Section 104 — Immigration Act 2009: New Zealand citizens arriving in New Zealand to be photographed
Text of the provision Official document
104 New Zealand citizens arriving in New Zealand to be photographed (1) Subsection (2) applies to a person who— (a) arrives in New Zealand; and (b) is entering New Zealand as a New Zealand citizen; and (c) presents one of the following types of passport: (i) a New Zealand passport; or (ii) a foreign passport containing an endorsement of a type described in section 384; or (iii) a foreign passport containing a returning resident's visa (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the former Act). (2) The person must allow himself or herself to be photographed to confirm his or her New Zealand citizenship. (3) A photograph taken under subsection (2) (including any electronic record of the photograph) may be compared with— (a) information in the person's passport; or (b) information held by the department of State for the time being responsible for the administration of the Passports Act 1992 ; or (c) if the person does not hold a New Zealand passport, information held by the Department. (4) A photograph taken under subsection (2) must not be retained by the Department if the fact of the person’s New Zealand citizenship is confirmed. (5) A photograph taken under subsection (2) that does not confirm the fact of the person’s New Zealand citizenship may be retained for the purposes of administering this Act. (6) The obligation in subsection (2)— (a) is in addition to any requirements prescribed for the purposes of section 103(1)(e) that may apply; but (b) is subject to any prescribed exemptions made in accordance with section 402(l) . (7) However, the obligation in subsection (2) does not apply if the person, before arriving in New Zealand, has already allowed himself or herself to be photographed in accordance with section 99 .
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →