SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well I love tenacious people and you have to say that the Make It 16 campaign has been a lesson in tenacity. It's been one that has gone on for a considerable period of time and went all the way to the Supreme Court.I don't intend to repeat the potted history of the court process that has been covered by previous speakers but I think it's worth pointing out that as some have already said age in law is arbitrary. The Minister of Justice in moving this motion—which we support although we don't support the findings of the report—pointed out all of the things that a 16-year-old can do.I'll point out a few things that a 16-year-old can't do even after any change in legislation. Now they may sound flippant but the purpose is to highlight the arbitrariness of age: can't get a full driver's licence; can't buy a Lotto ticket; can't enter into contracts and I'll come back to that in the context of local council; can't buy alcohol; can't buy firecrackers; can't enter a casino; can't buy cigarettes.Now some would say that's appropriate a justified limitation on their human rights; that's the issue we're debating. But I would also point out that the age of majority in law in New Zealand as I understand it is 20. The Age of Majority Act 1970 is still in force which says that the age of full majority is 20.We are going to have these discussions at the boundary and I was fascinated at the Make It 16 campaign's submission that the future affects them more than anybody"—that's true; they're going to live longer on average than most of us.But why not 15? Now I'm not being flippant in saying that because the very same principle applies and is justified on the basis that a 15-year-old—Arena Williams: It doesn't.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well I'm amazed at the reaction over the other side just to one day potentially a 15-year-old whose birthday is the day after the election can't vote but a 16year-old can on their 16th birthday. That's the arbitrary nature of it. But the justification for 15 would be that they would turn 18 in the term of the subsequent Parliament. It's an easy argument to make only it wasn't made.Now the really interesting thing about the case that was made was that it was the Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act that was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But if one takes that to its logical conclusion on the grounds that 18 is discriminatory then we get into this rather odd circular argument that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sets the age to vote in this country. Well it doesn't actually do that—what it says is it gives a right to every citizen over the age of 18. So the counterfactual to that is that it removes that right to every citizen under the age of 18. And so the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is essentially inconsistent with itself. Now that is a legal oddity in my view.Now I was a member of the Privileges Committee that had referred to it the question of the declaration of inconsistency with the case of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and the Attorney-General and Taylor. Now I happened long in the tooth that I am to have also been in Parliament when the legislation that gave rise to that declaration of inconsistency was passed. It was a member's bill in the name of Paul Quinn probably back—well it must have been before 2011 so 2009 or 2010 where the right of prisoners to vote was removed. There is still an arbitrary removal of the right to vote if you're in prison for longer than three years but this removed that threshold.Now this is relevant because it goes to what we're actually doing here. The genesis was that case. But the bill itself had a section 7 BORA vet against it anyway so the House was very mindful that the bill it was considering could be determined by the courts to be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is a measure of the sovereignty of this place that it passed that law notwithstanding that knowledge and that's a really important principle.Now Vanushi Walters talked glowingly of the court's decisions and she has every right to do that. But Parliament remains sovereign on this question and when we as a Privileges Committee considered this particular point I stressed—and it did kind of get into the report that led to the legislation that was passed unanimously—that it's a different thing if the courts make a declaration of inconsistency where there has been no BORA vet from one where it has and that a different process should take place because actually what Parliament has done is already considered that. And yes it's still appropriate to refer it to the Government the executive and for a select committee to have a consideration of that declaration. But the process would be different if the Taylor case was declared inconsistent under this new legislation because actually Parliament already considered that point and it should be a much more expeditious process.In this case that didn't happen. In fact the two pieces of legislation that were passed the Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act straddled the BORA—in fact no they might both be after it. So they were cognisant of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when they were passed and there was no vet then which is really interesting. So it's appropriate that we do have the select committee process that we've gone through. It's not appropriate that the Crown then roll over to the court's decisions. This is a sovereign place. This place decides what legislation comes and goes not the courts when it comes to anything other than judge-made law.I'm just a little bit worried about the nature of some of the speeches that we've heard this afternoon that seem to be perhaps less than strident in that vital constitutional principle. We may well decide either by majority with the Local Electoral Act or with the reserved provisions of the Electoral Act to make a change but we do so because this House decides that.Arena Williams: That's what the Supreme Court said.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well that's right. And it's very interesting that the Supreme Court also made the point that the Crown in its submission didn't actually argue the justification; it just said "Parliament makes laws. Parliament is sovereign." So it kind of may well have convinced the courts if it sought to do so. So in a way the declaration made itself because the Crown didn't argue against the position that it was justified in the circumstances. It just said "Well Parliament's made the law." Perhaps the defence in the case could have been different. I'll just say it in that way.Now I'll finish by coming back to the question of being 18 to borrow money—and the lawyers in the Chamber may correct me. I'm not sure a person under the age of 18 can buy a house can have real property in their name. Now that's a very interesting issue on two counts.Again it's a breach of their human right to own property real property but also ironically in the local council elections. Ms Walters talks about taxation and representation—and by the way 15-year-olds can work and pay tax as well. But local council elections are generally ratepayer elections. And the irony of putting it to 16 is that those 16-year-olds will never be able to own a property under current law and therefore won't be ratepayers. Their parents might be but depending on how many 16- to 18-year-olds are in the household there may be several more votes than the ratepayer base—some would argue—could justify.That said this is an important discussion to have. I'm glad we're having it but I think we should be very very cautious not to undermine the absolute sovereignty of this place to decide important issues like how old one should be when we vote."