Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to rise to notice that this is actually a historic debate. It's a historic day. This is the first time that this Parliament is debating a declaration of inconsistency in legislation with our fundamental rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act pursuant to legislation that this same Parliament passed last year unanimously that we all agreed that where one of the higher courts in our nation considers our fundamental rights and finds that legislation—even legislation that all supreme method of regulating that has been passed by Parliament either present or past—that we should stop and take notice.We shouldn't just take notice. We should have a select committee process knowing that that breach is live receive a report as we've done and debate that report in this House with the knowledge that we have today that our electoral laws are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision on age discrimination. We now get to decide whether we will continue to breach or whether we will correct that wrong.To say that someone's fundamental right to vote—arguably the right that underpins fulfilment of all our other rights—the right to have a say in the way that all of our other interests are governed is something that we can put off for people that it's not urgent that Parliament shouldn't urgently take note and introduce legislation to correct it is absolutely wild to me. What if it was happening to one of us? If someone said to one of us Your right to vote—which you have as recognised by the Supreme Court—is going to be suspended for two years while we deal with other stuff." we would find that egregious.So I do commend the Minister for introducing a bill which we will debate after this report has been debated so I don't intend to go too far into the merits of local election voting rights for young people. I would only say that I wish it was called "extending" or "expanding" the voting right rather than "lowering" the age. But that's what we're debating today. We need to take notice. We're breaching a fundamental right that for some New Zealanders we get to either fulfil or delay for two years.Others have talked about the types of other legal rights or obligations—let's face it—that young people have that sit inconsistently with this breach. So anywhere from the ability to leave school to drive a car to have sex to—and I would say actually surprisingly National and ACT overlooking this is something that should be noted—they work and pay tax guys. Young people are being taxed without a right to representation. How does that sit with the proponents of taxpayers' rights?Well it doesn't sit right with the Supreme Court or the Electoral Commission. We've had reports over and over again from experts. We know that overseas where young people can vote engagement has gone up. We know—and I think this is what the Minister was outlining—that if young people become eligible to vote whilst they're still all at school living at home in one place where we can introduce civics education where we can give them their enrolment packs that they are much more likely to vote in the first election when they become eligible. There is solid evidence to say that those who do vote in that first election will continue to vote. So you're creating voters who are not just young but lifetime voters. You're strengthening our democracy for generations and generations to come.I will say this about the test that the Supreme Court and every court undertakes when we look at fulfilment of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights: they can be impeded upon only to an extent that's justifiable in a democratic society. The reason that this test needs to be set at a very very very high standard is that our rights are universal—they don't depend on us showing any merit moral goodness knowledge level of education.We don't talk about the classic rights to free speech or to have a fair trial or even the economic and social rights that this other side of the House may not like—like the right to housing the right to education—and we certainly don't talk about the right to vote being subject to a necessary test of education experience or understanding. That is a slippery slope and that is why the Supreme Court has found has stood together with all of the experts on both electoral law human rights law and the young people who en masse have worked tirelessly to tell us that they are interested that they know that they have this right that they want it and they won't stop until we recognise and fulfil that right.The reason this is limited to local elections is that we need a supermajority for the whole lot. It's not good enough. We won't stop working until all young people 16- and 17-year-olds are free from age discrimination in their voting rights. But to say that we can do a little bit when we find out that a fundamental right is breached is absolutely the right thing to do.So I commend the report and we breathe a sigh of relief for this small step a first step not only in this House recognising that the courts get to tell us when we've breached but to meaningfully debate those breaches and do all we can to fulfil the fundamental rights of New Zealanders we are here as lawmakers to protect. Our mandate depends on our ability to protect and fulfil those rights. So I commend it to the House"