Part 1: The Case for the Teenage Vote
If you want to understand why the political elite react with visible discomfort at the idea of 16-year-olds voting, just ask yourself one question: who benefits most from young people being excluded from the democratic process?
Because it’s not young people.
And it’s certainly not the future.
🧠 Young Minds, Sharp Ideas
Let’s put aside the tired trope that teenagers are too immature to vote. Developmental psychology tells us that while impulse control and emotional regulation continue developing into early adulthood, abstract reasoning, ethical judgment, and political engagement often emerge far earlier. In fact, the areas of the brain linked to moral reasoning (like the medial prefrontal cortex) are already significantly active by mid-teens. By 16, many young people can articulate views on climate change, justice, economics, and democracy with greater clarity – and less corruption – than some adult voters glued to Sky After Dark.
Anecdotally – like many others – I was immersed in science and politics from a young age. I may not have had the confidence to file taxes or drive a truck, but I had deep clarity about what kind of world I wanted to live in. Science mattered. Ethics mattered. People mattered.
There was no Facebook when I was 16 – but today, the fact that someone locked in a billionaire-funded Facebook hole can vote, while engaged and educated 16-year-olds still can’t? That doesn’t sit right.
It didn’t then. It still doesn’t.
🌍 The Global Trend: Who’s Already Doing It?
Lowering the voting age to 16 isn’t some radical fever dream. It’s already happening – and working – in several countries:
Austria (since 2007) – Voters aged 16 and 17 turn out at higher rates than older first-time voters. 📚 Study: Wagner, Markus, et al. “Voting at 16: Turnout and the Quality of Vote Choice.” Electoral Studies, 2012.
Scotland – 16-year-olds were enfranchised for the 2014 independence referendum, and the change was made permanent in Scottish Parliament elections.
Brazil, Argentina & Ecuador – Voluntary voting from 16. Turnout is strong.
Germany – Several states (Länder) now allow voting in municipal or state elections from 16.
Malta – Voting at 16 introduced for all elections in 2018.
These are not rogue states. They’re functioning democracies that recognise the legitimacy of young voices.
Want to see the full list? Voting Age by Country 2025
🗳️ The Core Argument: Stake = Say
Young people have more skin in the game than many of the older voters clinging to 20th-century worldviews. They will live with the consequences of decisions made today: climate policy, education funding, digital privacy, reproductive rights, housing affordability, and structural inequality.
And yet, Australia – a country that lets 16-year-olds:
Drive cars (provisionally),
Work jobs,
Pay tax,
Join the army (with parental consent),
Consent to medical procedures…
…still doesn’t trust them with a pencil and ballot paper.
Where’s the logic?
🛡️ Prebutting the Nonsense: Common Objections and Quick Counters
Here are the greatest hits we’ll hear from the usual suspects – and why they don’t stack up:
❌ “They’re too immature to make serious decisions.”
✅ See: Young climate activists, school strikers, and teen-led justice campaigns. Also see: many adults who believe wind turbines cause cancer.
❌ “They’ll just vote how their parents or TikTok tells them.”
✅ That’s no different from adults voting how Sky News or Facebook tells them. In fact, young people show a greater tendency to seek out diverse sources of information than older generations. 📚 Pew Research: “Teens and News in the Digital Era”
❌ “They don’t pay enough tax.”
✅ Irrelevant. We don’t use taxation as a voting threshold. (If we did, billionaires with offshore accounts would be excluded.)
❌ “It will ruin democracy!”
✅ You mean, the same democracy currently gamed by lobbyists, fossil fuel money, and media monopolies? Spare us.
⏭️ Coming in Part 2:
“The Panic Is Real: Who’s Afraid of 16-Year-Old Voters – And Why”
We’ll pull back the curtain on who’s really terrified of a youth vote – and the tactics they’ll deploy to stop it. Think dog whistles, false equivalencies, and some truly laughable op-eds.
🔗 Related Links & References:
Youth Affairs Council Victoria: Vote at 16 Campaign
The Conversation: “Australians aged 16 should be able to vote”
Parliament of Australia: Voting Age – Background Note
Part 2: The Panic Is Real – Who’s Afraid of 16-Year-Old Voters (and Why)
If 16-year-olds were overwhelmingly going to vote for fossil fuel billionaires, privatised healthcare, and deregulated gig economies, the right-wing commentariat would be throwing them voting booths like confetti.
But they’re not. And that’s exactly the problem – for those clinging to power.
👀 Who’s Panicking (And Why)
Let’s name the kinds of players who would absolutely loathe an informed, engaged, teenage voting bloc:
Fossil fuel lobbyists – because teenagers understand climate science and aren’t buying the gaslighting.
Billionaire media moguls – because they fear a generation who gets their news from fact-checked TikToks and science podcasts, not from shock jocks and NewsCorp rage-bait.
Religious-right powerbrokers – because young voters trend strongly toward tolerance, equality, and basic human rights.
Boomer politicians in safe seats – because nothing threatens a stale seat more than fresh scrutiny from people who actually care what happens after 2050.
If your ideology relies on apathy, disengagement, and fear-based messaging, a wave of educated, future-focused 16-year-old voters is your worst nightmare.
And the panic shows.
🐶 Watch the Dog Whistles
You’ll start to notice the same tired script whenever teenage suffrage is mentioned. A few standout tactics:
📢 False Equivalencies
“If 16-year-olds can vote, why not 12-year-olds? Why not toddlers?”
Classic bad-faith argument. Nobody is proposing infants with crayons at polling booths. Sixteen is already a recognised legal milestone in many parts of life. This isn’t about infants – it’s about deliberately conflating seriousness with absurdity to derail real debate.
🥸 The ‘Maturity’ Distraction
“But they’re too emotional. Their brains aren’t fully developed.”
And yet, those same critics happily accept 18-year-olds signing up for military service. Or 16-year-olds working full-time. Or older adults who still think climate change is a hoax. Maturity doesn’t correlate with age as neatly as they’d like to pretend.
🧢 Selective Gatekeeping
“They just don’t understand how the world works.”
Translation: They don’t vote like me. Also: this argument was used against women voting. Against First Nations people voting. Against lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. It’s the same dusty playbook, recycled every generation.
😂 The Most Ridiculous Objections (Yes, These Are Real)
Sometimes the panic gets so wild it edges into comedy. A few howlers from political pundits and op-eds:
“They’ll vote for free candy and TikTok subsidies.”
“They’ll just elect influencers as prime minister.”
“We’ll be governed by woke memes.”
Meanwhile, we’re already governed by people who treat Pauline Hanson like a policy expert and think a lump of coal in parliament is energy strategy.
And somehow, that’s mature?
🎯 What This Panic Really Reveals
The volume of resistance from the oligarchy isn’t about teenagers not being ready.
It’s about power holders not being ready to be held accountable by them.
Young people are already mobilising. They’re already protesting, organising, marching, and demanding truth from those in power. Giving them the vote would formalise something the establishment has long feared:
That the next generation doesn’t just want change – they understand how to make it happen.
And once that genie’s out of the bottle, no amount of pearl-clutching op-eds will stuff it back in.
⏭️ Coming in Part 3:
“How Australia Could Make This Happen – And What’s Standing in the Way”
We’ll dig into what it would actually take to lower the voting age in Australia, where legislative efforts currently stand, and what the public can do to help push it forward.
We’ll also name the politicians and parties most likely to block it – because if they’re panicking, you deserve to know why.
That’s a powerful and emotionally resonant insight – it absolutely belongs in the piece. Here’s how we can structure Part 3, incorporating your anecdotal reflection as a reflective afterword.
Part 3: How Australia Could Make This Happen – And What’s Standing in the Way
So let’s get practical.
If you’ve made it this far, it’s likely you agree that the case for voting at 16 is rock solid. But how do we get from “this makes sense” to “this is law”?
🏛️ What It Would Take
Australia’s voting age is set by federal legislation, not the Constitution. That means no referendum is required to lower it – just an act of Parliament.
There are already precedents for changing the voting age in Australia:
In 1973, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 by legislation.
Several local and state-based campaigns are already pushing to repeat that history with a move to 16.
In 2023, Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John introduced a bill to lower the voting age to 16. It’s stalled in committee – unsurprisingly, given the major parties’ nervousness around youth enfranchisement – but it shows the mechanism is ready. It just needs political courage.
🧾 Read the bill here (Parliament of Australia)
The change could happen tomorrow – if enough Australians demanded it.
🚧 What’s Standing in the Way?
- Major Parties Protecting Status Quo: Especially those whose voter base skews older, wealthier, and more conservative. They’ll claim it’s about “maturity,” but the real fear is accountability.
- Media Outlets with Political Skin in the Game: Murdoch media and its cousins will churn out fear campaigns, dog whistles, and cartoons showing schoolkids in nappies casting votes. It’s not journalism – it’s panic propaganda.
- Cultural Inertia: The same mindset that resisted marriage equality, climate action, and Indigenous recognition. Change threatens comfort. And too many politicians are allergic to discomfort.
- Misunderstanding of Young People’s Capacity: If we judged adults the way we judge teens – on maturity, ethical consistency, and information literacy – half the country would be disenfranchised by morning tea.
💪 What You Can Do
Support campaigns: Groups like YACVic’s Vote at 16 and Raise Our Voice Australia are leading the charge.
Pressure your MP: Use your vote (while you still have it) to demand more democracy, not less.
Challenge the myths: Push back on disinformation and lazy takes – whether they come from pundits, politicians, or a cranky uncle on Facebook.
✏️ Afterword: Why This Matters
I’ve seen it firsthand – teenagers who speak with clarity about justice, climate, equality, and the future. Some of them organise rallies. Some create art. Some challenge their teachers. And some, when they talk, silence a room full of adults.
They know what’s at stake.
They understand what needs to change.
They’re not distracted by shareholder profits, media cycles, or political games.
They’re focused on the world they’re going to inherit – and whether it will be livable.
And yet we still deny them a voice at the ballot box.
To anyone who’s actually listened to teenagers – not just judged them through lazy stereotypes – it’s clear:
These kids aren’t our future. They’re already here.
And they’re ready to lead – if we’re brave enough to let them.
🧵 In Case You Missed It:
Part 1: The Case for the Teenage Vote
Part 2: The Panic Is Real – Who’s Afraid of 16-Year-Old Voters (and Why)
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Thanks Lachlan,
I work with teenagers – mostly 16 to 18 year olds – and they certainly do understand what is happening in the world around them. Some of them are very frustrated that they cannot do anything to fix what they perceive as wrong.
If 16 year olds do get the vote, then I believe that significant efforts will be needed so that they understand how our voting system works and what their vote will mean for their present and their future.
No doubt that teenagers have useful talents – my grand kids help me with the complexities of my iphone and macbook and quickly re-program my tv remote when I have stuffed it up!
What’s missed vs our daily diet of supposed ‘high immigration’ and/or ‘population growth’ (based on misrepresentation of the NOM & mostly international students), is that we have an ageing electorate.
Living longer means middle aged and older dominate electoral rolls, especially regions vs fewer and static numbers of youth, till mid century.
Lowering the age will help rebalance electorates, till the boomers pass on, for natural rebalance and generally more educated and diverse.
16 year olds are apparently only just mature enough to use social media. Experts say they are too easily influenced by social media.
They aren’t mature enough to choose their sexual partners or marry without parental consent. They can’t choose to buy cigarettes and alcohol.
They can’t sign a binding contract. They aren’t responsible enough to drive a motor vehicle.
But some people think they should help run the country?
The case for change hasn’t been made, so it’s no from me.
🧠 Critique: When Bad Faith Arguments Wear a Suit
This response is a classic example of cherry-picking half-truths and misusing social rules to justify political exclusion. Let’s break it down.
❌ “They’re only just mature enough to use social media.”
🔍 False premise
Social media use is not a maturity benchmark—it’s a commercial and safety regulation.
Millions of adults fail to navigate social media safely or critically. They spread disinformation, fall for scams, and get radicalised in Facebook echo chambers.
Young people, meanwhile, are often better at spotting manipulation and satire online than older generations.
Studies show that digital literacy among teens often exceeds that of older adults.
📚 Oxford Internet Institute: “Teens more sceptical of fake news than adults”
🧵 Conclusion: If adults can’t use social media responsibly but still vote, this is a weak argument for disenfranchising youth.
❌ “They can’t marry or choose sexual partners without parental consent.”
🔍 Misleading conflation
In most Australian states, 16-year-olds can engage in consensual sex, and laws are in place to protect against exploitation—not to deny autonomy.
Marriage before 18 requires judicial approval because it’s a lifelong contract — a completely different standard than voting, which is a civic expression, not a personal obligation.
🧵 Conclusion: Using marriage and sexual consent laws to block voting rights is a clumsy and irrelevant diversion.
❌ “They can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol.”
🔍 Health-based legislation ≠ Civic participation limits
These bans exist to protect developing bodies from substances proven to cause harm, not to measure someone’s intelligence or values.
If the argument is that people who can’t drink shouldn’t vote, then should we revoke the votes of recovering alcoholics or anyone in dry communities?
🧵 Conclusion: Smoking and drinking restrictions are public health protections, not tests of political competence.
❌ “They can’t sign a binding contract.”
🔍 Technically true, but misleading
16- and 17-year-olds can enter contracts for employment and certain services if the terms are reasonable. Many work, pay tax, and contribute to the economy.
The inability to sign certain long-term legal contracts is about protecting them from being exploited by more powerful parties (like, say, oligarchs).
🧵 Conclusion: Voting is a right, not a commercial transaction.
❌ “They aren’t responsible enough to drive a motor vehicle.”
🔍 Factually wrong
In all Australian states, 16-year-olds can drive under a learner or provisional licence:
🚗 VicRoads – Getting your Ls
Many young people drive responsibly every day. Many adults… do not.
🧵 Conclusion: If we trust teens with 1,000 kg of metal on public roads, why not a pencil and a ballot?
❌ “But some people think they should help run the country?”
🔍 Classic straw man
No one is suggesting 16-year-olds run for parliament. We’re saying they should have a say in how they’re governed.
The vote is not about expertise—it’s about democratic representation. Adults vote all the time on topics they don’t understand. That’s why we have experts, public debate, and education.
📌 In fact, many 16-year-olds are better informed, better educated on climate science, and more ethically grounded than many adults in Parliament.
✅ So what’s the real issue here?
This comment reveals more about the fear of change and elitist gatekeeping than about teenage maturity.
Because if this commenter truly cared about capability, they’d be pushing for:
Literacy tests before voting (which are illegal and undemocratic),
Age caps on older voters,
Mandatory civic education for everyone.
But they’re not.
They’re just terrified that a new, more progressive generation might vote in ways that challenge the status quo.
🔗 Further Reading & References:
📘 YACVic – Vote at 16 Campaign
🗳️ The Conversation – “Australians aged 16 should be able to vote”
🧠 Cambridge study – Adolescent brain and civic reasoning
📊 Austrian Study – Voting at 16
I think, wadr, that AC is missing the point. 16 yr olds might well fit within his list of circumstances and age-related restrictions, but they’re also savvy enough to recognise that they will inherit the future, as it were, and that the status quo is doing SFA about remediating / remedying the existential crisis that is their inheritance. This is not about letting kids run the country…. and more about letting them express their concerns at the voting box and putting into power politicians who actually have the cojones to legislate appropriate change.
We, the citizens of so-called democratic countries, by consent give power to politicians to legislate in ways that benefit all. Currently, this is not happening. The recent return of the ALP and its immediate granting of a 45 years lease to Woodside for gas extraction on the NW Shelf is a classical example of governments acting against the interest of their electors and in the interests of global corporations. If 16 yr olds had the vote this may not have happened.
Greta Thunberg is the archetypical model of a concerned teen wrt the future of the planet, taking a stand against the self-evident apathy & inertia exhibited by global governments and corporations in relation to the urgent need for change. How has she been received? By & large, dismissed and denigrated by those old enough but not wise enough to know better.
Yes to the 16 yr olds voting. Bring it on. Viva la change.
[addendum: Lachlan McKenzie, a koala stamp for the most lucid rebuttal I’ve seen in these pages.]
Those countries that already permit sixteen year-olds to vote have a voluntary voting system, it makes a difference.
You can’t tell sixteen-year-olds to do anything : tidy your room, comb your hair – you may have to bribe them to vote under our compulsory system or Mum & Dad will end up paying the fine!
How many high schools are teaching Constitutional theory at the moment or intend to? How many sixteen-year-olds (or their parents for that matter) understand the principle of the Separation of Powers?
As AC says, the case for change has not been made – I’m out.
Our 2 sons would be well informed voters. Young people 16 yr olds should be allowed to vote. They can learn to drive a car,our sons wouldn’t choose to buy cigarettes even if allowed. They have seen the damage smoking does to a person’s body. Our sons choose not to be on social media. No Facebook, tick tick, instagram, X.
They don’t want to run the country just be able to have a say. Young people often have a well developed sense of justice. Many are working, apprentices which gives them responsibility. Some pay taxes. Everyone pays the GST. They sign agreements to look after school issued equipment. Many adults can sign binding agreements but that doesn’t stop bankruptcy. Adults can be irresponsible as well. Does that mean their right to vote should be revoked. Maybe an option to make voting at 16-17 voluntary before compulsory voting at 18. There are many well informed 16 yr olds who would like the chance to have a say in the future. Give them the ability to vote at 16.
🧾 Clarification: Compulsory Voting vs. Compulsory Enrolment
In Australia, voting is compulsory only for those who are enrolled.
🔍 What the critics often miss:
If the voting age were lowered to 16, it would not mean compulsory voting for all 16-year-olds overnight.
Just like today, citizens must first enrol to vote. Only then does voting become compulsory.
This is how it works now for 18+ citizens:
You must enrol to vote (required by law).
Once enrolled, you’re legally required to vote.
If the age were lowered:
The enrolment age would shift, possibly with a grace period or opt-in model, depending on legislation.
There could be voluntary enrolment at 16 (as is already allowed) with compulsory voting kicking in later, or made compulsory only if enrolled.
👉 In fact, 16- and 17-year-olds can already enrol in Australia so they’re ready to vote when they turn 18:
🗳️ Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) – Enrol at 16 or 17
How would it sound if it wasn’t compulsory for 16 and 17 year olds?
Oops. Lachlan beat me to it.
Sorry Michael 😉
I’ve commented in the past that I consider one of the strengths of Australian democracy to be our system of compulsory voting .
This supports a more informed electorate. It means (in general) people can’t be as apathetic about their vote as they are in many other countries.
It means minorities aren’t pressed to not vote, they are more assured of a proportionate voice.
It means political resources are directed to the debate and the issues, rather then being consumed by advertising and phone calls and door knocking- just to get people out to vote.
So allowing a group to opt out of voting begins to undermine (what I consider) an important strength of our political structure.
I’m not going to fully repeat the earlier points I made… but…16 year olds have legal restrictions on a range of activities (driving, consumption, contracts, sexual/relationships, social media…) because they can be manipulated, because their judgement isn’t (legally) mature enough, or because they aren’t sufficiently developed physically, emotionally and mentally.
So, the case for change ranks D+
Thank you for continuing the conversation — I really appreciate the thoughtful way you’ve engaged with this, even where we differ. You’re absolutely right to highlight compulsory voting as one of Australia’s democratic strengths. I couldn’t agree more — it leads to broader participation, a more representative outcome, and fewer distorted results from “who bothered to turn up.”
Where we may differ is on one key point: allowing 16-year-olds to vote doesn’t mean they “opt out” of voting — it means they are included.
Just like 18-year-olds now, the compulsory aspect only kicks in once a person is enrolled. Changing the voting age wouldn’t remove compulsory voting — it would just extend the right to a group who currently wants to be involved but legally can’t.
You may already know this, but for context:
✅ 16- and 17-year-olds in Australia can already enrol to vote voluntarily, so they’re ready the moment they turn 18.
🗳️ AEC link: https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/pre-enrol-16-17.htm
As for the concerns around legal restrictions: it’s true there are protections in place for young people in certain areas. But voting is not a commercial contract or a medical procedure — it’s a civic act. And interestingly, the very existence of Young Liberals, Young Labor, and youth political forums shows that many teens are already engaging with political ideas, movements, and values — often more thoughtfully than some older voters with entrenched biases.
The article makes the case that judgment, ethics, and values can develop before 18, even if other faculties (like emotional regulation or contractual capacity) are still maturing — and that’s not controversial in developmental psychology.
Of course we won’t all agree, and that’s healthy. But I’d invite you (if time allows) to have a quick scroll through the article and cartoons. You might not shift your view — but I suspect you’ll better understand where the argument is coming from.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. It’s discussions like this that make democracy stronger — whatever age we are.
Sometimes I think it would be lovely to be sixteen again.
Then I look at the world our sixteen-year-olds are going to inherit — the climate chaos, the political gridlock, the inequality baked in by decades of short-term thinking — and I realise: I’m very glad I’m not.
If only I, and others of my generation, had been trusted with a vote at sixteen…
What might we have changed?
What might we have protected?
What kind of country might we be living in now?
Far better, I suspect.
“But some people think they should help run the country?”
I wouldn’t be that dramatic, AC. Not help run the country, but tell us what sort of country they want to grow up in.
It’s been a very long time since I was 16, but I’d still vote for free chocolate …
Two years grace period where enrolment is optional, so those who are motivated (and, one hopes, informed) can participate? Sounds good to me.
Lachlan
In case I have missed something in this discussion, you have said that:
“In Australia, voting is compulsory only for those who are enrolled.”
Which is correct but enrolment is currently compulsory for Australian citizens aged 18 and over and any change to the age stipulation, to 16 or 17, would surely place an obligation to enrol (and vote) on this category of young people, or is it envisaged that this category of voter would be permitted optional enrolment and voting?
Thanks Terry — I appreciate the clarity of your question. You’re right: under current legislation, enrolment becomes compulsory at age 18. If the voting age were lowered to 16 or 17, Parliament would need to decide whether enrolment (and therefore voting) becomes compulsory at that age, or whether it remains voluntary until 18, as it effectively is now.
In fact, we already have a precedent for this:
📌 AEC: Enrol at 16 or 17
So yes — it’s entirely possible to expand the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds without making it compulsory straight away. That could look like:
Optional enrolment (as now),
With voting becoming compulsory only once enrolled,
Or a staged approach where compulsory enrolment begins at 18, preserving the current structure.
My personal view? A voluntary model at 16 and 17 would be a great start — allowing politically engaged young people to participate, without placing legal pressure on those who aren’t yet ready. It respects both democratic expansion and developmental variation.
Thanks again for helping keep this discussion focused and constructive. It’s genuinely refreshing.
📊 Estimates of Australians Who Have Never Enrolled
As of recent AEC reporting:
Around 95% of eligible Australians are enrolled to vote, which sounds great…
…but that still leaves hundreds of thousands who are not.
✅ 2022 federal election snapshot:
AEC estimated about 650,000 eligible Australians were not enrolled before the 2022 federal election.
📎 AEC 2022 enrolment statistics
This includes:
Young people who never enrolled when they turned 18,
Older Australians who have never enrolled,
Transient voters, homeless Australians, First Nations communities with limited access,
And some who actively avoid the system for ideological or personal reasons.
🚫 What are the consequences?
Technically, failure to enrol is an offence under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, but…
Enrolment enforcement is light-touch unless:
You’ve previously enrolled and failed to update your address, or
You’ve enrolled and failed to vote (in which case a fine is issued for not voting, not not enrolling).
🧠 So in practice…
There are tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Australians who:
Have never enrolled,
Have never voted,
And have faced no fines or legal repercussions whatsoever.
We already have entire adult communities in Australia, like the Closed Brethren, who opt out of the electoral process entirely — many never enrol, never vote, and face no real consequence. The idea that 16-year-olds would be forcibly swept into mandatory voting is not supported by how our system actually operates.
I’ve never understood how it is that the Closed Brethren, based on their spurious claim that their allegiance is to God, can use that as a caveat to avoid their civic duty to vote; especially galling as they splashed money & swamped polling booths at the last election in an aggressive push to persuade voters to vote LNP, especially galling as it is well-known that senior Brethren have cosied up to John Howard and publicly supported him, especially galling because they see no problem in thumbing their noses at Australian electoral laws and the AEC / government don’t seem to have a problem with that.
As opposed to a bloke I once knew who was born in NZ, came here as a young child, and in his forties was quite proud of the fact that he’d never voted. He was flying under the radar, as opposed to the Brethren who openly flout the system.
The Oligarchs are scared witless that 16 year olds would not vote for the party (not mentioning the…L…cough…N…cough…P) that they pay for year in and decade out.
My mother came to Australia to get away from the Brethren in NZ. She was very politically engaged and voted whenever the opportunity arose.
How is it possible that a group that formally refuses for any of their members to Vote, participate in the Electoral process by assisting a Political party at a Polling Booth. Anyone who disavows the right to vote should be barred from assisting any Political party. The cynicism which the LnP displayed by having Closed Brethren assist at Polling places was undeniable and a direct threat to Democracy, it must be prohibited.
Simon, I’m also highly concerned about the quid pro quo that was conveniently never investigated. There must have been something in it for them?