Nate Wilbourne: Youth MP addresses claims that the Government is censoring their speeches

There's growing claims of Youth Parliament censorship. 

Some young people say they've been told their speeches can't be critical of the Government.

But organisers say although changes are sometimes suggested - Youth MPs make the final call on speech content.

Nate Wilbourne is part of the Youth Parliament and says it feels like a mandate. 

He says he was sent an edited version of his speech that cut most of it, but he's sticking with the original.

"I'm here to give my voice on what I care about and what my community back in Brightwater and my electorate care about."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now some Youth parliamentarians are claiming government censorship after suggested
changes to their speeches. All youth MPs get a three
minute speech, but some say that the speeches were edited
to remove references to pay equity in the Treaty of
White Tonguey Principles Bill and so on. Nate Wilbourne is
one of the youth MPs who had their speeches changed,
and Nate's with us now high.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Nate got it.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Hello, what was the problem with your speech?

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Yeah? Okay, so a little bit of context here. So
I'm one of the one hundred and twenty three youth MPs.
I've come across altiedor the seet rivers in our communities
here in Youth Parliament. Essentially my speech which I'll be
giving tomorrow morning, topic of it is the war on nature.
And when I subve in my speech, because it was
part of the pro call, we have to submit our
speeches to the Youth Parliament Project team, I've got a

(00:44):
reply as well as an edited vision of my speech
where a majority of it was cut out and the
reply had quote unquote some of the speech lacks political
neutrality by criticizing dis government and current ministers so this
is what we believe. What I believe is a pretty
you know out their form of censorship of youth waltzes
here in this parliament.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
Are you going to give it anyway?

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Oh? Hell yeah, No, I'm going to be out there tomorrow.
I'm going to be why I intend to call up
Minister's Shane Jones from a poor Tucker Penny Simmons for
their actions and assault on nature, because that's you know,
I believe that I'm here to give my voice on
what I care about and what my community back in
Brightwater and my electric care about.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
They reckon. This is the ministry, I reckon. It was
just suggestions they were making that it was really up
to you guys whether you whether you take those suggestions
on board or not. Is that true?

Speaker 2 (01:31):
Totally? Well no, you know what I argue is that
the way that the phrase suggestions applies that they are
mandating these changes but never thought what they attend. The
subject line of the email that we got, like email
with ours speeches, stays changes require, which means that like
a USMP, you won't be as willing to ignore their advice,
may have a weaker speech as they'll be reading this
email from m id who's organizing the event, saying changes

(01:52):
require to their speeches. So it's you know, not really
more of a suggestion and rather more of a mandate,
is what I would.

Speaker 1 (01:57):
Argue, although a mandate that you're ignoring, so not that
much of a mandate, is it.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
Or you see, the thing is like I'm someone that
stands up for what I believe it and I kind
of came here because I believe and what I stand
for and to speaking up and seeking out. So that's why.
And like it doesn't even breach the standing order, just
breaches the guidance that we've been given by the Youth
Parliament team, which kind of goes against excitations that we had.
So yeah, I'll be sticking up and I'll be naming
the current ministers of the government who you know, irrelevant

(02:24):
to my speech. Yeah. Hey.

Speaker 1 (02:25):
They also say that what they're trying to do is
help you guys out and just make sure that you
don't get yourselves into trouble because you're not covered by
parliamentary privilege.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah, so we've had a whole lot of redic Like,
I do appreciate that they are looking out for us,
because you know, there is no like legal coverage we
have when we're sitting in the House. There's been a
lot of what I would call kind of fear mongering
by the project team as well. We've been told that
we can be such a defamation, but under the Defamation
Act of nineteen ninety two, to be the sammatory, a
statement must be published, which it will be by speaking

(02:55):
publicly in news parliaments. I must identify the person to
saints and it must be the sammatory that it harms
the person's reputation. But the thing is here is that
it also kind of goes against like the Bill of
Rights Act and section fourteen where it talks about the
freedom of expression, which kind of guarantees everybody the rights
freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seecreceive in
part information and opinions in any kind of form. So

(03:17):
it's a bit of both sides here. But like what
we're saying, you know, we're here to hold the government
to account, and I guess it's kind of a dangerous
president for use engagement where youth voice is kind of
managed in this space rather than it being valued.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
You know, Nate, thank you, good luck tomorrow night. Wilbourne,
UCMP for Damian o'connort.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drive, listen live to
news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio