Luxon and Van Velden Confirm New Citizenship Test for Migrants From Late 2026 With 75 Per Cent Pass Mark

Migrants applying for New Zealand citizenship will from late 2026 have to pass a new written test on the country’s laws, rights and democratic institutions, with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden positioning the change as a way to “positively affirm” New Zealand values rather than gatekeep new arrivals.

Under the proposal, applicants will need to score 75 per cent on questions covering the Bill of Rights Act, criminal offences, voting rights, democratic principles and the structure of New Zealand government. The test will be self-funded by applicants and will roll out in the second half of next year, bringing this country into line with citizenship regimes already in place in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Speaking to media, Mr Luxon said the test was about reinforcing the foundations of life in New Zealand rather than catching anyone out. He told RNZ that “it’s probably not a bad thing to remind people that things like freedom of expression, freedom of speech and women having equal rights … to have them positively affirmed is probably a good thing.” The Prime Minister rejected the suggestion that the requirement would deter skilled migrants, saying he did not expect it to harm those already attracted to New Zealand for work and family reasons. He framed the move as broadly aligned with longstanding international practice, telling reporters that “on balance, it’s very similar to what Australia and UK has been doing for years.”

Ms van Velden, who as Internal Affairs Minister will own the rollout, told media the goal was to ensure new citizens understood “the values of democratic freedoms” that make New Zealand “wonderful.” The detailed question bank and study materials are still to be published.

The reaction from immigration practitioners has been notably cool. Auckland-based immigration lawyer Pooja Sundar described the proposal as “a solution without a problem,” telling RNZ she could see no evidence that knowledge of legislative detail makes for better citizens, and questioning whether the three coalition parties could even agree on what those New Zealand values actually were. In comments to the broadcaster Ms Sundar said “the three coalition parties can’t even agree what those values are,” a pointed reference to the public clashes between National, ACT and New Zealand First over Treaty interpretation, the failed Treaty Principles Bill, and the recent fight over scrapping the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Migrant Workers’ Association of Aotearoa president Anu Kaloti was equally sceptical. She told RNZ that “living a decent, peaceful, law abiding life does not require people to be tested,” noting that prospective citizens have already navigated multiple visa applications, English language requirements, character checks, police clearances and health assessments long before they reach the point of seeking citizenship. From the perspective of frontline migrant advocates, layering another exam on top of that pipeline risks penalising older applicants, refugees, and people for whom English is a second language without delivering any measurable improvement in civic life.

The announcement also lands in the context of tightening migration settings under the coalition government. ACT recently unveiled a six-point immigration plan calling for tougher deportation rules and a daily visa surcharge, while the same broader package has included tighter rules around overseas adoption and ongoing review of parent visa settings. Mr Luxon has been keen to present the citizenship test as a values exercise rather than a numbers exercise, but the political optics of bundling it with deportation reforms and rhetoric about social cohesion will not be lost on opposition parties.

A practical question for officials will be how the new regime sits alongside the existing pathway, which already requires applicants to have lived in New Zealand for the better part of five years, to be of good character, and to demonstrate a working knowledge of English. If the test pass rate is set close to the 75 per cent threshold and study materials are clear, the additional friction may be modest. If it is set tighter in practice, or if appeal mechanisms are thin, the test could end up screening out applicants who would otherwise have made perfectly good citizens, particularly older migrants and people from refugee backgrounds.

There is also the question of what the test will actually contain. Australia’s version covers the country’s history, the workings of its parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and a section on values such as respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, equality of opportunity, and freedom of religion and association. Britain’s Life in the United Kingdom test ranges across history, traditions and institutions in a similar way. New Zealand officials have signalled they will draw on both models, although the syllabus will need to do more than mirror them given the country’s distinct constitutional history and the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in everyday legal and political life.

For voters paying attention to where the major parties sit on immigration, citizenship and identity ahead of next year’s election, a clear-eyed look at each party’s platform is more useful than any sound bite. Newswire’s voting tool walks through the parties’ positions on these and other issues so you can see at a glance who actually agrees with you.

Do you think a written citizenship test makes for stronger New Zealanders, or is the existing residence and character regime already enough? Leave a comment below and let us know.