The “age of majority” is referred to, when discussing adult age, in the context that the majority of countries worldwide have set 18 years of age as the legally accepted adult age.

Brain development however hasn't reached its full adult weight by the age of 21 and is not fully developed by its 25 year age bracket. This in my view, means many young people lose out in terms of future life.

I therefore believe Australia must move away from “the majority” and raise the adult age in Australia to at least 21, which will benefit young people because:

1. Students need to spend more time in school for advancement
2. Teenagers can't decide their future careers at ages like 16 or 17
3. Being young, they need more time to spend with friends and family
4. People need time to better understand themselves as individuals
5. Many U.S states allow alcohol use at 21, upon seeing the impacts

Many young people now are still living at home after 18 years of age, particularly for financial reasons, not understanding their future and lack of full mindset development.

Will the Federal Government take action to benefit future generations?

NathanJ, even when young, different people have very different needs, but you don't seem to realise that.

I can't think of a single real benefit of your proposal. And the only thing I can think of that some would perceive as a benefit is that it would make it harder to vote the government out.

‘morning NathanJ,

You mentioned adult age but confused things with “age of majority”, “legally accepted adult age”, and brains at “full adult weight”.

Does this mean we can measure intelligence by the Kilo?

Since this seems so difficult to define I humbly offer my own suggestions.

To Qualify to vote you need to be in full time employment, or support a family, are not a State dependent unless aged or disabled, or in full time education.

Lifetime exclusion for criminal sentences greater than one year, are an non-discharged bankrupt, have any outstanding fines unpaid for more than six months.

To qualify on any of the grounds listed above you would also need to be over the age of 65.

Other than these conditions you have my vote.

Aidan,

The argument for not supporting raising the adult age, even if for say one year - based on voting (because some people don't like the current Liberal Government) is very selfish - particularly if coming from older adults.

Many students are being told by teachers, they need to know what they want, in terms of future employment at very young ages, when you look at say a 100 year potential age level.

Younger people need some more personal time for that consideration and life in general. In terms of brain capacity, many have undertaken stupid irresponsible activities, alcohol consumption, been killed in car accidents (not of their fault, or of their own fault) or committed suicide due to depression for example.

Younger people need time to think, reflect about future life and responsibility.

Extra non adult years also enables younger people, at a primary school level to have more quality time for essential learning in terms of reading, writing and maths development, preparing these students better in terms going to high school.

With even say one extra year of (non adult) based education there are also opportunities for better connections to employers - say a mix of classroom studies and on site training.

Life is not simply about putting a piece of paper in a ballot box.

Yes definitely, at least on voting.

Nathan career choices no longer have the same importance as they once did. Todays world is changing so quickly that many of todays jobs won't exist in another 10 years, & many we can't yet imagine will come into being. Many people will have to retrain more than once in their life. I do see your point however for careers that take a very long time to master.

Kids can get a job, marry, buy a house, car & have kids of their own from a quite young age, after all it is only their lives they are stuffing up. But voting on the other hand, really does require a bit of experience & maturity.

Hell I even had a couple of 20 something young ladies tell me they had voted for the Palmer United Party. Now that shows a level of naivety & immaturity that has no place in a polling booth. It is almost as bad when they are foolish enough to vote green, before they grow up.

Yep voting age should be about 35 or so, but I guess we could settle on 25 for the moment.

NathanJ, I'm puzzled why opposing your gerrymander because I think it would be very bad for the country could in any way be construed as selfish.

There is indeed a problem of students deciding what they want at a young age and subsequently finding they can't get it. But raising the adult age would not begin to address that. Nor would it give young people any more personal time for that consideration and life in general, and I very much doubt it would be at all effective in deterring stupid irresponsible activities.

Young people don't all have the same requirements, but time to think and reflect about what they haven't experienced is generally not what's needed.

If you want primary school to last an extra year, don't pretend it has anything to do with when anyone's legally an adult. Likewise with high school – I completed high school before turning 17, for example. And as I recall, I didn't find it very interesting, so I doubt an extra year or more of it would've helped at all. What would've helped immensely was one of the traineeships that are available now but weren't then.

Life is not simply about catering to your stereotypes.

The vote was always tied to the requirement to defend the country, to perform active military service.

Vietnam saw youths who could not vote (or order a beer) balloted for active service.

In Australian, the anti-Vietnam demonstrations were significantly (99%) anti-conscription (for the obvious reason given above).

Although that 1% of serial demonstrators comprising various anarchists, communists and whatever, and federal governments bent on casting Vietnam to suit their own secondary agendas, called it all as 'anti-Vietnam War' demonstrations. For the major part of the Vietnam War the Oz media were falling over their feet to do government's propaganda for them.

Dear Nathan,

This "age of majority" thing is just one shameful excuse to control the lives of others and deny their freedom, including their freedom of movement, religion and conscience.

If the issue in mind is the "right" to vote, then as suggested by Spindoc, many will be more than happy to get away from it by leaving a parking ticket unpaid for six months: voting is a hoax, it's just for show since there is no way on earth for the political class to peacefully allow us to kick them out of their jobs and power.

As for your specific points:

<<1. Students need to spend more time in school for advancement>>

So you decide to label all young people "Students" so you can incarcerate them in schools, for the "advancement" of your social ambitions, perhaps so you can tame them into becoming part of your "work-force".
(reminiscent of the way old people in this country are incarcerated in nursing homes "for their own good")

<<2. Teenagers can't decide their future careers at ages like 16 or 17>>

Anyone of any age should be able to decide, as well as change that decision later... that's of course if they wish to have a career in the first place.

<<3. Being young, they need more time to spend with friends and family>>

Is anyone preventing them?

<<4. People need time to better understand themselves as individuals>>

I completely understood myself as an individual at the age of one year (perhaps earlier, though I do not remember), but knowing (rather than merely understanding) who you really are usually takes many lifetimes.

<<5. Many U.S states allow alcohol use at 21, upon seeing the impacts>>

The only valid criterion for disallowing such bad habits is whether one's drinking is likely to harm others or not.
Are you claiming that those who drink over 21 are not threatening others, but those under 21 are?

Nathan I partially agree with you as I believe the drinking age should be raised to 21. The only problem with that is if everything else isn't raised you get a situation where young married people or solders for example are not allowed to buy alcohol even though other aspects of their lives are considered adult enough.

I think 18 year olds are still basically stupid teenagers incapable of taking personal responsibility; most probably think its cool to buy alcohol for their younger friends. Most young people are also too inexperienced to vote responsibly but in this regard I accept we have to take the bad with the good. Spindoc's voting restrictions look pretty good to me but that's never going to happen.

Out of curiosity Nathan and going by so many of your past posts regarding your parents, how old are you? Have you reached the magical fully matured aged of 25 yet? I'm 66.

Just a bit of a kid then Hippie.

Are you sure you're old enough to vote.

The age restriction I would like to see is a minimum age that politicians can access their golden superannuation when the have quit politics.

I do not see why the taxpayer should be paying large superannuation to career politicians like Natasha Stott-Despoya from such a youthful age.

Then again I can't understand why some politicians can double-dip from the trough of public (taxpayers') money either, for instance by qualifying for State and federal parliamentary superannuation and benefits, or for that matter for two taxpayer supported superannuation from any public service. There needs to be some balancing in the equation.

While on the subject, ex-PMs should not expect to be the beneficiaries of golden handshake conditions like free travel and office for life. Put a limit of THREE years on that. They are getting jolly good superannuation, fully indexed against inflation (which they deny their 'employees', the military and public servants!).

The now very dated and in many cases wrong assumption behind the generous conditions for politicians was that they would be entering politics from middle age and later. To encourage suitable experienced, distinguished (by their accomplishments) people it was felt that they needed to be compensated to forgoing their best earning and asset accumulation years had they stayed in the private sector.

Aidan and Yuyitsu,

To clarify, young age in terms of development with many parents and in early education, there is often a 'rush' element to see people learn and develop 'something' - rather than natural growth of the individual.

This development in my view needs to be part of a well established system that caters to the needs of the individual - of course a challenge and is more likely to see a person take on better steps in terms of future development as a human being.

I know, because I was told at high school, by my home group teacher who left at year '11' (whatever that year means) I needed to know what I wanted in terms of employment and further education.

It's not simplistically about imposition, it's about recognition that many in society are not fully realising themselves (at any age) because someone has said "18" and then we are all expected to move into some major new sphere at that time, being "18".

The socialists and economic rationalists want species (like humans) to be put into their beliefs at "18", rather than seeing a more well developed person - who could contribute to society in a range of positive and even better ways.

So whoever developed this "18" year title, I believe has a lot to answer for - as it has become entrenched in societies like Australia and enforced on individuals. That is why reflection is important - but law enforcement at "18" puts people with a lower capacity in terms of full brain development in a difficult position in that regard.

Economics should not simply be based around purchasing or highly paid jobs - that is why we have a section of our society, past "18" living on welfare, due to a poorly structured economic system. Finally, I am over 25 - and I'm nowhere near 66 years of age.

Dear Nathan,

What you say is well and good - therefore the solution is to remove this arbitrary imposition called "18" altogether rather than shift it to "21".

You are very lucky that at the age of 18 you were allowed to stay at home, continue your education or otherwise do what you like - at that same age I was forced into the army, against my will. In fact I was already studying in university at the time, but was not allowed to continue.

Fortunately in Australia (for now), nothing forces you to move when you are "18" - that some idiot, perhaps a teacher, happened to say so and scare you with that number, whoever did so has no power over you and you can simply tell them to piss-off!

Nobody has a right to tell you what you may or may not do because you are deemed to be more developed or less developed: your life should be your own from the moment you are born, to do with it as you please (provided you do not hurt others). Also, while you raise concerns for those who are slow to develop, or of lower capacity, you should also consider the pledge of those who are of higher capacity and faster to develop: certainly they should not be punished or disadvantaged for not reaching some arbitrary number of years.

It is well known that a person's ability to assess risk and decision making is not fully formed until 25, but improves dramatically from 16 to 18. This is reflected in insurance loadings that heavily penalise drivers under 25, and even higher those under 20. Raising the age restricts people from making their own life decisions, and lowering the age exposes everyone to rash decisions.

However, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and at age 18, people leave schools and work for themselves. They can make their own life decisions and need to be responsible for them.

If you push kids instead of coddling them and barring any mental impairment they're usually capable adults by 18 plus the newer tradition of sharing accommodation with other young people provides many of the same benefits for social development as family life. Living in share houses in my twenties I passed some of the happiest years of my life, under the best of circumstances sharing household responsibilities with four or five other people you do become a sort of family whose members guide and protect each other.

I seem to recall the adult age being 21 while Lib governments were conscripting 18-year-olds to fight America's colonial war against Vietnam.