Latest news with #MinistryofYouthDevelopment
Otago Daily Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Focus on what youth need and say, not censorship debate
Claims of censorship overshadowed what Youth MPs actually said, Josh Henderson writes. 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.
Otago Daily Times
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Govt accused of ‘fear-mongering'
Jomana Moharram. Photo: supplied A Dunedin Youth MP has accused the government of using "fear-mongering" language to pressure them into changing their speeches. An email from the Ministry of Youth Development sent to one Youth MP, seen by the Otago Daily Times, said they "had to make some changes" to ensure their speech remained politically neutral, did not breach defamation and other laws, followed the principles of "no naming, no blaming, no shaming" and did not make false assertions unsupported by facts. While the subject line said "changes required", a follow-up email told the Youth MP "it is your choice how you use that 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. "We simply ask that you consider the feedback in the spirit it is intended, which is to support you." Youth MP for Francisco Hernandez Jomana Moharram, of Dunedin, said the ministry's feedback process was "fear-mongering" and was phrased in such a way as to create the "threat" of being sued for defamation. The process did not come across as though the ministry was trying to protect Youth MPs from a defamation suit, she said. "And that's not the effect that it had for a lot of people who ... ended up rewriting their speech. "They ended up having the threat in the back of their mind of this is going to be online forever, or I'm going to be sued." Ingrid Leary's Youth MP, Zenah Taha, of Dunedin, said she had heard from others the changes they had been asked to make "really impacted their speech and their freedom to express their opinion". A lot of Youth MPs were "quite displeased", Ms Taha said. But she understood where the ministry was coming from. "Some speeches may come off as quite blunt and they definitely do have to be checked, because it's standard procedure." Youth Minister James Meager said no Youth MP speeches were censored and the ministry's suggested changes "were just recommendations for the young people to consider". "However, [the ministry] acknowledges that the recent feedback received from some of the young people is that this was not as clear as it could've been in every instance." The ministry followed the same protocol as it did for Youth Parliament 2022, under the previous government. Speeches were reviewed to ensure they were consistent with guidance and changes were recommended in some cases, Mr Meager said. "But the speech they choose to stand up and deliver was up to them." Youth MPs were not protected by parliamentary privilege and the ministry reviewed speeches to identify any aspects "which could get them into legal strife which the Youth MPs may be unaware of", he said. "This review is not about changing the content of their speeches — it's about being responsible organisers for an event which is predominantly made-up of minors."
1News
02-07-2025
- Politics
- 1News
Email to Youth MPs 'could have been clearer'
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. ADVERTISEMENT "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 emails 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." ADVERTISEMENT 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. Some Youth MPs push back on claims of censorship Today, 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. ADVERTISEMENT 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.
Scoop
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Youth Parliament Must Honour Rangatahi Voices
A group of youth organisations is calling out the censorship of young people at Youth Parliament 2025, where multiple decisions made by the Ministry of Youth Development (MYD) have undermined the kaupapa of authentic youth voice. Several youth MPs will meet Press on the steps of Parliament House at 1:15pm on Tuesday, 1 July to share their experiences and feelings on the censorship of rangatahi voices during this year's Youth Parliament. Multiple decisions made around this year's Youth Parliament have led to an environment that fundamentally undermines what is meant to be a space for young people to speak freely and confidently on the issues that shape their lives. This year: Live-streaming of Youth MP speeches has been cancelled. Lived Experience Groups, which previously allowed Youth MPs from minority communities to offer policy advice, have been removed. Youth MPs have been told they cannot clap, cannot walk out, and that all speeches must be reviewed before delivery. Youth MPs have also been told not to speak on key political issues like pay equity, voting rights, climate action and financial literacy, with parts of their speeches removed because these topics are supposedly 'too political.' 'Youth Parliament is meant to give young people a voice. But how can we speak up if we're told what we're allowed to say?' says Thomas Brocherie, Co-Director of Make It 16 and Youth MP for Lan Pham. 'Young people are constantly told to care, to participate, to raise our voices. But when we do, we're told to edit them. If Youth Parliament only allows voices that are comfortable for adults to hear, it's not youth voice at all. It's a performance,' says Ruby Love-Smith, Youth MP for Dr Tracey McLellan. "This isn't an attack on parties or politicians. It's a call for something deeper: real youth representation that isn't filtered or stage-managed. If rangatahi can't talk about our right to vote or the issues that affect us most in a space designed to elevate youth voice then what message does that send?' says Lincoln Jones, Make It 16 member and Youth MP for Willie Jackson (Labour Party). The feedback Youth MPs received after submitting speeches was often couched in positive language, encouraging them to 'consider' edits. But this framing misses the power dynamic at play wherein young people felt pressured to comply, afraid speaking honestly would create 'problems' or risk being excluded. 'We've been told to soften our language, drop key parts of our speeches, and avoid criticising certain ministers, as speaking out could 'cause problems.' That isn't guidance, it's control.' says Nate Wilbourne, Gen-Z Aotearoa founder and spokesperson, Youth MP for Damien O'Connor. We believe MYD has failed to uphold the kaupapa of Youth Parliament, a space that should respect rangatahi as capable of holding and voicing their own views on real issues that affect our lives, rights, and futures. Instead of leading by example, MYD is setting a dangerous precedent for youth engagement where youth voice is managed, not valued. These actions reflect a wider pattern of tokenism and disclusion that continues to disempower young people across Aotearoa. We stand in solidarity with the Youth MPs who've been sidelined and silenced. Their courage deserves to be heard. We call on Parliament and MYD to reflect on this moment and do better. We demand future Youth Parliaments: Restore livestreams and full public transparency. Reinstate Lived Experience Groups to reflect diverse voices. End speech interference and stop framing political awareness as political bias. Centre youth-led processes and accountability in the event's design and delivery. This is not just about Youth Parliament. It's about the wider issue of systemic exclusion. Rangatahi deserve to be respected as capable of holding and voicing their own views on real issues affecting our lives, rights, and futures. Young people are not here to perform — we are here to participate. This statement is co-released by: Make It 16 Gen Z Aotearoa SchoolStrike4Climate
Scoop
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Youth MPs Accuse Government Of 'Censoring' Them, Ministry Says Otherwise
The government is rejecting accusations it is censoring Youth MPs, saying the protocols followed are the same as 2022 and the young people get the final say on their speeches. 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," it said. 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 - saying 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."
