Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Zealand nationality law/archive1

New Zealand nationality law

 * Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the history and regulations of New Zealand nationality. This article shows the gradual change in status of New Zealanders from colonial subjects to citizens of an independent sovereign nation. Horserice (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Image review File:Dominion of New Zealand passport.jpg would be copyrighted 100 years from creation per c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/New_Zealand. Other image licensing looks OK. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, changed that out for an image of a passport issued between 1915 to 1922. Horserice (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Taweetham
The article is well-written, neutral and comprehensive. I support it for FA. My comments in comparison with similar articles for Australia (and other commonwealth countries) are:
 * 1) around the discussion on discrimination of non-white or Chinese people around 1900s.  In Australia, it was called White Australia policy and it seems that in this case it was New Zealand head tax.  I believe that the paragraph before "Territorial acquisitions" could be made clearer as a new subsection with main linking to a relevant article. --Taweetham (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) * Awesome, thanks. Added a subsection there and also one for the paragraph above that on the Māori. Horserice (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) ** Done. Thank you. --Taweetham (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oath of Citizenship (New Zealand) (or Oath_of_citizenship) should be linked to/from the article.  Elaborate (if possible) on (presence or absence of) the issue of the references to God/Queen in the oath either directly in the article for nationality law or in the article for the oath. --Taweetham (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) * Added more references to the oath and attempts to change the wording.
 * 6) ** Done. Thank you. --Taweetham (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) "Citizenship ceremony" is mentioned once in the article.  There is no "Citizenship Day" for New Zealand. (or it is just not mentioned in the article.)  Waitangi Day is not mentioned in the article (for citizenship ceremony).  Please confirm that we do not miss anything that should be covered in the article in this aspect. You definitely know the subject the best. --Taweetham (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) * Added the requirement for successful applicants to attend a citizenship ceremony. I'm not sure what I should slip into the article for a Waitangi Day mention. If anyone else has any ideas though, I'd be happy to put it in.
 * 9) ** This fact "Your ceremony is held by your local council. After your New Zealand citizenship is approved, your ceremony will usually take place within 3 to 5 months." https://www.govt.nz/browse/passports-citizenship-and-identity/nz-citizenship/how-to-apply-for-nz-citizenship/citizenship-ceremonies/ may need to be incorporated into the article. --Taweetham (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) *** Okay, I put this into prose. Horserice (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) **** Done. I just added. Please kindly format or change the reference as appropriate. --Taweetham (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 12) ***** Oh whoops, I thought I had added that in the article already. Merged that content into the previous sentence. Horserice (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 13) Apart from the legislation, in Australia, a very useful material that people can research on citizenship and migration laws is Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) on LEGENDcom. A residency calculator, citizenship test/interview information are probably available from a government or a reputable website for free.  Please see if anything to this effect exists for the case of New Zealand and if it is worth mentioning in the article (or external links section). It is possible to mention that these requirements (test/interview) do not exist (or just trivial). This will help make the article more informative and practical. --Taweetham (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 14) * Added external link to government self-check tool at bottom.
 * 15) ** I am not knowledgeable on this. Please see if this should be included.  Citizenship test is a big deal elsewhere and if there is serious discussion about it in New Zealand then it may need to be in the article. "NZ First MP and Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin said she would prefer to give some consideration to a citizenship test, similar to Canada." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/367595/nz-first-members-want-migrants-and-refugees-to-sign-to-core-values --Taweetham (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 16) *** There is a fine line between potential immigration policy and political pandering and I don't know which side of the line the debate that NZ First started falls on. I don't know whether it should be included in the article. Horserice (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 17) **** Done. It is probably not needed in the article. WP:DUE --Taweetham (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 18) To my understanding, all past Referendums in New Zealand are not relevant to the citizenship law.  (Unlike the situation in Australia, 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) was very important to define citizenship of indigenous people.) Having said that, the nationality law is still probably an important aspect of Independence of New Zealand.  It may be useful to mention/link to/from the article Independence of New Zealand. --Taweetham (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 19) * Added a see also link to the independence article. It's included in the lead.
 * 20) ** Done. Thank you. --Taweetham (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 21) Statistics/numerical aspect in the article:  If possible, I wish to see the implication of the nationality law on the population of New Zealand.  This can be either longitudinal or cross-sectional.  An example statement is "In 2016 nearly half (49%) of all Australians were either born overseas or had at least one parent who was born overseas." It may be linked to/from the articles Demographics of New Zealand and Immigration to New Zealand). --Taweetham (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 22) * Added a line on number of overseas-born citizens as of the 2018 census. Horserice (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 23) ** Done. Thank you. --Taweetham (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 24) For Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, please confirm if this is similar to Norfolk_Island.  The residency time can count toward naturalization but it is actually outside Australian migration zone. It is an important and interesting legal point. --Taweetham (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 25) *I believe time in the Realm countries counts towards that requirement, but an applicant needs to hold permanent residence before they are able to apply for citizenship. Since the minimum requirement for PR in the Realm countries is 10 years, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of being granted citizenship; any person qualifying for permanent residence there would also have already met the five-year requirement for NZ citizenship. Horserice (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 26) ** Done. Any technical issues are probably addressed in the residency calculator link or in the articles of Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. I reread the Norfolk_Island article again and found that things have changed since 2016. --Taweetham (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ProcrastinatingReader
I don't really review FAs so take my comments with a grain of salt :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a couple quick notes for now:


 * No worries, thanks for taking the time to review :)

Lead
 * New Zealand was previously a colony of the British Empire and local residents were British subjects. Over the span of the nation's gradual independence from the United Kingdom, subject status became Commonwealth citizenship. - this reads like "British subject" status became Commonwealth citizenship, which I don't think is true (or at least may be a bit of a simplification). The term "British subject" is a bit complicated I think so some rephrasing here could aid with understanding.
 * Answering this with the other question on British subjects below.
 * I'm still not sure about this, especially as it links to the British subject article (which talks about the current meaning of the term and doesn't match up with the usage in the lead). Separately, the way it reads comes across as "New Zealand residents were classed as British subjects, which then became Commonwealth citizenship." I don't know how to describe exactly why, but that just reads wrong IMO. It could just be me, though; another reviewer might be better placed to say whether it's really a problem or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I rephrased it, let me know if that works. Horserice (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

History
 * Any person born in New Zealand (or anywhere within Crown dominions) was a natural-born British subject. Foreign nationals who were not British subjects had limited property rights and could not own land. What about foreign nationals who were either born in the UK (thus British citizens) or foreign nationals who were British subjects but not born in a Crown dominion?
 * Rephrased to clarify status of UK-born subjects. For the second part of your question, presumably you mean foreign nationals who naturalised as British subjects in other parts of the Empire? The following paragraph on imperial vs local naturalisation answers this.


 * Since article notes Until the mid-19th century, it was unclear whether naturalisation regulations in the United Kingdom were applicable elsewhere in the Empire. it may also be helpful context to say that British nationality law was uncodified until 1914, and until then largely worked through common law afaik.
 * Added.


 * British subjects who had already been naturalised in another part of the Empire could apply to be naturalised again in New Zealand without residence requirements. What were the general residence requirements?
 * Rephrased this sentence to remove the reference to residence requirements. There was no specific timeframe according to the legislation, the governor just had to approve a person's application. Presumably, they would have been resident in NZ for some time since travel between anywhere off the islands during this time period was inconvenient to say the least.
 * That works too. Could be worth checking a secondary source to be sure. It's not uncommon for acts to be implemented differently in practice than in law (see sentencing guidelines vs statutory requirements, for example). So a law that says it's up to the governor to approve an application may well be backed with de facto requirements (set by the governor or someone to whom the power is delegated). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I found secondary sourcing supporting the lack of residence requirements and discretionary governor's approval. That should be good? Horserice (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome, let me know if there's anything else I should clean up or if we're all good here. Horserice (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is largely cited to the Act itself. Does any secondary source discuss this at all? Just in case, for example, the application of the law was different to as-worded in the Act.
 * Added more sourcing there.


 * Foreign nationals becoming New Zealand citizens are no longer naturalised, but receive citizenship by grant "citizenship by grant"?
 * Citizenship by grant is the actual term used by the government to refer to naturalisation. I had italicised the different types of obtaining citizenship, but these were removed in GA review.
 * It could be worth introducing "citizenship by grant"; right now a term is being used that isn't introduced or explained to the reader, which (to me at least) seems a bit confusing. Or using formatting to indicate it's just the official term for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I put quotations around it in that spot, but feel free to point out other places where we could clarify the meaning. Horserice (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ... which redefined British subject to no longer also mean Commonwealth citizen. What did it now mean? (if what it now meant isn't relevant to this article, and I suspect it isn't, then perhaps this portion can just be trimmed?)
 * British subject status only in UK law refers to a very limited set of people from Ireland and British India. In the New Zealand context and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, "British subject" became "Commonwealth citizen". Horserice (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if there was more to come, and if not whether you felt able to either support or oppose. Obviously there is no need to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My comments have all been addressed well. Though I'd prefer to avoid taking support/oppose positions here until I'm more confident I understand the FA criteria well enough. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if there's anything I can do to tilt you towards a support. If you still want to avoid taking a position, that's totally fine too. Horserice (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SUPPORT from SusunW
Comment: The fact that nationality is not the same as citizenship should be spelled out. Yes, I get that the British Empire, and thus Commonwealth Nations, tend to use the terms synonymously, but nationality is belonging and governed by international law, whereas citizenship is rights and obligations governed by domestic law. In essence nationality describes the relationship of persons to the nation and citizenship describes their relationship and responsibilities within the nation. Side note: while searching for material on this distinction, I came across this (p. 3, first paragraph of the foreward) from the UNHCR of all places that specifically mentions the current interchangability of the terms "citizenship" and "nationality" in international law. Maybe it's that the "historical position of states" having citizen nationals and non-citizen nationals is just that; a historical distinction not reflected in current meaning or usage.
 * Where do you think it should go in this article? And are you saying that an explanation probably needs to be given in every nationality law article?
 * I typically put it in the lede and yes, IMO it should go in every nationality law article (and we should have an entire series of "Citizenship in Foo" articles), primarily because British influence is huge, lots of people misunderstand the term, and there is a definite legal distinction. Also because we must focus on readers. Conflating the two terms makes it difficult for readers to understand the historical position of many states to have citizen-nationals and non-citizen nationals. In other words, having nationality doesn't automatically entitle you to rights. (By the by I loved your talk page discussion on the confusion.) I am guessing you have sources, based on that discussion.
 * What should we be citing here to introduce this distinction? I can't find any material that specifically mentions the difference between New Zealand nationals and citizens, because functionally there isn't one.
 * Because this is an article on law, we need to look at the legal distinction. Boll pp. xv, 2 and Rosas p 34 indicate nationality is used to refer to the relationship of an individual and a state in international law, whereas citizenship is used to define the relationship under domestic law. Laurie Fransman, who the Home Office has called an expert on British nationality law states, "Citizenship and nationality, as distinct from one another, both involve relationships between the individual and the  state. In the case of citizenship, the relationship is more concerned with the individual within the state; in the case of nationality, it is more concerned with the individual and the state in their international context." (2011, p 4) He goes on to say on page 4 that in Britain, and thus the Commonwealth countries, it is common to use citizenship as a synonym for nationality, "though in statutory law the terms are not interchangeable" and are dealt with by differing administrative bodies. Let me know if you want me to copy and email snippets from Fransman to you.
 * Yeah, if you could send over that bit of Fransman you're referring to, that would help. Horserice (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess this is a related question, but doesn't have anything to do with this article. If there should be a "Citizenship in ___" article for every country that talks about domestic civil and political rights, where would you discuss the rights that non-citizen nationals have? Because that clearly wouldn't go in the citizenship article since they're not citizens. The only appropriate place would be... the nationality law articles.
 * Never really thought about it, but off the top of my head, I would say that depends on whether it is a domestic right in a country (like that owning property thing in New Zealand) or an international right outside of the country that gives the nationality/citizenship, like protected migration or asylum. We can brainstorm about it on your talk page, if you like. I don't see that you have email activated on your user page, but in any case you'd have to send me mail and I'd have to reply to send the scan, so just go to my user page and e-mail me. It's late, I'll do it in the morning, if you send me the mail tonight.SusunW (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This should now be fully addressed in the terminology section.
 * Thanks

Lede:
 * Foreign nationals may be granted citizenship? They are granted nationality. Once they have that, they are entitled to certain rights as citizens.
 * What change would you want here? It doesn't help that NZ literally gives people citizenship by grant.
 * Yes, I get it, but I think it causes confusion for readers to grasp the differences. I'd say "Foreigners may be granted nationality".

Colonial-era policy:
 * "law during this time was uncodified" is confirmed by the source, but the fact that it was based upon common law and precedent is not. Those are confirmed in McMillan & Hood, p 2, or Karatani p. 41 thus add citation.
 * Done.


 * "British subjects who had already been naturalized" source says oath was waved if they had taken it previously.
 * Done.


 * "Additionally, foreign women who married" did they lose their nationality of origin? Were they required to take an oath of allegiance and did that negate their original nationality? (I totally get that there may not be sources but based on my own work on the topic, usually acquisition in this period was without consent and with the consequence of losing their original nationality)
 * Nevermind. Fransman, p 137 says it did not result in loss of other nationality. I don't know if it is worth mentioning that NZ did not adopt the 1870 British Nationality Act (which did require women to lose their original nationality).
 * No action on this?
 * Your call. I would probably put in a note that NZ did not adopt the 1870 British Nationality Law, but it's totally up to you.


 * "assimilate the Māori" link to cultural assimilation
 * Done.


 * "Franchise qualification" Bourassa & Strong state on 234-235 that individual title was required to vote. Perhaps you should clarify that it isn't just owning land, but an individual property qualification? (and fix the citation, which only shows p 233, rather than 233-235.)
 * Done.


 * "Voters of partial Māori descent" source specifies only males. While I note that you stated above women were enfranchised in 1893, the implication is that the system in 1867 was only racially discriminatory, when in fact it also discriminated on the basis of gender. Perhaps: The laws restricted voting, allowing only males to participate. It assigned "[v]oters of partial Māori descent" "to an electorate…"
 * I changed it to "Male voters..." and "Men who were exactly half-Māori..." to express that point without being too verbose.
 * Works for me, thank you.


 * I note that most of the sourcing in "Discriminatory policies against Chinese migrants" is to the acts themselves. Any secondary treatment available? Perhaps, if this is by this George Andrews it is a RS.
 * Added more secondary sourcing.
 * Good.


 * My reading of Tagupa is that 1923 and 1928 did not restrict Samoan status to naturalization, i.e. "… it would be right to say that they deprecate the automatic bestowal of the nationality of the mandatory power upon the inhabitants of the mandated territory," if they were born after its passage. p 23 (You can find more pp=364-365 and pp=367-368 if you sign in to the Wikipedia Library. Basically, in the Lesa case, the court concluded that indeed the law, "[made] British subjects by birth those persons who were born in Western Samoa while the two Acts were successively in force". Brookfield, 367) In spite of the fact, that the mandate prohibited them from extending their nationality to inhabitants of a mandated territory, (Tagupa, p 21) NZ apparently did just that, which might be worth mentioning.
 * Added mention of commission recommendation and tweaked the phrasing a bit on the earlier part. See if that works.
 * Better. Thanks!

Imperial common code:
 * "The Imperial Parliament brought" is cited to primary. Baldwin, p 527 confirms info in a secondary source, which you might want to add to reduce reliance on primary sources.
 * Done.


 * "lost her British nationality through marriage could renaturalise" sounds as if she was naturalized to begin with. Baldwin says only she could naturalize without a residency requirement. The issue was that having stolen her nationality, she now had an option to repatriate, if she naturalized. It's an important distinction because she has to qualify; it's neither automatic nor is there a guarantee that she will regain her nationality, as pointed out by Mercer p 35
 * Changed "renaturalise" to "reacquire that status".
 * Fine.

Changing relationship with Britain:
 * "New Zealand enacted the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 to create its own citizenship" should be nationality requirements. Citizenship is defined in domestic statutes, and as far as I am aware, do not go into effect until a person reaches majority, thus throughout the paragraph, it should probably read nationals and nationality.
 * Then... I would still be describing New Zealand citizens as British nationals here until 1977?
 * No, I would say "New Zealand enacted the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 to create its own nationality requirements." Sorry if I wasn't clear.
 * McMillan & Hood p 3 has a clear statement, which might bring clarity, "a 'nationally'-construed political community", rather than a system of "peoples supposedly united by their loyalty to the same monarch". Perhaps you can just change "to create its own citizenship" to "to create a nationality system binding citizens to the polity" or something similar. It's significant as their relationship is to each other, not to a ruler.
 * That's great and all but doesn't discuss the post-1948 nationality system in those terms. Every source that has been used in this article describes New Zealand nationals only as citizens and does not distinguish between the two concepts. I'm hesitant to change the wording on all of this because the sources cited cannot verify that. If there is no reliable source that discusses all of this explicitly, I feel like we'd be treading in WP:ORIGINAL territory.
 * I am really not trying to make this difficult, but the fact remains that it is. Widespread misuse of the terms has created confusion. Maybe you simply cite this in the lede after the discussion about the difference of the two terms in legal definition with something that says primarily "Since 1948, New Zealand has used citizen and citizenship to describe nationals in their nationality laws". And then throughout the article call them citizens. I think it is more difficult for readers, but I don't have another solution. SusunW (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it's an FAC, you can go ahead and scrutinize away hah. Added line at end of lead.
 * Better and thank you, not just for the change, but for your positive approach to critique. Appreciate your willingness to discuss suggestions. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The entire paragraph indicated above is cited to the Act itself and should possibly be cited to McMillan & Hood, p 6 where you can to avoid reliance on primary sourcing.
 * Last sentence "Cook Islanders, Niueans, Tokelauans", change cite to pp 11-12. Rest of it is good.
 * PENDING
 * Fixed.
 * Fine


 * "The 1948 Act redefined the term British" again is mostly cited to primary sources. Perhaps this, this, or this would assist in providing secondary sources.
 * Thanks for the citations to secondary sourcing. I note that McMillan & Hood, p 6 does not mention "Irish citizens", but Wade p 70 or Thwaites p 9 does. Please add the cite.
 * "Commonwealth and Irish women who were married", as well as the discretionary approval, are discussed on Wade p 72. Please add cite to this sentence and the one following.
 * Ehh, we can find another secondary source for this. Wade and Thwaites are talking about UK and Australian regulations on those pages, not New Zealand requirements.
 * As you have reduced reliance on primary sources I'm fine with you leaving the cite to the law on the Irish bit, as that may not be able to be documented elsewhere for NZ and Ireland.
 * Yeah, I thought there would have been something for this but there's next to no specific mention of the special status of Irish citizens in Commonwealth countries.
 * "Wives of New Zealand citizens who held foreign nationality, as well as their minor children", reads as if the foreign wife's children are automatically New Zealanders. Unless they were the husband's children, they weren't entitled to nationality. I think you mean to say "Foreign wives and children of New Zealanders were allowed to register", which is supported by McMillan & Hood, p 6 "born to a father who had been born or naturalised in New Zealand" and at discretion to Wade p 72.
 * PENDING I see no change to this wording. The minor children bit still needs to be reworded as it is unclear. Dawson, p 203 is specific "under the previous regime [the 1948 law] only male New Zealand citizens were entitled to transmit New Zealand citizenship to their foreign-born children"…"the law denied citizenship by descent to [women's] children born abroad while recognising its application to children born overseas to male New Zealand citizens married to non-New Zealand citizens". To my eye, both McMillan & Hood, p 6 and Dawson clearly state that foreign children cannot derive nationality maternally.
 * Addressed.
 * Good.
 * "All other foreign nationals could acquire" needs a secondary citation.
 * Good


 * I am confused by page numbering associated with McMillan 2015. You cite "Voting rights were extended" to p 103. While that might be the case if the url was to the book, the url is for the chapter excerpt which is numbered 1-27. I do find the information on p 3, but there is no such page as 103.
 * Changed this.
 * Thanks.

Transition to national citizenship:
 * I am not sure about "While there have been formal reviews…the oath remains unchanged". First, citing to the actual oath does not tell us it has or has not changed. But second, the link to the "Oaths Modernisation Bill" says it will change the oath to loyalty to NZ and NZ values, while respecting that those values include loyalty to the Queen.(Main reforms). However, I am unclear as to whether the bill passed or did not pass. At the top it says discharged on 01 June 2010 what does that mean? If failed, that would be your citation for "remains unchaged", but if it means it passed then did in not change in 2010?
 * I cited the Bill specifically because it did not pass and it's meant as a reference in contrast to the existing oath.
 * Except that requires drawing a conclusion. Thus, the statement should be cited to the Oaths Modernisation Bill or better yet to a secondary source that specifically confirms that it did not pass.
 * Good


 * I don’t find a citation for ending birthright citizenship at Sawyer 671. 653 says automatic birthright citizenship ended and 654 says NZ combines jus soli and jus sanguinis, and confirms that was a trend in commonwealth nations.
 * Fixed.
 * Good


 * "Children born in New Zealand" citation is clearly incorrect. 2006 law cannot be confirmed in a 1977 piece of legislation. It is confirmed however, in Sawyer p 653. Fix citation please.
 * The Citizenship Act 1977 as cited is the consolidated law containing all amendments from 1977 until today. Just because the title contains the year doesn't mean that the information in it is all from that year, as in other Commonwealth countries. However, I changed the primary source to the 2005 amending Act to clarify it, in addition to citing Sawyer.
 * Cool.


 * Strongly suggest that you do not cite everything following "In 1982, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council" to the actual case files. Interpreting law is tricky. Above links given for Alison Quentin-Baxter and F. M. Brookfield should provide secondary analysis.
 * Supplemented with secondary sourcing.
 * Thanks


 * "The Cook Islands became", again all sources in this paragraph are primary. Cook Islands is confirmed by McMillan & Hood, p 11; Niue on McMillan & Hood, p 12; Foreign affairs McMillan & Hood, p 11; and retaining NZ nationality McMillan & Hood, pp 11-12
 * Added secondary sourcing.
 * Fine

Acquisition and loss of citizenship:
 * "Nationality regulations apply" citation is to the act itself. Dawson p 201 (linked above) verifies the information that it is throughout NZ territory and says also extended to those born on aircraft or ships registered in the country or belonging to the government. McMillan & Hood p 3 lists all the nations in the "realm".
 * Added.
 * Good


 * "Individuals born within the Realm receive New Zealand citizenship at birth", see comment above, citizenship begins at majority, I’m fairly sure you mean nationality and shouldn't this be qualified as Since 2006, "individuals born…" and cited to Sawyer 653?
 * I get that you're drawing a line between nationality and citizenship on generic terms, totally get that. Not sure how that reads to an ordinary layperson or how to incorporate that distinction correctly into prose when these terms are so conflated in the Anglosphere. It does not help that the government also literally talks about citizenship by birth. Sawyer 653 wouldn't support talking about nationality either because nowhere on that page does she mention the word "nationality".
 * I know, it's insanely difficult. As for governments, they are people and typically not academics or legal scholars, so they also conflate the terms. In the European University Institute's series of "Report on Citizenship Law: Foo", all of the Latin American authors explained that they were told to use citizenship for the project, despite the fact that the topic was nationality and called that in their laws. British academic, Bronwen Manby, who has written extensively on Africa stated that in her early versions of "Citizenship Law in Africa" she used citizenship, but in her later versions opted to use nationality to clarify that the comparison is about belonging and not domestic rights (but she didn't rename the series). ;) As a general rule, if a source uses the words synonymously, the context determines if it is nationality or citizenship being discussed.
 * Does the line added in the lead address this sufficiently?
 * I would still think that in a FA you would explain the terms. Simply adding a link to our articles on nationality and citizenship assumes the reader knows the difference already, which is clearly not the case. It is also using wikilinks as the source for clarification. The 3 sources I gave you above are all legal experts and all concur that the legal connotation is different.
 * See terminology section. Finding a source that I was happy with was tricky. You'll appreciate the extreme difficulty in looking for any source on some details. It took a long time for me to find a source that goes over the distinction in terminology specifically in regard to New Zealand.
 * Terminology section is fine. PENDING I still think you need to precede "Individuals born within the Realm receive New Zealand citizenship at birth" with either "Currently" or "Since 2006".
 * Shuffled wording and sentence order.
 * Much clearer. Thanks.


 * The rest of the section also appears to be cited to the 1977 Act itself. I am fairly sure that by combining McMillan & Hood, Dawson, and Sawyer you can convert most of the citations to secondary sources and I'll be happy to review it again once that has been done.
 * PENDING "Successful applicants aged 14 and older" does not seem to appear in the cited Section 11 of the law. It is confirmed in the source for the next sentence "Citizenship ceremonies"
 * Changed citations.
 * Fine.
 * PENDING "However, these individuals may apply to become citizens by grant after fulfilling the five-year residence and physical presence requirement.[88] Otherwise, they may apply for their children born overseas to receive citizenship by grant, at the discretion of the Minister of Internal Affairs." are both cited to government publications. Dawson p 205 says they may apply for "for the normal grant of citizenship" which covers the five-year residency etc. and on p. 204 confirms ministerial discretion, which confirms the information in a secondary source. Please add citations.
 * Done.
 * Good.

Rights and restrictions:
 * Entire section is referenced to primary sources. However, that being said, I am not sure that a discussion of domestic rights is relative to the topic of Nationality law, as they have nothing to do with how one legally acquires or loses nationality. You may want to consider removing this section and revising it to concern only issues effecting migration, which clearly are the subject of international, rather than domestic law.
 * It seems entirely relevant to me for something to be mentioned about the domestic rights a person would have since you are by definition a New Zealand citizen if you have New Zealand nationality.
 * which clearly are the subject of international, rather than domestic law This seems odd to bring up because a national of a country only has that status because of domestic law.
 * I don't disagree with what you are saying about domestic statutes defining who are both, but this article is about nationality law. Nationality law is defined in domestic statutes but basically identifies to all other international actors "belonging" and what legal protections individuals are afforded anywhere in the world. If I am/live abroad in country Y, I cannot go the the government of Y and have them enforce my right to vote, work, travel, etc. which my country of origin X, grants me as a citizen. I can however, obtain from country Y, basic rights granted by international agreements based upon my nationality in X. Citizenship and domestic rights are a separate topic, i.e. is there discussion of what rights one receives as a citizen in the nationality law? My scan of the NZ statute mentions only the right of non-citizens to hold property, but I could be persuaded if they are delineated.
 * I was going to omit this entire section until I remembered that there's a line about Commonwealth citizenship in the Citizenship Act 1977. To go off of your example, this would be a case of: I live in country Y with nationality of country X. I can go to the government of country Y and have them enforce my right to vote in my country of residence based off of my status from country X. This status is part of domestic legislation in NZ/British/Commonwealth law.
 * If it is part of the NZ nationality statutes then it's your call to leave it in. But, it needs to be documented to secondary sources which explain commonwealth participation and protections.
 * Scratch that, on further thought after elaborating on the terminology section, I removed this again to enforce that distinction.
 * Thanks.


 * Not sure I understand this sentence "New Zealand citizens without residency in the other Realm countries do not have an automatic right to live or work in there". To work where? In New Zealand or in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau? I think from the citations you mean the latter, but the sentence needs to specify. Rather than cite to the acts, McMillan & Hood, p 11 says NZers don't have rights to residency in Cook Islands and this also notes they don't have residency rights in Niue or Tokelau. (Also has some interesting notes on parts of the 1977 law which are still in play in these places that are no longer valid in NZ itself).
 * Moot after section removal.
 * Agreed.


 * Australia section, New Zealanders in Australia: A Quick Guide, is not as far as I can tell a publication of Parliament. Looks to me as if independent researchers rather than parliamentarians compiled the report, i.e. by Susan Love and Michael Klapdor published in Research Paper Series, vol 2019-2020, issn=2203-5249, which is produced by the Parliamentary Library in Canberra? It confirms the information in the rest of the paragraph and were it me, I'd cite to it rather than to the government travel advisory notice which has no author and is definitely a government publication.
 * Changed citations to refer to this paper.
 * Fine


 * I am confused as to what Australian's holding dual nationality have to do with New Zealand? Are they barred from holding office in New Zealand? That would be relevant, but the fact that they cannot hold office in Australia does not seem to be pertinent to New Zealand nationality. I would delete this paragraph unless dual nationality impacts them in New Zealand.
 * Comment: I note that while you discussed dual nationality about Australia, there is no section dealing with New Zealand’s policy on the issue. I would expect to find both it and a section on "Loss of Nationality", as it is defined in NZ law in a comprehensive article on nationality law. (Loss is covered in McMillan & Hood, pp 16-17)
 * It's at the bottom of "Acquisition and loss of citizenship".
 * Sorry, I missed it. Cited to the Act. Please cite to secondary sources.
 * Good.


 * UK section, again I would not put domestic rights in an article about international law. Are there pertinent migration issues, i.e. visas, lack of visas, residency waivers etc. that should be included?
 * Moot after section removal.
 * Agreed.

That's it for me. Thank you so much for your work on the article. Happy to discuss any of the points or clarify my thoughts if it isn't clear. Overall, really well written and I appreciate that it is difficult to find sources. I was so happy to discover that we have access to the HeinOnline collections through the WP Library. The access makes finding secondary sourcing much simpler. SusunW (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for taking the time. Making my way through all these points but not done yet. Horserice (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I know I probably evaluated it more stringently because of my own work on the topic. I appreciate that you grasp my desire to make the subject clearer to the reader and I appreciate your skill with succinctness. Thank you for your patience with me. As I said, it's a tough topic, rather you take your time and we get it as accurate as we can. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the delays . We had no power at all for 23 hours and for the last two days it has been on again, off again. Hopefully, it will stabilize. I think I have responded to what you have updated so far, but if I missed something, let me know. SusunW (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Horserice, it has been three weeks since SusunW's comments. Where are you with responding to them? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost all of them have been addressed, except for what to do with the part about civil and political rights. I'm not sure about ripping that part out since nationality and citizenship are so intertwined in this context, maybe you or someone else could chime in on that comment specifically. I will address every comment this week, had a few problems with power (something something Ida). Horserice (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still seeing sections cited to the laws themselves, which is a primary reference. Our guidelines only allow limited use of primary sources and require that the article be based upon secondary source materials, using other experts to analyze and interpret the material presented. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't believe I've offered any legal analysis of the Acts referenced in this article and I find the scrutiny on remaining primary sourcing to be quite unnecessary, I've removed most of them where possible. Horserice (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have cleared almost all of the remaining items. The few that are left, because it is difficult to spot in the walls of text, I have marked PENDING. My personal views on primary sourcing and WP policy differ somewhat, but the fact remains that the policy allows only limited citation, specifically stating about proclamations that secondary analysis of its "meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth" is required. I am prepared to support if you can clear up the remaining five outstanding items. I appreciate your work on the article and reduction of the reliance on primary sources. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Addressed pending items. Thanks for running through the whole thing. Horserice (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your really hard work on this. It's truly a tough topic. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Note to coordinators
I have completed a spot-check of sourcing (well in truth, I reviewed every source that was open access). SusunW (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.
 * Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - for example, the specific date of royal assent
 * Added citations to infobox. Citations for date of assent and administering department are to the whole Act because this information is listed at the top of the Act without a corresponding section number.


 * I see that the article relies heavily on primary/non-independent sourcing - can you speak to your approach to this?
 * The areas in which I use primary sourcing the most are where I'm just paraphrasing regulations defining who is/isn't a New Zealand citizen. Thought it was best to refer to the direct source for those portions of the article. I'm going through and adding secondary sourcing in addition to all of the primary source citations. Having both should be fine.
 * Primary sourcing has been almost completely removed where possible. Anything else stand out to you? Horserice (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in what types of refs include location
 * The two refs I added location for were ones where it needed to be made clear which country those government departments were associated with. Are you saying I should add location on all refs even if the country name is included with the publisher name?


 * FN131 is missing authors
 * Fixed.


 * FN135: formatting doesn't match similar refs
 * Fixed.


 * FN138: date doesn't match source. Ditto FN141, check for others
 * Fixed.


 * Is there a reason not to use citation templates for legislation?
 * Citing NZ legislation generally follows UK practice, omitting the Act number and date. An NZ law citation template doesn't exist right now, so I tried to keep it aesthetically similar to the UK citations manually.


 * Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
 * Fixed.


 * Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added publishers.

- Addressed all source review comments in this section for now. Horserice (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A few minor remaining formatting issues. FN71 is missing accessdate, FN82 should use pp., and some entries in Sources use retrieval dates while others don't without a clear reason(?). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed FN71 and FN82. Removed retrieval dates for anything that doesn't have a permalink or ISBN. Horserice (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Er... it appears that most sources that have permalinks or ISBNs do not have retrieval dates, although some do. Could you clarify what you are wanting to include retrieval dates for? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh okay are you referring to these two? 1) Moloughney/Stenhouse 1999 and 2) Wilson 1966. These have a PMID/OCLC number that don't link to actual content like the other permanent identifiers used, so there are fallback urls included with archived versions. Since the url parameter was used, I included access-date for these. Horserice (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so just to clarify: it's not whether there are permanent identifiers or not, but whether or not those identifiers provide the full text? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I suppose that's right. Sorry for lack of clarity before. Horserice (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. That's fine then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Horserice (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * The lead should give the title, date and brief summary of the law now in force, as specified in the infobox. It is confusing that the infobox gives details not referred to in the lead. This would also be helpful as the lead is currently rather short.
 * Added more info in lead.
 * The lead is still very short and gives the title of the main act, where it applies and history. It also needs a summary of the law. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Added another paragraph.


 * The lead normally gives an unreferenced summary of the referenced text. You have kept this for the first two paragraphs and should also for the third one.
 * The third paragraph was added only in response to comments earlier in this FAC. There's not really a good place to place this content in the body. Since the usual lack of references in the lead is not an absolute rule, I figured it was fine to leave this as is. Open to hearing how you'd fit that in though.
 * "Although citizenship and nationality have distinct legal meanings" I see that you have moved this to a one line section on terminology. Where are the distinct legal meanings explained? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See expanded terminology section.


 * "Those naturalising in colonies were said to have gone through local naturalisation and were given subject status valid only within the relevant territory". What were the differences in rights conferred by imperial or local naturalization?
 * Only that locally naturalised subjects were only recognised as subjects in that territory, while imperially naturalised subjects were recognised as British subjects anywhere in the Empire. There was no other difference.


 * "this special representation was later made permanent" When?
 * Added year.


 * "Chinese residents were then completely prohibited from naturalising as British subjects from 1908 to 1952." I would delete "then". It is unclear when combined with a date range.
 * Replaced with "subsequently".


 * "they continued to be British subjects under New Zealand". What does "under" mean here?
 * Under New Zealand administration, which is mentioned immediately before.
 * Then you should say so. "under New Zealand" does not make sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay.


 * "New Zealand adopted most of this law in 1923," What provisions?
 * I specified the parts adopted.


 * The passport image comes out black on my computer with no coat of arms.
 * Second this. I believe that it is not a technical problem but the best picture we have (on Wikimedia commons) is a faded passport. I had a look at the commons category and did not find a better one. If possible, please find a better photo for Wikimedia commons. --Taweetham (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have the means of finding an alternate photo of a passport that meets copyright requirements. Would have to find a better image of a passport that was issued over 100 years ago. Difficult is probably understating it.
 * I think that the image should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine.


 * "New Zealand and Australia amended their laws in 1935 and 1936 to allow women denaturalised by marriage to retain their rights as British subjects". What was the difference between naturalized people and British subjects?
 * Naturalised people became British subjects. You're asking what the difference is between British subjects and British subjects?


 * "Renunciation may be denied if the applicant currently lives in New Zealand or the country is at war." At war with New Zealand or at war with any country?
 * If New Zealand is at war with any country.
 * You should explain this. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Added.


 * "may purchase real estate without restrictions,[138] eligible for enlistment". are eligible?
 * Done.


 * "do not have an automatic right to live or work in there." I would delete "in" - it sounds wrong.
 * Done.


 * My main concern is a lack of detail about the rights conferred by the various statuses, citizens, citizens by descent, citizens by grant, subjects etc (unless I have missed them). I suggest either having a separate definitions section or adding explanations the first time each term is mentioned. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is virtually no difference in rights conferred by these different methods. The only thing that needed to be covered is already stated in this line: "Individuals who are already New Zealand citizens by descent may choose to become citizens by grant after fulfilling the residence requirement to gain the ability to automatically pass citizenship to their children born abroad." Horserice (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is virtually no difference in rights should be spelled out specifically. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The rights section was removed as a result of discussion above, that content will go out to another article. Explicitly called out a lack of differentiation between the types of citizenship in the acquisition section. Does this address your concern? Horserice (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been waiting for to give her verdict before looking at it again. Is the article now passed on sourcing? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As a coordinator, it looks that way to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Dudley, it may be the case that has now finished. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

 * More than five weeks in and this still has just the one support. This does not seem to indicate that a consensus to promote is not forming. I note that extensive comments by a subject expert have not resulted in a support and nor have comments by a highly experienced reviewer (Dudley}. In particular I note the suggestion that some of the article is sourced to primary sources. I have not examined this, but you are no doubt aware that with very limited exceptions, FACs need to be sourced to high quality reliable secondary sources. Given this, unless there is significant movement towards a consensus to promote by the six week mark, I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)