ELLIOT IKILEI: Waitangi Tribunal recommends different citizenship rules for Māori
- Administrator
- 7 hours ago
- 3 min read
It’s another day in New Zealand and another attack on equal rights.
The Waitangi Tribunal released its Citizenship Report (Wai 3513), and what they’re proposing should send a chill down the spine of every New Zealander who still believes in one law for all.
This isn’t some minor technical change; it’s a full-blown attempt to rewrite who gets to be a New Zealander, and on what terms.
The report stems from a claim brought by John Ruddock (Ngāpuhi). Ruddock was born in Australia and became a New Zealand citizen by descent through his Māori mother. However, because the Citizenship Act 1977 limits citizenship by descent to just one generation, his children (born in the United States) are not New Zealand citizens.
Rather than accept that this rule applies equally to all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity, the Tribunal has found that the Crown breached Treaty “principles” by not creating a separate mechanism for Māori.
During the hearings, Australian-born actress Keisha Castle-Hughes (Ngāti Porou, Tainui, Ngāpuhi) also gave evidence. She spoke of her concern that her children, also born overseas, could lose connection to their whakapapa under New Zealand’s existing citizenship law. Her story was used by the Tribunal as an emotional touchstone, but the reality is that thousands of non-Māori families face the exact same situation.
This area of the law currently treats everyone equally. What the Waitangi Tribunal now wants is for it not to.
The Tribunal’s recommendations go far beyond fixing a perceived technical oversight. They call for the Citizenship Act to be amended to:
Create a “tikanga pathway” to citizenship, allowing iwi and hapū to assess whakapapa to determine eligibility;
Extend citizenship by descent only for Māori; and
Insert a clause requiring the Act to “give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
In plain English, that means a separate, race-based pathway to citizenship, determined not by the government, but by iwi.
This is apartheid.
Dictionary definition:
apartheid (noun)
apart·heid
a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
Citizenship is the defining thing that unites us as a nation. But under what the Tribunal is proposing, even that would be divided along ethnic lines.
Hobson’s Pledge has warned for years that the Waitangi Tribunal has drifted far beyond its original purpose of resolving historical grievances. It’s now acting as a political engine for constitutional change, rewriting the meaning of democracy, equality, and sovereignty under the guise of “Treaty principles.”
This latest report proves it. When even citizenship, the most fundamental symbol of national unity, is up for ethnic reinterpretation, we have to ask: where does it stop?
If you believe that citizenship should be equal, indivisible, and colour-blind, then now is the time to stand with us. We cannot stay silent while the very definition of being a New Zealander is rewritten by unelected judges and bureaucrats.
That’s why we’ve launched a nationwide petition calling on Parliament to reaffirm the principle of one law for all.
It’s time for New Zealanders to send a clear message: we reject race-based laws, race-based citizenship, and race-based governance. Equality under the law must never be negotiable. If you believe every New Zealander deserves the same rights and responsibilities, no matter their ancestry, then add your name today and stand with us in defence of a united nation.
One law for all.
No exceptions.
He iwi tahi tātou / we are one people.
Elliot Ikilei is a Hobson's Pledge Trustee
So much for democracy eh!!! Over this bs. Let's vote for no one.
Yawn. This is what the Poms called "patriality" - having a pongolian grandparent. That's waht these folk are asking for - it may or may not be reasonable. "Maori patriality" would be a bit of a stretch - not helped by listening to Mr Ruddock and his American accent ....
Anyway if we go to patriality it would have to be for any NZer.
Incredible miracle of post-modern science that it turns out the WT Jacksy, where their heads are up, is an echo chamber.! So, what if another country decides they want all their emigrants? What if you are only allowed one citizenship? The other country should rescind the citizenship of anyone wanting to claim a different country’s citizenship unearned and through distant ancestry. These privileged former Kiwis just want the best of both worlds and are realising in a few generations time their descendants will associate more with where they are and their peers than a distant whakapapa.
For the first 10 years of its existence (1975-85), the Waitangi Tribunal dealt with an average of 3 claims/year. Currently there is a backlog of at least 2500 registered claims. These claims should be cancelled and the Waitangi Tribunal abolished forthwith. It is an out of control gravy train. The government should refuse to accept any further recommendations from the Tribunal. It is a complete and utter rort.
My understanding is that in Article One of Ti Tiriti (ie the widely proselytised version of The Treaty), The Chiefs ceded "kawanatanga" to The Crown for ever. Accepting that kawanatanga is Government (if not then why is Government House in Auckland also called Whare Kawanatanga") then haven't they ceded their right to be involved in Government - and hence isn't The Tribunal's attempts to influence the law invalidated by the very version of the Treaty they demand we accept (over the Original version written in English and then translated (with some difficulty) into Te Reo. And Article Three offers (British) Citizenship and protection under British Law. So honouring the Treaty means we don;t need new citizenship laws.