Youth Organisations And Youth MPs Call For Change After Censorship At Youth Parliament 2025
The open letter highlights the cancellation of live-streaming, the removal of the mock bill and Lived Experience Groups, and the editing of Youth MP speeches as decisions that, while varied in form, all resulted in the same outcome: limiting the power and authenticity of youth voice in a space meant to uplift it.
'This kōrero was driven by Youth MPs,' says Lincoln, Make It 16 member and Youth MP, 'We've simply supported them to share what many were feeling. This is part of a wider systemic pattern of youth voices being filtered or dismissed in political spaces.'
' Young people are not a token presence. We deserve to be present where power is held not just for appearances, but because our lived experiences and insights matter,' says Youth MP Ruby Love-Smith, 'This is a moment to reflect and do better.'
'Even though the feedback on speeches was framed as optional, the way it was delivered didn't acknowledge the power imbalance,' says Sam, Make It 16 member and Youth MP. 'For many of us, especially for those new to this space, it felt like there was no real choice but to comply. That's not how you build confidence in young people, that's how you make them doubt themselves.'
' We want to work alongside MYD, Parliament, and others to ensure Youth Parliament truly lives up to its purpose, ' says Thomas Brocherie, Co-Director of Make It 16. 'This year's Youth MPs showed just how capable and committed young people are, delivering powerful speeches on issues like mental health, education, Te Tiriti, and climate change. But the decisions made around Youth Parliament left many rangatahi second-guessing themselves in a space that should have encouraged confidence rather than caution.'
Make It 16 emphasises that this open letter is not an attack on any political party, public servant, or the Ministry of Youth Development, but a call for a commitment to genuine youth representation that reflects the real voices and aspirations of rangatahi across Aotearoa.
In an email sharing the open letter to MYD, Make It 16 has said, 'We stand in solidarity with the Youth MPs who had the courage to speak up as their voices deserve to be heard. We hope this can be a turning point, and we hope this open letter is taken as an invitation to work together.'
The open letter outlines four key calls to action for future Youth Parliaments:
Restore live streaming and ensure public access to speeches.
Reinstate Lived Experience Groups and the Mock Bill process to reflect diverse youth experiences.
End pre-speech censorship, especially of real-world issues.
Embed rangatahi-led design and accountability into all stages of Youth Parliament.
'This is a moment to reflect and improve,' says Thomas Brocherie. 'Because ultimately, this kōrero is bigger than just Youth Parliament. It's about how our democracy treats young people throughout these systems. We're inviting MYD and the government to work with us to create spaces like Youth Parliament that genuinely serve, support, and empower rangatahi to lead.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
The many complex truths within the ‘censoring' of youth parliament
The biggest story to come out of youth parliament was the supposed censorship of its MPs-in-training. They had no trouble blowing the lid off on that, but is it really so black-and-white? The tri-annual return of youth parliament this week was not without its controversies. 123 youth MPs and 20 youth press gallery members descended on parliament for three days of training and debates, and while many of these teens gave great speeches in the House, the attention has been on what they supposedly haven't been allowed to say. Youth parliament – despite what its name may suggest – is a non-partisan learning experience for young people who want to be politically engaged. And if you talked to these teens, you'd realise many of them already are – they're in advocacy groups, are dedicated posters to certain Reddit forums, already have fully-fledged political leanings they don't want to budge on and also have an MP whispering politicking tricks in their ears. It was a truly divided parliament this week: with one side desperately telling the media they've been censored, and the other desperately telling the media they haven't. As always, when it comes to politics, the truth is more nuanced than just one position. Truth #1: Claims of censorship haven't been totally genuine. It's more accurate to say that the ministry of youth development made suggestions to speeches, which the youth MPs were allowed to accept or deny, and these rules were also in place for the 2022 youth parliament. Yeah, it sounds silly, but this is a non-partisan event and the youth MPs know this, and at the end of the day, everyone still spoke their piece. Truth #2: Youth MPs are not protected by parliamentary privileges – if they defame a minister, they can be taken to court. Truth #3: Those crying wolf about censorship were mostly aligned with Make It 16, Gen-Z Aotearoa and SchoolStrike4Climate. Make It 16 and SchoolStrike4Climate have both described themselves as 'non-partisan', though their values tend to align with left-leaning politics, specifically those you might find within the Green Party kaupapa. Truth #4: Those teens pulled a pretty bloody good PR stunt, especially from a political campaigning group which hasn't yet been able to have much sway on voting age policy, and another which has been largely operating under the radar for the last few years while the government abandons its climate targets. Truth #5: NZ First and Act youth MPs did have a chance to take back the narrative, but they bungled their press conference by letting their progressive peers hijack it. Truth #6: There are plenty of 16-year-olds who would feel intimidated by an authoritative figure – especially a government official – making suggestions about their work. The ministry should have been clearer about its expectations. Truth #7: In a way, some of the progressive party-aligned kids are almost guilty of censorship themselves, having attempted a walkout during a speech from Winston Peters' youth MP, and trying to shut up Karen Chhour's youth MP by raising multiple points of order during his speech. This is where the censorship argument gets tricky, you see – wouldn't the likes of the Free Speech Union and David Seymour argue that that is a form of suppressing speech? Truth #8: There are far more racist and controversial things said on a near-weekly basis in this House than anything these youth MPs have said. Truth #9: Unfortunately in life, you have to listen to opinions you don't want to listen to. Unfortunately as a politician, you do this basically every day, and can't always run away from it. Truth #10: The 'real' politicians also have ministry officials and press secretaries begging them not to say something that will get them, their party or their agency in trouble. Truth #11: There were concerns about censorship among some of the youth press gallery members, too, though the ministry has described the checking-over of these stories as 'moderating' rather than editing. Truth #12: This does lead into an editorial grey area, because while the youth press gallery is supposed to operate under the same expectations as the youth MPs, having a ministry shape the story up to their standard, and then encouraging budding reporters to pitch these stories to independent outlets, is kind-of just like sending out a government press release. Truth #13: But this also teaches you some valuable lessons in journalism: how to recognise spin, how to deal with an editor you don't agree with and what to expect when an entity doesn't want you to reveal the worst of them. Truth #14: And, at the end of the day, you go into journalism to be a reporter, not an activist. One youth gallery reporter held the tino rangatiratanga flag over the bannister, others gave their peers standing ovations – the reality of being in the press gallery is that you are the observer, not the demonstrator. And everyone in that House deserves an equal level of scrutiny. Truth #15: All the drama that has gone down this week only proves that youth parliament has done its job: teaching these kids how to be effective politicians – and in the modern era, this often looks a lot like controlling the media narrative. Truth #16: It also suggests the future of our political landscape looks like more publicity stunts, and less cross-party communication, which is a shame.
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
Regulatory Standards Bill Could Be Barrier For Māori Housing
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. Concerns raised by official over 'disproportionate' powers 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."
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Youth Organisations And Youth MPs Call For Change After Censorship At Youth Parliament 2025
Today, Youth MPs, youth organisations, and youth councils from across Aotearoa have released an open letter expressing deep concern about recent decisions made at Youth Parliament 2025 that they say restricted and censored rangatahi voices. The open letter highlights the cancellation of live-streaming, the removal of the mock bill and Lived Experience Groups, and the editing of Youth MP speeches as decisions that, while varied in form, all resulted in the same outcome: limiting the power and authenticity of youth voice in a space meant to uplift it. 'This kōrero was driven by Youth MPs,' says Lincoln, Make It 16 member and Youth MP, 'We've simply supported them to share what many were feeling. This is part of a wider systemic pattern of youth voices being filtered or dismissed in political spaces.' ' Young people are not a token presence. We deserve to be present where power is held not just for appearances, but because our lived experiences and insights matter,' says Youth MP Ruby Love-Smith, 'This is a moment to reflect and do better.' 'Even though the feedback on speeches was framed as optional, the way it was delivered didn't acknowledge the power imbalance,' says Sam, Make It 16 member and Youth MP. 'For many of us, especially for those new to this space, it felt like there was no real choice but to comply. That's not how you build confidence in young people, that's how you make them doubt themselves.' ' We want to work alongside MYD, Parliament, and others to ensure Youth Parliament truly lives up to its purpose, ' says Thomas Brocherie, Co-Director of Make It 16. 'This year's Youth MPs showed just how capable and committed young people are, delivering powerful speeches on issues like mental health, education, Te Tiriti, and climate change. But the decisions made around Youth Parliament left many rangatahi second-guessing themselves in a space that should have encouraged confidence rather than caution.' Make It 16 emphasises that this open letter is not an attack on any political party, public servant, or the Ministry of Youth Development, but a call for a commitment to genuine youth representation that reflects the real voices and aspirations of rangatahi across Aotearoa. In an email sharing the open letter to MYD, Make It 16 has said, 'We stand in solidarity with the Youth MPs who had the courage to speak up as their voices deserve to be heard. We hope this can be a turning point, and we hope this open letter is taken as an invitation to work together.' The open letter outlines four key calls to action for future Youth Parliaments: Restore live streaming and ensure public access to speeches. Reinstate Lived Experience Groups and the Mock Bill process to reflect diverse youth experiences. End pre-speech censorship, especially of real-world issues. Embed rangatahi-led design and accountability into all stages of Youth Parliament. 'This is a moment to reflect and improve,' says Thomas Brocherie. 'Because ultimately, this kōrero is bigger than just Youth Parliament. It's about how our democracy treats young people throughout these systems. We're inviting MYD and the government to work with us to create spaces like Youth Parliament that genuinely serve, support, and empower rangatahi to lead.'
