'Censored': Youth MPs told to not criticise government
The event is organised by the Ministry for Youth Development. Photo: RNZ / Alexander Robertson
Some Youth MPs have been told by the event's organisers to remove criticisms of the government in their speeches.
Labour says the move is out of step with the spirit of the Youth Parliament, and risks further discouraging young people from having their voices heard.
The event is organised by the Ministry for Youth Development.
RNZ has approached the ministry for comment.
The Youth Parliament initiative is held every three years, and provides young New Zealanders with an opportunity to learn about Parliament and democracy.
Every MP in Parliament selects a Youth MP, aged 16 to 18, with a Youth Press Gallery also involved.
Youth MPs go through a four-month training programme before arriving at Parliament to participate in mock debates, Question Time and select committees.
Previous Youth MPs who have gone on to become full-fledged MPs in the current Parliament include Chris Bishop, Ayesha Verrall, Tangi Utikere, Catherine Wedd, Tom Rutherford, Carl Bates and Camilla Belich.
The 11th Youth Parliament formally gets underway on Tuesday with a general debate.
RNZ has seen a copy of an email sent to a Youth MP, telling them changes had been made to their general debate speech to ensure it:
remains politically neutral, focusing on the policy rather than the party
does not breach defamation, copyright, privacy, or contempt of court laws,
follows the principals of no naming, no blaming, no shaming, and
does not make false assertions or claims which are not backed by facts.
The Youth Parliament Project Team told the Youth MP the changes were recommended because some of their speech lacked political neutrality by criticising "this government".
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the whole point of Youth Parliament was to make sure young people who were "massively underheard" in Parliament had the opportunity to have their say.
"I think any idea that they're being asked to submit their views in advance so they can be censored, so they can have critical comments about the government taken out of them, is just totally out of step with the spirit of Youth Parliament."
Hipkins said he would understand if defamatory comments, or comments that opened a Youth MP up to legal risk, were taken out, but taking things out just because they were critical was too far.
"My advice to Youth Members of Parliament is: this is your shot. This is your shot to ensure that young people actually have a voice in this place. Say what you think, and don't let anybody else tell you what you should think."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
39 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Youth MPs accuse govt of 'censoring' them
By Russell Palmer and Giles Dexter of RNZ The protocols followed for this year's Youth Parliament are the same as previous years, the Ministry of Youth Development says, after accusations of censorship. However, the email sent to one Youth MP carries the subject line "changes required", and stated the ministry "have had to make some changes". Some of the Youth MPs involved say they will not be suppressed and the issue has fuelled the fire to make their voices heard. The Labour Party has criticised the approach taken after some Youth MPs were asked to remove parts of their speeches, because some of their speech lacked political neutrality by criticising "this government". Changes recommended included the removal of general mentions of the Treaty Principles Bill, funding for Māori and Pasifika, and Pay Equity. Speeches about "youth voice" and "freedom of speech" were also edited. In a written statement, Ministry of Youth Development general manager John Robertson said the same protocol had been followed as was used in 2022, and the feedback provided on the Youth MPs' speeches was "generally focused on supporting them to convey their arguments clearly and effectively, and in keeping with the non-partisan approach of Youth Parliament". "We also advised some Youth MPs that changes were required to their speeches to avoid putting themselves at risk. Youth MPs are not protected by parliamentary privilege. This means young people could be held liable if the contents of their speech raise concerns around defamation, copyright, privacy, contempt of court, or broadcasting standards. "However, as noted above, the final decision about what they say is made by the Youth MPs." Robertson said the ministry had in some cases told the Youth MPs "it is your decision around what your speech does and does not contain". "From here, it is your choice how you use [our] feedback. You are the one stepping up to speak and we fully respect your right to shape your speech in the way that feels right to you." However, the email RNZ has seen did not include such a statement. The ministry confirmed it had provided feedback to "about half of the 80 young people who will deliver speeches", and that they were shifting from the approach used in 2019 and 2022 of livestreaming the speeches to instead sending the recordings to the participants after the event. This was "due to resourcing constraints... the participants are welcome to share this footage with others, and online", the ministry said. Minister for Youth James Meager said the speeches were not censored. "We do not censor the speeches of Youth MPs. We provide feedback, and in some cases suggest changes for them to consider, but we have been clear to all Youth MPs that they make the final decision about the content of their speech." He provided a written statement, much of which matched the ministry's statement word for word. However, the Youth MPs spoke to reporters at Parliament with one - Thomas Brocherie, a spokesperson for Make it 16 (a group pushing for a voting age of 16) - said the approach taken to the speeches was diluting the value of the Youth Parliament. "We have been told to not argue on either side of contentious issues such as the pay equity reforms or the Treaty Principles Bill for the excuse that they are current topics in the current Parliament. This is not just illogical, it is censorship," he said. "We cannot say we value democracy unless we actually show and prove we value democracy. Silencing the stakeholders of the future does not value democracy." Another Youth MP Nate Wilbourne, a spokesperson for Gen Z Aotearoa, said rangatahi were being silenced and censored. "We've been told to soften our language, to drop key parts of our speeches and to avoid criticizing certain ministers or policies. This isn't guidance. This is fear-based control." Brocherie said the emails being titled "changes required" was "not at all a suggestion, that is blatant editing, they want us to change something to suit their purpose, to suit their agenda". Youth MP Lincoln Jones said they were provided with "a PDF of edited changes... delivered to our inbox, and that was the expected requirement, that we speak that speech". "It's honestly like they've gone through with it with a microscope to find any little thing that might be interpreted wrong against, I guess, the current government." Some of them sent responses to the ministry asking for clarification about the changes. "And what did we get? An automatic copy and pasted reply that is not at all in the principles of what Youth Parliament is," Jones said. "They claim to listen to us, they claim to want to uplift us, they send us an automatic copy and pasted response on the thing we have three minutes to speak about. That's not good enough." He said the experience had encouraged him even further to put himself forward to become an MP. "It honestly fuels that fire within me, and I think for all of us to put it out there and to make our voices heard."
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Children Most At Risk As Government Forces Reversals Of Safe Speeds On 1 July
Just as the school holidays get under way, children around the country will be at higher risk on streets in their neighbourhoods as the Setting of Speed Limits Rule (the Rule) introduced by Minister Simeon Brown and implemented by current Minister of Transport Chris Bishop requires councils to revert to dangerous higher speed limits from 1 July, with variable speeds in place only at school gates at the start and end of the school day. 'Children across the country are at risk from higher speeds when they're walking, biking or scooting around their neighbourhoods. If hit by a vehicle going 50km/h, children have an 80% higher likelihood of being killed or seriously injured than at 30km/h. We also know that 85% of crashes that injure or kill people on streets around schools happen outside of those short periods at the beginning and end of the school day', says Caroline Perry, NZ Director of Brake, the road safety charity, and a spokesperson for the Save our Safe Streets campaign. 'The heightened risk is especially concerning in Auckland, where Auckland Transport has taken an unusually strict interpretation of the Rule that has seen over 1400 mainly quiet residential streets swept up in speed limit reversals. Not only has AT gone far further than other councils in applying the rule, they have rushed the work, resulting in confusing, incomplete, contradictory and dangerous signage,' says Ms Perry. The Save our Safe Streets campaign is an alliance of leading road safety experts and transport advocates. In a briefing paper to Auckland Council's Transport, Resilience and Infrastructure Committee, they have documented AT's flawed approach to the Rule. In particular they note that the rollout of reversals back to unsafe speeds – against the wishes of impacted communities – will result in harm to Aucklanders, wasteful expenditure, unnecessary disruption, higher costs and more extensive traffic management processes, environmental and economic damage, and a less efficient, more congested transport network. Group member Pippa Coom says, 'Instead of doing everything it could to defend its world-class road safety programme from ill-advised reversals, AT has capitulated effectively throwing Aucklanders under the bus at every opportunity. Moreover, the small handful of streets that have retained safe speeds were saved only due to tenacious intervention by residents and advocates – with neither public acknowledgement nor thanks from AT.' 'Throughout, AT has operated in secret. It has not been transparent or proactive in its dealings with Council and the public about its process around the Speed Limit Rule, nor has it communicated the impacts on communities. AT has had plenty of opportunities to limit the perverse and harmful outcomes of the Speed Limit Rule but chose not to, despite increasingly urgent requests from community leaders, advocates, and elected members,' says Ms Coom. Councillor Julie Fairey expressed profound disappointment in the outcome for Auckland. 'AT just were not interested in moving on this, despite being given plenty of opportunities and excuses they could use. Sadly, I think we won't have a full realisation of the liability question until someone is hurt or killed. The advocacy efforts on this have been amazing, huge amounts of research and effort put in, all voluntary, and the stonewalling at senior levels of AT has been heartbreaking'. She has gone on to say, 'I find it particularly cruel that many of the staff who have had to roll this out were those who understand the evidence, championed and implemented safer speeds.' The higher speeds kick in on 1 July, during the school holidays, and the reality of central government overriding evidence and local preference is only just becoming clear to many communities. For example, a stretch of beach north of Auckland is rising from 50km/h to 70km/h against community wishes, while further south, a nonsensical 100km/h will be installed on a dangerous stretch of road through a Lake Taupō campground. Ms Perry adds, 'A few fortunate communities, such as Rakaia and Nelson, will be rightly celebrating their common-sense retention of safe speeds, but this only came after a hard-fought campaign resulted in public consultation on the proposed speed limit increases to these stretches of road.' 'It should be common-sense to always apply the evidence to keep children safe. Everyone benefits when children can move independently, when people are free to walk and cycle without fear of serious injury and death, and when streets are safer for all of us,' says Ms Perry.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Ferry Privatisation Would Be A Disaster
The Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) says suggestions of privatisation of the new Cook Strait Interislander ferries would be a dangerous step backwards. The proposals were contained in a cabinet paper presented to the Government earlier this year and obtained by media under the OIA. Maritime Union of New Zealand National Secretary Carl Findlay says past privatisation of strategic transport infrastructure had caused great harm to our national supply chain. He says the ideological push for privatization will be coming from the extreme right in the Government represented by the ACT Party. Mr Findlay says New Zealand's rail network, including the ferries, had been sold off to overseas corporates in the 1990s by a right wing National Government. "What followed was a textbook case of corporate raiding, where assets were stripped for short-term profit, maintenance was run into the ground, and workers paid with their lives due to shocking health and safety breaches.' 'The taxpayer was then forced to spend millions to buy back the asset and start the long process of fixing it up.' Mr Findlay says it is essential for a New Zealand owned, public ferry operator to be on the Cook Strait for economic security and supply chain resilience. He says the Cook Strait is our 'blue highway', an essential extension of State Highway 1 and the Main Trunk Line. 'We believe the Minister of Rail, Winston Peters, who has spoken at length about the failures of past privatisations, will not allow the Government to be swayed by ACT style agendas.' Mr Findlay says the ferry replacement process has already been a fiasco, with the decision of Finance Minister Nicola Willis to cancel the iRex project creating years of delays and a billion dollar cost to New Zealand. He says there are many other opportunities for private operators to enter into other coastal shipping services, and the Government should be supporting this goal. 'For the Cook Strait, our focus should be on investing in a modern, reliable, and publicly-owned ferry fleet that is fit for the 21st century and serves all New Zealanders.' The Maritime Union of New Zealand represents seafaring and catering crews on both Cook Strait ferry operators.
