Theodore Roosevelt once said “A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user”.

So remind us again why under 18s should get the vote?

As the national voting age is again a topic of debate, thanks to a recent Government Green Paper on electoral reform, these are words that we should pause to consider.

At what age is it likely a voter will carefully consider and target their vote instead of just shoot from the hip as they wander into their local polling booth? Some may say never…

The age of 18 remains significant for a whole range of things – it is when we acquire the legal right to make all decisions about our future without reference to our parents; it is the age from when we face adult responsibilities and punishments; and, frequently most celebrated of all, it is when we can legally purchase alcohol and head out for a night on the town without the fear that the bouncer is going to notice that we don’t really look all that much like our older sibling’s ID.

Is granting the right to vote at 18 arbitrary? Yes. But equally so is 16, so why not 15, or 17 or 21?

I’m sure those who think the arbitrary approach to voting age is grossly unfair aren’t out there advocating some sort of voting qualification like a ‘learners test’ a la the drivers license or a return to a property franchise or, equally unlikely, that only taxpayers, heck, only net taxpayers should get the vote because its their money the Government’s spending.

What ever way you decide who gets to vote there are always going to be some people who will not be eligible.

It’s not just Australia that grants the right to vote at 18 – it’s the international norm with 142 countries granting the right to vote at this age, albeit many with numerous other, far more anti-democratic conditions, imposed in addition to an age of qualification.

A core value of our democracy is that we give people a free vote; they make their own, independent decision.

There is a higher risk that 16 year olds will be unable to independently decide how to cast a vote and may be influenced to vote a certain way, especially by parents, peers or teachers.

Equally, voting is a right with which there comes, at least ideally, some responsibility.  In the case of the right to vote it is, we hope, the responsibility to give some consideration, to exercise appropriate judgment and to be judicious in your decisions.

Does everyone live up to these criteria?  Of course not – witness The Chaser’s fabulously cringe worthy ‘This person votes’ skits during recent elections. 

But it is not unreasonable to assert that the younger you go the more voters you are likely to get who do not exercise this responsibility with the deserved judgement and consideration … often because they are simply still developing such knowledge and skills, as we do throughout our whole life.

Polling shows most people – including most young people – don’t think the voting age should be lowered. Even The Democrats’ once wide-ranging Youth Polls consistently showed that about two thirds of young people thought the voting age should not be lowered.

Not content to leave it at that, advocates for a lower voting age now say that those young people who want to vote should be able to do so voluntarily.

Never mind that this could risk widespread confusion about what age people are required to vote, with different ages at state and federal elections. Nor do they seem to mind that this would create an anomaly between the age of voting and minimum age of candidature.

Most worryingly, however, is that optional voting for younger people would create two classes of voters – those who have to and those who don’t.

I have no doubt that there are some 16 year olds who want to vote, but am even more certain that there are millions more over 18 who don’t.

If the Government is advocating voluntary voting for 16 and 17 year olds – why isn’t it good enough for everyone else?

That might be an electoral reform worth considering.

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • John A Neve says:

      07:19am | 10/10/09

      The age at which we allow a person to vote, is in my view of little importance.
      What is important is consistancy. The age at which a person is deemed to be an adult, join the armed forces, drink alcohol, take part in consentual sex,  drive a motor vehicle and feel the full weight of the law, should be the same.
      The current, you can get married, but you can’t drive a semi to support your family, is a joke.  Or you can leave home,pay tax and drive a car at 17, but you cannot vote until 18 !!! Where is the logic?

      I suggest we pick an age at which we are deemed to be adults, that then applies to every thing.

    • Daniel says:

      07:23am | 10/10/09

      I dont think its a good idea to label and stereotype all young people these days as Corey types. There are some younger adults that are quite up with the times and quite switched on and clever. Im sure tey could show some older Australians a thing or two.

    • paul says:

      07:38am | 10/10/09

      Simon, the Liberals are scared because you know young people abandoned you in droves at the last election and still being the backward ‘boomer’ party you are clueless and youth policy-less. Even while Labor plays into your hands by betraying young voters. I know tons of teens that would make valuable, considered voters. Politics involves responsibility too and look how you old blokes treat it - hypocrisy? And leave the Chaser out of it, they have more youth, imagination and Aussieness than all you Liberals put together.

    • Matthew says:

      07:55am | 10/10/09

      I agree with Daniel in that it’s wrong to stereotype young people as Corey types. I am aware of quite a few under 18s who are more informed about politics and current issues than a lot of adults. I also believe that if you’re old enough to work and pay tax which helps finance a government, then you’re old enough to have a say in how that government is elected. Note that I’m not saying that if you don’t work or pay tax, you shouldn’t have a vote.

    • Tom says:

      07:55am | 10/10/09

      As a politically aware and switched on 17 year old, I really do believe that extending enfranchisement to 16 year old’s on a voluntary basis would be a great idea, but I recognise a significant bias in my views smile
      There is also an argument that it is a privilege / responsibility that should only be extended to adults, because whether or not you are politically aware at 17, it is the principle of the matter that counts.

      I personally would through my weight behind the argument that there should be no taxation without representation. I (and the majority of my peers) have been in part time work for the past 2 years. Whilst most do not earn enough to pay income tax, we have been paying the GST since it was introduced. Because of this, I think we should have the right to help say where it should be spent.

      I also see no problem with voluntary voting (even though I think compulsory voting is the best thing about our electoral system) as it should be pretty clear that it was a ‘trial vote.’ An optional extra until you were legally required to.

      In the end the youth may be the leaders of tomorrow, but we have to live with decisions made by the leaders of today - and because of that I would really like to be able to vote for them smile

    • Margaret Gray says:

      08:02am | 10/10/09

      Very few persons under the age of twenty have had sufficient life experience to justify even being allowed to vote at 18.

      With most kidults also struggling to furnish their mobile phone bill without Mum and Dad’s help, what hope do they have of understanding, for example, domestic economic policy?

      And lets not even go there on current literacy and numeracy rates.

      Ignoring the political apathy of most garden variety Australians of current voting age, there is more to politics than the cult of personality.

      Can teenagers discern the difference?  Doubtful.

      In fact I dare any Australian teenager to speak for more than thirty seconds without using the word ‘like’.

      Voting is more than just showing up, getting your name ticked off and putting an ‘x’ in the box.

      It’s also more than teacher-fed ‘social justice’ populist dogma.

      It is a responsibility…something of which the average 16 year old has very little.

      But the most hilarious misnomer is giving a voice to and fomenting “Youth Policy”.

      Considering the average age “youth” are still living with Mum & Dad is 26 only makes a mockery of any such suggestion.

      Grow up; live a little; learn a lot and use experience as your political counsel.

      And while you’re at it abolish compulsory voting, it’s anathema to the democratic process.

    • RJB says:

      09:28am | 10/10/09

      Of course Labor would want the voting age lowered to dovetail into the indoctrination process of the public school system. Impressionable teenagers parrot the mantra of the left that they are constantly exposed to. They live in a far smaller world than those with debt and responsibilities and champion simplistic answers to social issues. Of those that believe they are politically and mentally mature enough to vote, find just one who would not be a Labor/Greens voter as per the intention of the Teachers’ Federation.

    • Dave says:

      09:43am | 10/10/09

      Corey for PM.  Surely if a 16 year old is allowed to vote then they should be allowed to stand for election.  I thinl Senator Worthington would make a great fist of looking after Australia response to climate change and the coming introduction of a federal charter of rights.  It is true that there are many under 18’s who are more aware than over 18’s.  Perhaps we should look at restricting voting amongst these poor excuses for adults?  Perhaps voting should only be available to net taxpayers, it is after all their money that we’re spending.  The other thing that is overlooked with a reduction in voting age is which kids will actually vote.  Sure there will be green radicals and kids from rusted on labor families, most will be disinterested.  One youth group that will mobilise in numbers is the christian youth.  The will be more organised that the eco rebels.  Ironically a drop in the voting age may be a boon the the conservatives.

    • Pete says:

      10:11am | 10/10/09

      I support the opportunity for 16/17 year olds to vote voluntarily. They are going out of their way to have their voice heard and will generally take a little more care with their vote then the average compulsory voter.  Yes of course there will be influence of parents, teachers etc.  but that situation is there regardless with the compulsary system.  I would personally like to see a voluntary system, every one has the entitlement to vote but currently how many value their right to vote?

    • Nathan says:

      10:14am | 10/10/09

      Voting is in equal parts, a right and a responsibility. Nobody should have the right to vote on issues concerning crime and national security while bearing none of the responsibilities that pertain to defending the nation or being tried as an adult. It’s an absurd suggestion.

    • Jennie says:

      10:15am | 10/10/09

      If Kevin says it’s a good idea, then no doubt, most Australians will agree too.

    • Jeff Mueller says:

      10:29am | 10/10/09

      Why stop with teachers, Margaret Gray?  Most families operate a centrally planned economy!  Family values are socialism writ small!  Only childless entrepreneurs should be allowed to vote in liberal democracies by your measure.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      11:31am | 10/10/09

      I have always felt that 18 is too young to be considered adult.  We should be putting the voting and drinking age up to 21.  A person’s body might have finished growing physically by 18 but not the mind and maturity is something that only comes with age.

    • paul says:

      12:12pm | 10/10/09

      @rjb Wow, they shortchanged you on logic studies at your leftie school bud. So through the upteen years of Howard, leftie teachers were secretly, unsuccessfully, until recently, breeding Labor voters? Whoa! I thought, Labor were the new conservatives filling the gap that extremist Howard left and failed to even succession plan for. Adult Libs are a good adult example of not listening and not taking responsibility. Work unChoices was some choice anti-Liberal indoctrination!

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:57pm | 10/10/09

      Labor gets the youth vote and the Liberals get the oldies vote, kinda balances out. But who gets the graveyard vote?

    • Joe says:

      02:47pm | 10/10/09

      This is of course a moot point. The current ‘voting standard’ can’t possibly get any lower.

    • RT says:

      03:27pm | 10/10/09

      Margaret Gray runs the party line again. Everyone knows that the conservative parties are opposed to the vote going to younger people who would tend to vote Labor or Greens. Similarly conservatives favour non-compulsory voting in the belief it would help their cause.

    • Bruce says:

      03:35pm | 10/10/09

      I would not have problem with lowering the voting age to 16 or for that matter 14 or 12, “IF” these kids understood why they are voting, and its importance, and will not be influenced by teachers, parents, friends etc, or the politicians who make wild feel good promises, smile a lot, or “gee he/she seems nice” (yuk). The educational outcome should be about independent thought, and individual decision making. Do they have the ability to wade through the political BS or maturity to question and debate a policy or political arguement to arrive at an outcome which allows them to make an informed decision. I doubt it, and having said that, unfortunately I also feel a varst majority of Australian voters do not have these skills as well. So for me, there rest the arguement, why not give them the vote, I would suggest they would be no more or less gullible than most other voters.

    • stephen says:

      07:32pm | 10/10/09

      Nah, let em’ vote. The chap who’ll win will mandate a green ipod.
      (Actually, I would’nt mind a green ipod)

    • Peter of Adelaide says:

      08:59pm | 10/10/09

      I think 18 is about right.  Not to stereotype younger then this and the average teen has not had enough experience to make a cognitive decision.

      We as a society do allow teens gradual freedoms and rights, driving at 16 in SA, at 16.5 Probationary license, after which 2 years before full license so at the age of 18.5 a teen is deemed to have the skills for an unrestricted license.  6 months earlier a teen is deemed to have enough experience driving to add alcohol into the mix and voting rights.  Its all a progression as one ages from teen to full adult.

      As for compulsory voting, i dont like that you have too, BUT in doing so the will of *all* the people is known, some countries that don’t have compulsory voting, the leaders can be elected by potentially a handful of people.  Our system is better I think for that, and it is what 30-60 minutes of your time every 4 years per layer of government.  A fair tradeoff.

    • Mr Pastry says:

      10:51pm | 10/10/09

      Don’t see a problem with youngsters voting stupidly, us oldees have been voting stupidly for decades, destroying democracy by voting for parties because my socio-economic group vote this way or my parents vote this way.  It is all a sham, especially when the leader of the opposition has to decide which party he will join - what happened to conviction politics.

    • watto says:

      08:34am | 11/10/09

      @Margaret Gray 902 If you read ‘The Wisdom of Crowds’ there is no relationship between experience and expertise and group intelligence. You are just concocting ‘spin’ to protect frightened Libs. Further proof of the Liberal kidult anti-intelligence is, spending 100s of millions on war because Howard outsourced foreign policy to a Texan redneck? Or, allowing Coles etc to trash small /family farms? Or, to vandalise river systems that agriculture depends on? Or, to waddle into the 21st century without a housing, infrastructure or population strategy? Immaturity? Responsibility?The kidults in the Libs are only interested in themselves and power.

    • Michael says:

      12:58pm | 11/10/09

      Just remember, Pauline Hanson was voted into Parliament by so-called ‘adults’. So was Wilson Tuckey, Sen. Steve Fielding and Mark Latham - (see unlike Margaret Gray, I can at least look outside my own politcal bias and include examples across the party spectrum).

    • Nasho says:

      01:24pm | 11/10/09

      Yes, well.

      In 1964, the Liberal government introduced National Service for 20-year-old males under the National Service Act. 

      But until 1972, the voting age in Australia was 21, *above* the age at which young Australian men had to compulsorily register for conscription into the Army - which at the time was fighting and dying overseas in Vietnam.

      The Labor Party, then in Opposition, introduced private members’ bills in 1968 and 1970 to reduce the voting age but the Liberal-Country Party Government declined to bring the bills to a vote.

      The act of conscripting young men under voting age is a permanent stain upon the character of the Liberal party of Australia.

      Lets find a way to keep the notion of responsibility clear and consistent. 18 if you like, no less, preferably more.

    • Ben G says:

      01:53pm | 11/10/09

      “Paul” says he knows “tons of teens that would make valuable, considered voters.”
      I’m going to take a wild swinging guess that these teens would vote the same way you do? So good for you, you vote like a teenager.

    • paul says:

      02:48pm | 11/10/09

      @ben ,gawd another conservative conspiracist? No I wouldn’t know how they vote,  I’m not a leftie teacher mate. (I would hope they are swinging voters to keep the copy cat Liberal/Labor parties on their toes)  Except to say, they are probably smart enough not to vote for the Howards of the world. Unlike rusted-on robotic voters like you.

    • Danny says:

      03:56pm | 11/10/09

      Just like passing a drivers licence test to drive, I reckon everyone should pass a political science test to vote with the same age limits as drivers.  So there.

    • lee says:

      04:36pm | 11/10/09

      in response to people trying to use ‘no taxation without representation’ as a reason or lowering the voting age, I’f just like to point out that this is an American maxim, and has never been a strongly held value in Australia.
      There are many people who are considered ‘Australian residents’ for tax purposes who are not Australian citizens or permanent residence for the purposes of being entitled to vote. Also, foriegn residents who earn here can be taxed here. The two areas are very different under Australian law.
      Also, the GST is even more remote. This applies to anyone- tourist, visiting diplomat, it has nothing to do with being eligible to vote.

    • Bruce says:

      05:08pm | 11/10/09

      Agree Mr Pastry, There is no conviction politics anymore. Its more about who can offer me the best job for my ego or wallet. eg. John Fahey, Labor turned Liberal. Peter Garret, Green turned Labor. Cheryl Kerno Democrat turned Labor.  There are many more who have jumped ship from one political party to another. Most probably the worst example is political partties approaching media personalities to represent their party that have no business or political experience. What a Shamm !!

    • Derrr says:

      06:09pm | 11/10/09

      No, no, by all means, no taxation without representation.

      Yep, fine with us.  And to keep it fair, til you do choose to pay a bit of tax,  you won’t mind all paying your own way, will you? Of course not..

      So, you’ll pay for school,  every cent. That’ll be about, oh, at least $5,000 a year as your personal share, easy, up-front.. And when you skip school, no dole, either - not a cent. Oh, and when you wag, there’ll be no sittinga t home wathcing the TV - it’s our taxes help pay for that. Tough.

      Oh and if you get crook, too bad. Cough up! No medical rebate.

      And you can forget driving, full-stop -  no license, no rego, no fuel excise, no safe car - and all our roads are paid by taxes.  Dear of dear.

      And when the bad guys come? well, tough luck.  No police, no rescue service, no ambos. And forget the firies, too.

      We all pay for them, by -gasp, shock, horror, revealed exclusively here on The Punch- by taxes!  Simple, eh.  Drones!

    • Jugger says:

      06:55pm | 11/10/09

      As a teachedr friend of mine said to me recently:

      “Teenagers all expect to be treated like adults, but most of them still behave like children.”

      That about says it all really.

    • Dave C says:

      07:47pm | 11/10/09

      If the voting age is to be reduced then other things have to be reduced as well. With rights come responsibilities.

      If a person is old enough to vote then they can be treated by the legal system as an adult. That is they get adult penalties for crimes they commit and be sent to an adult jail. AS well as soon as they turn the voting age their adult criminal record will be made public, and when they are on trial the details of the trial are to be made public just like an other adult that votes.

      While we are there they can be given a gun and sent to Iraq to fight for our country just like any other adult who has the right to vote.

      I’m sure all the young people who wish to vote wont mind also being treated like an adult as far as the legal system and defence force are concerned and so will their parents who wont mind their 16yos or 17yos being sent to war. Well wont they???

    • Tom Stanton says:

      09:01pm | 11/10/09

      I think it would be a very beneficial move to lower the voting age to 17. The older arguments that paying taxes should entitle you to vote still stand true, but I think more importantly is the need these days to engage kids whilst still at school.

      More and more so we are seeing complete political disengagement from our young people and by lowing the age to which most young people are in yr 11 and 12 you could run a program in schools to help them understand the processes involved.

      It could include things like all signing up for the electoral roll together under helpful supervision, then widespread discussion over how to vote, how to help decide and some of the tricks and messages to be on the lookout for.

      I left high school not that long ago and had no idea about any of the political processes. I and most of my friends (regretfully out of ignorance) didn’t even bother enrolling until after several elections had past.

      Lowering the voting age has less to do with individual rights as it has to do with a huge opportunity to make the system more efficient and helpful!

    • Watto says:

      03:14am | 12/10/09

      Jugger you don’t watch much politics do you? NSW politics is like a cross between schoolies week and the Sopranos. Similar things could be said of NT & SA politics. In a democracy* that relies foolhardily on the two party system, the Liberal parties standards are so low they can’t even field mediocre oppositions federally or in several states. And we should beware of the teenagers? Sure Senator.  It’s pure Liberal nonsense to ask, how can you lower the standard, when there are few, if no political standards on either side?

    • David says:

      07:22am | 12/10/09

      Tom Stanton, maybe the political disengagement of young people is because they’re smart enough to see through to insincerities of so many politicians (particularly the leading Liberals) and don’t want a bar of it. But they’re still to young to vote at 17.

    • COF says:

      11:52am | 12/10/09

      I don’t think under 18s are necessarily more influenced by the voting habits of their adult supervisors than many of the adult (in age only) left/right game players and generation bashers assembled here. Indoctrination lasts forever for some people.
      Lower it to 16 for voluntary voting. I prefer the opinions of a politically interested 16 year old than the rantings of a fifty something who hasn’t had an original or independent thought in fourty years.
      I know alot of younger people who would vote Liberal - I don’t think lowering the age necessarily would affect any particular party. In the end it all depends on the youth policy presented by each party. I don’t get your angle here Simon - is this article here because you think no young people would vote for Liberal or is it there just because Rudd suggested it? If the former is true, where are the Liberal Party going to get their votes from in thirty years time? If the latter is true, who allowed you to vote?

    • SJ says:

      03:21pm | 12/10/09

      @ Margaret Gray - how would you know what young adults do and don’t pay for? Don’t be so pretentious as to generalise all “kidults” as materialistic, narcissitic whingers who have never seen a bill or a hard day’s work in their lives. True, many teenagers don’t have a soild understanding of our political system, but then again neither do hundreds of Australian “adults” and they all get their say.

    • CM says:

      03:23pm | 12/10/09

      Changing the age in either direction would be arbitrary and would be of little practical benefit in the longer term. To me (and, I suspect, a great many people) it’s a non-issue.

      (Tangent: Much more important is safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system, e.g. compulsory voting. Prediction: In the next few years the religious lobbies will begin a campaign to abolish compulsory voting, knowing that voter apathy and consequent low voter turnout would make it far easier for them to win political representation. A little off-topic, perhaps, but this is something that concerns me far more than an arbitrary voting age. I agree with a previous commenter that compulsory voting is a strong foundation of our electoral system.)

    • Tristan says:

      04:43pm | 12/10/09

      Given that:


      would it not be prudent for society to impose an upper limit on voting age. There is a higher risk that an 80 year old will be unable to independently decide how to cast a vote and may be influenced to vote a certain way, especially by children, peers or carers.

      It is senseless to complain that young people are political unaware without giving them the opportunity to participate in the process.

      The test for change should be that if be limiting the franchise we are limiting meaningful participation. Given the contribution young people currently make to society it is clear that 18 is restrictive, much like an upper limit would be restrictive to thousands of our valued elders who still play a part in our political system, dialogue and debate.

      We all lack experience to some degree and we are all influenced by other people to some degree, neither of these are reason for disallowing someone to vote. If they were reasons Chuck Norris would be the only person capable of voting in any election around the world, the superhuman, fiercely independent god that he is.

    • Bob H says:

      05:33pm | 12/10/09

      @CM - an excellent tangent and a worthy topic - I would say the removal of compulsory voting would also ingrain further the two party system and make our democracy even hollower.

    • Chantelle says:

      06:09pm | 12/10/09

      I don’t speak up very often on Political issues as I get very confused myself and quickly turn off when I see elected members fighting like 2 years olds and making sarcastic comments to each other. I do however believe that each person needs to be taken on their own standard to make a general comment one way or another is pretty stupid on everyone’s behalf. How about allowing 16yr olds enrol to vote if they wish and mandatory to enrol at 18, that way the politically astute will jump on the ban wagon and those that don’t give a damn don’t need to worry. If either of the main parties have issues with 16 year olds voting then they must be trying to hide something.

    • Michael F says:

      07:00pm | 12/10/09

      I’d gladly give up my vote to a 16yo just so I didn’t have to. The 2 parties which we invariably always get *stuck* with regardless of how we vote makes very little difference to how this country gets run. It’s like trying to choose which of your children to shoot. When Liberal AND Labor governments actually *DO* something worthwhile maybe i’ll see voting as something that matters instead of a chore.

    • When... says:

      07:10pm | 12/10/09

      Oh for pity’s sake.  Rights *must* be balanced by responsibility. You must take both, equally seriously.

      When you are old enough, skilled enough and responsible enough to hold a gun and shoot to kill in a foreign land, when you are old enough, skilled enough and responsible enough to wear a police uniform in our cities and not act foolishly or corruptly, when you are old enough, skilled enough and responsible enough to earn money, pay tax, and work competently for 40+ hours a week, when you are old enough, skilled enough and responsible enough to fight a bush-fire for a week and still keep your composure and the respect of your fellows, when you are old enough, skilled enough and responsible enough to save another person’s life at the road side and drive safely at speed to and from the scene, then you will be old enough, skilled enough and responsible enough to hold and exercise the right to vote.

      All or none, across the country, for all that makes adults of children, at the one age. Is 18 old enough? 16 surely is not. Take the time to learn to be an adult, reap the benefit, share the cost, and bear the pain.

    • Bob H says:

      09:33am | 13/10/09

      It really makes no difference who votes we have only two parties who fight fearcely to keep it at just two parties.  Woe betide anyone who tries to sneak in on their extravagent party.  I suggest rotating the vote alphabetically - hey guess what…  it will be Labour or a Coalition win. 
      Go the revolution oi oi oi

    • Ayesha says:

      12:50pm | 18/03/10

      I believe kids should participate in legal decisions because it affects them.
      By voting, kids will become more responsible.

    • Ayesha says:

      12:55pm | 18/03/10

      By voting, kids will become more responsible.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house


Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?


Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”


Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings


Tim says:


From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:


Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving




Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter