The Government’s planned citizenship test was delayed several times before its public announcement, with newly released documents showing officials initially explored an online model before deciding on an in-person examination over concerns about cheating and test integrity, The New Zealand Herald has reported.
The Department of Internal Affairs documents also show Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden directed officials to introduce a separate fee for each test attempt rather than charging a single fee per applicant.
The citizenship test, announced in May, is expected to be introduced from the second half of 2027 for most people applying for citizenship by grant. Applicants will be required to answer at least 15 out of 20 multiple-choice questions correctly in an in-person examination.
Departmental projections estimate that 85 per cent of applicants will pass the test on their first attempt, with 96 per cent expected to pass eventually, Herald has reported.
Documents show officials originally planned to develop an online testing portal hosted on the Government’s website. However, a January briefing warned van Velden that available monitoring systems did “not provide sufficient assurance to detect and act on adverse test behaviour”.
Officials said discussions with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority found “mixed success” in detecting and confirming cheating during online examinations, Herald has reported.
“Some are starting to move away from these systems because proving subtle behaviours, such as a test taker looking away from the screen, remains difficult even with the technology in place,” the briefing said, as quoted by Herald.
The minister was also advised that an online testing system would raise “significant” privacy and security concerns because it would require the collection and storage of personal and biometric information.
In a statement, van Velden said the Government initially considered an online test because it would have been faster to implement but ultimately decided against it, Herald reported
“An online option would undermine the integrity of the test,” she said.
“I had concerns that it would be too easy to cheat in this format, especially given increasing AI capability.”
She said the decision to proceed with an in-person model required additional time to identify a provider to administer the test.
“An in-person model was ultimately chosen to ensure a robust assessment of applicants’ knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of being a New Zealander, which in turn meant the implementation timeframe was pushed out to find a provider to administer the test. The procurement process is now actively underway.”
The released briefings outline several changes to the proposed implementation timeline.
Officials first briefed van Velden in early August 2025 on citizenship by grant eligibility settings, noting that Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom all have some form of citizenship test. They advised that New Zealand was “the only country without a formal citizenship test” among comparable countries and suggested an assessment could be introduced within the existing legal framework during the current parliamentary term.
Briefings prepared in September and early October 2025 proposed implementation beginning by December 2025. An October 30, 2025 briefing later shifted the planned launch to March 2026.
A November 2025 briefing said officials expected the test to apply to citizenship applications submitted on or after March 23, 2026. Another briefing in January 2026 proposed a commencement date of May 6 but recommended delaying implementation to allow more time to finalise supporting information.
The current implementation date is the second half of 2027. According to current rules, applicants will not have to sit the test if they are under 16 years old; are aged 65 or over; have been granted a waiver for the English language requirement for citizenship
are not of full capacity; have a severe medical condition that would prevent them from completing the test; have unique personal circumstances that would prevent them from completing the test
are a New Zealand citizen by descent applying for citizenship by grant; are applying from overseas but meet the presence requirement — for example, if they live in Niue, the Cook Islands or Tokelau, or are working overseas for the New Zealand government.
According to the Herald report documents also show van Velden directed officials to recover the cost of the test through a fee charged for each attempt, separate from the existing citizenship by grant application fee.
A briefing prepared in late March 2026 recorded the minister’s instruction to establish a “per test attempt fee” and increase the waiting period for a resit from 10 to 30 working days.
In a statement, van Velden said she intends to introduce a separate fee for each attempt, as previously signalled in May.
“A cost per test model incentivises people to study for the test and pass at the first attempt. It also ensures proper cost recovery for providing an in-person test which is fairer than having those who study hard and pass the first time subsidising those who do not,” she said, as quoted by Herald.
She said the 30-working-day waiting period is intended to encourage applicants to prepare thoroughly before retaking the test.
“As part of implementation, the Department will publish guidance and supporting material with the information needed to successfully pass," Herald report quoted.
The documents also reveal feedback from the Ministry of Māori Development, Te Puni Kōkiri, which suggested the proposed test “may not be appropriate” for Māori born overseas. The ministry also questioned whether an online test could be used, although department officials said doing so would make it more difficult to verify applicants’ identities and prevent outside assistance.
Applicants aged over 65 will be exempt from sitting the test. Officials had initially recommended setting the exemption age at 67 to align with a potential future increase to the New Zealand Superannuation age but later concluded that 65 was “more reasonable”.
ISSUE
Leave a Comment