and Others v Minister for Environment demonstrates that young people are politically engaged about live political matters.^[81] Importantly, Figure 2 notes that the political interest level of 37–43-year-olds is comparable with that of a 19-year-old, yet, we would never confiscate a 37 year olds right to vote.^[82] One could argue that the data provided by researchers such as McAllister is inherently flawed. The question McAllister posed when conducted data for Figure 2 was ‘Generally speaking how much interest you usually have in what’s going on in politics?’.^[83] Age based prejudice in imprinted into such a question. From an early age, young people have never been encouraged to develop an interest in politics, nor are they provided with adequate civic education. Evidence of this lack of support is evidence from criticism of the ‘Schools Strike for Climate Change’ movement, a movement entirely run by young people, striking school and protesting against climate change politics.^[84] The largest piece of criticism was that young people should go back to school and let politicians and ‘adults’ deal with issues of climate change.^[85] Young people have always been reduced to their age, despite demonstrating their interest and maturity to grapple with political issues. Empirical evidence from Austria’s 2013 elections found that political interest among adolescents increased after the voting age was lowered.^[86] Perhaps if schools provided streamlined civic education the interest of young people would grow. Therefore, any arguments made regarding the political maturity of young people are outdated.

A second common argument stems from the perception that young people do not have the appropriate cognitive capacity to vote.^[87] Coupled with arguments surrounding political maturity, it is argued that the critical reasoning ability of young people is still underdeveloped when compared to that of an ‘adult’.^[88] Empirical evidence suggests that the rights and responsibilities currently awarded to young people are currently on par with their cognitive capacity.^[89] For example, young people under 18 in Australia are unable to drink alcohol.^[90] Such a ban on consumption is due to its identified effects on the cognitive brain development of young people, stunting growth and brain function.^[91] Further, it is argued that young people are too emotional and impulsive to handle the incapacitating effects of alcohol, failing to drink responsibly.^[92]

There is significant debate surrounding the cognitive capacity of young people. Empirical data shows that young people aged 16 years and over demonstrate ‘adult like levels of cognitive capacities... and logical reasoning.’^[93] Data however does display that the socioemotional maturity of young people grows linear with age. Socioemotional maturity relates to an individual’s risk perception and impulsivity.^[94] Despite significant characterisation, risk perception and peer influence does not play a large role in the voting process.^[95] The act of voting unfolds over a long period of time. There are extended periods of campaigning, purposely allowing voters time for logical deliberation.^[9] While young people are prone to making impulsive decisions when surrounded by peers, the act of voting is solitary and confidential.^[96]

Further, when looking at Australian Policy it should be noted that the age of criminal responsibility is attributed from 10 years old.^[97] As noted by Associate Professor Gordon, attributing criminal liability from the age of 10 years infers that young people have the cognitive capacity to form appropriate ethical judgments of right and wrong and should be held accountable for these actions.^[98] Overall, public concern surrounding young people’s cognitive capacity to vote is unsubstantiated based on any empirical or policy based data.

It is argued that decreasing the voting age will not provide a panacea to the declining rates of youth participation.^[99] Evidence has shown a declining rate of youth trust in political institutions, likely stemming from the numerous prime ministerial coups in recent Australian political history.^[100] Many young people have not seen a prime minister complete their election term, increasing youth scepticism in the democratic system. Blais and Dobrzynska’s empirical evidence identifies that where voting is voluntary, voter turnout increases with age.^[101] Based on such evidence, it is unlikely that providing young people the opportunity to voluntarily vote will increase political participation. Further, even if voting is compulsory, if young people are not provided with fines for failing to enrol and vote, then there is no added incentive to do so in the first place. Therefore, it is argued that such proposals for reform will not substantially affect the political participation and engagement of young people in politics.

As outlined by the 2018 Joint Standing Committee, while the young people who stand before the committee may be competent and politically interested, they indeed are the minority.^[102] Social media platforms like twitter and Instagram appear as echo chambers, giving a platform to a minority of politically informed young people. Social media gives the impression that there are many politically informed young people due to the existence of such an eco-chamber. It would be a mistake to stereotype all young people as politically invested individuals.^[103]

The argument made in favour of lowering the voting age is that it will increase political participation.^[104] Lowering the voting age will draw in young interested voters, building a habit that will continue throughout their lives.^[105] Australia’s system of compulsory voting averts any theoretical tests of voter turnout. In fact, compulsory voting strengthens the ‘vote early, vote often effect’.^[106] Empirical evidence from Austria suggests that first time voter turnout among 16–17-year-olds is higher than 18–20-year-olds.^[107] Additionally, it would be incorrect to ignore the entirety of the proposed reform.^[108] Lowering the voting age would be coupled with increasing voter civic education. As mentioned earlier, increasing civic education will also increase youth participation.^[109] If young people are encouraged to take a greater interest in live political issues they will likely be incentivised to vote.^[110] Young people have never been encouraged to take an avid interest in politics. Streamlining civic education in schools would likely mean that we will have a more informed population in the long term.^[111] Streamlining education will also mean that young people will develop good voting habits from an early age, accepting that voting is an important civic duty.^[112] In conclusion, due to the compulsory voting system coupled with increased school civic education, it is likely that lowering the voting age will bolster political participation.

It is argued that any dramatic effect on policy is likely to be an overstated claim. First, it is anticipated that lowering the voting age will only add an additional 3.3% of voters.^[113] Given that this is a relatively small increase to the voting pool, parties will likely continue to subscribe to their ideological values.^[114] A 3.3% increase is a small sum and is unlikely to substantially change the outcome of a federal election.^[115] Akin to the lowering of the voting age in 1973, we did not see a strong ideological change with political parties attempting to subscribe to the preferences of young voters. It is unlikely that lowering the voting age here will cater to any arguments of extreme policy change in this case.^[116] Last, experts argue that there is a slippery slope argument to be had here.^[117] If the voting age is lowered to 16 years old in the name of intergenerational justice, what is to say that an argument won’t arise in the foreseeable future in favour of lowering the voting age once again to 14 years.^[118] A line must be drawn, giving 18-year old’s a say already nourishes any claims of intergenerational justice.

On the contrary, lowering the voting age will likely incentivise politicians to listen to young voters, creating better and more representative policy. Lowering the voting age can be seen as a solution to the short termanism of policy, rooted in line with the principle of intergenerational justice.^[119] Intergenerational justice is centred around green political thought.^[120] For example, given youth interest, politicians would be held directly accountable for any promises regarding climate change they make.^[121] Policies surrounding climate change are often neglected in exchange for policies that make a short-term difference, making it easier for the re-election of politicians.^[122] At its root, while many politicians care about making effective policies to better society, they must balance this alongside their interest of re-election.^[123] One must remember that politics is a career after all. As a result, politicians often opt for short term policies that will put them in the good graces of the public, making re-election easier.^[124] Most policies regarding climate change are long term focused and have short term economic side effects. For example, when looking at the extension of the Whitehaven Coal mine, the environment minister must balance short term economic benefits against its long-term environmental impacts.^[125] For an older population who will largely not feel the dramatic effects of climate change, it is a lot easier to justify economic profits and stability.^[126] Lowering the voting age will enhance democratic performance, encouraging politicians to implement political promised to cater for the long-term interests of younger voters. Politicians are incentivised to make election promises that will guarantee them the most votes. If we provide an increased younger voting base, politicians will be incentivised to make election promises that cater to the interests of a younger generation.

IV OBSTACLES TO REFORM

Party politics is likely to be the undoing of the case to lower the voting age.^[127] Regardless of any benefits and disadvantages posed, partisan interest and ideological value will inform a party’s political support.^[128]

When turning to partisan interest, unsurprisingly, parties will likely support a bill when the reform poses a long-term benefit to their survival.^[129] Election studies have demonstrated a generational gap between younger voters and older votes.^[130] Figure 3, demonstrates that younger voters ages 18-24 are more likely to lean towards the Greens and Labor party.^[131] Young voters are less supportive of conservative leaning parties like the Australia Liberals due to young people’s primary concerns surrounding climate change and the rising cost of living.^[132] In recent campaigns both the Labor and Greens party sought to address these concerns with their policies around negative (Labor focused policy) and environmental activism (Greens focused).^[133] The research conducted by Cameron and McAllister correlates with how much young people under 18 also care about climate change.^[134] Again, the 2021 case of Sharma and Others v Minister for Environment is demonstrative of how left leaning most young people are.^[135] Again, if young people aged between 16-18 are eligible to vote, it is anticipated that an additional 3.3% of young people will be added to the voting pool.^[136] While some would argue that the voting pattern outlined in figure 3 is a small increase of left leaning voters, this increase would likely be significant.^[137] This expansion of the franchise is likely to be consequential when political contests are close.^[138] It is therefore no surprise to see why Australian Liberal senators oppose any reform.^[139] Given that 37 percent of young people support the Greens and 44 percent vote for Labor, in principle, it is in the best interest of these two parties to lower the voting age.

The ideological differences held by the major political parties will most likely be the main obstacle to reform.^[140] While above, this paper discussed that in principle, it is in the strategic interest of the Labor and Greens party to support the lowering of the voting age, practically, division was noted.^[141] Disagreement between the Greens and Labor was rooted in different ideological conceptions surrounding the value of voting.^[142] While both parties valued principles of equality, intergenerational justice and equity, they each differed in the practical implementation (and ultimately hierarchical prioritisation) of these principles.^[143] Ultimately, the Labor party’s support was conditional on voting being compulsory for 16- and 17-year old’s, should reform be implemented.^[144] Labor’s prioritisation of equality is evident and unsurprising due to their aggressive support of compulsory voting and prisoner enfranchisement in 1980.^[145] On the other hand, The Green’s values were rooted in social justice and non-violence, emphasising that voting must be de-linked to electoral law for it to be a meaningful and non-violent activity for young people.^[146] Ultimately, we saw the Labor party fail to support the 2018 Bill as they claimed that the non-compulsory aspect of the vote would undermine equality, treating classes of people differently based on their age and would further undermine the inherent duty and privilege associated with voting.^[147]

It is likely that the recent proposal, suggested by Professor Williams in the Senate Committee Inquiry will provide a suitable middle ground for the Labor and Greens Party.^[148] As mentioned above, Professor Williams suggested that for two election cycles voting is to be voluntary for young people, still giving them a soft entry into the political landscape. This proposal will likely provide a suitable balance meeting the values held by The Greens and Labor surrounding voting reform.

V CONCLUSION

We have seen a steep decline in youth electoral participation in Australia.^[149] Australian parliament has been consistently urged to decrease the voting age to 16, a bill once presented in 2018.^[150] In the wake of Australian Parliament being once again encouraged to decrease the voting age to 16, this paper has examined the adequacy surrounding existing regulation. This article has concluded that ultimately, reducing the voluntary voting age to 16-17, on a temporary basis, will be equitable in nature, increase youth political participation and will create more targeting and effective policy. This paper has equally addressed the likely obstacles to reform, being party politics and ideological value. Overall, if we balance the harms and benefits of reducing the voting age, in the worst case, even if a minority young people are interested in politics, they deserve to be represented and have their voice heard by politicians.

^[1] Narelle Miragliotta, Sarah Murray and Martin Drum, ‘Values, Partisan Interest, and the Voting Age: Lessons from Australia’ (2021) 49(5) Politics & Policy (Statesboro, GA.) 1192, 1192.

^[2] Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018.

^[5] Joo-Cheong Tham, Political Participation (2018) in Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution, eds. C. Saunders & A. Stone, Oxford University Press, Oxford: Ch40, 4.

^[11] Ian McAllister, ‘The Politics of Lowering the Voting Age in Australia’ (2014) 49(1) Australian Journal of Political Science 68.

^[13] Commonwealth. Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 21 September 1965, 496 (Fred Daly).

^[14] Commonwealth. Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 13 March 1973, 496 (Billy Snedden).

^[19] Jonathan Tonge, Thomas Loughran and Andrew Mycock, ‘Voting Age Reform, Political Partisanship and Multi-Level Governance in the UK: The Party Politics of 'Votes-at-16'’ (2021) 74(3) Parliamentary Affairs 522, 530.

^[22] Jan Eichhorn and Johannes Bergh, Lowering the Voting Age to 16: Learning from Real Experiences Worldwide (Springer International Publishing,: Palgrave Macmillan, 1st ed, 2020) 82.

^[31] Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety Committee, Submission No 7 to the Legislative Assembly, Australian Capital Territory, Inquiry into the Electoral Amendment Bill 2021 (2^nd February 2022) 6.

^[40] Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Parliament of Australia, Advisory report on lowering the voting age and increasing voter participation bill (Report, June 2018).

^[46] Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (n 34); Young Women Speak Out, Submission No 87 to Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, on Advisory report on lowering the voting age and increasing voter participation bill (25 June 2018).

^[49] Ibid; Human Rights Law Centre, Submission No 14 to Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, on Advisory report on lowering the voting age and increasing voter participation bill (25 June 2018).

^[55] Youth Action & Policy Association, Submission No 64 to Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, on Advisory report on lowering the voting age and increasing voter participation bill (25 June 2018).

^[57] Professor George Williams, Submission No 2 to Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, on Advisory report on lowering the voting age and increasing voter participation bill (25 June 2018).

^[60] Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (n 34); McAllister (n 11) 74; Table 1 prepared for Ian McAllister’s research article, analysing the evidence available for and against lowering the voting age in Australia.

^[68] Adam Morton and Tamsin Rose, ‘Sussan Ley Does Not Have a Duty of Care to Protect Young From Climate Crisis Court Appeals’ The Guardian (online, 15 March 2022) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/15/sussan-ley-does-not-have-duty-of-care-to-protect-young-from-climate-crisis-appeal-court-rules>.

^[77] Benjamin Oosterhoff, Laura Wray-Lake and Daniel Hart, ‘Reconsidering the Minimum Voting Age in the United States’ (2022) 17(2) Association for Psychological Science 446.

^[80] Jack Newnham, Peter Bell (2012) ‘Social Network Media and Political Activism: A Growing Challenge for Law Enforcement’ Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 7(1) 36.

^[83] McAllister (n 11) 74; Figure 2 prepared for Ian McAllister’s research article, analysing the evidence available for and against lowering the voting age in Australia.

^[85] Australian Associated Press, Scott Morrison Tells Students Striking Over Climate Change to be 'Less Activist', The Guardian (Web Page 26 November 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/26/scott-morrison-tells-students-striking-over-climate-change-to-be-less-activist>.

^[101] André Blaise and Agnieszka Dobrzynska, ‘Turnout in Electoral Democracies’ (1998) 33(2) European Journal of Political Research 239.

^[106] Cowley, Philip and David Denver, ‘Votes at 16? The Case Against’ (2004) 41(1) Representation (McDougall Trust) 57.

^[107] Eichorn and Bergh (n 19) 84; Eva Zeglovits and Martina Zandonella (2013) ‘Political Interest of Adolescents Before and After Lowering the Voting Age: The Case of Austria’ Journal of Youth Studies 16(8), 1084.

^[109] Nathan Manning and Kathy Edwards (2014) ‘Does Civic Education for Young People Increase Political Participation? A Systematic Review’ Educational Review, 66(1) 22.

^[121] Roman Krznaric, ‘When Politicians Fail to Look Beyond the Next Election – or Even the Latest Tweet – They Are Neglecting the Rights of Future Generations, Argues Public Philosopher Roman Krznaric’ British Broadcasting Corporation Future (online, 19 March 2019) <https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190318-can-we-reinvent-democracy-for-the-long-term> .

^[145] Peter Beilharz, Transforming Labor: Labour Tradition and the Labor Decade in Australia (Cambridge University Press, 1994).

^[146] Jackson Stewart, The Australian Greens: From Activism to Australia’s Third Party (Melbourne University Press, 2016).

^[150] Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018.

University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series

Nojoumian, Niki --- "The Case For Lowering The Voting Age In Australia" [2023] UNSWLawJlStuS 7; (2023) UNSWLJ Student Series No 23-7

I THE EXISTING APPROACH TO LEGAL REGULATION

II SUGGESTED PROPSALS OF REFORM

III EVALUATION OF ARGUMENTS

IV OBSTACLES TO REFORM

V CONCLUSION