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

The Greens are engrossed in their own irrelevance

The Greens are more interested in trans extremism than protecting the enivironment.

Plurality of thought and action in Korea is part of the political landscape. Last time I was here the protests were about labour union and pro-Palestine issues. Politics in Korea is as diverse as the natural environment.

In Australia, however, free speech is no longer a given in politics. Over the weekend, the Queensland Greens gave co-founder Drew Hutton the boot. Despite support from co-founder Bob Brown and former leader Christine Milne, Hutton’s appeal to the Queensland Greens was rejected, with 75 votes opposing and 23 votes supporting.

The expulsion resulted from Hutton’s Facebook posts back in 2022 that referred to Greens officials in Victoria and New South Wales as ‘authoritarian and antidemocratic’. This was in response to official Greens’ actions to remove members with transgender views the party didn’t like.

As Alexandra Marshall wrote in the Unfiltered newsletter:

The Greens have started to cancel themselves after co-founder Drew Hutton was kicked out after saying the environmental party had turned into an activist cult, or words to that effect. He’s not wrong. You’re more likely to hear the Greens campaigning for trans rights or Palestine than koalas. This is not a problem limited to Australian green groups. All over the West, true environmentalists are walking away from green parties in disgust. There is a gap opening for an environmentally-minded political party – but what will fill it?

My latest in The Specttor Australia, The Greens are engrossed in their own irrelevance.

‘This is not the party people like Bob Brown and I set up.’

Many commentators have referred to the Greens’ increasingly radical trans 🏳️‍⚧️ and pro-Palestine 🇵🇸 positions as moving away from protecting the environment.https://t.co/Ar2NGa8bFK

— The Spectator Australia (@SpectatorOz) July 22, 2025

Is Net Zero environmentally friendly?

Dr Ken Henry addresses the National Press Club. ‘Of course we need a carbon tax.’

From the National Press Club: This week’s address by Dr Ken Henry, former Secretary of the Treasury, was not a love letter to the government, but a personal plea from a former senior bureaucrat turned environmental crusader. Henry’s address as chair of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation (ACBF), a registered charity and lobby group, called for reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC).

The call was largely based on Professor Graeme Samuel’s recent review of the EPBC Act that recommended the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) be applied on the basis of region-by-region rather than project-by-project.

Alexandra Marshall wrote in the Unfiltered newsletter:

Today we posted our first National Press Club interview. Michael de Percy has been braving Canberra to keep an eye on the little love-in going on between the press and our politicians. This week, Ken Henry came to plead with the government to bring back carbon taxes, strengthen environmental law, and fast-track wind and solar projects. We’ve got the highlights (aka the scariest bits) covered so you can see what’s up next on the nightmare Canberra agenda. It’s on Facebook and Twitter.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Is Net Zero environmentally friendly?

CARBON TAXES, CARBON CREDITS, AND STRONGER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS 🤔

Chair of the Australian Climate & Biodiversity Foundation, Ken Henry, addressed the National Press Club.

"We need a new collective mindset that understands the state of nature in the 21st Century ...… pic.twitter.com/lFeNJq6nGx

— Alexandra Marshall (@ellymelly) July 18, 2025