The Waitangi Tribunal has recommended that citizenship by descent be extended to two generations — but only for people of Māori descent. On the surface, it presents as a technical correction to outdated law. In reality, it risks creating two classes of New Zealanders and undermining one of the foundations of modern democracy: equality before the law.
Under the Citizenship Act 1977, only one generation of New Zealanders born overseas is entitled to citizenship by descent. That rule affects people like actor Keisha Castle-Hughes and John Ruddock, son of the singer Rhonda Bryers. Both were born in Australia to at least one New Zealand parent. They are citizens by descent — but their children, born in the United States, are not automatically New Zealand citizens. To become citizens, their children would have to live in New Zealand and apply for citizenship by grant like any other migrant.
The Waitangi Tribunal says this breaches the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Its reasoning is that whakapapa — Māori genealogy — should matter more than the geographic location of birth. It argues that the current citizenship law fails to recognise Māori as tangata whenua or acknowledge the Treaty as New Zealand’s founding document. In their view, citizenship should follow ancestral connection to iwi, not just parental citizenship status.
But what the Tribunal is really proposing is a division of New Zealanders into two categories: those whose ancestry includes Māori iwi, and those whose does not. For the first group, citizenship by descent would continue for two generations. For the second group, it would still stop at one. Two children born overseas, on the same day, to New Zealand citizens by descent — but only one eligible for citizenship because they happen to have Māori whakapapa.
That is not partnership. That is preferential treatment based on ethnicity. In a liberal democracy, that is hard to defend.
The question the government should genuinely consider is whether citizenship by descent ought to extend to two generations for everyone. Many countries already do this, and have done so for decades. Britain, for example, offers pathways for grandchildren to claim citizenship in certain circumstances. Several European nations — including Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands — actively encourage descendants to reclaim ancestral nationality.
These policies are not without reason. They maintain cultural and economic ties with the diaspora, attract skilled migrants and strengthen international networks.
My own family history highlights the contrast. My grandfather James McLaren was born in Scotland and emigrated to New Zealand in the 1920s. My mother, born here in 1931, never bothered taking up British citizenship even though she was entitled to. A New Zealand passport served her perfectly well. But if she had, I would have had the right to one too. Britain recognised grandchildren — New Zealand does not.
Here’s another example. My late first wife was the daughter of Dutch immigrants who arrived here in 1952. She never claimed Dutch citizenship, though entitled to do so. Yet about ten years ago, in an effort to grow its diaspora connection, the Netherlands allowed my youngest son — who at that time had never set foot in the country — to swear a simple oath and become Dutch. He gained an EU passport. It opened doors to study and work across Europe.
That matters for practical reasons. In much of Europe — Germany, Norway, Denmark, even Scotland — university education is tuition fees-free for EU citizens. Compare that with rising fees and the shrinking quality of New Zealand universities, and you understand why families pursue these options.
So if New Zealand were to extend citizenship by descent to grandchildren, it wouldn’t be outlandish. It would align us with comparable democracies.
But to grant that right only to Māori descendants — and not to the grandchildren of, say, British, Chinese, Samoan or Indian New Zealanders — is a fundamentally different proposition.
It says ethnicity dictates citizenship. It says whakapapa to one group matters more than whakapapa to another. Parliament should think very carefully before accepting that logic.
The Treaty promised Māori the same rights and duties as British subjects. It was about equality, not preference. If we start granting citizenship on the basis of race, we stray from both the Treaty and the democratic principle that all citizens stand equal before the law.
The government has signalled it will not amend the Act. That is the correct position. If citizenship by descent is to be modernised, it must be applied evenly to all citizens, Māori and non-Māori alike.
Because the measure of a just nation is not how loudly it speaks of equality — but whether it practises it.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
The Waitangi Tribunal says this breaches the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Its reasoning is that whakapapa — Māori genealogy — should matter more than the geographic location of birth. It argues that the current citizenship law fails to recognise Māori as tangata whenua or acknowledge the Treaty as New Zealand’s founding document. In their view, citizenship should follow ancestral connection to iwi, not just parental citizenship status.
But what the Tribunal is really proposing is a division of New Zealanders into two categories: those whose ancestry includes Māori iwi, and those whose does not. For the first group, citizenship by descent would continue for two generations. For the second group, it would still stop at one. Two children born overseas, on the same day, to New Zealand citizens by descent — but only one eligible for citizenship because they happen to have Māori whakapapa.
That is not partnership. That is preferential treatment based on ethnicity. In a liberal democracy, that is hard to defend.
The question the government should genuinely consider is whether citizenship by descent ought to extend to two generations for everyone. Many countries already do this, and have done so for decades. Britain, for example, offers pathways for grandchildren to claim citizenship in certain circumstances. Several European nations — including Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands — actively encourage descendants to reclaim ancestral nationality.
These policies are not without reason. They maintain cultural and economic ties with the diaspora, attract skilled migrants and strengthen international networks.
My own family history highlights the contrast. My grandfather James McLaren was born in Scotland and emigrated to New Zealand in the 1920s. My mother, born here in 1931, never bothered taking up British citizenship even though she was entitled to. A New Zealand passport served her perfectly well. But if she had, I would have had the right to one too. Britain recognised grandchildren — New Zealand does not.
Here’s another example. My late first wife was the daughter of Dutch immigrants who arrived here in 1952. She never claimed Dutch citizenship, though entitled to do so. Yet about ten years ago, in an effort to grow its diaspora connection, the Netherlands allowed my youngest son — who at that time had never set foot in the country — to swear a simple oath and become Dutch. He gained an EU passport. It opened doors to study and work across Europe.
That matters for practical reasons. In much of Europe — Germany, Norway, Denmark, even Scotland — university education is tuition fees-free for EU citizens. Compare that with rising fees and the shrinking quality of New Zealand universities, and you understand why families pursue these options.
So if New Zealand were to extend citizenship by descent to grandchildren, it wouldn’t be outlandish. It would align us with comparable democracies.
But to grant that right only to Māori descendants — and not to the grandchildren of, say, British, Chinese, Samoan or Indian New Zealanders — is a fundamentally different proposition.
It says ethnicity dictates citizenship. It says whakapapa to one group matters more than whakapapa to another. Parliament should think very carefully before accepting that logic.
The Treaty promised Māori the same rights and duties as British subjects. It was about equality, not preference. If we start granting citizenship on the basis of race, we stray from both the Treaty and the democratic principle that all citizens stand equal before the law.
The government has signalled it will not amend the Act. That is the correct position. If citizenship by descent is to be modernised, it must be applied evenly to all citizens, Māori and non-Māori alike.
Because the measure of a just nation is not how loudly it speaks of equality — but whether it practises it.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
Can they just abolish the Waitangi Tribunal already? Way past it's use by date.
Just another example of preferential treatment for Māori. And nothing will change u der Luxon. Ho hum!
Who gives a hoot about the Waitangi Tribunal's low iq musings which are quite rightfully ignored by Luxon and his ministers?
The spin doctors' Maori hysteria machine is ratcheting up.
Could the saturation anti Maori spin be anything to do with the cause of NZ inflation accelerating again?
Yes you guessed, inflation caused by price fixing, electricity generators.
Is the continued power generator theft from kiwi battlers and the amplified disincentive for international business to move to nz to improve productivity and provide high paying jobs really what you entered politics to achieve Mr Luxon? That's a hell of a shameful legacy you're leaving behind.
And Peter. Really? You should be too old, wise, and dispassionate to be joining in with David Farrar's gutter level, NZ populace distracting, Maori bashing.
Please tell us you haven't joined Farrar on the banking, supermarket, insurance and electricity cartels' pay role.
I work with people from India who have been here in nz for 5-10 years. They keep hearing about te tiriti and how white colonists came here, stole all the land etc and should probably go home to " their own countries." So naturally they thought that many of us " white kiwis" must have uk passports, or at the very least the right to apply for one. When I told them actually no, most of us have nz passports only, they were shocked.. They can't believe that we are allowing one group of kiwis to say that another group of kiwis is less than them. When you think about it, they are correct. Why ARE we allowing it?
Indeed, we should all be equal in the eyes of the law. It's time we called out the lie that Maori are indigenous and are tangata whenua. They are not - and even the 'blessed' Tiriti recognised this. And, as time marches on, those with Maori ancestry are increasingly becoming more diluted by other ethnic genes. When will this race-based bigotry and privilege end? As you intimate Peter, it's time we practised what we purport to be so.
Post a Comment