E-mail to Youth MPs 'could have been clearer'
Photo:
RNZ /Dom Thomas
The Ministry of Youth Development has acknowledged the way it communicated with Youth MPs about changes to their speeches could have been clearer.
Youth MPs representing coalition parties' MPs have also pushed back on the accusations of censorship from their peers.
About half of the young people invited to learn how Parliament works by emulating the job of MPs were
asked to remove parts of their speeches
mentioning government policies, including pay equity and the Treaty Principles Bill.
Some
decried this as "censorship"
.
In a statement, Ministry of Youth Development general manager John Robertson said it was long-standing practice to review Youth MPs' general debate speeches and suggest changes.
"We've looked through our correspondence and acknowledge we could have been clearer and more consistent in our language. The e-mail headers said 'General Debate Speech feedback - changes required' and the content of our e-mails went on to explain our feedback was just 'recommendations'.
"We accept that this could have caused confusion."
Since the accusations of censorship, the ministry has underlined that it was up to the Youth MPs what their speeches would contain and "we fully respect your right to shape your speech in the way that feels right to you".
Some of the Youth MPs have
done just that
- vowing to deliver their speeches without the suggested edits.
Robertson confirmed members of the Youth Press Gallery - assigned to emulate political reporters - also had their work checked by the ministry before being it could be distributed more widely.
He said the Youth Parliament was intended to be non-partisan, and this was explained to participants from the start of their induction.
"Both general debate speeches and youth press gallery contributions are moderated, and we may suggest changes. This is a long-standing practice with Youth Parliament."
He reiterated the ministry's guidance was intended to ensure articles and speeches remained focused on policy rather than party, did not breach defamation, copyright, privacy, or contempt of court laws, followed principles of no naming, no blaming, no shaming, and made no false assertions or claims not backed by fact.
On Wednesday, Youth MPs representing MPs from New Zealand First, National, and ACT held a press conference of their own, accusing campaigners for Make it 16 of hijacking Youth Parliament for their own politicking.
"They knew the entire time they could do their speech. They're just stirring this whole thing up because they came here with an agenda," said Jerry Wei, Youth MP for Karen Chhour.
He dismissed concerns the speeches had been censored.
Bryn Pierce, Youth MP for Andy Foster, said some speeches that other Youth MPs disagreed with were disrupted by walk-outs or repeated points of order.
"That is not an environment where Youth MPs can truly feel safe to share their voice," he said.
The press conference ended up being joined by other Youth MPs, keen to debate each other on Parliament's steps.
Benjamin Kingsford, Youth MP for Jan Tinetti, said it was a shame the debate about censorship was being reported on instead of the content of the speeches.
"We've had amazing speeches about mental health, about sexual abuse, about the environment, about the economy, about all of these issues that actually matter to New Zealanders."
He said the Youth MPs should acknowledge other people's opinions, and move forward together.
Elite Reti, Peeni Henare's Youth MP, said he hoped young people would continue to have their say.
"I think the main message on this Youth Parliament is that we have opinions. We're all going to disagree on certain things. Maybe we'll agree on other things, some fundamental things," he said.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Waikato To Forge Ahead Despite Regional Deals Knockback
The Waikato will forge ahead with work to drive economic growth and housing in the region, despite missing out on funding and resources through the Government's regional deals scheme. The Government has announced memoranda of understanding have been signed with Auckland, Western Bay of Plenty and Otago Central Lakes regions. 'While it's disappointing the Waikato region has not received central government support for its Regional Deals proposal, it will not stop the work going ahead. It was already planned; collaboration with central government would have enabled it to happen quicker,' said Waikato Mayoral Forum Chair and Hauraki District Mayor, Toby Adams. 'Furthermore, we are immensely supportive of those who've been told they'll be receiving a regional deal, in particular Auckland and Western Bay of Plenty. With the Waikato region positioned in the heart of the golden triangle and central North Island, what's good for them is good for us,' he said. 'We remain interested in continuing discussions with central government and are optimistic that our proposal – demonstrating a cohesive and aligned package of investment in the region's economic growth – will be considered favourably for a future regional deal.' Waikato Regional Council Chair Pamela Storey agreed, saying the region's leaders would work together to maintain a strong and open relationship with the Government. 'As a region we have been able to present a united voice to central government and demonstrate that we are a powerhouse in Aotearoa New Zealand. 'Our communities should not lose heart. Regional Deals was one avenue available to us, but there are others and we will continue to advocate for collaboration with central government on behalf of the Waikato region,' she said. The Waikato region proposal lodged in February was developed by Waikato Regional Council under guidance from a Chief Executive Working Group and on behalf of the Waikato Mayoral Forum. The forum comprises the mayors and chair of the city, district and regional councils in the Waikato. The existing and planned projects in the proposal will bring a range of benefits for the Waikato region, such as well functioning urban developments, significant job growth and housing supply, improved resilience on key transport corridors, more resilient communities, efficient freight networks, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved tourist experiences, increased electricity generation, economic diversification and certainty of water supply. Key projects include, but are not limited to: network improvements to support the Roads of National Significance (RONS), including Hamilton Southern Links, Cambridge to Piarere expressway extension, and SH29 Tauriko West project support for the golden triangle road and rail investment programme delivery of the Future Proof priority development areas package, with a suite of initiatives including the Huntly wastewater plant, Ruakura, north Waipā/southern Hamilton, Hamilton central city,) support for our growing rural centres programme, for example in Paeroa, Putāruru, Thames-Coromandel, Matamata construction of resilient transport corridors for our rural communities through the Thames-Coromandel Resilience Programme, on SH3 to Taranaki and SH1 Taupō to Desert Road infrastructure that supports tourism destinations investment in our region's solar, wind and bioenergy water security. Regional Deals is the Government's initiative for establishing long-term agreements between central and local government. The programme unlocks funding and resource opportunities to support councils to make improvements in their region, for example to roads, infrastructure and the supply of quality housing.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Regulatory Standards Bill could be barrier for Māori housing
Regulations Minister David Seymour Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has warned that the Regulatory Standards Bill could stymie progress in enabling papakāinga, or Māori housing, documents show. A ministry official also flagged concerns the legislation could make it harder for ministers to do their jobs, and warned the reach of the proposed law - and the minister-appointed board - seemed "disproportionate to the authority of Parliament". Regulations Minister David Seymour rejected the criticism, saying the ministry should be "leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built". The Regulatory Standards Bill is non-binding on Parliament but proposes a set of principles MPs and officials would have to consider when designing regulation. It also would set up a board, appointed by the minister, to examine current and future laws' consistency with those principles, as well as requiring regular reviews of all regulations. In its feedback, the housing ministry raised concern about the potential for individual property rights to be elevated over and above collective rights. "...the lack of provision for collective rights/rangatiratanga and the indicated shift towards Individual rights, in a way that is not currently in New Zealand's constitution, could impact the way we can develop policy and legislation with significant negative impacts on Māori housing outcomes," it said. The ministry said one of the proposed principles - dealing with taxes, fees, and levies - could hinder progress on Māori-led housing projects. "If this principle is imposed over regulation, we are concerned it could be misaligned with the current approaches to whenua Māori, lead to greater fragmentation of land/whenua Maōri, be a barrier to pooling resources for collective good and further entrench the negative housing outcomes that currently exist." The government in May announced plans to make it easier to consent papakāinga. However, funding for the Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga housing fund has also been cut . In a statement to RNZ, a spokesperson for Seymour said if the Regulation Standards Bill had been in place years ago, it could have prevented "much of the pointless red tape" that slows down building and consenting. "New Zealand faces a serious housing crisis. Anyone who has tried to build a home knows the delays and costs caused by red tape," the spokesperson said. "I'd have thought the Ministry for Housing would be leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built." An FAQ document prepared by Seymour's office also rejected the idea that the bill would favour individual rights over collective ones, saying it preserved the status quo "that collective Parliamentary law can trump all individual rights to personal autonomy and possessions". The document did not specify, however, how individual property rights would be considered compared to collective property rights by officials operating under the new regime. The housing ministry also warned that requiring reviews of all secondary legislation in reviews - without exemption - would add to the government's workload. To that, Seymour was unapologetic: "We're aware the public service doesn't like this law. Yes, it makes more work for them, justifying laws that interfere in people's lives. Here's the thing: If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." The ministry also made the case that the Treaty of Waitangi "should be featured as a relevant consideration" among the principles. But the FAQ, from Seymour's office, said the Treaty was excluded because the bill was focused on the quality of regulations, not Treaty obligations. "As with compliance with international obligations, legal obligations under Treaty settlements are a given. A central part of the RSB is to protect existing legal rights from unprincipled appropriation," it said. The ministry also said the ability for the proposed Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Regulations Minister, currently Seymour - to carry out reviews of regulations ahead of agencies' own regular reviews of legislation "would not be the most effective use of the board's time". Seymour has previously defended the extra cost and workload, saying the cost was about 2 percent of the policy work currently done across the government. "If it costs $20 million just to check the regulations, imagine the cost to all the poor buggers out there who have to comply with all this crap," he said. In preparation for providing feedback on the Cabinet paper in October, an MHUD official warned that giving the Regulation Minister power to set the terms of regulatory reviews could interfere with the work of other ministers. "The power of the Minister of Regulation to initiate regulatory review and set terms of reference gives considerable power and will affect the ability of a portfolio minister to advance their work," the official said. "There should be elements of mutual agreement, or consultation required, or some detail about the threshold for the Minister to initiate a review (eg requiring an Order in Council)." The official also questioned whether a board chosen by the minister should have so much influence, saying it seemed "disproportionate compared to the authority of Parliament". They pointed out there was already a process - through the Regulatory Review Committee and the Legislation Act - that allowed MPs to examine regulations if concerns were raised. In response, Seymour's spokesperson said the bureaucrats "may want to familiarise themselves" with a set of rules, known as Legislative Guidelines, which departments are already required to follow, including the principles of property rights, individual liberty, and the rule of law. "The only difference is that under the Regulatory Standards Bill, these principles would become Parliamentary law, not just Cabinet guidance that some departments clearly ignore."
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
UK: Chancellor's tears in Parliament,
UK correspondent Natasha Clark joins Kathryn to talk about the unusual scenes in Parliament, with the Chancellor Rachel Reeves shedding tears as the PM refused to say whether she'd remain in her job till the next election. It followed concessions made to the government's controversial Welfare Bill, which passed - but only after it was watered down to appease Labour rebels. Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock has appeared before the Covid inquiry, and could more charges be laid against nurse Lucy Letby? Natasha Clark is political editor for LBC London. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
