Focus on what youth need and say, not censorship debate
Youth Parliament 2025 involved 143 people from various backgrounds and communities across New Zealand, and it truly shone through with the quality of speeches, questions and input all around the parliamentary premises.
Let me be clear, I don't have an opinion about this supposed censorship of our speeches. A lot of us don't.
We came here to represent our communities, our livelihoods and future career pathways, and that's what we did.
The reality of it is, the claimed "censorship" was realistically just an error on the Ministry of Youth Development's part, which they have now admitted.
The error made by the ministry was brought to their attention by the media and they have admitted fault and I am sure they will work to fix that for next time.
That should have been the end of it. There was no need to denigrate and bring down the Youth Parliament like a group of Youth MPs did at a press conference. It got so bad, the media were questioning whether they should wrap it up or not.
What happened that day on the Parliament steps was not the Youth Parliament most of us were in and saw. We weren't here to engage in a debate on Parliament's steps as to whether or not there was censorship at this event.
We were here to listen and speak. We heard some absolutely phenomenal speeches across the chamber, varying from mental health, education, farming, rural communities, Māori and Pasifika rights, and many many more.
Young people were given a voice, and they were not heard.
An event which was supposed to give young people a say, a seat at the table, a voice for their communities, was turned on its head. The media was focused on an idea of censorship that was simply a mistake.
There was no coverage of the important issues affecting young rangatahi today.
To clarify the censorship debacle, as I was one of the Youth MPs who did have their original speech edited, I was absolutely confused at first.
The changes weren't making much sense to me, and being forced to say "I believe" or "In my opinion" in every sentence was not the power my speech was going to hold.
I took it into my own hands, and emailed the ministry seeking clarification. I received the same copy-paste email that was made mention of in the first press conference in return, that told me the changes were not mandatory and instead up to me.
I chose to adopt some of the changes they made, and left the rest as it was.
The media attention on this issue of censorship really tainted the experience for a number of Youth MPs who wanted to have their voices heard, and put together incredibly powerful speeches in the debating chamber.
I put these press conferences to the back of my head, and actually listened to what Youth MPs had to say about what matters most to them.
I heard an incredibly impassioned speech on mental health from Taiko Edwards-Haruru, from Gustav Schwind on bullying, Terangitūkiwaho Edwards on Māori environmental rights and Jorja Simmonds on homelessness.
Add to that the speeches from Daniel Matthews and Fletcher Brown on education and trades, from Neeve Smith and Sylvie MacFarlane on farming and rural healthcare, and Isabella White on sexual assault, plus so many other great speeches that I'd run out of words to name, you have one of the most talented and passionate Youth Parliaments in history.
Do you notice a trend here though? Have you heard about any of those speeches? Have you seen any of them in the mainstream media?
No? I wonder why.
Youth Parliament 2025 was overshadowed by this overarching idea of censorship, leaving out the speeches that put questions into our heads, leaving out the ideas that made us think, and leaving out the people who put the time and effort into being in Wellington and speaking out about what mattered most to them.
Young people have historically never had a seat at the table, they've rarely been represented in Parliament and cannot vote until they're 18.
Youth Parliament is realistically their only opportunity to have their say and express what they need to thrive and strive to succeed.
If that chance is being overshadowed, they don't get heard.
I would hope the media look at this and start to push for coverage of Youth MPs' speeches and move past the censorship issue of an event that has now ended.
These Youth MPs are returning to their communities to continue their work, so it's only fair to give them the right coverage on the issues that matter to all of us young people.
• Josh Henderson is the Youth MP for Gerry Brownlee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Te Pāti Māori meeting tonight to decide candidate for upcoming Tāmaki Makarau by-election
A by-election for the Tāmaki Makarau seat has been sparked by the death of Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Moana Natasha Kemp two weeks ago. Photo: Supplied/ Te Pāti Māori Te Pāti Māori will meet on Thursday night to decide who will run in the upcoming Tāmaki Makarau by-election. The selection hui will take place at Hoani Waititi Marae at 6pm for Tāmaki electorate members only, with the successful candidate announced on Friday. The hui is not open to the public. The by-election was sparked by the death of Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Moana Natasha Kemp two weeks ago. Former broadcaster Oriini Kaipara announced on social media this week she would seek the party's nomination for the seat. Another putting their name forward is youth worker Te Kou o Rehua Panapa , whose candidacy was announced on the Opaea Marae Facebook page, the marae where Kemp was laid to rest. "In dedication to our beloved Mareikura, Takutai Moana Natasha Kemp, and with the full support of her whānau, we are proud to offer our support to Te Kou o Rehua Panapa, who will be standing as a candidate for Member of Parliament in Tāmaki Makaurau," the post read. "A dedicated kaimahi to our Mareikura, Te Kou has worked alongside her for many years, serving the people of Tāmaki with unwavering commitment and aroha. Te Kou will carry her legacy forward, committing his kaupapa to continuing and completing the important mahi she began." In a video to posted to Instagram, Toitū te Tiriti kaikōrero Eru Kapa-Kingi ruled out running for the seat after receiving messages from people encouraging him to do so. "Just to make it absolutely clear to everyone, I will not be running for the Tāmaki seat in the upcoming by-election," Kapa-Kingi said. "Still not for me, still my focus at the moment is my whānau and the wellbeing of my baby boy and being a present pāpā and showing up and building my 'hāwaikī itī' i roto i taku whare, i waenga i taku whānau." He was "still on the kaupapa" just in "different" ways, he said. Kapa-Kingi was number nine on the party list for the 2023 general election, and number 10 in 2020. He was once a parliamentary staffer for Te Pāti Māori and is a teaching fellow at the University of Auckland's Faculty of Law. His mother, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi is currently MP for Te Tai Tokerau. A potential candidate could be the party's lawyer, Tania Waikato, who told RNZ's Mata programme she was talking to "more than one" political party about running for Parliament in 2026. Tania Waikato speaking to RNZ's Mata programme. Photo: MATA / RNZ The Tauranga-based lawyer said she had previously been hesitant about running, but seeing the "disgusting" debate around the suspension of three Te Pāti Māori members prompted her to put her hat in the ring. "I'm going to probably be the most difficult to understand and difficult to predict politician that you have ever seen, because I do things in accordance with what my tīpuna tell me. And I will never align myself to any particular organisation or any particular kaupapa if my tīpuna are not saying to me, 'That is tika'. "That is what I will always do regardless of where I am, so it makes me difficult in some ways because I have a higher power to answer to. And I will not compromise that," Waikato said. Labour's Peeni Henare previously held the seat , before being beaten by Kemp in the 2023 election by a slim margin of 42 votes. Henare had held the seat since 2014, beating out the then-Māori Party's Rangi McLean. RNZ understands Labour's internal nomination process is underway and will close on Friday. The Prime Minister is yet to announce the date for a by-election. However, the Speaker of the House published the notice of vacancy in the Gazette on Wednesday, meaning the Governor-General will issue a writ within 21 days of 9 July, instructing the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct the by-election. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘Not welcome here': dozens protest Seymour visit
About 100 demonstrators chanted outside a central Dunedin hotel where Acting Prime Minister David Seymour hosted a public meeting last night. They were heard yelling for the Act New Zealand leader to "bugger off" and that he was "not welcome here". The protest was organised by the International Socialist Organisation and included a variety of groups who were vocal about issues including the Regulatory Standards Bill, pay parity, worker rights, Māori rights and the environment. The protest took place outside the Distinction Dunedin Hotel where Act hosted a public meeting with Mr Seymour at 6pm. Police warned advancing demonstrators to stay away from the front of the hotel in Liverpool St and to stick to the footpath. The police guard the Liverpool St entrance to the Distinction Hotel as protesters demonstrate outside against Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. Photos: Peter McIntosh The protesters marched a loop around the building to make sure they were heard by Mr Seymour. Protest organiser Oscar Bartle said Mr Seymour should be ashamed of himself. "How can you live with yourself when you're destroying working-class livelihoods." Mr Bartle said the crowd had gathered on short notice to oppose Mr Seymour scraping fair-pay agreements, his silence on the genocide in Palestine and his pushing of the Regulatory Standards Bill. Mr Bartle said the Bill was nonsense. David Seymour. "It's capturing regulation in the country for the rich and powerful, it's disgraceful." Otago Staff and Students for Palestine, Green Party supporters and unionists were present at the protest. Mr Seymour had previously said the principles of the Bill "focused the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties". "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral — it's a tax on growth. "This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." — additional reporting RNZ
Newsroom
9 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: A flawed bill
Comment: As many commentators have noted, the Regulatory Standards Bill is based on a libertarian ideology. According to the Oxford Dictionary, an ideology is a framework for understanding the world. In this case, it's all about individuals – their rights and freedoms. The Regulatory Standards Bill sets out its fundamental precepts in the form of 'principles of responsible regulation'. These prescribe that good legislation should not unduly diminish individual liberty, security, freedom of choice or property rights, except where this is necessary to protect the liberty, freedom or rights of another. In this view of the world, there are persons with rights and property, whose liberty must be protected unless it impinges on those of another person. Here, human life is about individuals pursuing their rights and freedoms, without undue interference from others. There are three key problems with this framing. First, it is partial, and mistaken; second, it's non-adaptive; and third, it does not meet its own standards. Basing all lawmaking in New Zealand on so faulty a framework is bound to lead to trouble. To address the first point: the Regulatory Standards Bill emphasises individuals and their rights and freedoms at the expense of collective rights and values. This demonstrates a radical misunderstanding of human life. Though individuals are important, human beings are incorrigibly social animals. Partly, this is a matter of biology. Babies have a mother and father (or at least, they did until technology intervened); and when they're born, they have a long period of vulnerability during which they have to be cared for and taught various skills if they are to survive. Kinship, with families and kin groups, meets this need. With the emergence of language, human beings coordinated their activities in increasingly complex ways, building settlements for shelter and security, sharing experience and knowledge in fishing, hunting, gardening, trading and developing new technologies. The ability to co-operate is a key adaptive advantage of the human species. Pleasure came from other social activities – singing, art to share with others, games, sports and so on. Knowledge was passed on down the generations. As the size of human settlements grew, ways of regulating social life became more elaborate – laws, courts, the police and Parliament itself, for instance. The whole process of making laws – including the Regulatory Standards Bill – is a social activity. Nor is it just about relations with other people. The relational networks between human beings and other life forms and the wider environment are also far-reaching and vital to human survival. Whakapapa, for instance, along with western relational philosophies, is grounded on these realities. It is not just Te Tiriti that's at risk in this bill, but te ao māori itself, with its whakapapa framings that include all forms of life, and its kin-based hapū and marae. None of this is recognised in the Regulatory Standards Bill, bar a hollowed out account of 'the rule of law'. Though individuals matter in human life, relational frameworks are vital to survival, at different scales and with other life forms, landscapes and seascapes, as well as with other people. Any framing of the world that does not recognise these basic facts is partial, and mistaken. To address the second point, a framework that ignores the foundational importance of collective institutions, property and values in human life is non-adaptive. If people are taught to prize their individual freedom and property above all – for instance, the cost-benefit calculating individual of neoliberal economics – the bonds that bind families, communities and societies begin to fray. If the collective rights and values that underpin the social contract, including justice, truth, fairness and respect for others, are undermined, injustice, misinformation and disrespect are likely to follow – as we have seen in the tactics used to promote this bill. If economic models based on the pursuit of self-interest are privileged in law making, ideas of public service begin to fade. Families and voluntary organisations falter; and institutions created to care for others – early childhood centres, schools, hospitals, retirement villages and the like – become dedicated to the pursuit of profit. At the same time, knowledge about relationships with other people and the wider world is set aside. It is no accident that the coalition Government that agreed to pass the Regulatory Standards Bill has withdrawn funding for basic research in the humanities and the social sciences. Policy-making becomes based on ministerial 'reckons' rather than evidence. The disciplines of law, public policy, political studies, public health and nursing, philosophy, the arts and literature, history, urban design, environmental studies, architecture, human geography, sociology and anthropology are defunded, as if understanding human life does not matter. And if relationships with other life forms and the environment are ignored, these also become dysfunctional, with the mass extinctions of other life forms, polluted lakes and rivers, ravaged landscapes, melting glaciers, heating oceans and climate change. None of this contributes to social cohesion or prosperity. A bill that fails to recognise the key challenges facing the human species, and frustrates the strategic deployment of different forms of social co-operation in the public interest is dangerous and non-adaptive. Since the neoliberal revolution of the 1980s, New Zealand has already gone a long way down this track. If we want a peaceful and productive society, a bill that tips the balance even further towards the privatisation of social life and the living world around us is unlikely to prove constructive. On the third, and final, point, the bill fails to meet its own standards. Although the Regulatory Standards Bill requires that individual freedom and choice are given priority in law-making, there are many aspects of compulsion and top-down control in the provisions of this bill. These include the roles of the minister of regulation and his hand-picked board, and the requirement to review all laws and regulations, past and present, against a particular ideological framing. Ultimately, as Peter Thiel has written, a libertarian version of 'freedom' and democracy are incompatible. Taken to the extreme, the unfettered pursuit of freedom by individuals undermines democracy and the rule of law, and the rights of others. Some may want to take New Zealand in this direction. Judging from public reactions to the Regulatory Standards Bill, however, many New Zealanders have grasped where this bill would take law-making in this country, and do not want a bar of it. Of the citizens who voted in the last election, only 8.6 percent of New Zealanders voted for Act, with its Regulatory Standards Bill. Of 23,000 submitters on the bill at the consultation phase, only .33 percent supported it. Of a reported 150,000 submissions to the select committee, a large majority oppose it. This bill lacks even a fig-leaf of popular consent. If it is forced on the country, that flies in the face of the first principle in this bill – that no government should pass legislation that unduly restricts the freedom of choice of individuals. This bill speaks of freedom, but practices ideological imposition. It is self-contradictory, unbalanced and non-adaptive. This subcommittee should do their Parliamentary duty, listen to the people, and discard it.
