It’s time to give 16-year-olds the vote

It's what the Greens want so it must be a good thing said nobody ever except the Brits

While the left has a history of lowering the voting age, the change from 21 to 18 years of age as the arbitrary signifier of legal adulthood attributed the relevant rights and responsibilities to those now deemed adults. The change to 16 years of age might as well be to 1 or 100 years of age. It really depends on society’s view as to what age a human is deemed to be responsible for their own existence and capable of participating in society

As Alexandra Marshall wrote in the Unfiltered newsletter:

Sure, give 16-year-olds the vote, argues Michael de Percy, but if the government is going to treat them as fully-fledged adults at the ballot box, then they must extend this to all aspects of their lives. If they are not prepared to do this, then it will prove, without question, that this action is a political stunt to boost numbers rather than a genuine acknowledgement that the age of responsibility has dropped.

Terry Barnes wrote in the Morning Double Shot newsletter:

Last week, Michael de Percy made a courageous (in the Sir Humphrey sense) conservative case for lowering the voting age to 16. This week, Colleen Harkin counters with a case against. She makes the point that most teenagers barely know or care about the workings of the civil society that would compel their vote, not least because civics education in Australia is a farce. We would add that it is also hopelessly biased towards the left, and calibrated to turn out lifelong Green-Left voters by the thousand.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, It’s time to give 16-year-olds the vote.

'OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE, OLD ENOUGH TO FIGHT' - giving 16-year-olds the vote signifies the government sees them as fully functioning adults with the same rights & responsibilities.

In which case - there are a lot of other things that need to be amended.🤔https://t.co/f4aC4i7mqG

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) July 24, 2025