Baby Back Benches: A Student Debate Recap

Co-written by Viviene Bunquin, Arshita Bhardwaj, and Azzurra Snelgrove-Douch

Introduction

Baby Back Benches has become a flagship event for youth political engagement at the University of Auckland. In its 10th year held at the iconic student bar Shadows, the event brought together representatives from youth wings of political parties for a live debate in front of a crowd of students, young professionals, and politically curious minds. Though the youth wings may have held the microphones, the crowd certainly didn’t stay silent, and that’s exactly what made the night so electric. We thank the Public Policy Club team for their meticulous organisation and ongoing commitment to platforming student politics on campus.

Young TOP (The Opportunities Party)

Representing Young TOP, Evan French stayed true to the party’s ethos of evidence-based, future-focused policymaking. He argued for bold structural reforms, particularly around tax and wealth inequality, rather than fragmented solutions. French presented a vision that prioritised long-term wellbeing over short-term political wins, challenging the audience to think about how we can fix broken systems rather than just patch them.

On the TOP side, French spoke to the rising cost of living, advocating for systemic solutions like a wealth tax and smarter use of public funds. Backing TOP’s Teal Card–and for those who don't know–it's a policy offering free mental healthcare, dental care, and public transport for under-30s.

On climate policy, Young TOP pushed back against New Zealand’s overreliance on pine forestry for carbon offsets, calling for a more comprehensive, transparent approach to reaching Net Zero. He stressed that funds from the Emissions Trading Scheme should be reinvested into helping businesses and communities reach Net Zero, not simply funneled into private profit.

Crime was another key point of his address. While acknowledging the rise in crime, French emphasised the need for a shift away from New Zealand’s punitive justice system. He argued for a balanced approach: one that strengthens policing when necessary, but also invests in rehabilitation, prevention, and community wellbeing. His stance highlighted the broader theme of the night, that long-term, systemic thinking is what youth politics needs more of.

Young NZ First

On the other side, Keegan Langeveld, speaker from Young New Zealand First, brought both experience and authenticity. While NZ First isn’t a party typically associated with youth activism, Langeveld offered a refreshing, grounded take that showed how political engagement doesn't have to be boxed into generational stereotypes. Flying up from Wellington for his third appearance at Baby Back Benches, he wasn’t afraid to push back.

He questioned the practicality of the Green Party’s budget, arguing that a wealth tax would unfairly hit middle-income earners like nurses and teachers, rather than easing financial pressure. The wealth tax doesn't account for secondary effects, like the shifting of personal and business assets to avoid tax and warned that taxing the country more heavily would backfire economically. Young NZ First promoted their approach of investing in regional industries as a more sustainable and growth-focused solution.

On foreign investment, Young NZ First is calling for smarter, more accountable rules to ensure that overseas investors contribute meaningfully to New Zealand’s economy rather than simply buying up land; an issue they say is making it increasingly difficult for young Kiwis to get on the housing ladder. They propose implementing a cap or threshold that would require genuine, long-term economic investment before foreign investors are granted access to assets. They also emphasised the importance of maintaining New Zealand ownership of key assets, arguing that the country should not be in a position where it loses control over essential infrastructure and industries.

Young Greens

The environmental and social justice-focused youth wing was represented by Caitlin Wilson, who immediately rallied for student voters to enroll for the upcoming local board elections this October. She recalled her experience working for the Auckland City Mission and announced her campaign to run for the Waitematā Local Board. Young Greens opened with a clear and definitive call to action— a theme which persisted throughout the night. 

AUSA President turned amateur political moderator, Gabriel Boyd launched the debate with a topic (unfortunately) dear to many students’ hearts: the cost-of-living crisis. Wilson platformed the Green Party’s proposed alternative budget earlier this year, which sought to make our tax system more equitable for all New Zealanders, not just the wealthiest 2% of the population.

When questioned about how NZ should strike a balance between energy security, economic development and environmental protection, Wilson confidently asserted that “We can do all three.” She focused on harnessing the potential of clean energy to produce green jobs, citing at least 40,000 potential new jobs in the energy sector. Economic growth does not need to be sacrificed for the well-being of our planet, and more crucially, economic growth can no longer justify the large-scale exploitation of our natural environment.

On the topic of housing, Young Greens leveraged their role as the opposition and scrutinised the current government’s priority stakeholders: property investors, landlords, and wealthy capital owners. Rather than investing in housing policies which address the socioeconomic pressures faced by renters—many of whom are also students—the current government was more interested in granting landlords greater tax cuts. Wilson earned strong approval from the crowd when she called out Young ACT’s insistent recount of previous government housing policies, daring her opponent to instead offer their alternative solution.

A fiery discussion of the defeated Treaty Principles Bill prompted a genuine appeal to the beautiful sanctity of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In earnest, Wilson reminded the panel to recognise “our founding document for the taonga it is” and respect it as the fundamental “source of all our rights to be on this whenua”.

Wilson did not entertain any arguments in favour of a tough-on-crime approach. She argued for an alternative restorative justice model which decentered punishment and punitive sentencing. When accused of allowing hardened criminals to “roam the streets”, Wilson retorted with another question about the social drivers of criminal offending: trauma and poverty. She addressed her political opponents in turn, “Can we actually address those drivers?”

The progressive youth wing did not miss another opportunity to call for a capital gains tax. Wilson urged attendees to consider why the wealthiest individuals paid 50% less tax than the average New Zealander. Her claim was imminent: Capital gains tax has been successfully implemented in other countries, and New Zealand would fare better by following suit.

Some of Young Green’s responses warranted no further explanation. Free public transport was non-negotiable for a climate-adaptive future. The audience appreciated the undivided commitment in this concise answer, breaking into thundering applause and celebratory cheers. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, the progressive youth wing won strong approval from many attendees that night.

Young Labour 

Young Labour representative, Fania Kapao, is no stranger to student politics. Not only is she the current Postgraduate Vice President for AUSA, but she is also the co-convener for Young Labour on campus. From the beginning of the debate, she affirmed her roots in grassroots activism and expressed a deep commitment to investing in people over profits.

Kapao’s responses overwhelmingly criticised the incumbent government’s approach, rather than delving into greater detail about Labour’s alternative policies. While necessary to keep the incumbent government party in check, perhaps Kapao was too quick to interrupt, and too brief in rebuttal, to comprehensively advocate for the left’s policy agenda. Nonetheless, the Young Labour representative ritually kept her co-panelists in line, chiming in with frequently incisive quips favourably received by the audience.

On the topic of housing, the for-the-people youth wing immediately highlighted rising homelessness in Aotearoa. Kapao responded with disdain towards Young ACT’s positive appraisal of commercial property development, arguing that provisions over Kainga Ora (state public housing) should be strengthened instead. Simultaneously, rental prices have steadily increased in New Zealand. It was rife time for a change in government priorities— and everyday New Zealanders dealing with dehumanising homelessness and unsustainable rental costs must come first.

A poignant example of political conviction was Young Labour’s refusal to compromise on the issue of the Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT Party in 2024. Kapao stressed a lack of political consensus around tabling the Bill on the floor, let alone any realistic prospect of the legislation passing, after a nationwide hikoi ensued and called for its immediate defeat.

In firm solidarity with the Young Greens, Kapao denounced her political opponent’s endorsement of punitive bootcamps, sarcastically dubbing the move as “interesting.” She emphasised that while punishment must always fit the crime, there is something equal to be said for how punitive approaches only make it likely for people to reoffend. She states plainly, punishment must also be handed down “equitably.”

Kapao stood her ground when the debate turned to the controversial reinstatement of the Three Strikes regime, only recently repealed by the previous Labour-led government. She pointed to the evident failure of the policy in the United States, its initial birthplace. The Three Strikes regime will only cause greater harm for overrepresented Māori and Pasifika communities in the criminal justice system. She reiterates her youth wing’s commitment to uplifting people from all social backgrounds,

“It’s how we look after people... moving forward in a way that looks after people.”  

When the floor was opened to debate the state of NZ’s healthcare system, particularly in reference to acute medical professional shortages, Young Labour diligently reminded the crowd about the nurses’ strike which occurred just a day prior. Kapao spoke to the necessity of paid placements for aspiring doctors and nurses, attesting that the government has an obligation to invest in the education of future healthcare workers, as well as fairly compensate them when they enter the workforce. The panel shared a rare moment of consensus in collectively advocating for paid clinical placements, undoubtedly echoing popular concerns about NZ training future healthcare professionals, only for them to migrate overseas for more competitive living wages.

Young National

A noticeable absence on the bench was that of National’s Youth Wing representative, who, following the deflection of numerous questions posed to her, left quietly during the halftime break. It was less than ideal for the National Youth Wing, as representatives for the current party in Government, to be noticeably silent on the many issues raised by the bench that night. Craccum requested further comment from the Youth Wing but has unfortunately yet to receive any response. The silence raises the question: does this set a pattern for National, of choosing unfit representatives? This case was a missed opportunity for the Youth Wing party to defend their policy stances, particularly against unrelenting vocal opposition.

As other parties expressed their commitment to educating students on political issues, National’s silence reflected a noticeable disinterest in student politics and engagement. The audience themselves did the talking, reflecting our potential collective disdain for the party, as one audience member yelled “she’s not here” on the rare occasion in which National was asked to comment on policy issues. This pressure from spectators, when combined with the evident disdain for the party she represents, perhaps justifies her reasoning for providing little comment on behalf of her party.

What minimimal comments were made were unfortunately lukewarm and non-committal, reflecting typical National slogans rather than any comprehensive rebuttal on her part. When asked how the government could best support first time home buyers, she praised National’s growth policies, claiming they will “prove something for this current government”. However, beyond praise, she offered little in terms of solutions, leaving the specificities of these policies unclear. Similarly, when asked about her support for the ‘tough on crime approach’ over rehabilitation, she expressed support for the ‘Three Strikes Bill’, stating

“I think it’s about making sure that victims feel safer in society after being victimised, especially when violent offenders are re-offending.”

Unfortunately, National’s chosen representative left many questions unanswered, and encouraged perhaps a further disconnect between young voters and the party. Their silence seems to draw uncanny parallels between the overtly vocal coalition partners, and at times, disappointingly restrained majority National Party. Regardless, we hope that next year proves to be a more present and engaging debate for Young National.

Young ACT

Alternatively, a stand-out amongst the board, and perhaps its designated ‘devil’s advocate’, was Young ACT’s Leo Grachev. ACT’s emphasis on the ‘solutions-based approach’ and positioning as ‘for the working class/general public’ was clear in Grachev’s responses to various issues posed by the board. Emphasis was also placed on faulting Labour and their previous term in government, to further highlight the efforts of ACT.

This emphasis on individualism is best reflected in ACT’s commitment to representing the student voice, and in maintaining a close relationship with students. As Grachev states, youth engagement and student outreach are important not only in supporting future careers in politics, but also in maintaining a relationship between students and the party. Despite this, he acknowledges the disparity between Young ACT and their ‘father party’, particularly on issues such as drug and alcohol laws. Their differing stances highlight the importance of student-based politics in reflecting the unique priorities of our generation, and the potential power of these views in changing future politics.

He asserts that the cost-of-living crisis is a direct result of “irresponsible, wasteful spending” on the behalf of the previous Labour government, stating,

“We have to remember when the cost-of-living crisis started, that was under the previous government that still refuses to take blame.”

His solution? An evidence-based approach, which he claims has “seen rent coming down for the first time since 2009”. He focuses on criticism of his neighbouring parties, stating that the “hot air” surrounding the topic prevents the public from ‘living the way they want to’, with little to no government involvement in their personal lives. He advocates for a deregulatory stance, emphasising individualism and the plight of the average citizen, asserting that “we shouldn’t be punished for our success”.

He dismisses criticism from the left regarding current housing developments, stating, “People want to talk about a housing crisis but then complain about the houses being built.” He argues that such critiques overlook the situation’s urgency, claiming that “for somebody that doesn’t have a roof over their head, all that matters is getting them a warm, dry place”.

Criticism of the previous government is echoed in his responses to other issues, such as education. He claims that teachers have been ‘neglected’ and are expected to perform tasks outside of their job description, such as the wellbeing of students, and pushes for reform. He also criticizes the ‘open learning model’ which has been scrapped by the current government, citing the pressure it has placed on educators, instead promoting charter schools. These responses are echoed in the recent move to reconsider the current NCEA school system, which National proposed to replace on Monday.

Other comments were thoroughly more divisive, particularly surrounding the issue of the Treaty Principles Bill. The bill, which seeks a redefinition of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi under a court of law, was ultimately ‘put to the floor and killed’ - but continues to spark debate. He addresses the controversy, expressing our need for an ‘open and honest conversation’ on behalf of all Kiwis. He acknowledges this backlash yet claims it derives primarily from a supposed ‘lack of understanding’ of the bill’s intent. The bill, he asserts, wasn’t about undermining past settlements, but rather about questioning whether undefined principles should be working their way into our legislation without our consent. He cites the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Waitangi Tribunal as evidence of the influence of these undefined principles and defends our ‘right’ to question them. “The Treaty”, he states “was not created as a permanent entity and has in our opinion passed its best before date”.

He further emphasises ACT’s individualistic stance and focuses on the plight of the ‘common man’, arguing that these concerns are being raised by the public, not ACT themselves. Yet his successive comment to the Labour representative, in which he, on behalf of Young ACT, (sarcastically) thanked her for her “public service” in studying indigenous studies, caused the audience to question ulterior motives and values behind ACT’s support for the bill.

 Media bias

To the credit of the Public Policy Club, the debate also prompted discerning conversations about the role of media in NZ politics. One question remarked on whether any of the youth wings perceived some form of media bias against their representative party. Their answers ranged from cautiously critical to outwardly disillusioned, citing cross-party concerns such as misrepresentation of political stances, minor parties lacking coverage, and perverse incentives underscoring polarising news reporting.

“The only thing the media is interested in is itself. It wants clickbait... an eye-catching headline.” –Grachev, Young ACT

“Media exists to create division, and it’s arresting any sort of productivity in Parliament.” –Evan French, Young TOP

Given that this is Craccum’s first time covering Baby Back Benches, we also reflected on our role as student journalists on campus. Not only can we help raise greater political awareness among students, but we also recognised the potential of student media to amplify grassroots campaigns which center student voices. In the same way we pride ourselves on re-inventing political spaces to prioritise youth voices at the decision-making table, we play an equally vital role in setting a robust precedent for student media platforms.

Conclusion

In amongst all the debate, there’s something to be said about what happens when young people are given the mic, not as a token gesture, but as a genuine platform to challenge, question, and co-create the political narrative. In an age where youth disengagement from formal politics appears to be rising, with 25–30% of eligible voters aged 18–30 not voting in the 2023 election, Baby Back Benches proves that young people are still watching, thinking, and speaking up. Whether on stage or in the audience, they are demanding a politics that speaks to them and with them. It was striking to see the crowd pitch in at every opportunity, with sharp questions, strong reactions, and no hesitation in holding the speakers to account.

In a political climate increasingly dominated by short-term fixes and reactive policymaking, events like Baby Back Benches serve as a much-needed injection of long-term, intergenerational thinking. And perhaps the real question isn’t whether youth are engaged but whether our political systems are ready to keep up with the level of clarity, urgency, and vision that young people are already bringing to the table.

Disclaimer: The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of AUSA and Craccum Editors.