The Press WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1966. Servicemen’s Votes

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31116, 20 July 1966, Page 12

The Press WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1966. Servicemen’s Votes

Parliament is unlikely to pass the amendment to the Electoral Act to give the vote to those servicemen under the age of 21 who are engaged in areas of danger overseas. Although the proposal is well intentioned, it invites too many objections on the grounds of discrimination and uncertainty of administration. The age for active service overseas In the Army was lowered to 19 last year. This change prompted the Electoral Amendment Bill. The justification for the proposed concession is a special and valid one—the risk to life undertaken by servicemen but not by other persons working in the interests of their country. It was proper to attempt to distinguish between areas of service. The purpose of the bill would not be served if young soldiers won the vote simply because they were outside New Zealand, perhaps at a secure training establishment. As returned to Parliament by the Statutes Revision Committee, the bill gives the Minister of Justice the power to recommend, with the approval of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, whether an area is dangerous. This may be the fairest practicable arrangement; but it does not remove the fundamental and continuing problem of assessing danger or the likelihood of danger. It does not permit the kind of precision that is desirable in electoral law.

Not surprisingly, opponents of the bill have argued for the general lowering of the voting age. But this is not the logical alternative to the problems arising from an attempt to make an exception for servicemen. The starting point for the argument in favour of a lower voting age lies elsewhere. Those who advocate it might well first argue for the lowering of the age for jury service to, say, 18—if in fact they believe that that is an age by which most persons have the necessary experience, wisdom, and balanced judgment. They may argue that young persons who have spent longer at school, though a shorter time in the adult world, are better equipped than their counterparts of earlier generations to make decisions in the jury room or at the ballot box. They must also show that political decisions facing the electorate today are no more complex than they were for previous generations. There is no magic in the “traditional” age of 21; but until these questions are settled a case has not been made either for raising or for lowering the voting age. Young recruits into the armed services are volunteers; and they are aware of their inability to vote until they are 21. In view of the difficulties surrounding the attempt to make an exception, it would be wiser to assume that young men who object to overseas service without voting rights until they are a year or two years older will not volunteer for service.