SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on this extremely important constitutional matter as the chair of the Justice Committee to whom this first declaration of inconsistency was referred. I will make some brief remarks about our report but first given the constitutional significance of this debate I did want to acknowledge two constitutional personalities.For two glorious months when I was 23 I had the office right opposite Sir Geoffrey Palmer's where I worked as a graduate solicitor. For two months while I was there I probably did the least work that I've ever done because I couldn't help listening to Sir Geoffrey on the phone. It was pure public law theatre. Sir Geoffrey was of course the architect of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and since its passage in 1990 he has repeatedly spoken about the need for our constitution to evolve and mature. So it is a great privilege to be able to speak today at a time when we are considering our first declaration of inconsistency.The second constitutional personality I'd like to acknowledge are sitting in part in the gallery with us today. Can I acknowledge the Make It 16 campaign. Your organisation your engagement your intellect and your grit has demonstrated true campaigning prowess. Not only did you campaign but you took your case through every layer of the hierarchy of our courts and that was powerful to watch. But it also bolstered your own argument that 16-year-olds' voices should be heard in the political space. As we heard submissions there were a lot of different views but some very powerful views from young people including those in Make It 16—also some very robust views from the Children's Commissioner.The committee ended up making two strong recommendations which we've heard about one in relation to the Local Electoral Act and the other that the Government investigate lowering the minimum voting age in general elections to 16 taking into consideration the legal consequences of course as well. I think it is rather poetic that the very next bill that we will be considering gives effect to the advocacy and the recommendations of the Justice Committee by proposing that change. Because it's the next bill I won't dwell on many of the arguments that others in the House have because I will I hope have the opportunity to speak to that in the next bill. But given the significance of the constitutional shift that we're seeing here today I may make some brief remarks on constitutional process.In the 18th century it was the Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu who argued as the centrepiece for his thinking that a fair society means that power shouldn't be over concentrated but should exist as he called it in a trias politica". His was a concept of government divided into legislative executive and judicial branches acting independently of each other. And while these three branches are fundamental to our democracy they don't operate in silos. The change that we made in December last year legislated for the process that we have been going through. It creates a bridge between the judiciary the executive and the legislature. It allows important conversations on our constitutional make-up.Although this is the first time we've considered a declaration of inconsistency the committee I think felt that it was an unusual set of decisions through the courts because it wasn't so much about the substance of the issue itself. In my reading of the courts' decisions what every single layer of the courts did was point their finger squarely back at Parliament. They were saying this is an important issue for Parliament to consider. The first two courts the High Court and then the Court of Appeal did that by choosing not to issue a declaration of inconsistency—ironically. The Supreme Court brought it straight to our door. And when they do that we have an obligation to consider the merits of the substantive issues in front of us not whether the courts got it right not the detail of those court decisions. We have to acknowledge the fact that the courts were saying "It is time. It's time to consider whether 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local body and in central." And we did.Committee members across the House were actually very engaged with the number of submissions that came in front of us. And for the majority of us we were persuaded by the arguments made by Make It 16 and people like the Children's Commissioner who made sound arguments for a split age restriction on the basis of hot and cold cognition. We are not the first to do this. We were also persuaded by the arguments from Scotland who already have this in place but not only that have engaged in research that demonstrates that if 16-year-olds vote—if they can vote at 16—they are more likely to continue to vote.I began by talking about the bridge between the arms of government—and today in many ways we stand here on the bridge—but this isn't just about referring a matter back to Parliament for discussion. There is a creation when the judiciary takes steps like this of an adjacent possibility. What it does is it creates a spotlight on an issue. It makes us consider what to do next. So I'll end there by again saying that I think it is so poetic that the very next bill we consider will be a direct result of your advocacy."