Stuff asked the following question
The Supreme Court has said the Bill of Rights Act declares there should be no discrimination on the basis of age so setting a threshold to vote at 18 unjustly discriminates against 16-year-olds.
But does this open up every other age-based entitlement to accusations of discrimination. For instance, how do you justify superannuation eligibility at 65 rather than 60?
Stuart Smith
National MP
Kaikoura
Below is Stuart Smith’s response.
The Labour government’s decision to introduce legislation into parliament to amend the Electoral Act which would allow those under the age of 16 to vote is nothing more than a distraction. This is an attempt to divert attention from the real issues facing New Zealanders.
The Supreme Court ruled it was a breach of the Bill of Rights for 16-year-olds not to be able to vote on the grounds that they are being discriminated against based on age.
However, we have laws in place based on age for a reason – mainly to protect our youth. There are age limits on when you can get your driver’s license, or when you can buy alcohol and recently when you can buy vapes.
If the Supreme Court is suggesting that we lower the voting age in the name of human rights, then on the same basis, are they also suggesting we do the same for other laws?
There were concerns when the Supreme Court was established that we lacked jurists with the independence and impartiality of the Privy Council, where such cases used to be determined. Unfortunately, this has proven to be the case.
If activist judges want to make laws rather than interpret them, they should step down from the bench and run for parliament.
The reality is that we have a government who are focused on completely the wrong things. I don’t think changing the voting age is the kind of justice reform we need in this country right now.
Last week Janak Patel tragically lost his life – he was a migrant worker who fell victim to the crime wave that is now surging through New Zealand.
Shop owners and the general public are now coming forward saying that they do not feel safe in their communities, and that is because we have a government who is soft on crime.
If there is to be fundamental change to our laws, it shouldn’t be the voting age.
It should be addressing the 500 per cent increase in ram raids, the 44 per cent increase in gang numbers and the 21 per cent increase in violent crime, all of which has happened under this government’s watch.
Attempting to use parliament’s time to change the voting age, which would not get the necessary support to pass into law, is nothing but a distraction. The fact they are doing this at a time when an increasing number of people are becoming victims of crime, shows just how out of touch they are.
National is strongly focused on outcomes. We will deliver for New Zealanders, and we will focus on delivering justice reforms that make New Zealanders feel safe.