NZ to tighten Citizenship requirements
Mar 28th 2004, 8:36 pm
#1
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 604
NZ to tighten Citizenship requirements
Well, it looks like it may actually happen 
NZ will increase the eligibilty period for NZ Citizenship from three to five years.
Proposed changes also mean that children born in NZ to parents who aren't NZ citizens or permanent residents do not automatically obtain NZ citizenship, and 'removes any advantage to foreign spouses of New Zealand citizens in gaining citizenship' I interpret this as removing the slight advantage that people married to an NZ citizen have so that they too have to wait 5 years before being eligible for citizenship (as the law stands at present, someone married to an NZ Citizen only has to live in NZ for 2 years before being eligible for citizenship)
Changes are being debated by Cabinet this week and then have to be debated by Parliament. So if you are eligible for NZ Citizenship and haven't yet applied for it, I would lodge your application NOW before the law is changed
Russ
From todays NZ Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...toryID=3557537
Passport ban in Government's anti-terror law
29.03.2004
By AUDREY YOUNG
The Government is preparing to give itself the power to decline and even revoke New Zealand passports and citizenship for security reasons as part of the international "war on terror".
The powers proposed in draft legislation have caused an immediate outcry that they threaten civil liberties.
Barely off the drawing board, the bill has been condemned as "McCarthyism" by Green MP Keith Locke and drawn warnings from Government MP Matt Robson of the Progressive Coalition that it carries the potential for "dangerous abuse".
Mr Robson says the bill would unfairly target newcomers to New Zealand and its powers could also extend to New Zealand-born citizens.
"It is a very extreme step to deny the right to travel, which is a guaranteed right under international law," he said.
The bill, which would amend the Citizenship Act 1977 and the Passports Act 1992, also:
* Specifies that children born in New Zealand to parents who do not have permanent residency or citizenship will not automatically gain citizenship.
* Increases from three to five years the time immigrants must spend in New Zealand before being eligible to apply for citizenship.
* Removes any advantage to foreign spouses of New Zealand citizens in gaining citizenship.
* Discounts the time spent in New Zealand on temporary permits, including student visas, as time accrued in naturalisation applications.
The bill is expected to be considered by a Cabinet committee this week.
At present the Internal Affairs Minister, who is responsible for passports and citizenship issues, can "deprive" a person of citizenship if it was obtained by fraudulent means or if a person who is also the citizen of another country acts in a manner deemed contrary to the interests of New Zealand.
The present minister, George Hawkins, would not respond to a request to discuss the bill. Nor would Prime Minister Helen Clark.
But it has won tentative support from Act leader Richard Prebble.
He said that although Act was pro-immigration, there could be good reasons for extending the minimum period of residence from three years to five years before allowing migrants to seek citizenship.
It would give security authorities more time to vet applicants, and it would mean New Zealand was less likely to become a "staging post" for people whose real intention was to settle in Australia.
Concerns expressed two weeks ago by Security Intelligence Service director Richard Woods suggest the bill is likely to be approved by the Cabinet. He said then that applications from 26,000 people seeking citizenship in 2002-2003 had been vetted and three had been declined for security reasons.
The three were a married couple given residency in 1998 and a man granted residency in 2000.
Mr Locke said New Zealanders who had been blase about detained Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui should "wake up to the fact that their human rights are now in the firing line".
"This is a dangerous move back to the McCarthy period when American Governments denied travel documents to people like Charlie Chaplin and Paul Robeson, claiming they were security threats.
"Our present system isn't broke so we don't need to fix it."
These concerns were dismissed last night as those of "cringing, screaming lefties" by National MP Wayne Mapp.
His party is certain to support tougher measures and thus assure the passage of the bill.
Mr Robson said the new measures could be open to abuse.
They could be used simply to prevent foreign Governments being embarrassed - for example, stopping New Zealand citizens who belonged to the Falun Gong movement from travelling to China on a New Zealand passport.
"There are all manner of ways in controlling what people do that someone in the SIS thinks is an embarrassment or a threat.
"I think we are moving into a very dangerous territory of administrative actions that have always been rejected in New Zealand."
Mr Robson said that if there was enough evidence that someone was doing wrong, he or she should be charged.
What was being proposed was "a limbo land for so many people and a dangerous area for abuse".
Passports and the law
* The Government wants new powers to decline and revoke passports on security grounds.
* The effect would be to limit travel freedoms for some New Zealanders.
* Opponents say the changes are open to abuse.
NZ will increase the eligibilty period for NZ Citizenship from three to five years.Proposed changes also mean that children born in NZ to parents who aren't NZ citizens or permanent residents do not automatically obtain NZ citizenship, and 'removes any advantage to foreign spouses of New Zealand citizens in gaining citizenship' I interpret this as removing the slight advantage that people married to an NZ citizen have so that they too have to wait 5 years before being eligible for citizenship (as the law stands at present, someone married to an NZ Citizen only has to live in NZ for 2 years before being eligible for citizenship)
Changes are being debated by Cabinet this week and then have to be debated by Parliament. So if you are eligible for NZ Citizenship and haven't yet applied for it, I would lodge your application NOW before the law is changed
Russ
From todays NZ Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...toryID=3557537
Passport ban in Government's anti-terror law
29.03.2004
By AUDREY YOUNG
The Government is preparing to give itself the power to decline and even revoke New Zealand passports and citizenship for security reasons as part of the international "war on terror".
The powers proposed in draft legislation have caused an immediate outcry that they threaten civil liberties.
Barely off the drawing board, the bill has been condemned as "McCarthyism" by Green MP Keith Locke and drawn warnings from Government MP Matt Robson of the Progressive Coalition that it carries the potential for "dangerous abuse".
Mr Robson says the bill would unfairly target newcomers to New Zealand and its powers could also extend to New Zealand-born citizens.
"It is a very extreme step to deny the right to travel, which is a guaranteed right under international law," he said.
The bill, which would amend the Citizenship Act 1977 and the Passports Act 1992, also:
* Specifies that children born in New Zealand to parents who do not have permanent residency or citizenship will not automatically gain citizenship.
* Increases from three to five years the time immigrants must spend in New Zealand before being eligible to apply for citizenship.
* Removes any advantage to foreign spouses of New Zealand citizens in gaining citizenship.
* Discounts the time spent in New Zealand on temporary permits, including student visas, as time accrued in naturalisation applications.
The bill is expected to be considered by a Cabinet committee this week.
At present the Internal Affairs Minister, who is responsible for passports and citizenship issues, can "deprive" a person of citizenship if it was obtained by fraudulent means or if a person who is also the citizen of another country acts in a manner deemed contrary to the interests of New Zealand.
The present minister, George Hawkins, would not respond to a request to discuss the bill. Nor would Prime Minister Helen Clark.
But it has won tentative support from Act leader Richard Prebble.
He said that although Act was pro-immigration, there could be good reasons for extending the minimum period of residence from three years to five years before allowing migrants to seek citizenship.
It would give security authorities more time to vet applicants, and it would mean New Zealand was less likely to become a "staging post" for people whose real intention was to settle in Australia.
Concerns expressed two weeks ago by Security Intelligence Service director Richard Woods suggest the bill is likely to be approved by the Cabinet. He said then that applications from 26,000 people seeking citizenship in 2002-2003 had been vetted and three had been declined for security reasons.
The three were a married couple given residency in 1998 and a man granted residency in 2000.
Mr Locke said New Zealanders who had been blase about detained Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui should "wake up to the fact that their human rights are now in the firing line".
"This is a dangerous move back to the McCarthy period when American Governments denied travel documents to people like Charlie Chaplin and Paul Robeson, claiming they were security threats.
"Our present system isn't broke so we don't need to fix it."
These concerns were dismissed last night as those of "cringing, screaming lefties" by National MP Wayne Mapp.
His party is certain to support tougher measures and thus assure the passage of the bill.
Mr Robson said the new measures could be open to abuse.
They could be used simply to prevent foreign Governments being embarrassed - for example, stopping New Zealand citizens who belonged to the Falun Gong movement from travelling to China on a New Zealand passport.
"There are all manner of ways in controlling what people do that someone in the SIS thinks is an embarrassment or a threat.
"I think we are moving into a very dangerous territory of administrative actions that have always been rejected in New Zealand."
Mr Robson said that if there was enough evidence that someone was doing wrong, he or she should be charged.
What was being proposed was "a limbo land for so many people and a dangerous area for abuse".
Passports and the law
* The Government wants new powers to decline and revoke passports on security grounds.
* The effect would be to limit travel freedoms for some New Zealanders.
* Opponents say the changes are open to abuse.
Last edited by BritboyNZ; Mar 28th 2004 at 11:17 pm.
Mar 28th 2004, 9:16 pm
#2
Kiwified member
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: New Plymouth, NZ
Posts: 1,647
Buggeration! 
Never mind - if we are here for life I spose 2 years won't make too much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
Never mind - if we are here for life I spose 2 years won't make too much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
Mar 28th 2004, 9:17 pm
#3
Banned
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,094
Originally posted by Pollster
Buggeration!
Buggeration!
Mar 28th 2004, 9:25 pm
#4
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,666
Hmmm..well this is one pom married to a NZ citizen who WON'T be much bothered!!!!!
I gotta say though, this is typical NZ idiotic politics and policies.
They profess to want skilled migrants and an increase in their population of people willing to improve their country, and what do they do???...... make the place an extremely unpopular choice when considering migrating...
I wonder who thought up this gem of an idea...was it Nandos in one of his dope smoking stupors, or Helen in one of her anti pom rages?
I gotta say though, this is typical NZ idiotic politics and policies.
They profess to want skilled migrants and an increase in their population of people willing to improve their country, and what do they do???...... make the place an extremely unpopular choice when considering migrating...
I wonder who thought up this gem of an idea...was it Nandos in one of his dope smoking stupors, or Helen in one of her anti pom rages?
Mar 28th 2004, 9:38 pm
#5
Kiwified member
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: New Plymouth, NZ
Posts: 1,647
Originally posted by podgypossum
Hmmm..well this is one pom married to a NZ citizen who WON'T be much bothered!!!!!
I gotta say though, this is typical NZ idiotic politics and policies.
They profess to want skilled migrants and an increase in their population of people willing to improve their country, and what do they do???...... make the place an extremely unpopular choice when considering migrating...
I wonder who thought up this gem of an idea...was it Nandos in one of his dope smoking stupors, or Helen in one of her anti pom rages?
Hmmm..well this is one pom married to a NZ citizen who WON'T be much bothered!!!!!
I gotta say though, this is typical NZ idiotic politics and policies.
They profess to want skilled migrants and an increase in their population of people willing to improve their country, and what do they do???...... make the place an extremely unpopular choice when considering migrating...
I wonder who thought up this gem of an idea...was it Nandos in one of his dope smoking stupors, or Helen in one of her anti pom rages?
I wondered how long it would take you to post on this thread, PP!
Mar 28th 2004, 9:41 pm
#6
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,666
God..i'm soooooo predictable huh?
I'm glad you are enjoying it there... thats one of the reasons i didnt want to give you my opinions before you left. What i find unappealing is not the same for everyone... hope it all stays good for you
I'm glad you are enjoying it there... thats one of the reasons i didnt want to give you my opinions before you left. What i find unappealing is not the same for everyone... hope it all stays good for you
Mar 29th 2004, 1:57 am
#7
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,613
Re: NZ to tighten Citizenship requirements
Originally posted by BritboyNZ
it would mean New Zealand was less likely to become a "staging post" for people whose real intention was to settle in Australia.
it would mean New Zealand was less likely to become a "staging post" for people whose real intention was to settle in Australia.
