Inside the Lives of New Zealand’s Sovereign Citizen Families

A growing movement of sovereign citizens is emerging in New Zealand, challenging conventional views on governance and societal norms. Mike and Jenna, a couple based in a typical Kiwi home, embody this philosophy that rejects mainstream civic institutions. Their lifestyle choices raise questions about the implications of such beliefs in a country where most citizens adhere to established laws.

On a typical Thursday afternoon, their four children arrive home from school, bringing a blend of chaos and warmth to the household. Shoes scatter across the floor while arguments about snacks flare up in the kitchen. “We’re really quite normal,” Mike asserts, though he acknowledges their unconventional beliefs set them apart. The couple has chosen to remain anonymous, reflecting their cautious stance toward the media and authorities.

Mike and Jenna identify as sovereign citizens, a term that encompasses a diverse global movement asserting that laws are not mandatory unless one consents to them. Their interpretation of civic duty allows them to operate outside conventional legal frameworks. For instance, their vehicles are unregistered, and they have not paid property taxes for years. They have represented themselves in court, often disregarding fines imposed by the legal system.

This ideology is not unique to them. Reports indicate that an increasing number of New Zealanders are adopting similar beliefs. According to police, councils, and courts, while the numbers remain relatively small, the growing trend is becoming more pronounced. As Mike puts it, “We’re just living how we believe, and that doesn’t make us dangerous. Weird? Maybe. But not dangerous.”

Consequences of Sovereign Beliefs

Instances of disruption linked to sovereign citizen ideology are already surfacing in New Zealand. In one notable case, a couple in Raglan faced a fine of $20,000 for unauthorized construction, claiming approval from a fictional authority. Another individual, Graham Philip, was charged after sabotaging a power grid, leaving thousands without electricity. His defense cited historical legal documents in a bid to justify his actions.

The broader implications of this movement have drawn the attention of legal scholars. Stephen Young, a law professor at the University of Otago, describes the phenomenon as “pseudo-law,” which distorts legitimate legal instruments to promote a different narrative. He notes that many within this community believe that the state has lost its legitimacy or never had it in the first place.

The roots of this ideology trace back to the United States in the 1990s, where early proponents declared themselves citizens of individual states rather than the federal government. Since then, sovereign beliefs have intertwined with various conspiracy theories, leading some to establish their own courts and appoint self-proclaimed officials. Young explains that the appeal often lies in the practical benefits of avoiding legal obligations, even as he acknowledges that these beliefs can sometimes reflect valid critiques of societal inequalities.

The Cost of Non-Compliance

While sovereign citizens argue that their beliefs are personal choices, the societal costs can be significant. Young points out that when individuals refuse to pay taxes or fines, the financial burden ultimately falls on the community. For example, if a citizen neglects to pay a $3,000 rates bill, it could cost the local council $20,000 to enforce collection, effectively transferring the financial responsibility to taxpayers.

In New Zealand, the impact has largely been bureaucratic, but experts warn that ignoring the movement could lead to more serious consequences. Young cites an incident in Australia involving a sovereign citizen who was involved in a violent confrontation with police, underscoring the potential dangers associated with these beliefs.

Mike and Jenna reject the notion that they have become radicalized. They see their beliefs as a natural extension of longstanding questions about authority and consent. “At some point, I decided, actually, no,” Mike reflects, explaining his decision to challenge societal norms. Jenna echoes this sentiment, asserting, “We’re just saying no, we don’t consent.”

The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic significantly amplified the sovereign citizen movement in New Zealand. Government restrictions, including mask mandates and lockdowns, fueled a growing distrust of authority. For many, the pandemic served as an affirmation of their beliefs about governmental overreach. Mike and Jenna opposed vaccination mandates, viewing them as an infringement on personal freedoms.

Through online forums and communities, individuals with similar doubts have found solidarity and affirmation. One participant articulated a sense of belonging that transcends traditional societal norms, stating, “Yeah, some of them are mad, really bloody mental. But we’re a hell of a lot more inclusive than you guys.”

While some individuals have experienced estrangement from family and friends due to their beliefs, others, like a 78-year-old woman interviewed by the author, find themselves turning away from mainstream society after facing backlash for their views. “If that means I lose people, then so be it,” she asserted, reflecting on her journey away from conformity.

Despite the serious implications of their beliefs, Mike and Jenna maintain a semblance of normalcy in their daily lives. Like many parents, they navigate the challenges of work, family, and community life, even as they grapple with their convictions. At the end of the day, they are simply trying to live for their beliefs while enjoying the chaos of raising a family.

As discussions around sovereignty and authority continue to evolve, the experiences of families like Mike and Jenna serve as a reminder of the complexities surrounding belief systems and their impact on society at large. The conversation surrounding sovereignty in New Zealand is likely to persist, raising important questions about civic responsibility and the nature of authority in modern governance.