In a development that epitomises authoritarian overreach masquerading as administrative procedure, the Coalition of Chaos government has decided to censor Youth MPs during the 11th Youth Parliament, an event that was meant to amplify the free voices of our young people.
The revelation that youth representatives, invited to Parliament to debate the very issues that will define their futures, have been forced to water down or outright remove criticisms of government policy represents a fundamental assault on the democratic principles this coalition once claimed to champion.
Yesterday, RNZ reported:
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.
Coalition parties spent years in opposition decrying Labour's supposed nanny state mentality, lambasting what they saw as overbearing governmental control. Yet here they stand, dictating what young people can say in a forum explicitly designed to foster free expression and democratic participation. This isn't the bold, open democracy that Chris Luxon promised, it's a masterclass in hypocrisy that would embarrass even the most cynical political operator.
The current Youth Parliament involves 123 young people aged 16-18, selected by MPs to represent their constituencies. But despite this broad church of political views, these voices are being systematically silenced when they dare to speak truth to power.
The Ministry of Youth Development's decision to issue emails with the subject line "changes required" to approximately half of the Youth MPs preparing to address Parliament reveals breathtaking audacity from a government that has transformed from opposition critics into zealous practitioners of the very control they once condemned.
Youth MP Thomas Brocherie, co-director of Make It 16, cut straight to the heart of the matter:
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."
These young people's arguments carry particular weight when considering the existential nature of the issues they're attempting to address, climate change being foremost among them.
Two-thirds of New Zealanders expect severe climate impacts in their area over the next 10 years, whilst New Zealand ranks 41st internationally as a "low climate performer". These are not abstract policy debates for young New Zealanders, they represent the scaffolding of their future. When Youth MP Nate Wilbourne speaks of the "war on nature" and attempts to name ministers responsible for environmental vandalism, he exercises the fundamental democratic right to hold power accountable on matters of existential urgency.
The government's justification for this censorship reveals either breathtaking ignorance or calculated dishonesty. Minister for Youth James Meager insists speeches are not being censored whilst simultaneously defending a process that removes criticisms of government policy, edits references to environmental action, and sanitises language deemed "too political." This isn't guidance; it's censorship dressed up in bureaucratic doublespeak.
However, the decision to abandon livestreaming of this year's Youth Parliament, citing "resource constraints" represents perhaps the most cynical element of the government's censorship regime. Previous Youth Parliaments were fully livestreamed, allowing young New Zealanders across the country to witness democratic participation in action. Youth MP Lincoln Jones rightly identified this change as an attempt to "ensure that speeches that don't fit the narrative of this government are not getting out to the general public."
⚠️ News that this year’s 3-day Youth Parliament has been heavily censored by the Ministry of Youth Development is a shocking act of political control.
— Kelvin Morgan š³šæ (@kelvin_morganNZ) July 1, 2025
Youth MPs were invited to engage — yet have been told to stay silent on issues like climate change, voting rights, and pay… pic.twitter.com/gplINLmaC2
Youth MP Sam Allen noted that participants have gone "from what should be a really exciting event" to "just feeling quite scared" about potential consequences. This erosion of confidence in democratic participation reflects something far more troubling than isolated administrative overzealousness, it's symptomatic of a broader democratic crisis that extends well beyond Parliament's youth programme.
This pattern of democratic erosion has not gone unnoticed by New Zealand's most respected institutions. The New Zealand Law Society's recent watershed report painted a stark picture of rule of law deterioration, highlighting "unequal access to justice and concern at an increased failure to follow good lawmaking processes."
The Society warned that "accelerated legislative processes have restricted public consultation and select committee review through the use of urgency and Amendment Papers," cautioning that "without deliberate action and adequate investment public confidence in the justice system, and the principle that all are equal before the law, will continue to erode."
On Friday, NZ Lawyer reported:
Access to justice barriers and poor legislative and policy making processes were two major threats
The New Zealand Law Society | Te KÄhui Ture o Aotearoa has released a watershed report that has cautioned against the rule of law being eroded.
The Strengthening the rule of law in Aotearoa New Zealand report indicated that significant and urgent threats included access to justice barriers, poor legislative and policy making processes, and sustenance of the judicial system's independence.
"Predominantly, what we heard focused on unequal access to justice and concern at an increased failure to follow good lawmaking processes. Issues with access to fair justice processes were particularly prevalent in the conversations. The barriers vary, including unaffordability of legal services, underfunded legal aid and duty lawyer schemes, and delays in courts and tribunals", Law Society President Frazer Barton said.
Outgoing Auditor-General John Ryan delivered an equally damning assessment in his final report, noting that "public trust in government is declining." His observation that "trust is the lifeblood of a well-functioning democracy but it is vulnerable" proves particularly prescient when examining how this government treats criticism from any quarter, whether from teenagers, councils, or democratic institutions themselves.
Ryan identified that MÄori, disabled, and Pasifika communities, who "experience disproportionately worse outcomes," show less trust in the public sector, a crisis compounded when young advocates for these communities face systematic silencing.
Yesterday, the Controller and Auditor General reported:
Public trust in government is declining
The public sector represents about one third of the economy. To be successful as a country, we need an effective and efficient public sector that demonstrates that it provides value and is trusted by the public. Although there is much to celebrate in the quality and resilience of New Zealand’s public sector in recent years, the public’s trust in democratic institutions is declining.
Trust is the lifeblood of a well-functioning democracy but it is vulnerable. We saw, for example, in the latter stages of the Covid-19 pandemic how disinformation and a breakdown in trust in parts of the community negatively affected how some responded to public health messages, guidance, and restrictions aimed at protecting the health of all New Zealanders.
We know that levels of trust vary considerably between different population groups. MÄori, the disabled, and Pasifika communities experience disproportionately worse outcomes in health, education, housing, employment, and justice. It is likely no coincidence that they are less inclined than the rest of the New Zealand population to trust the public sector.
In my view, the persistent inequity of outcomes needs to be tackled if we are to increase and maintain the trust of all New Zealanders in our system of government.
This government’s penchant for undermining democratic processes is further evidenced by its handling of the Fast-track Approvals Act, passed in December 2024.
The government's authoritarian legislation, which allows ministers to bypass standard regulatory processes for infrastructure and resource projects, was rushed through Parliament with limited public consultation and minimal transparency. Documents detailing the 149 projects included in the bill were withheld from MPs until just 72 hours before the final vote, severely restricting scrutiny and public debate.
Critics, including the Waitangi Tribunal, have raised alarms about the Act’s potential to erode MÄori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi, particularly in relation to seabed mining off PÄtea. This blatant sidelining of democratic oversight and indigenous voices underscores a troubling willingness to prioritise corporate interests over public accountability.
Equally concerning is the government’s suspension of three MÄori Party MPs in June 2025 for performing a haka in protest against policies perceived to undermine MÄori rights. This heavy-handed response to a cultural expression of dissent within Parliament, a space meant to embody free speech, signals an intolerance for any opposition that runs counter to their authoritarianism.
The haka incident, coupled with the coalition’s broader moves to review the Treaty of Waitangi and reduce the use of MÄori language in government, has sparked widespread protests and accusations of rolling back decades of indigenous progress. Such actions suggest a government more interested in consolidating control than fostering inclusive debate.
The government’s moves to override local councils through Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms further exemplify this democratic erosion. By centralising decision-making powers and sidelining local authorities’ ability to reflect community priorities on housing and environmental protections, the coalition has effectively neutered local democracy.
These reforms, driven by a top-down approach, limit public input and undermine the ability of councils to represent their constituents, echoing the same authoritarian impulse seen in the censorship of Youth MPs. This pattern of stripping away local agency betrays the coalition’s earlier promises to empower communities, revealing a government more concerned with control than collaboration.
When teenagers can't criticise ministers over climate inaction without bureaucratic interference, when councils can't represent their communities without central government override, and when proper legislative processes are abandoned in favour of urgency and expedience, we witness democracy's foundations being systematically undermined by a government that treats participation as an inconvenience rather than a cornerstone of good governance.
This government must immediately reverse its shameful censorship of Youth MPs, restore transparent democratic processes, and abandon its attacks on local governance. The warnings from our legal and auditing experts are clear, we stand at a crossroads between democratic renewal and authoritarian drift. New Zealand's democracy cannot survive when those in power systematically silence criticism and circumvent accountability. Our young people deserve better, our communities deserve better, and our democracy demands nothing less.
