Democratic processes are grounded in the idea that government legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed. Consent does not truly exist when millions of citizens with direct economic, civic and moral interests, are denied a vote. Political theorist John Stuart Mill advised, “the worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it.” Indeed, a democracy which excludes its young citizens is diminished. 

The impacts of climate change, debt and inequality will transcend the lifetimes of those who govern today. Granting suffrage to 16 and 17-year-olds would strengthen civic life, enhance political accountability and reaffirm Australia’s commitment to equality. Every major expansion of voting rights in our history was once dismissed as impractical; each is now regarded as an inevitable and valuable progress. Extending the vote to 16-year-olds is the next logical step in that lineage of progress in a century defined by intergenerational challenges.

In Australia, 16 and 17-year-olds are trusted to drive and consent to medical procedures. 17-year-olds can join the military and people younger than 18 in Australia pay up to 100 million dollars of annual tax, have a population of over five million and have a vested interest in Australia’s future, yet they cannot vote in elections. Despite legal thresholds, young Australians are active in civic movements, climate protests, youth parliaments and volunteer organisations. This civil engagement demonstrates both a democratic readiness and a political competence. 

Australia's economic system is geared against young people and they do not have a democratic voice to resist this systemic inequality. A 16-year-old can legally be paid $15 an hour. Recent reforms to minimum wage laws protect workers aged 18 and up, yet workers without the right to vote were excluded from this shift. In Australia, youth unemployment is double the national average at above 8 percent since the figure has been recorded. Tax academic, Bob Breunig, has criticised government policies for enhancing intergenerational disparities. Former secretary to the treasury, Ken Henry, has labelled the inequality a “wilful act of intergenerational bastardry.”  

Young voters have a genuine incentive to consider the long-term policies and ramifications of political decisions. Now, young people, are suffering the political ramifications from the voting decisions of previous generations. A Grattan Institute report from 2023 reveals the extent of economic inequality by age in Australia. Over a 15-year period, the wealth of households aged 65-74 increased by almost 30 per cent, while over that period the wealth of households under 35 did not increase at all. This imbalance reflects the consequences of a democratic feedback loop where political incentives align with older voters, with short term benefits for them, rather than long-term policies to address future crises. Extending suffrage to 16 and 17-year-olds would expand the electorate to include voices most affected by long-term policy outcomes. 

Legacy Media’s focus on tax and age pension reforms to fix the issue of age inequality fails to identify the root cause—the neglect of youth voices in Australian legal and economic systems. Young Australians are underrepresented in the Australian Federal Parliament. The Australian average age is 38, meanwhile it is 52 in the House of Representatives. Politicians are elected to represent the electorate, while voters support representatives which reflect them and their values. If the electorate does not encompass young people, they will not be represented. 

Reducing the voting age addresses the issues of disengagement and political ignorance which could form the basis of many arguments against reducing the voting age. Just as arguments against women or Indigenous suffrage were eventually recognised as relics of an outdated paternalism, patriarchal ignorance and self-interest, opposition to youth enfranchisement often rests on assumptions of immaturity, rather than evidence. Research from the University of Vienna found that the political literacy of 16-year-olds was of the same level as their 18-year-old counterparts. Moreover, exclusion based on intelligence or political knowledge is profoundly undemocratic and goes against the basic tenets of an inclusive democratic process. Older Australians are never excluded based on their political literacy, knowledge or intelligence and the rate of informal voting (6.2 per cent in NSW) for federal elections suggests that age is not a guarantee of legitimate political engagement. 

A shift to a voting age of 16 presents an opportunity to politically engage young people earlier on, supported by cases from Austria and Scotland. In Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds have been allowed to vote in local and national elections since 2014 and turnout among the newly enfranchised cohort exceeded that of 18 to 24-year-olds. The age of 16 is optimal because many still live with their parents and attend school, so family participation in the voting process can incentivise the cooperation and participation of younger voters. If it were in the interest of elected politicians for young people to receive immediate and informative civics education, it would incentivise a more comprehensive civics syllabus. The criticism that young people are underinformed about political issues can be directly addressed by a more comprehensive approach to civics from state education departments. 

Young people have the greatest vested interest in the future of our nation out of any demographic for the simple reason that they have the longest period in which they must live here. Young people “inherit” the world from older generations and so they have a clear motivation to preserve and promote positive change. The school age Strike4Climate protests reveal the weight of the climate issues for young people. Over 80 per cent of those aged 16 to 25 in Australia are concerned about climate change, compared to only 64 per cent in the general populus. Climate impacts take years to eventuate, so why should older voters take them into consideration when voting? 

In a democracy that prides itself on fairness and equality, withholding representation from those subject to taxation and legislation is an ethical contradiction. A reform to the voting age does not depart from Australian values; it extends our democratic evolution. The moral and democratic imperative is clear: young people, by virtue of their position as those who will inherit the world, must be granted a voice in shaping its future.