I mean we already have many things at 16 that are treated as adults:

• You qualify as either an adult worker or a starting-out worker. This means you’re entitled to get paid at least the minimum wage or the starting-out wage for any work you do for an employer.
• You can legally consent to sex after you turn 16. You’re also allowed to get married or enter a civil union or a de facto relationship, if your parents or guardians agree.
• You’re allowed to leave home and choose where you want to live.
• You can apply to get your learners drivers licence.
• You can decide which parent you want to live with if your parents are split up.
• You can independently agree to, or refuse, medical treatment.
• You can choose to leave school.
• If you have left school, you are able to work full-time.
• Your parents can’t change your name unless you consent to it. If you are married or in a civil union, you can change your name or make a will.
• You can apply for a firearms licence.
• You can get an adult passport.

Then at 17 you are treated as an adult in the criminal justice system, and can join the Police, Navy, Army, and Air Force

Fuzzi9986:

 

...

 

Then at 17 you are treated as an adult in the criminal justice system, and can join the Police, Navy, Army, and Air Force

 

Technically, you can apply to join the Services at 17 - you must be 18 when you graduate from recruit course.

sir1963:

 

To get a credit card

 

Actually, that one isn't quite true. You have to be 18 to enter into a legally binding contract, which is why banks usually won't give you one until you are 18 - because you can't be held legally liable for any debts you run up on it should you default. This was the same reason they didn't like to give 18 year olds a cheque book, because they weren't liable for any rubber cheques they write.

But you most definitely can get one aged under 18 if the bank chooses to give you one (sometimes they will ask for a parental guarantee). I got a credit card and a cheque book before I was under 18, because I needed one for my university fees etc and for whatever reason the bank obviously decided I was an acceptable risk (they didn't ask for a parental guarantee). Several friends also had cards and chequebooks aged under 18, for the same reason. (It might have helped that I had a part time job working for the bank at the time, it was pre student loans and I needed to pay for the tertiary fees in question, as well as textbooks etc).

I don't favour lowering the age to 16. As others have pointed out here there are a range of things that you need to be an adult to make. And it's far tidier and legally coherent to say that some things are adult things, and you need to be an adult to do them, and other things aren't adult things. There are anomalies because of historical precedent, but that's no reason to create more. If anything we have been moving to diy them up and align them with 18 as the age of majority - e.g., the age to buy alcohol was reduced to 18, the age to buy tobacco was increased to 18, the army won't send under-18 year olds into hazardous situations (16 year olds would be classed as child soldiers), and the school leaving age has been raised (although not to 18 yet).

And picking a government requires, or certainly should require, at least as much maturity as (say): signing a legally binding hire-purchase contract, watching an adult film, putting $2 in a pokie machine, buying a beer or buying a cigarette.

Therefore, if you are saying that people aged 16 have mature enough decision making capacities to help pick a government, then surely they ought to be able to do these other things as well? They are either capable of making adult decisions and taking responsibility for them, or they aren't.

I might be willing to agree with the proposition if the proponents were constructing an evidence-based argument that people aged 16 had adult capacities, and therefore the age of majority should be dropped across the board (if, and it's a big if, they had decent evidence to support this). But they aren't. And I find this illogical and incoherent.

networkn: Exactly that. You can have the ultimate responsibilities when you are allowed to accept the ultimate consequences.

And once again, you fail to see understand the law on this matter. For discrimination against a person over the age of 15 in New Zealand, there must be a justification. This isn't just a recommendation, this is a requirement under the Bill of Rights Act. "But they're not adults in criminal court!" - irrelevant. "But we don't let them drink alcohol!" - irrelevant. "But they might vote Greens!" - ok, just kidding. But that would be irrelevant too.

If you want to deny a 15 year old the right to vote (yes, I realise this thread is about 16 year olds, but really it should be considered from the legal perspective) then it's incumbent on you (not you personally, but those legislating to deny those rights) to present a valid, justifiable, reason for that discrimination. A justification that can stand the test of a challenge under the Bill of Rights Act.

Remember, any time you use an argument like "because they aren't criminally liable" or "because" (a lot of people seem to think that's a valid argument, and then somehow flesh it out into 500 words) you are simultaneously weakening protections against other age, sex, race, culture, and minority discrimination.

So it's not "you can have the ultimate responsibilities when..." because legally, they must have that right (New Zealand is not like Australia. Voting is a right, not a responsibility) now.

JimmyH:

 

I don't favour lowering the age to 16. As others have pointed out here there are a range of things that you need to be an adult to make. And it's far tidier and legally coherent to say that some things are adult things, and you need to be an adult to do them, and other things aren't adult things. There are anomalies because of historical precedent, but that's no reason to create more. If anything we have been moving to diy them up and align them with 18 as the age of majority - e.g., the age to buy alcohol was reduced to 18, the age to buy tobacco was increased to 18, the army won't send under-18 year olds into hazardous situations (16 year olds would be classed as child soldiers), and the school leaving age has been raised (although not to 18 yet).

 

And picking a government requires, or certainly should require, at least as much maturity as (say): signing a legally binding hire-purchase contract, watching an adult film, putting $2 in a pokie machine, buying a beer or buying a cigarette.

 

Therefore, if you are saying that people aged 16 have mature enough decision making capacities to help pick a government, then surely they ought to be able to do these other things as well? They are either capable of making adult decisions and taking responsibility for them, or they aren't.

 

 

 

I might be willing to agree with the proposition if the proponents were constructing an evidence-based argument that people aged 16 had adult capacities, and therefore the age of majority should be dropped across the board (if, and it's a big if, they had decent evidence to support this). But they aren't. And I find this illogical and incoherent.

 

Your argument falls apart as well, when you consider that:

- you must be 20 to enter gaming areas (not 18)
- the plan for smoking is to fix the year of birth as the minimum smoking age (so at some point, the smoking age will be 47, not 18)
- the armed forces won't send 16 year olds into warzones because that's a violation of at least one international treaty, which almost certainly was not based on maturity and decision making capability

The more important one, is that it's not incumbent on a group being discriminated against to justify why they shouldn't be. The Bill of Rights Act requires the government to justify the discrimination. If anyone is required to present an evidence based argument, it is you. The law does not back your position.

Any age is an arbitrary line. There are many 16 year-olds fully capable of assessing politicians and voting responsibly, and there are many who lack the maturity and interest to do so. Exactly the same can be said of any age group.

Since a line does have to be drawn somewhere, I don't have a problem with it being drawn at 16 or 18 or any other reasonable age (10 or 12 might be pushing it!), but don't try to justify it with specious arguments about adolescent brain development or life experience. The line is arbitrary.

JimmyH:

 

 

 

Therefore, if you are saying that people aged 16 have mature enough decision making capacities to help pick a government, then surely they ought to be able to do these other things as well? They are either capable of making adult decisions and taking responsibility for them, or they aren't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buying a ciggie isnt quite the same as voting a Government. One is based on immature peer pressure and one isnt. I have a family member who is just over 16 but she is VERY mature. But she wont vote on a Government on the pros and cons, it will be based on any amount of things. 

Kyanar:

 

networkn: Exactly that. You can have the ultimate responsibilities when you are allowed to accept the ultimate consequences.

 

And once again, you fail to see understand the law on this matter. For discrimination against a person over the age of 15 in New Zealand, there must be a justification. This isn't just a recommendation, this is a requirement under the Bill of Rights Act. "But they're not adults in criminal court!" - irrelevant. "But we don't let them drink alcohol!" - irrelevant. "But they might vote Greens!" - ok, just kidding. But that would be irrelevant too.

 

If you want to deny a 15 year old the right to vote (yes, I realise this thread is about 16 year olds, but really it should be considered from the legal perspective) then it's incumbent on you (not you personally, but those legislating to deny those rights) to present a valid, justifiable, reason for that discrimination. A justification that can stand the test of a challenge under the Bill of Rights Act.

 

Remember, any time you use an argument like "because they aren't criminally liable" or "because" (a lot of people seem to think that's a valid argument, and then somehow flesh it out into 500 words) you are simultaneously weakening protections against other age, sex, race, culture, and minority discrimination.

 

So it's not "you can have the ultimate responsibilities when..." because legally, they must have that right (New Zealand is not like Australia. Voting is a right, not a responsibility) now.

 

I get what you say, BUT (and there is always a but :-)  ) Will a 15/16yo vote for the betterment of NZ than a 30/40/50 yo? I don't feel so. I will classify myself as a good person, but as a 15/16 its ALL about me. Plus I knew nothing about the real world just my selfish world. let them grow uo, be a bit more worldly, then see how it goes. Certainly social engineering, I mean media, is no help at all, we want votes for our country, not likes. 

tdgeek:

 

I get what you say, BUT (and there is always a but :-)  ) Will a 15/16yo vote for the betterment of NZ than a 30/40/50 yo? I don't feel so. I will classify myself as a good person, but as a 15/16 its ALL about me. Plus I knew nothing about the real world just my selfish world. let them grow uo, be a bit more worldly, then see how it goes. Certainly social engineering, I mean media, is no help at all, we want votes for our country, not likes. 

 

That argument can effectively be summed up as "because". You have presented absolutely no valid justification for discriminating against 15 year olds, except a spurious claim that they can't be trusted to vote in the interests of the country. News flash: we can't trust 30 year olds to vote in the interests of the country either. Or 40 year olds. Or 50 year olds. Definitely not the over 60s, who are almost singlehandedly responsible for Winston Peters.

You're effectively saying you don't want them to vote because they might vote in a way you don't agree with, which is a very poor reason.

Kyanar:

 

 

 

That argument can effectively be summed up as "because". You have presented absolutely no valid justification for discriminating against 15 year olds, except a spurious claim that they can't be trusted to vote in the interests of the country. News flash: we can't trust 30 year olds to vote in the interests of the country either. Or 40 year olds. Or 50 year olds. Definitely not the over 60s, who are almost singlehandedly responsible for Winston Peters.

 

You're effectively saying you don't want them to vote because they might vote in a way you don't agree with, which is a very poor reason.

 

Totally incorrect. I look at this issue on its own merits. The news gives examples of older people being stupid. Doesnt mean all old people are stupid. if over 60s raved over Winston, where is he??

I do not feel that 16 is old enough to evaluate the world we live in.If we went back to when I was a kid, no. Today where for many their world is dominated by likes. no. If its 16, why not 15, or 14? I you Google brain maturity it is well past 16, well past. But I dislike your assertion that I am biased against kids. In favour of myself.

Im old enough to have owned 3 firearms when I was 15. A shotgun, a 22 magnum and a high powered rifle with sights. I passed the Firearms test. Mature, sensible. Politics? No clue

what I'm seeing is just boiling down to older more conservative people are scared that allowing 16 and 17yr olds the vote will mean more votes for greens/labour/other minor left parties.

While it is true the younger groups do skew more left than the older groups and people up till millennial have skewed more conservative as they age, I myself have gotten more and more left as I've aged.

If anything we should add a max voting age, anyone on the pension shouldn't be allowed to vote for the future of our country as all they want is to sit cushy on their houses they got for nothing back in the 60s/70s/80s while those of us millennial and younger have no hope of ever owning our own home.

Fuzzi9986:

 

what I'm seeing is just boiling down to older more conservative people are scared that allowing 16 and 17yr olds the vote will mean more votes for greens/labour/other minor left parties.

 

 

 

While it is true the younger groups do skew more left than the older groups and people up till millennial have skewed more conservative as they age, I myself have gotten more and more left as I've aged.

 

 

 

If anything we should add a max voting age, anyone on the pension shouldn't be allowed to vote for the future of our country as all they want is to sit cushy on their houses they got for nothing back in the 60s/70s/80s while those of us millennial and younger have no hope of ever owning our own home.

 

Not sure if thats ageist or not. Or decrying every older person that bought a house? Younger people dont skew left they skew Green, big difference.

Maybe we could ban voting by beneficiaries as I guess all of them are sitting cushy on their career choice???? That mindset appears to be your agenda.

Basically discriminatory. When you brand any group no matter what group as the cause of your ills, thats a bit poor. I have a mate in his early 50's who bought a house 3 years ago. Low income. What group is he in?    

Kyanar:

 

That argument can effectively be summed up as "because". You have presented absolutely no valid justification for discriminating against 15 year olds, except a spurious claim that they can't be trusted to vote in the interests of the country. News flash: we can't trust 30 year olds to vote in the interests of the country either. Or 40 year olds. Or 50 year olds. Definitely not the over 60s, who are almost singlehandedly responsible for Winston Peters.

 

You're effectively saying you don't want them to vote because they might vote in a way you don't agree with, which is a very poor reason.

 

Twaddle. You want evidence that age affects decision-making?

When the legal age for drinking was 20, the occasional 20-year-old was giving 18-year-olds alcohol then a small number of those were giving them to 16-year-olds.

When they lowered the drinking age (incredibly stupidly) to 18, then the 18 year olds were giving alcohol to 14 and 15 year olds, who were then in turn giving it to 10 and 11 year olds. (I am sure you saw all the videos of the 10 and 11 year olds puking up all over the cops on queen st a few years ago. Still happens most weekends. Instances of it prior to the drop in drinking age were isolated at best.

Generally as a rule, the older you get (to a point) the more you understand the consequences of your actions BEFORE they are consequences. Suggesting otherwise just because anecdotally you know a mature teen here and there, doesn't change that. As a parent, I discriminate on age all the time, anytime I make a decision on whether my kid(s) are safe in a particular environment if they are safe to ride to school or catch a bus. It's how I keep my kids safe. We make decisions all day every day around age and what it allows us to do and not do, otherwise we would let 11-year-olds drive cars.