By Natalia Albert*
Our current coalition government is saying two things at once. It's sending mixed signals of the most consequential kind. And it's a problem.
National to India: come, work, study, staff our hospitals, we'll light up the Sky Tower for your Prime Minister.
NZ First to permanent residents (many of them the very people that welcome is courting): we're moving to take away your vote. Nobody has to have coordinated this for it to matter.
It could be a total coincidence, or a strategic stab from one coalition partner to another. What matters is that the outcome is a set of mixed signals landing on the fastest-growing, most diverse population New Zealand has ever had. Signals about who belongs here, and who only gets to work here. Very confusing and the timing of it is hard to ignore.
Kia Ora Modi
On 11 July, a Saturday night, Narendra Modi walked into Spark Arena to a noise Christopher Luxon physically could not talk over. The Prime Minister got to "make some noise for…" and never reached the name, because the arena was on fire. Modi was received in full pomp and ceremony.
This was, by most accounts, the most significant state visit New Zealand has hosted in a generation. It was the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister in four decades. The last one came when Muldoon was in charge. So this is not trivial or inconsequential. This is New Zealand rolling out something close to the full carpet for the leader of what is now the world's most populous country, three months after signing a free trade agreement with it. Great! Modi coming is a huge diplomatic win.
And it was a celebration. For the Indian community in New Zealand now the third-largest ethnic group in the country, behind Pākehā and Māori, having quietly overtaken the Chinese population at the 2023 census, it was a night that said: you are a political force, we see you. Which is lovely. Hold onto that feeling for about ninety seconds.
What happened outside
Outside Spark Arena, more than a hundred protesters gathered, anti-immigration activists among them, chanting "send them back" and holding signs reading "remigration now." And inside, at the official welcome at Government House, only National Party ministers sat at the table for New Zealand. NZ First's leader and Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, whose party had spent months trashing this very trade deal, was conveniently out of the country that weekend.
The timeline that could or could not be a coincidence
27 April 2026: New Zealand signs its free trade agreement with India. Todd McClay and Piyush Goyal, handshakes in New Delhi, the most significant political achievement of Luxon's career. The deal opens up a capped stream of skilled work visas, better post-study work rights for Indian graduates, a working holiday scheme. The whole architecture of come here and contribute.
5 July 2026: Winston Peters, standing in Warkworth, announces that New Zealand First will campaign to strip the vote from anyone who isn't a citizen. Permanent residents’ people who've passed character checks, health checks, often years of temporary visas would lose the franchise they've had since 1975. Voting, he said, should belong to those who've "sworn allegiance." Everyone else can live here, work here, pay tax here. Just not have a say.
10 July 2026: Modi lands in Auckland.
Peters announced his policy five days before the guest of honour arrived.
The claim I'm not making
Let me be clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying NZ First timed this policy to coincide with Modi's arrival, deliberately, as a dog whistle at the fastest-growing migrant community in the country. That's too easy: a villain, with a motive, smoking calendar.
But I don't need that claim. It's the weak one. Whether or not anyone planned this, the effect is the same and the effect is the thing worth wrestling with.
Why is this problematic?
Because of our hyper-diverse growing population. Because it is a real threat to our social cohesion.
Social cohesion isn't a feel-good vibe. It's not whether we all get along at the barbecue or can hold hands and sing kumbaya. It is a complex social phenomenon, and when it's disturbed, violence creeps through the cracks faster than you can comment on this post. National-level social cohesion is paramount: not just for everyone's safety and wellbeing, but as the foundation of any country. And NZ First's direction of travel directly threatens it. And by national level social cohesion, I mean our capacity to coexist with competing and diverse views.
So, think about what these two policies do to a permanent resident, especially one from India, in this case. Message one, from the trade deal and the Sky Tower and the Prime Minister of your birth country being feted at Spark Arena: you matter, you're wanted, you're a force. Message two, from a speech in Warkworth: but you don't get to vote on how any of this is run, and a party in this very government thinks your presence here is a problem to be managed.
So why is NZ First policy a problem for our Indian community specifically?
Because many of them can't just become citizens to keep their vote, even if they wanted to. India doesn't allow dual citizenship; it’s written into their constitution. Take New Zealand citizenship and you surrender your Indian passport outright. No going back, just an "Overseas Citizen of India" card that isn't the real thing. For someone with ageing parents, property, or family still in India, that's a very hard trade-off. It's choosing between two lives. So, NZ First's policy catches people whose birth country makes them choose and punishes them for a barrier they didn't build. If you are not an immigrant or have never ever have to wrestle with deep identity issues, this might seem minor but believe me it is not!
This coalition government is essentially saying it wants your labour, your GST, your nurse's registration, but not your vote. Come do the work. Just don't expect a say in the conditions of the work.
Absolutely not. Every day, no to this!
This is exactly what starts to crack our capacity to coexist across many diverse, sometimes competing views. The kind of disagreement a liberal democracy should be able to handle, just not the way NZ First is going about it. For social cohesion to hold at a national level, people need to believe they belong as influencing members, not as a useful workforce. Strip the vote from permanent residents and you are formally, legally redrawing the line between the people who count and the people who merely contribute. And you're drawing it, whether you mean to or not, right through the middle of the community you just signed a trade deal to bring here while asking those same people to come and work and live here. It's just too much, honestly. WTAF!?
This touches a nerve
So, I still think the policy is xenophobic. I said so last week. What's changed is that I can now see it sitting inside a pattern: the India deal NZ First opposed as "neither free nor fair," the migrant "values statement," the bill to entrench English, and now: citizens-only voting. What I see is a clear and problematic direction of travel.
I also know it touches a nerve because last week's Less Certain ran on my Substack and was reposted on interest.co.nz, and between the two platforms it drew 116 comments: 76 in one place, 40 in the other. I replied to nearly all of them. The views where passionate and all over the show.
What struck me wasn't that people disagreed with me. That's fine and welcomed. It's that they didn't even agree with each other about what the argument was. One crowd said New Zealand is a global outlier and we're just catching up to Australia and the US, who also don't let permanent resident’s vote. Another said the whole framing misses Māori sovereignty and the fact that the citizenship oath is sworn to a foreign monarch. Some wanted to weight votes by tax paid. Some argued about the definition of mass immigration. Some wanted to talk about infrastructure. There was no shared premise. None.
And that's the actual state of play: New Zealand has no settled, agreed answer to the most basic question a democracy can ask: who gets to decide? We just have a lot of people who feel very strongly about their version of the answer, and a government making consequential moves, mixed and contradictory ones, as though they were separate political moves with no real consequences for folks.
So
I don't think NZ First drew up this policy as a targeted strike on the Indian community. But I don't think that matters. What is true is that this government has decided, across a dozen separate decisions that nobody's bothered to connect, that some people are here to contribute but not influence, and some people are here to influence and therefore belong and that you can tell which is which by whether you'll let them vote.
The trade deal moves through Parliament. The voting policy waits for an election. And a few hundred thousand people who got told they mattered on Saturday are left to work out what it means that, five days earlier, a party in the same government told them they didn't.
I don't have a tidy ending for you. I just think that when a country sends two signals this loud in opposite directions, it threatens our capacity to coexist peacefully and that is worth debating, flagging, and noting, at the very least.
*Natalia Albert is a political scientist living in Wellington exploring how to govern divided societies in diverse, liberal democracies, with a focus on New Zealand politics. She writes weekly on her Substack, Less Certain. Albert stood as a TOP candidate in the 2023 election.
55 Comments
NZ in 2026 presents globally as an isolated, backward and largely uneducated country. The place is politically paraylsed, with a race based constitution that locks us permanently to our colonial past. We don't understand, or want to understand the damage MMP has done and is continuing to do to this country. The tragedy is: Its too late, we are stuffed.
I feel the same. Listening to the Hosk tell us that the economy has turned, growth is back and NZ is returning to the good ol days but the reality away from his privileged viewpoint is far from that.
The amount of companies and businesses closing their doors is eyewatering. The company I work for will be closing its doors in the near future with >200 jobs gone, never to return. When I walk down our main street, where long term genuine businesses used to be the shops are empty or are now Vape Stores or $2 Chinese junk shops, it's heart breaking.
Kia ora Bubbles, I agree that Hoskins has a skewed vantage point, and I've also seen companies close doors, especially in Wellington. Sucks so hard to hear of yet another company closing its doors. Thanks for the comment. Nat
Maybe you are correct. Yet NZ is my home, born and bred. I am very proud of being NZ.
Name me one "democratic" soverign nation where all segments of that country would claim that their country has all the settings perfect and everyone is happy?
Has NZ got issues? Sure we do, just like every other country.
Who should decide how NZ should respond to those issues? My opinion is that responsibility lies with the citizens of NZ.
I would love to see voting made compulsory like across the ditch. Cast one's vote however you want, spoil one's voting paper if one wants if one can't arrive at a preference. That is still a vote and will speak meaningfully when the proportion of spoilt votes are reported along side the counting votes. And the message that should send to politicians will speak to their relevance to all citizens. That spoilt vote is still valid. Whereas, under the current system, the disaffected are invisible and will stay that way until they can be made visible by being formally counted.
Kia ora Lou, I too consider NZ home for the rest of my life. I wasn't born and bred here, but I am a citizen and have been here for 15 years building my life, and here is where I'll stay. Your first question is on point: all democracies, especially liberal democracies, are deeply flawed. I also agree about making voting compulsory, though. Hard to understand why this is hard to get consensus for. Where we disagree is citizens are the only ones who could and should decide. I strongly think permanent residents need to and should have a voice. And it's a hill I'll die on. Thanks for the comment, Nat
Thank you Natalia.
I'm more of eating the cake until it's all gone.
What you are suggesting is akin to social members of a, let's say a golf club, being able to fully participate in voting on decisions over the club and the physical course, perhaps even selling it for subdivision. The social members get some benefits from their low cost subscription. Rightly so, the full paying members, paying a higher subscription, and make a commitment to the club and carry responsibility for the club.
Bollocks! Proportional representation has saved us from some of the worst extremist policies of FPP!
I do agree we're stuffed though, because there's no actual choice between parties. They all promote the same growthist neoliberal globalist BS, that's crashing the planets life support systems! They only argue about who gets the proceeds of strip mining the planet!
Agreed.
And Natalia will have done zero reading of the links I gave her last time.
So we have to ask why those who opine, don't research when told they need to?
I stand to be corrected... :)
And Natalia will have done zero reading of the links I gave her last time.
It is bad manners to speak for a women don't you know.
Hi PowerDownKiwi, thanks for the comment. I have gone back to try and find your links but can't find them. Can you resend? However, I have been studying these topics very formaly for 14 years in New Zealand, so Im not sure what qualifictaions you think I shoudl have to be abel to have an opinion? Having said that, always here to seek new opinions and ways of thinking about stuff, Im just not alwasy after agreeimnet. In fact I beliebe politics is about the contest of ideas. Not the agreement of ideas. Nat
Kia ora Bruce, thanks for comment. I do think that the historical legacy of NZ has it stuck in a polarity we can't reconcile as a society. I have written about it at length. One of the articles I wrote about it is here, and here, and here. This one was especially specific about my views on it. But I do feel MMP provides more political flexibility than FPP. However, I also agree that we are in a place of political paralysis. It seems polarized, paranoid, and zero-sum. But that's not because of MMP; it's because voters don't understand how some basic features of our cogent are and therefore don't know what to ask candidates during the campaign, giving candidates very little incentive to do better. For what it's worth. Nat
"Take New Zealand citizenship and you surrender your Indian passport outright."
I don't understand this. Why not just keep the Indian passport? How would the Indian authorities know if one of their citizens has obtained another passport?
India is far from on it's own in not permitting dual citizenship. Just like NZ is one of only 5 countries that permits universal enfranchisement fir legally resident non-citizens.
The issuing of a passport is restricted to citizens by the country of their citizenship. In applying for a passport one has to prove one's identity and eligibility to receive a passport. It is a very important document because it proves your identity in every country. I expect that that if you held a passport for a country that does not permit dual citizenship, the country in which you are applying for a second passport, then you would have to declare you current citizenship status and the authority to which you are applying would be obliged to conform with the policy of the country of current citizenship and your application woul be declined.
Passports and citizenship are not something you can nip into KMart and buy off the shelf.
When I obtained NZ citizenship, after being a permanent resident for a number of years, I was never asked about any other citizenships/passports I may have acquired. Ditto when I applied for my passport
They would have known, otherwise you would have not got a visa in the first place.
My point is I now have two passports, both of which I have used to travel
And you are a citizen of 2 autonomous countries. Many New Zealanders are. And I welcome you if you have become a NZ citizen as the second.
But that's not what you first commented - something along the lines of - just get a passport, how would the Indian authorities know?
Cheers, LouB, and I agree on the enfranchisement point; NZ really is an outlier there. One tweak, though: it doesn't actually work by NZ checking India's rules and declining you. New Zealand allows dual citizenship and hands it over regardless of what your birth country does. It has no obligation to enforce India's policy. The reason you can't hold both is that India strips your citizenship automatically the moment you take another one, under Section 9 of their own Act. Nothing to do with the country you're applying in. Same conclusion as you, opposite plumbing. And you're right that none of this is off the shelf at KMart. Nat
Are you on a crusade Natalia?
It appears you have a cemented in position. And you argue it well.
Rarely, have I experienced that there is only one correct position.
Like turning on the tap is not the only way for me to get a drink of water, it's easiest, but I could dip a glass into the tank.
Maybe that's a bit obscure.
You have triggered some interesting debate, whether you've successfully argued your corner? Time will tell.
Kia ora LouB. I am not on a crusade. I am a political scientist with a point of view. If you consider that a crusade, then maybe I am. There are some topics I feel more strongly about than others, like most of us. I agree with you that there is rarely one correct position, and in fact in politics it's all subjective to our personal vantage points. What I do believe in is having a point of view and aiming to get that point of view to compete in the society I interact with. That, at its core, is what politics is about. It's an exercise in the contest of ideas.
Thanks for the compliment that I have triggered some interesting debate. As a political scientist, I see that as a core part of my mission, and it's why I have been studying it quite formally for 14 years. Maybe that doesn't mean much to most, but it does to me. I'm not here to be proven right, or to accommodate, or to find folks who agree with me. If that were what I wanted, I would not have specialized in politics, which 100% invites criticism and relentless bargaining. That is why we are going through both an anti-politics era and a hyper-politics era, eras where our style seems to be polarized, paranoid, and zero-sum.
I'm just here, every week, trying my best to provide a point of view. For whatever it's worth. Nat
Kia ora, Bulls Hit. It's not about them "finding out." Take another citizenship and, under Section 9 of India's Citizenship Act, you automatically stop being Indian. That's an incredibly hard trade-off for anyone. So "just keep it" isn't a viable loophole. And it collapses the moment you need it: no Indian visa, no OCI, and turning up at the border on a forfeited passport gets you fined and blacklisted. That's the point. The barrier is real, and one New Zealand can support by letting permanent residents vote. Nat
Anecdotal evidence of the rot setting in. I drove through Rosedale, North Auckland yesterday. Once a commercial area powerhouse for Auckland. The amount of For Lease signs were staggering. Even the traffic volume seemed way down for rush hour. It’s school holidays but still..
A perspective Natalia and you are eloquent. I respect you identifying me as describing NZ as an outlier.
I look on the NZ First proposal as a clarifier of the point you note as: very confusing - who belongs and who gets to work here. That applies in all but 5 countries in the world (as I identified and you have omitted to acknowledge. 8n fact NZ us an outlier).
I have no problem with legal permanent residents enjoying the benefits of their tax paying through access to health, education, law and order, regulatory frameworks, social welfare, in fact all the benefits except voting right.
Why, because in my opinion, sovereignty is an important question facing all nations now. And sovereignty is, to me about nationhood, and citizenship is, again to me, the key element defining where I stand and who has my back. If I'm in a foreign country and in a predicament I have resource to NZ consular services.
That immigrants can be excluded from holding dual citizenship (many countries across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe do not permit dual citizenship) I suggest, is irrelevant to this debate. A citizen of whatever nation has personal responsibility to understand the rights and privileges conferred by their citizenship. That their country of citizenship does not confer a right to dual citizenship, absolutely does not impose a responsibility on their country of residence to confer all the rights of citizenship.
In so many other aspects, NZ aligns it's position with other nations. Australia a particular example, yet there is no alignment there when it comes to permanent residency and enfranchisement.
In regard to legislating English as an official language, I cannot understand your opposition to that given te reo maori and sign language have held such status for some time. That legislation simply gives clarity and certainty in my opinion. The legislation did not elevate English above those other 2 languages.
When I consider your position on these 2 aspects of NZ, I conclude that you would prefer to see NZ as a sovereign nation that permits almost unfettered access into and participation in the defining of the laws and policies that shape the particular manifestation of NZ sovereignty for it's citizens, without actually becoming a citizen (for whatever reason) and retaining all the rights and privileges of citizenship in their country of origin should they choose to depart NZ. That, to my way of thinking is having one's cake and eating it too.
The latest two columns seem to me to be rather subjective to the author’s circumstances in that there is an immediate imbalance to any argument if you are not prepared to equally consider the heritage, status and will of the people that has formed the nation in question.
Kia ora Foxglove, yes, I have a stake in this as an immigrant. That doesn't make what I'm saying less valid, or less grounded in a deep understanding of how this issue actually works, politically and institutionally, in NZ. My circumstances are why I care. They aren't why I'm right or wrong. That comes down to the evidence and the institutions involved.
And on the heritage and will of the people who formed the nation: this is such a loaded comment. The assumptions in it are messy and problematic for me. NZ's settled will, through its own Parliament, has been that people who live here and are bound by our laws get a say in them, and it has been that way since 1975. The inclusive franchise is the heritage. NZ First's restriction is the novelty. Nat
There was no suggestion of invalidity in your columns It is a question of balance, and there is within that, a clear perception of bias. With respect, you clearly champion one side, the one of your own experience and circumstances, over that of the other side that you criticise. This is evidenced by the universal push back you have encountered here. This is neither a large nor exclusive site but comment is reasonably measured and mature. I would wager that before the limitation on comment was introduced, you would have received much more aggressive counter argument. You should stop and just consider for a moment why the reception to your position has been so unwelcoming because quite certainly that response will be neither unique nor unpopular generally amongst the people of New Zealand. To consider that consideration of the heritage, status of a population is loaded is odd. Loaded with what exactly. Those elements are simply amongst the fundamentals to be found any nation’s society and to revile against the fact of them is hardly convincing.
Foxglove. Your comment is loaded and semi-threatening, which I find problematic in itself. It’s also not a comment done in good faith.
You’re saying I should change my opinion because of these comments on one platform? You clearly haven’t been following me for the past two years, where I’ve written weekly and had anywhere between 20 and 150 comments on each piece. Debate and pushback are part of being in the politics ring. So this “universal pushback” you talk about is irrelevant.
And no, I won’t be grateful for being spared abuse. That’s a disgusting thing to say. If you don’t like what I write, don’t read it and don’t comment. It’s a free world and there are plenty of other things you can follow. But don’t try to intimidate me or shut me up by waving the volume of comments at me. Or the fact that it could be worst. You can also email the editors and complain formally. Instead of trying to intimidate me.
You don’t know me, because if you did, you’d know I welcome healthy political debate. But what you’ve just said isn’t in good faith, and I won’t keep engaging if you continue in this line. Nat
Some way to go but unlikely that, as a contender, will be beaten for the overreaction of the year.
Hi LouB, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I still strongly disagree with you on sovereignty. Under your logic, anyone not born in the country they live in is shut out from having any say over the government that serves them. In this hyper-globalized, hyper-diverse, hyper-capitalized economy, that's a massive problem, and one I'll argue against hard. The moment you decide you have to be born here to vote, you shut out a growing population who've chosen to spend their lives here. So no, I strongly disagree.
I also don't buy that the dual citizenship argument is irrelevant. It's one of the two main reasons this matters so much. You have the privilege of having been born here and still living here. There are millions of people around the world, and thousands in NZ, who don't have that. Asking them to give up where they're from just to vote here is asking too much.
And yes, this is personal, and it cuts deep for me. But ignore my story and look at the evidence: disenfranchisement is one of the biggest drivers of radicalization we know of. This is about the stability and security of a liberal democracy like NZ. So set my story aside and look at what actually keeps a country like ours stable. Nat
@NatalieAlbert, you’re the only one confused about what ‘mass immigration’ means.
Hi Rampart. Being outnumbered in a comment thread isn't quite the same as being right, but fair enough, let me make the disagreement plain. Fine, NZ is third under OECD measures. What I'm disputing is the framing. My problem is the way the word "mass" is debated. When you define "Mass immigration" by using terms like "swamping" or "up for grabs." That's threat language; it is not evidence or data. NZ runs a capped, selected, points-tested system. You can absolutely argue the cap is set too high; that's a real debate, and I'll have it with you any day. But dressing a managed system in the language of floods and invasions smuggles in a conclusion the numbers don't earn. And I will never agree to that framing. So no, not confused. We just disagree on the framing. Nat
Mass immigration is importing two immigrant voters for every natural birth for at least the past 25 years, as the politicians have done here. Suharto transmigration levels. Why are the politicians doing this without a mandate? If locals wanted a bigger population we would have more babies than our current 25% below replacement level.
Kiwis have a tradition of extended OE's and don't have a sook about the fact they can't vote in the countries they live in. Nor have a say in the conditions of work despite the host country having your labour, your GST, your professional registration.
Thanks for the link Let me be Frank, it makes my point well. Since 1975 everyone ordinarily resident here has voted in general elections, and non-citizens have voted in local body elections since 1926. NZ citizenship as a legal category only dates to 1948. So residential enfranchisement is older than NZ citizenship itself. The inclusive franchise is the tradition here. It's the restriction that's the departure. Nat
Being married to an immigrant and having insight into the community she belongs to, the majority totally identify with their home country first and foremost. Does this apply to all 28% of people resident in NZ who were born overseas? I would imagine logically YES!
You don't leave your culture at the airport gate and never engage again. I wouldn't. What does this mean for NZs own sovereignty? Should China invade Taiwan for instance, where would allegences lay if the war expanded?
Either you are commited or you are not. Giving up your old citizenship is a sign of commitment!
"Either you are commited or you are not. Giving up your old citizenship is a sign of commitment!"
Committed to what?....are you committed to the policies of the current Government?.....do you support everything they say and do?
There is (and never has been) a widespread flag waving national identity in NZ, merely a dominant narrative....and the likes of the US are a timely example of why demanding one is foolish.
No.
Committed to the culture; assimilating rather than ring-fencing and holding the old.
Was very obvious in Aus, 40-50 years ago. Whole suburbs in foreign language - Mascot was all Greek, for instance. One generation on, that changes.
I would suggest that is a function (consequence?) of scale....NZ being a small society has required a greater degree of assimilation by necessity and the propensity for immigrant communities to build enclaves was much less possible (economically) in our smaller economy....that has been a blessing....it may also be changing.
"committed to the policies of the current Government"? Um, governments aren't culture. They're managers of societies resources. And they should never be more than this! Unfortunately they can't resist the urge to become social engineers, instead of attending failing infrastructure and the approaching environmental bottleneck.
At the same time I believe we are a community, not a bunch of disparate individuals that happen to randomly inhabit the same space. Continually adding huge numbers of individuals, greater than can be socially absorbed, is systematically undermining and keeping community off balance. A community lacking cohesion is easily manipulated to fuel the exponential growthist agenda. "There is no such thing as society", only the urgency to grow "the Market". The ultimate goal of "The market" seems to be filling the known universe with neurolinked Musk clones.
"At the same time I believe we are a community,..."
Are we?....I would suggest we are a collective of disparate communities, some of which overlap.
Communties within a 'community'....a society
Things have become more socially fragmented irrespective of culture since 2020. The trend has not been favourable to us since
Im not sure that even that is so....there has always been social fragmentation. Consider the likes of interfaith marriage, the poll tax on people of Chinese origin etc...or even child birth out of wedlock. The fragmentations are different, yes, but no more prevalent.
Our culture (as do all) is ever changing...the cultural norms of our parents and grandparents (and children) are as foreign as the cultural norms of many other societies....indeed it could be argued that with the ease of communication the global cultural norms are increasingly aligning...much to the distress of some.
As far as I am aware, only NZ citizens can be drafted into the military.
Yes, the oath to the crown may seem archaic. But the last time I checked, NZ is not a Republic.
If I was to gain US citizenship, i would have to swear allegiance, or in Australia, or any country where one might apply for citizenship. Just the nuance of who or what allegiance is directed toward changes.
Currently nobody can be drafted into military...that would require a new act , however in the past non citizens have been drafted.
Drafted? Or enlisted? And yes, would require an Act. We are not on a war footing.......yet.
(PS I'm a son of a WW2 veteran).
Required to register for the draft...even if not a citizen.
PS...I am the grandson of a WW1 draftee (into the NZ army)...who was not a NZ citizen.
How was citizenship defined in the WW1 era and prior to turn of century? Only 70 or so years after serious European settlement commenced. And the would have been a heap of ship jumpers during the gold rush. (My great or great great grandmother was enroute to Brisbane but got stranded in Dunedin when the crew disappeared into the diggings - all wotked out well though....the world's got me and a few other rellies as a result. 🤣🤣🤣
Good question...there was no such thing as NZ citizenship until 1949...prior it was member of empire (uk)...however the point remains, we are all subject to the norms of the time.
NZ is a very young country and sadly we appear to be making all the same mistakes of old.
My grandfather was a teenage Irishman (Kerry) who found himself in NZ a few years before WW!
Thanks, one side of my family came from Ennis. Lost 1 son (great uncle) at the Somme, the other returned (I'm named after him).
Kia ora Palmtree. Thanks for the comment. Of course people keep their culture. I have; you say you would; everyone does. Nobody leaves who they are on a government document. But then your argument makes some wild jumps: from your wife's story to all 1.4 million overseas-born New Zealanders putting another country first to China invading Taiwan? No, sorry, that's a messy argument at the best of times.
Cultural attachment and political allegiance are NOT the same thing. I can love being Mexican, feel Mexican, be born in Mexico, and still be deeply committed to NZ, politically, financially, and socially. And let's entertain your China Taiwan analogy for a second. The "whose side would they be on in a war" question is one of the oldest in the book, and history has been rough on the people who used it, from Japanese New Zealanders interned in the 1940s onward. Nat
Ah well, there are some of whom I am aware of in my wifes culture, where even 2nd generation NZers are prepared to travel and contribute to a genocide the mother country is commiting in another, and I see comments on social media threads from "expatriots" spreading propaganda. My wife has taken NZ citizenship and no longer wishes to be associated with her native countries fascist regime.
Even if Chinese living in NZ seek to politically detach from the "mother country", the "mother country" is still interested in them, as is the case with other regimes!
"the police stations were part of a program named Operation Fox Hunt, and were used to harass and coerce individuals wanted by the Chinese government, including dissidents, via threats to their families and themselves, pressuring them to return to China, where they would then be detained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_police_overseas_service_stations"
"Among 29 addresses on the list, spanning multiple continents, is a location on Great South Road in the Auckland suburb of Epsom – within a five-minute drive of both the city’s Chinese consulate and the University of Auckland’s Epsom campus."
https://newsroom.co.nz/2022/12/17/chinese-police-centre-in-nz-tied-to-b…
Anyhow my concern is with the deliberate growth of population to fuel a planet wrecking ideology. An issue you are wholly unwilling to engage with apparently.
How does restricting voting to those with citizenship change any of that?
Well it barely does, but at least it forces a thoughtful commitment to the country they have chosen to reside in! This particular country can "suggest" a voting strategy, no pressure of course, to it's expats to further its own ambitions.
As I've said before, I'm appalled by this massive growth in population. There is no cap on this policy because its a new age religion of exponential economic growthism. 10million-20 million-100 million. Come everyone, bankers and real estate agents need you. We have urban sprawl to die for, now your own country has become uninhabitable because of......humans.
The NZ I knew and loved from decades ago has been sytematically destroyed over the decades of my life. We are now a country floating in sewerage, just like every other overcrowded sh!t hole country around the planet!
Those issues cannot be solved by restricting voting to citizens however....especially when we consider that those responsible are almost certainly citizens.
As I've said, the motivations of voters can and do include the interests of the "mother state"! That is NOT in the interests of NZs independence and sovereignty! Restricting voting to those commited to being exclusively NZers may be feeble, but it's a start. Perhaps Natalia has more than a passing interest in this proposal?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.