The Waitangi Tribunal is championing another Treaty-based privilege for Maori (according to our reading of an RNZ report today) by recommending that a Māori bloke who is seeking citizenship for his children should be granted it.
RNZ notes that the Citizenship Act 1977 provides for four types of citizenship – citizenship by birth, descent, grant, and special grant.
The case which the tribunal considered involved citizenship by descent, which is limited under our law to one generation.
That’s not good enough for the tribunal. It has recommended that citizenship by descent be extended to two generations – but (by the looks of things) only for Māori.
Judge Alana Thomas said New Zealand as a whole would benefit from a review and amendment of the Act.
So far, so good.
But should the amendments apply equally to all citizens and their descendants overseas?
Many countries allow individuals to claim citizenship if they can prove descent from a citizen or ethnic group historically tied to the country.
PoO’s research suggests this usually is not about race or appearance, but about documented ancestral ties to a nation.
Most countries require birth certificates, family registries, or other legal proof of ancestry.
Some laws were created to reconnect with diaspora communities or redress historical injustices.
The Waitangi Tribunal has ruled on a form of citizenship typically governed by the principle of jus sanguinis (“right of blood”), or citizenship passed down through family lineage rather than place of birth (jus soli).
Explicit ethnic criteria can be found in the example of Israel’s Jewish identity.
Under the Law of Return (1950), individuals of Jewish ethnicity or those with Jewish ancestry (up to three generations) can claim citizenship upon immigration to Israel. This is rooted in the country’s identity as a Jewish state.
Non-Jews can also acquire citizenship (eg through marriage or residency), but the Law of Return explicitly prioritizes Jewish ethnicity, granting automatic eligibility to Jews worldwide.
Since 2011, Hungary has offered simplified naturalization to ethnic Hungarians living outside its borders, particularly in neighboring countries like Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia, where Hungarian minorities reside.
Applicants must demonstrate Hungarian ancestry or cultural ties – such as language proficiency – and can apply without residing in Hungary.
There’s an idea: would the Waitangi Tribunal favour fluency in te reo as a test in the case of the children involved in the claim on which it has just ruled?
The RNZ report tells us:
The claim was brought by John Ruddock (Ngāpuhi), who was born in Australia and became a New Zealand citizen by descent through his Māori mother. But his children are not New Zealand citizens under the Act despite their whakapapa, as they were born in the United States.
A range of others have been affected and some gave evidence, including actress Keisha Castle-Hughes (Ngāti Porou, Tainui, Ngāpuhi), who was born in Australia and whose daughter was born in the United States and is therefore not eligible for citizenship by descent.
Judge Thomas seems to have been addressing the consequences of a Maori diaspora.
She said Ruddock’s claim addressed far wider issues “facing an increasing number of Māori born overseas to parents themselves born outside New Zealand”.
The Tribunal (are we surprised?) found a breach of “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in a number of ways, including by:
The case which the tribunal considered involved citizenship by descent, which is limited under our law to one generation.
That’s not good enough for the tribunal. It has recommended that citizenship by descent be extended to two generations – but (by the looks of things) only for Māori.
Judge Alana Thomas said New Zealand as a whole would benefit from a review and amendment of the Act.
So far, so good.
But should the amendments apply equally to all citizens and their descendants overseas?
Many countries allow individuals to claim citizenship if they can prove descent from a citizen or ethnic group historically tied to the country.
PoO’s research suggests this usually is not about race or appearance, but about documented ancestral ties to a nation.
Most countries require birth certificates, family registries, or other legal proof of ancestry.
Some laws were created to reconnect with diaspora communities or redress historical injustices.
The Waitangi Tribunal has ruled on a form of citizenship typically governed by the principle of jus sanguinis (“right of blood”), or citizenship passed down through family lineage rather than place of birth (jus soli).
Explicit ethnic criteria can be found in the example of Israel’s Jewish identity.
Under the Law of Return (1950), individuals of Jewish ethnicity or those with Jewish ancestry (up to three generations) can claim citizenship upon immigration to Israel. This is rooted in the country’s identity as a Jewish state.
Non-Jews can also acquire citizenship (eg through marriage or residency), but the Law of Return explicitly prioritizes Jewish ethnicity, granting automatic eligibility to Jews worldwide.
Since 2011, Hungary has offered simplified naturalization to ethnic Hungarians living outside its borders, particularly in neighboring countries like Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia, where Hungarian minorities reside.
Applicants must demonstrate Hungarian ancestry or cultural ties – such as language proficiency – and can apply without residing in Hungary.
There’s an idea: would the Waitangi Tribunal favour fluency in te reo as a test in the case of the children involved in the claim on which it has just ruled?
The RNZ report tells us:
The claim was brought by John Ruddock (Ngāpuhi), who was born in Australia and became a New Zealand citizen by descent through his Māori mother. But his children are not New Zealand citizens under the Act despite their whakapapa, as they were born in the United States.
A range of others have been affected and some gave evidence, including actress Keisha Castle-Hughes (Ngāti Porou, Tainui, Ngāpuhi), who was born in Australia and whose daughter was born in the United States and is therefore not eligible for citizenship by descent.
Judge Thomas seems to have been addressing the consequences of a Maori diaspora.
She said Ruddock’s claim addressed far wider issues “facing an increasing number of Māori born overseas to parents themselves born outside New Zealand”.
The Tribunal (are we surprised?) found a breach of “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in a number of ways, including by:
- designing an application process in which a Government official is empowered to determine the legitimacy of someone’s whakapapa, which breached the principles of active protection and rangatiratanga.
- prioritising location of birth over whakapapa during the citizenship application process, which breached the principle of good government.
- to include an acknowledgement of the status of Māori as tangata whenua
- to include a provision requiring the Act to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles
- to establish a tikanga pathway to citizenship that allows for hapū and iwi to assess whakapapa evidence
- [L1] amend section 8(2)(e) of the Citizenship Act 1977 to include ‘or te reo Māori’
- [L2] provide Ruddock with citizenship by grant if he wants it
- [L3] extend citizenship by descent to two generations for Māori.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Maori are not tangata whenua, they are tangata maori - as identified as such in Te Tiriti. They knew full well that there were others here before them, that's why they accepted what they were called in the Treaty. We need to push back on this revisionism and false special treatment.
Simple - Dissolve the Tribunal with immediate effect.
Once again the Waitangi Tribunal is way out of its lane. I assumed it was set up for historical land claims. How has it been allowed to do what it does now without admonishment from the Govt? Politicians again scared of being called racist? Who would of thought?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.