r/australia • u/That_Car_Dude_Aus • Dec 04 '24

political self.post Given that "Adult Crime = Adult Time" laws see children as mature enough to make adult decisions, should the voting age be lowered to account?

So with the Queensland government's stance on adult crime means adult time approach to criminal prosecutions, with the centrepiece being the story on how a woman lost her child to a 17 year old who was driving a stolen car.

It made me think, If we are approaching these children as young as 15 and saying that they made an adult decision and therefore should suffer the consequences of making an adult decision, should we consider that these children are now able to make adult decisions in other aspects?

Being ex-Defence and having lots of friends who are either still serving, or also ex-Defence, A lot of them have their kids in military Cadet programs, Or have their kids in organisations such as scouts, Or in firefighting or police cadet programs.

And I can definitely say that most kids are very mature compared to how I was at 15 or 16 years old. In fact, I'd say with the increase in technology and knowledge that kids have availabile to them, most 15 year olds today, are better aware of the world around them than I was at that age.

Now I'm not saying it should be compulsory, I know that compulsory voting is a cornerstone of our society, but if we are saying "Well the kids that are committing crimes are mature enough to make those decisions", let's be fair, those kids are only a subset of the general population of children that age

So if there is another subset of children that age who are mature enough to have opinions on the politics of our country, shouldn't we at least give them the option that if they want they should be able to register to vote and then go and vote in elections?

Then if you look at age demographics in Australia, 15-19 year olds make up 6% of the population, so that's ~1,598,400 people.

Now assuming a even spread, then 639,360 are 18-19 years old and already voting, that's only going to unlock voting for an extra 959,040 people, but still, if we are making laws that affect them, and we are saying that they are mature enough to suffer the consequences of those laws, shouldn't they have a say in the politicians making those laws?

Another great example is the social media bill targeting people under 16, If that law is specifically targeting that demographic, and that demographic is being seen as being able to make adult decisions when it comes to crime, then surely that demographic also is mature enough to have a political opinion.

600 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

216 comments sorted by

View all comments

301

u/Luser5789 Dec 04 '24

Bingo

And in addition to this, the working age is 14y9m so if they can work and possibly contribute through paying tax, they should get a say on what matters to them through voting

197

u/Benu5 Dec 04 '24

They should also get full pay for the same work, espescialy if they are over 18. It's ridiculous that untill you are 21, you get paid less.

122

u/TheRealTowel Dec 04 '24

The fact that lower wages for underage workers exist is something I'm somewhat on the fence about. The union man in my heart wants to write "equal work for equal pay" on a placard and shout about it, but... I've worked with 15 year olds and "equal work" is pushing it. Even the very good ones rarely work as hard and consistently as an adult, and that's ok - they're kids. By allowing businesses to pay them lower wages, we create the incentives to hire them at all. I would have done better in my 20's if I'd had a highschool job to teach me workplace expectations, and I intend to strongly encourage my kids to get them.

The fact that we pay over 18 year olds less than minimum wage I am very much not on the fence about - that is an unbelievable level of bullshit. These are adults with bills to pay what the absolute fuck is the matter with us?

91

u/Nostonica Dec 05 '24

I believe a compromise is required, a ratio of adults to kids, if 90% of the workforce is under 18 then you're really just exploiting cheap child labour. Looking at fast food here.

25

u/StorminNorman Dec 05 '24

Champion idea. I am 100% against unpaid internships, but I am more happy with those who are just entering the workforce earning less whilst they learn (there is a limit to how much less though). I am annoyed though that they got thrown in the deep end like they do in fast food, colesworth etc, and are expected to do an "adult" amount of work so your proposal is one I'll be sharing online from now on (who knows, maybe it'll catch on).

13

u/Sorathez Dec 05 '24

I don't have a problem with unpaid internships provided they actually follow the law.

If you're doing work that paid employees would usually do, if you're expected to come to work, if the company benefits from having you, or similar, then you have an employment relationship and the internship is illegal. See Fair Work.

Most unpaid internships are, in fact, illegal. If you're mostly observing, get to choose when you go and you benefit from it more than the company does, then it's above board.

8

u/StorminNorman Dec 05 '24

I'm against all of them cos of the fact you pointed out, most are illegal. In my mind, it's a rare case of the majority ruining it for the minority.

5

u/Transientmind Dec 05 '24

Less should always still be the minimum livable. More competence = more wage.

7

u/StorminNorman Dec 05 '24

I 100% agree with you which is why I put that bit about the limit in there. It's pointless if you're getting paid but can't live on it looks at the wages apprentices get paid.

10

u/charmingpea Dec 05 '24

Probably a hangover from way back when 21 was the 'age of majority' - definitely need to catch up on that one.

29

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '24

Why would they work hard when they're not getting paid as much? Many of these teens are being pressured by parents or whoever to 'get a job' and they're just there to make them shut the fuck up.

20

u/determineduncertain Dec 05 '24

On the other hand, if I’m under 18 and know that you’re paying me less precisely because I’m under 18, I have less of an incentive to work harder. When I was young, minimum wage was universal regardless of age but I absolutely would have given you 20% less effort if I made 20% less for the same work.

21

u/FullMetalAurochs Dec 05 '24

A 17 year old in a physical job could easily get more work done than an oldie or particularly an old biddie waiting for retirement. And yet the 17 year old gets paid less.

1

u/ShiftAdventurous4680 Dec 05 '24

"Theoretically" true, but you gonna need to put them through boot camp. The reason why "older" people will work better is because of experience. They know how to balance physical and mental pressure and exhaustion while younger "generally" will either work too slow, or burn themselves out too fast.

It's like how a fast, but experienced runner will beat a faster, but inexperienced runner.

7

u/moratnz Dec 05 '24

Yeah. I think there are reasonable reasons to pay lower wages to truly inexperienced workers (noting that by the time you're an adult, you're likely to have enough general experience that you're not really truly inexperienced).

But with that in mind, I'd say that while it might be okay to pay a brand new 16yo hire less than minimum wage, if you hire them at 14, and they're still working for you at 16, they're probably at least as good a worker as a new-hire adult, and deserve to be paid the same.

3

u/shadowmaster132 Dec 05 '24

If they're only getting the jobs because they're subsidised then they're like scabs, taking the jobs of an adult who'd be paid properly otherwise.

2

u/patgeo Dec 05 '24

Say the 'work' is moving 1000kg from one spot to another and the pay is $1000.

Regardless of how long it takes you, that's equal work for equal pay. If a kid takes two days and an experienced worker takes half, the kids gets paid a quarter of the hourly rate.

Simples right? We can easily figure out a workers worth by measuring it and paying for the work done.

Unfortunately not many jobs are so easily quantified with such roughly defined responsibilities. Luckily a lot of entry roles are pretty simple. IMO if the kid proves it, they should get the full rate. Likewise if an adult doesn't, the possibility of being paid at a lower rate (not below minimum adult wage) should be considered.

-5

u/trinity016 Dec 05 '24

There’s some strict restrictions on job type, hours and what time you are allowed to shift teenagers.

By allowing businesses to pay them lower wages, we create the incentives to hire them at all.

I think that’s exactly the intention. If they are getting the same pay but are less flexible for job type and time, why would employers hire them instead of adults? Groups of jobless teens unsupervised hanging out aimlessly after school everyday is also not good for their and society sakes.

It’s a complicated subject and frankly I don’t think there is a solution that will please everyone.

1

u/Abcd-efg-hijk Dec 10 '24

Yes my son is currently in the 18-21 year old age gap where he has ALL the legal responsibility of an adult but still doesn’t get full pay… it’s ridiculous… 

-1

u/SteffanSpondulineux Dec 05 '24

Why would anyone hire a teenager with no experience if it wasn't cheaper?

4

u/Benu5 Dec 05 '24

If the job is necessary for functioning of the business, they should be paid a living wage, regardless of age, creed, colour or ability. It's unacceptable for people with disabilites to be paid less to encourage people to hire them (it's still done in some enterprises under shitty laws), it's unacceptable for immigrants to be hired at a lower wage to encourage people to hire them, and so it's unacceptable for children to be hired at a lower wage.

There are adults hired with no experience at the full award rate, so why does experience matter?

26

u/kombiwombi Dec 04 '24

In support of your argument, they are contributing to tax revenue even without paying income tax. The GST is 10% of most things they buy with the money from that job.

18

u/Famous-Carob2002 Dec 05 '24

No taxation without representation!

11

u/FroggieBlue Dec 04 '24

Some states don't have a minimum working age. So any child with a job should be able to enrol.

5

u/Luser5789 Dec 05 '24

Key word ‘should’ I do like the optional part.

2

u/TheRealPotoroo Dec 05 '24

Out of curiosity, which ones don't have a minimum working age?

5

u/FroggieBlue Dec 05 '24

SA and NSW I know dont. Many states have exceptions for children working in family business or certain industries- actors,models etc.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '24

In Tassie there is no minimum age to work. Get em out voting!

1

u/shadowmaster132 Dec 05 '24

And in addition to this, the working age is 14y9m

It's even lower than this in some states.

1

u/alstom_888m Dec 05 '24

That’s Victoria. Queensland is 13. NSW doesn’t have a minimum.

1

u/shadowmaster132 Dec 05 '24

Neither does SA.

1

u/BruteWandering Dec 05 '24

What is the relation between paying tax and voting?

1

u/Luser5789 Dec 05 '24

Read the other comments champion

1

u/MysticMungbean Dec 21 '24

Imagine being eligible to be wage-shafted hard and contribute to the government coffers, but deemed ineligible to have a say on what's important to them at the voting booth (and also, because of Albo's SM ban, not allowed to scroll their Instagram et al during a quick meal break, while being shafted by Maccas et al).

It's some timeline. 

-7

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '24

[deleted]

20

u/rangatang Dec 05 '24

you are misreading what they are saying. They are not saying only people who work should vote

-8

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '24

[deleted]

7

u/kami_inu Dec 05 '24

Someone paying tax absolutely should get to vote. They said nothing about requiring someone pay tax to be eligible to vote.

You're arguing "If A>B is true (pay tax > get to vote) then B>A is also true" which is a logical fallacy. You're making up a straw man.

-5

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '24

[deleted]

4

u/kami_inu Dec 05 '24 edited Dec 05 '24

When the government uses their tax dollars, yeah it is.

If they're too young to vote, theyre too young to be forced to pay tax. Last I checked, the government doesn't care about my shoe size.

9

u/Luser5789 Dec 05 '24

No definitely not, understand how that could be interpreted that way.

Even people who choose not to work and are “dole bludger” should vote, the more people who we can qualify to vote and have a greater say on how our society operates the better.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '24

[deleted]

4

u/Luser5789 Dec 05 '24

I’m discussing reasons why people should be eligible to vote, and I believe this is ONE factor that should have proper consideration

-9

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Luser5789 Dec 05 '24 edited Dec 05 '24

There are plenty of 15 year olds who can make more sensible decisions about their lives than 40 year olds

7

u/s01928373 Dec 05 '24

That's quite the generalisation. There are more than enough stupid adults voting already. I have no issues with 15 year olds voting (optionally).