SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well there are a number of ironies emerging out of this debate.Let's start with the first one. We've spent the afternoon debating the importance of the human rights of our young. We debated the select committee report and now we're debating this bill at first reading. The next bill is a bill that completely undermines the human rights of 12- and 13-year-olds. The Attorney-General has issued a vet saying that that bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So while these members crow about how fond they are of the rights of young people let's just bear that in mind when we come to that bill after dinner.The other inconsistency and irony is in—I think it was Golriz Ghahraman who implored us to listen to the voices of the young people. Well I have been here for six years in Opposition while that Government completely ignored the voices on the bills that they were putting through—sitting in select committee after select committee listening to submitter after submitter saying the bills that they were passing were a really bad idea. The previous speaker Rachel Boyack's Plain Language Bill is a really good example of that. There wasn't a single submission that wasn't a friend of Rachel Boyack's who said it was a good idea. They said don't pass it. What did the Government do? They passed it. So when we're talking about listening to the voices of the people how about we get a little bit more consistent?The last irony—and I think it was touched on by Paul Goldsmith in his first reading speech on this bill—was the priorities of the Government in respect of the justice portfolio. How many things could the Government be doing right now to protect people in their own homes street violence retail crime ram raids—and what are we doing? We're talking about the age to vote. Important issue but as I think Simon O'Connor said on the doorsteps of Tāmaki—and right around the country—not a single National member has had this raised as an issue.Actually in the context of civics education—which I think is a really good idea albeit that the New Zealand education curriculum makes it perfectly possible for schools to teach civics education and democracy. In fact in our primary and intermediate schools there's some really good election material that I hope will be rolled out again in the 2023 election where primary school kids can participate in their own elections: they can form manifestos they can campaign and then their classmates get to vote. That's a really good thing to be doing. But two things about that. We're not going to give an eight-year-old the vote—that's fine. But the number one priority in civics education is getting our young people back to school in the first place. Because there are woefully low turnouts even in education much less in voting.I want to turn to that as the last key point on this. Because as a member of Parliament based in Dunedin and with the University of Otago in the electorate that I stand in the question of 16- and 17year-olds being eligible to vote has come up on a number of occasions. I have been very clear that while I think that's a conversation worth having surely the goal for political engagement right now is to make sure greater numbers of people who are currently presently eligible to vote actually do so. Because a robust democracy actually relies on active participation.Unfortunately the rate of turnout in our general elections has gone down and down. So my response to anybody who says Well shouldn't we give 16-year-olds the vote?" is "How about we actually make sure our 18- to 24-year-olds—and our 25- to 29-year-olds—form sustainable and regular voting habits?" Because as has been pointed out in this debate if a person doesn't have those voting habits by the time they are about 25 or 26 they are unlikely to have regular voting habits through the rest of their adult lives.Now I will note in the 2020 election there was a rather pleasing uptick both in the overall voter turnout and in the turnout by 18- to 24-year-olds. But it's too early to say whether or not that is a pattern—a sort of a Canute-like turning back of the tide of ambivalence that has pervaded our electorate right across. Certainly it's ambivalence when it comes to local elections.When I tried to find out the voting propensity of our 18- to 24-year-olds in local council elections rather surprisingly the Department of Internal Affairs doesn't actually keep that data; they don't provide an age breakdown of turnout. But there's no doubt that since the local government reforms of 1989 there has been a consistent and inexorable drop in overall turnout in city councils from 52 percent in 1989. The last election—in what was it 2022 I think?—had just 39 percent of eligible voters turning out. In our regional councils just 43 percent turning out. In our district councils a little bit greater but still fewer than half—45 percent. So surely if we want to have an active interested engaged electorate let's look at the turnout for those people who are currently eligible to vote before we can contemplate extending the age range down to 16. There is merit in this and I'll come back to—I was going to say that was my last point but there is one more point to make and that is why we're not doing this for the Electoral Act. The Government's been very upfront about that. They've done it because they don't think they'll get it through. By majority they'll get this bill passed at first reading. But that is highly inconsistent. If it's a good idea let's have the debate the discussion and make it a good idea for both central and local elections and not cherry-pick just because this isn't entrenched legislation. Frankly it should be in my view. It should be both entrenched for local and central elections.Nobody on this side of the House is afraid of the conversation. But let's have it in a proper and orderly fashion and this isn't that.DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Point of order Madam Speaker. I'd like to raise the point that Rachel Boyack just said that ACT wants to give 16-year-olds AR-15s—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no no.DAMIEN SMITH: She's incorrect.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. the member will sit. The member will sit down. That is not a point of order. Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m."