Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General

Last updated

Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Supreme Court of New Zealand
Decided21 November 2022 (2022-11-21)
Citation(s) [2022] NZSC 134
Case history
Prior action(s)
Court membership
Judges sitting Winkelmann  CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, France, Kós  JJ
Case opinions
appeal allowed; declarations granted
(per Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan and France JJ)
dissent
(Kós J)
Keywords

Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General is a 2022 landmark decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in which the court held that the country's current voting age of 18 was discriminatory. [1] [2] The court found that the provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 and Local Electoral Act 2001 that set the voting age of 18 years was an unjustified limitation on the right to be free from age discrimination in section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). [3] [4]

Contents

In response to the judgment, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern subsequently announced that a bill to lower the voting age to 16 would be debated in the New Zealand Parliament, requiring a supermajority to pass. [5] Polling after the judgment by The New Zealand Herald showed that 79 per cent of respondents did not support lowering the voting age. [6] Stuff reported in December 2022 that 73 mayors and councillors across the country had signed a letter supporting the Make It 16 campaign. [7]

Background

Make It 16

Make It 16 was formed out of the New Zealand Youth Parliament in September 2019 to campaign for suffrage to be granted to 16- and 17-year-olds. [8] [9] When the youth-led campaign launched, its co-director Gina Dao-McLay said that "politicians were blocking the voices of 16 and 17-year-olds even though they could work fulltime, consent to sex, drive a car and own guns". [9] Andrew Becroft, then Children's Commissioner, expressed his support for the campaign alongside several members of Parliament, notably the Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick. [9] [10]

High Court

On 24 August 2020, Make It 16 took their campaign to the Wellington High Court, arguing that the voting age of 18 is unjustified age discrimination under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and urging the court to rule it as inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990. [11]

On 7 October 2020, Justice Jan-Marie Doogue delivered her judgment and concluded that "the age restriction in the voting age provisions is a justified limit on the right in [section] 19 of BORA to be free from discrimination on the basis of age", [12] highlighting an excerpt from Child Poverty Action Group Inc v Attorney-General of "Parliament's clear intention, in [section] 12 of BORA, to grant those aged 18 and over the right to vote in general elections" [13] and that most countries currently have their voting age set at 18. [14] As a result, she declined the application for a declaration of inconsistency. [15] Attorney-General David Parker publicly stated that his position was that the High Court's judgment to decline the declarations sought was correct and that section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act settled any limitation on the voting age. [16]

Court of Appeal

Make It 16, disagreeing with Doogue's judgment and saying "there was no good reason why they should be excluded", took their case to the Court of Appeal to appeal her decision. The court heard their appeal on 5 August 2021. On appeal, Make It 16 lawyer Emma Moran argued the Attorney-General had not justified the discrimination and that Doogue was incorrect in not granting declarations of inconsistency. [17] [18]

On 14 December 2021, the Court of Appeal's judgment from Justices Christine French, Forest Miller and Patricia Courtney was given by Justice French. In contrast from the High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal ruled that the "Attorney-General has not established that the limits on the right of 16- and 17-year-olds to be free from age discrimination caused by the voting age provisions are reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". [19] However, despite ruling that it was unjustified age discrimination, the court chose to exercise restraint and decline the applications for declarations of inconsistency, citing that suffrage being extended to 16-year-olds was an issue "very much in the public arena already" and that it is "an intensely and quintessentially political issue involving the democratic process". [19]

When speaking to Radio New Zealand, Thomas Pope-Kerr from Make It 16 noted their frustration on not getting the declaration but said that the group was taking the court's ruling as a win and would likely be appealing to the Supreme Court to seek a declaration of inconsistency. [20]

Judgment

On 13 April 2022, the group's appeal of the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court was granted leave. [21] Make It 16 co-director Caeden Tipler stated to The New Zealand Herald, "A formal declaration from the Supreme Court would be a powerful message to Parliament that they should fix this breach of our rights". [16] The Court then heard the case on 12 July 2022. [3]

Majority opinion

On 21 November 2022, Justice Ellen France gave the Supreme Court's judgment on Make It 16's case that the voting age of 18 was unjustified age discrimination. Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann, and Justices Susan Glazebrook, Mark O'Regan and Ellen France ruled in the majority that the provisions of the Electoral Act 1993 and Local Electoral Act 2001 were inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of age and that they had not been justified under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. They thus ruled to grant declarations of inconsistency in those provisions. In their ruling, they agreed with the Court of Appeal's assessment that it was unjustified age discrimination and sought to assess whether that court was right not to issue the declarations. [3]

Make It 16 argued that "where there is an inconsistency which has not been justified, there should be a presumption (in civil cases) that a declaration will follow so that there is an effective remedy for rights infringements" and that "[is consistent with] the approach adopted in cases in the Australian Capital Territory to the making of a declaration of incompatibility" under section 32 of the Human Rights Act 2004. [22] The group also observed that the courts in the United Kingdom on making declarations of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights had engaged in "policy-heavy issues". [23]

Conversely, the Attorney-General argued that "the equivalent New Zealand jurisprudence [on declarations of inconsistency] is in its infancy" and that the Court of Appeal's ruling to exercise restraint was correct and that "a declaration would be premature where Parliament has expressly postponed any consideration of the question until there is broad democratic support for the change". From there the Attorney-General further noted with respect to it already being a political issue was that the voting age was already identified as a matter for review in the Independent Panel reviewing electoral law, and that Green MP Golriz Ghahraman's Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill which, among other things, lowered the voting age to 16, failed its first reading on 21 September 2022. [24] [25]

In its assessment, the Supreme Court considered the arguments given and said that it was "not persuaded it would be premature to make a declaration". It noted that lowering the voting age to 16 was previously mentioned in the Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986, which stated that there was "a strong case" that could be made, and recommended Parliament to "keep the voting age under review". [26]

The court's majority determined that the court should "fulfil [its] role which is to declare the law", concurring with United Kingdom Supreme Court Justice Lady Hale in her opinion in Nicklinson : "we have no jurisdiction to impose anything: that is a matter for Parliament alone. We do have jurisdiction, and in some circumstances an obligation, to form a professional opinion, as judges, as to the content of the Convention rights and the compatibility of the present law with them. Our personal opinions, as human beings, ... do not come into it." [27] As a result of this, the court stated that the "Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant the declaratory relief sought", resulting in the declarations sought being granted. [28]

Dissent

Justice Stephen Kós dissented from the court's majority stating that he did not consider the voting age of 18 under the Electoral Act 1993 for parliamentary elections to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act as he considered the right to vote in parliamentary elections at 18 years under section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act as prevailing over the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of age under section 19. [29] He refuted the Court of Appeal and current court's opinion which construed that "section 12 as simply protecting 18 year-old voters against an increase in the voting age" is "too narrow of a view". In this, he discussed that the voting age provisions were reserved provisions, and that those reserved provisions do not only "protect against diminution of voter qualification ... They also protected qualified voters against enlargement of voter qualification.", and that constitutionally reserved provisions, affirmed by section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act, should prevail over the generalised right to be free from discrimination under section 19. Furthermore, while noting that in this instance the statutory interpretation canon generalia specialibus non derogant (general provisions do not derogate from specific ones) should not need to be applied in this case, he said that Parliament's silence in amending section 12 in 1993 when passing the Electoral Act 1993 and keeping the voting age entrenched at 18 is "persuasive"; however, Kós also noted that when applying lex specialis, it "propels analysis in the same direction". [30]

However, Kós concurred with the court's majority on local elections. He stated, "A declaration of inconsistency must be made in relation to the provisions of the Local Electoral Act" and explained that his dissenting opinion on the age to vote for parliamentary elections does not apply to local elections, as "those provisions stand alone, unaffected (and unprotected) by section 12 [of the Bill of Rights Act]. They are inconsistent with section 19, and the Attorney-General does not attempt to justify the inconsistency under section 5." [31] Kós ended his opinion noting the importance of public appreciation that what has been made "is a declaration of inconsistency, not illegality", and that "Parliament is the sole arbiter of the content of legislation; the courts are the sole arbiters of legislative interpretation." [32]

Responses

Following the Supreme Court ruling, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern expressed support for lowering the voting age to 16 years. She announced that the Labour Government would introduce legislation lowering the voting age to 16 years; this law change requires a 75% majority as it is a 'reserved provision' under the Electoral Act 1993. [5] [33] [34] By contrast, National Party justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith stated that his party would not be supporting lowering the voting age on the grounds that it regarded the current voting age of 18 years as appropriate. Goldsmith described the government's proposed law change as a distraction from youth crime. [35]

On 22 November 2022, Ardern and Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson confirmed that the Labour ministers were considering whether to allow 16-year-olds to vote in local body elections. Unlike parliamentary elections, law changes for local body elections would only require a simple majority. In response, ACT leader David Seymour, who had earlier opposed lowering the voting age for parliamentary elections, indicated that he was open to lowering the voting age for local body elections and would allow ACT MPs a conscience vote on the matter. [36]

On 16 January 2024, the Independent Election Review released its two-year investigation of the country's electoral system. Their report recommended lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years. In response, Justice Minister Goldsmith stated that the National-led coalition government would not be lowering the voting age but accepted their recommendation to extend parliamentary terms from three to four years. [37]

Extending suffrage for local elections

In December 2022, the Hutt City, Kāpiti Coast District and Porirua City councils voted to endorse the Make It 16 campaign and to extend voting rights for local elections to 16- and 17-year-olds, [38] [39] [40] joining the Wellington City Council who supported the move to lower the voting age in 2021. [41] According to Stuff, "seventy-three elected councillors and mayors from councils across the country have signed a letter in support of Make It 16." [7]

On 13 March 2023, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins scrapped plans for legislation to lower the voting age in general elections, stating his plan to focus on lowering the voting age in local elections instead. [42]

On 6 June 2023, an independent panel reviewing New Zealand's electoral system recommended lowering the voting age to 16 years in addition to other reforms. [43]

In mid-August 2023, the Labour Government introduced the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill to lower the voting age to 16 years for local elections. While the proposed legislation was supported by Te Pāti Māori candidate Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Make It 16 co-director Thomas Brocherie, and Young Greens equity officer Johnny Bentley-Cribb, National MP Goldsmith defended retaining the voting age at 18 years. [44] The Bill passed its first reading on 29 August during the last sitting week of Parliament prior to its dissolution before the 2023 New Zealand general election. [45] [46] The Lowering Voting Age Bill was subsequently referred to Parliament's justice select committee on 7 September 2023. [47]

On 26 January 2024, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown confirmed that the Government would halt plans to progress the previous Government's Lowering Voting Age Bill, ending plans to lower the voting age to 16 years for local council elections. [48] [49]

Public opinion on the voting age

In early October 2020, a 1 News Colmar Brunton poll found that 13% of respondents supported lowering the voting age to 16 years while 85% opposed the motion. Segments most supportive of lowering the voting age were Green Party supporters and those in their 30s while segments most opposed to lowering the voting age were those aged over 70 years, National Party supporters, and Aucklanders. [50]

In late October 2022, the Taxpayers' Union and Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance released the results of a Curia Market Research poll of 1,000 eligible voters (over the age of 18), which found 74% of respondents opposed to lowering the voting age and 23% in favour. [51]

On 1 December 2022, The New Zealand Herald released the results of its own exclusive poll which found that 21% of respondents supported lowering the voting age to 16 years, whilst 79% opposed it. Polling reveals that support for lowering the voting age is the highest at 31% in 18–24-year-olds, with support decreasing in older age brackets up to 55–64-year-olds with only 12% supportive. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> US federal legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights protected by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country. It is also "one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history." The National Archives and Records Administration stated: "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the most significant statutory change in the relationship between the federal and state governments in the area of voting since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Parliament</span> Supreme unicameral legislature of New Zealand

The New Zealand Parliament is the unicameral legislature of New Zealand, consisting of the Sovereign (King-in-Parliament) and the New Zealand House of Representatives. The King is usually represented by his governor-general. Before 1951, there was an upper chamber, the New Zealand Legislative Council. The New Zealand Parliament was established in 1854 and is one of the oldest continuously functioning legislatures in the world. It has met in Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, since 1865.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of New Zealand</span> Highest court in New Zealand

The Supreme Court of New Zealand is the highest court and the court of last resort of New Zealand. It formally came into being on 1 January 2004 and sat for the first time on 1 July 2004. It replaced the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, based in London. It was created with the passing of the Supreme Court Act 2003, on 15 October 2003. At the time, the creation of the Supreme Court and the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council were controversial constitutional changes in New Zealand. The Supreme Court Act 2003 was repealed on 1 March 2017 and superseded by the Senior Courts Act 2016.

The New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy is a debate in the politics of New Zealand. It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title. These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi. On 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown. This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, was enacted on 24 November 2004. Some sections of the act came into force on 17 January 2005. It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.

Barbara Joy Stewart is a former New Zealand politician. She was a Member of Parliament for the New Zealand First party from 2002 to 2008 and again from 2011 to 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of New Zealand</span> Uncodified national constitution

The constitution of New Zealand is the sum of laws and principles that determine the political governance of New Zealand. Unlike many other nations, New Zealand has no single constitutional document. It is an uncodified constitution, sometimes referred to as an "unwritten constitution", although the New Zealand constitution is in fact an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources. The Constitution Act 1986 has a central role, alongside a collection of other statutes, orders in Council, letters patent, decisions of the courts, principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and unwritten traditions and conventions. There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered "constitutional law"; no law is accorded higher status. In most cases the New Zealand Parliament can perform "constitutional reform" simply by passing acts of Parliament, and thus has the power to change or abolish elements of the constitution. There are some exceptions to this though – the Electoral Act 1993 requires certain provisions can only be amended following a referendum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the bill of rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting in New Zealand</span> Aspect of political history

Voting in New Zealand was introduced after colonisation by British settlers. The first New Zealand Constitution Act was passed in 1852, and the first parliamentary elections were held the following year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in New Zealand</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in New Zealand

Human rights in New Zealand are addressed in the various documents which make up the constitution of the country. Specifically, the two main laws which protect human rights are the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In addition, New Zealand has also ratified numerous international United Nations treaties. The 2009 Human Rights Report by the United States Department of State noted that the government generally respected the rights of individuals, but voiced concerns regarding the social status of the indigenous population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Samoa</span>

The Constitution of Samoa is a written constitution which is the supreme law in Samoa. It establishes Samoa as a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system and responsible government. It outlines the structure and powers of the Samoan government's three parts: the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Barbados</span> Supreme law of Barbados

The Constitution of Barbados is the supreme law under which Barbados is governed. The Constitution provides a legal establishment of the Government of Barbados, as well as legal rights and responsibilities of the public and various other government officers. The Constitution which came into force in 1966 was amended in 1974, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. The 1966 document succeeds several other documents concerning administration of Barbados. One of them, the Barbados Charter, is discussed in the present Constitution's Preamble. Prior statutes were created for the administration of Barbados as a colony. As a former English and later British colony, the Constitution is similar to those of other former Commonwealth realms, yet distinctly different in the spirit of the Statute of Westminster.

In New Zealand, the presumption of supply is a rebuttable presumption in criminal law which is governed by the New Zealand Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It provides an assumption in drug-possession cases that if a person is found with more than a specified amount of a controlled drug, they are in possession of it for the purpose of supply or sale. This shifts the burden of proof from the Crown to the person found with the drug, who must prove that they possessed it for personal use and not for supply. Note that once the burden of proof has shifted, the burden is one on the balance of probabilities. This presumption exists to make prosecution for supplying drugs easier.

<i>New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General</i>

New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, also known as the "Lands" case or "SOE" case, was a seminal New Zealand legal decision marking the beginning of the common law development of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The voting rights of prisoners in New Zealand have changed numerous times since the first election in New Zealand in 1853, with prisoners experiencing varying degrees of enfranchisement. The only time that all prisoners have been allowed to vote in elections in New Zealand was from 1975 to 1977. In 2010 the Electoral Act 1993 was amended to disqualify all prisoners from voting. In 2020 this law was amended so that only persons serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more are disenfranchised.

<i>Paki v Attorney-General</i> (No 2) New Zealand Supreme Court judgment

Paki v Attorney-General was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand that considered whether “usque ad medium filum aquae”, the common law presumption that the purchaser of land adjoining a stream or river also obtains ownership of the waterway to its mid-point applied to the Waikato riverbed adjoining blocks of land at Pouakani, near Mangakino. For differing reasons the Supreme Court unanimously held that the "mid-point presumption" did not apply and "decided that it had not been shown that title determination to the Pouakani land blocks had affected ownership of the riverbed".

<i>Taylor v Attorney-General</i> New Zealand High Court judgment

Taylor v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1706 is a New Zealand High Court judgment which made a formal declaration that a statute that prohibited prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The action was brought by Arthur Taylor, a high-profile prison inmate. This was the first time a court had recognised that a formal declaration of inconsistency is an available remedy for statutory breaches of the Bill of Rights. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act states, "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In his decision, Justice Heath declared that the Electoral Amendment Act 2010 which stripped all voting rights in general elections from prisoners was an unjustified limitation on the right to vote contained in s 12 of the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision after the Attorney-General appealed the jurisdiction of the courts to make declarations of inconsistency.

<i>Zaoui v Attorney-General</i> (No 2)

Zaoui v Attorney-General was the final judicial decision concerning Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui before the objections of the Security Intelligence Service concerning Zaoui's alleged threat to national security were withdrawn in September 2007, allowing him to remain in New Zealand. The judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand was concerned with the proper interpretation of article 33 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and section 72 of the Immigration Act 1987.

<i>Taunoa v Attorney-General</i>

Taunoa v Attorney-General was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning breaches of prisoners' Bill of Rights protected rights by the Department of Corrections in the Behaviour Management Regime programme at Auckland Prison between 1998 and 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Golriz Ghahraman</span> New Zealand politician

Golriz Ghahraman is a lawyer, author, and former New Zealand politician. The former United Nations lawyer was a child asylum seeker, and became the first refugee elected to New Zealand's Parliament. Ghahraman was a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives for the Green Party from 2017 to 2024, when she resigned amid shoplifting allegations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Local Electoral Act 2001</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Local Electoral Act 2001 is an Act of the New Zealand Parliament that provides for the regulation of local body elections in New Zealand, which entails provisions relating to the timing of local elections and other forms of rules surrounding electoral processes, Māori wards and constituencies, and which voting system the local government uses in elections. It was established following the 2001 Review of the former Local Elections and Polls Act 1976 by the Department of Internal Affairs which was charged with reviewing and rewriting the Act governing local elections.

References

  1. ↑ Craymer, Lucy (21 November 2022). "New Zealand court rules voting age of 18 is discriminatory". Reuters. Retrieved 29 May 2023.
  2. ↑ Legal, Prime (12 April 2023). "MAKE IT 16 INCORPORATED V. ATTORNEY GENERAL". Prime Legal. Retrieved 29 May 2023.
  3. 1 2 3 Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134
  4. ↑ Molyneux, Vita (21 November 2022). "Supreme Court rules in favour of lowering voting age to 16". The New Zealand Herald . Archived from the original on 25 November 2022. Retrieved 20 November 2022.
  5. 1 2 Whyte, Anna (21 November 2022). "Lowering voting age to 16 likely to fail in Parliament". Stuff . Archived from the original on 6 December 2022. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
  6. 1 2 Neilson, Michael; Knox, Chris (1 December 2022). "Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16: Poll reveals what Kiwis think" . The New Zealand Herald . Archived from the original on 2 December 2022. Retrieved 2 December 2022.
  7. 1 2 Gourley, Erin (21 December 2022). "Hutt City Council fourth in Wellington region to endorse Make It 16's call for lower voting age". Stuff . Archived from the original on 28 December 2022. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
  8. ↑ "The Campaign". Make It 16. Archived from the original on 25 November 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  9. 1 2 3 Desmarais, Felix (19 September 2019). "'Make it 16' campaign launches, taking case of voting rights of 16-year-olds to court". Stuff. Archived from the original on 13 July 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2022.
  10. ↑ Bracewell-Worrall, Anna (20 September 2019). "Children's Commissioner backs campaign to lower voting age". Newshub . Archived from the original on 28 October 2020. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  11. ↑ Mitchell, Jonathan (24 August 2020). "Teens ask court to lower voting age to 16". Radio New Zealand . Archived from the original on 11 August 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  12. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2630 at [113]
  13. ↑ Child Poverty Action Group Incorporated v Attorney-General [2013] NZCA 402 at [151]
  14. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2630 at [117]
  15. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2630
  16. 1 2 Osborne, Hazel (13 April 2022). "Make it 16 take bid for lowering voting age to Supreme Court". The New Zealand Herald . Archived from the original on 20 November 2022. Retrieved 4 December 2022.
  17. ↑ Hatton, Emma (5 August 2021). "Voting age discrimination case is heard in Court of Appeal". Radio New Zealand . Archived from the original on 5 September 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  18. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2021] NZCA 681
  19. 1 2 Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2021] NZCA 681 at [62]
  20. ↑ Hatton, Emma (14 December 2021). "Voting age discrimination case: Court of Appeal declines application for declaration". Radio New Zealand . Archived from the original on 20 November 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  21. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 47
  22. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [58]
  23. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [62]
  24. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [59-61]
  25. ↑ "Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . New Zealand Parliament: New Zealand House of Representatives. 21 September 2022.
  26. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [65]
  27. ↑ R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38 at para. 325
  28. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [68-69]
  29. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [74]
  30. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [94]
  31. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [95-96]
  32. ↑ Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2022] NZSC 134 at [97]
  33. ↑ Electoral Act 1993 (1993 No 103) , s 268
  34. ↑ McClure, Tess (21 November 2022). "Ardern promises bill to lower voting age to 16 in New Zealand after discrimination ruling". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 21 November 2022. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
  35. ↑ "National says no 'logic' in lowering voting age from 18 to 16". Radio New Zealand . 21 November 2022. Archived from the original on 21 November 2022. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
  36. ↑ Palmer, Russell (22 November 2022). "Labour considers voting age change for council elections". Radio New Zealand . Archived from the original on 22 November 2022. Retrieved 23 November 2022.
  37. ↑ "New Zealand government rejects Ardern-era bid to lower voting age". The Guardian . 16 January 2024. Archived from the original on 20 January 2024. Retrieved 21 January 2024.
  38. ↑ "Hutt City Council endorses Make It 16 campaign". Radio New Zealand . 22 December 2022. Archived from the original on 23 December 2022. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
  39. ↑ Wong, Justin (8 December 2022). "Kāpiti Coast council endorses Make It 16 campaign". Stuff . Archived from the original on 14 December 2022. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
  40. ↑ Wong, Justin (1 December 2022). "Porirua City Council votes to back Make It 16 and extend voting rights". Stuff . Archived from the original on 1 December 2022. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
  41. ↑ "We support lowering the voting age to 16!". Wellington City Council. 16 December 2022. Archived from the original on 18 December 2022. Retrieved 2 January 2023.
  42. ↑ Ensor, Jamie (13 March 2023). "Prime Minister Chris Hipkins abandons plan for legislation to lower voting age for general elections". Newshub .
  43. ↑ Smith, Anneke (6 June 2023). "Electoral system review recommends voting age lowered to 16, party threshold to 3.5%". Radio New Zealand . Archived from the original on 1 September 2023. Retrieved 20 September 2023.
  44. ↑ Sapkota, Rituraj (18 August 2023). "Will 16-year-olds be able to vote in local elections?". Te Ao Māori News. Māori Television. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 20 September 2023.
  45. ↑ McAnulty, Kieran (29 August 2023). "Bill to lower local election voting age goes to select committee". Bee. New Zealand Government. Archived from the original on 31 August 2023. Retrieved 20 September 2023.
  46. ↑ Graham-McLay, Charlotte (29 August 2023). "New Zealand: bill to allow under-18s to vote in local elections passes first hurdle". The Guardian . Retrieved 20 September 2023.
  47. ↑ Liwei Shi, David (7 September 2023). "Bill to lower local election voting age to 16 goes to select committee". 95bFM . Retrieved 20 September 2023.
  48. ↑ "Government formally withdraws bill to lower voting age in council elections". Radio New Zealand . 26 January 2024. Archived from the original on 28 January 2024. Retrieved 30 January 2024.
  49. ↑ "Government scraps Bill to lower voting age in council elections". 1 News . 26 January 2024. Archived from the original on 28 January 2024. Retrieved 30 January 2024.
  50. ↑ "Majority of New Zealanders don't want voting age lowered, poll finds". 1 News . 3 October 2020. Archived from the original on 22 August 2022. Retrieved 2 December 2022.
  51. ↑ Milne, Jonathan (28 October 2022). "Govt advised to lower voting age after poor local election turnout". Newsroom . Archived from the original on 27 October 2022. Retrieved 7 December 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.