I agree in the sense that if a player is and has been in the team for a while and is still performing well, he should definitely stay in the team. However, I think that when we have a number of older players, some of whom are underperforming, it makes little sense to bring in a 35 year old who has never played test cricket before when there is a 20 something in Joe Burns who is performing almost as well, but potentially has a decade of test cricket ahead of him. With no Watson and no Haddin, the Voges selection is less egregious, but he isn't really adding anything to the squad that Burns couldn't have done. The top runscorer in shield cricket argument doesn't hold any water as in the past 5 years Mark Cosgrove has been the top shield runscorer twice and hasn't been considered for selection.
QH that goes against the policy that has driven Aussie cricket success over the past 20 years. You pick the best guy, regardless of age. The only exception to this rule that I can remember is Michael Clarke, who was elevated above Darren Lehmann, but scored 169 in his first test and never looked back. Maybe Simon Katich was an exception too, dropped a bit before his time to necessitate generational change (and that worked out poorly).
Burns didn't show enough in his tests against India. Voges ripped up the Shield, then was there when Rogers got injured. He scored a hundred under pressure on debut, justifying the selectors decision. This is what he adds that Burns doesn't have- a test tonne. That counts for plenty in my book.
.