New Zealand Passenger Lists restricted beyond 1925
Until late 2025, digitised images for this collection were available across the full date range. However, all images from 1926-1974 now display variations of “Image unavailable / Image Restricted / We're unable to show this record”.
"New Zealand, Archives New Zealand, Passenger Lists, 1839-1974" https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1609792
I’m seeking clarification regarding the new access restrictions.
What I've confirmed so far:
- These passenger lists remain open access at Archives New Zealand, and
- This restriction was not implemented at the record owner's direction
- There have been no changes to New Zealand law affecting access to these records
- The FamilySearch collection page does not indicate any restriction for records in this date range
Searching the collection doesn't return results after 1925. Previously attached indexed records still appear attached, but images cannot be viewed. Saved links to the images don't send you to the indexed record page. Browsing the collection (e.g. Port → Year → Ship) also results in restricted images.
FamilySearch Support advised:
“Access restrictions are complicated. It could be an error, in which case you should use Feedback or post in Community > Ask a Questions > Search to get those who make these decisions to look at the access.”
So, could someone who makes these decisions please look into this?
Given that Archives New Zealand confirmed to me in writing that these records are open access, I’m trying to understand why images from 1926 would be considered a privacy issue.
Especially considering there are more recent passenger lists from other collections which remain fully available on FamilySearch.
Answers
-
I'm just a casual observer with an interest in the difficult task of navigating confidentiality stuff. I had a look at the Archives New Zealand site, and it is quite clear that
"... All passenger lists held by us [which are up to 1973. AB] have been digitised and are available online through FamilySearch.org ..."
Indeed, that page is written with FS as the approved (by the Data Owner) search mechanism.
@SerraNola - can you send this for review please? Stopping access after 1926 sounds like a 100y confidentiality rule but it has the unfortunate effect of rendering the Data Owner's web page untrue.
4 -
@Louisa933 @Adrian Bruce1 Sending this for review will not help. FamilySearch privacy policies, introduced last fall to protect living individuals, restrict access to parts of this collection. The policies have not been published, but are an effort to protect the privacy of the living. These passenger lists do contain the names of infants and thus it seems the 100 year guideline is being applied. Note that the January to March 1926 film is now open.
3 -
@SerraNola - thanks for that.
One important point then that I'll try to remember is that FamilySearch's own rules may be stricter than those of the Data Owner. A little odd but also perhaps understandable for practical reasons given the number of different rules across the globe.
It is at least good to know that (it sounds like) stuff is being opened dynamically as it moves outside the window.
1 -
But this policy is not consistent; there are many other collections that do not apply a 100 year guideline, e.g.
California, San Diego, Passenger Lists, 1904-1952
Virginia, Alexandria Passenger and Crew Lists of Vessels, 1946-1957
United Kingdom, Outgoing Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 (no images, but contains year of birth and is searchable)
Florida, State Census, 1945What distinguishes New Zealand passenger lists from comparable US or UK collections that remain accessible, despite containing more recent records?
2 -
@Louisa933 No one has claimed the new policies are consistent. I've never seen any rules or guidelines, 100 year or otherwise. Decisions involve circumstances other than just the dates listed on documents and I do not have an explanation for the current conservative approach with the New Zealand Passenger List. It’s possible that situations could change to again allow access, but I don’t have information on that.
3 -
I'll admit I'm sometimes reluctant to ask, "Why is Collection X closed but Collection Y is open?" for fear it may be discovered that Collection Y should also be closed.
4 -
@SerraNola said "… I do not have an explanation for the current conservative approach with the New Zealand Passenger List. …"
Indeed. I can speculate about things like workload and the need for a fallback (these are justifiable viewpoints) - but we are not supposed to speculate and FamilySearch is not good at putting information into a useful position - e.g. on the relevant collection search page. instead, the workload falls on various mods to whom I am grateful.
(As an incidental - there is nothing magical about the 100y limit - in the UK people often think that it's a legal position - it isn't - it's simply the value used in many places and arguably should be increased given the number of centenarians who see their own data in our censuses, which are closed for 100y).
2 -
The April 1926 film is not showing with the indexes as of 24 May 2026. Should this be re-syncing with the records to which they were previously attached?
They still say "Image unavailable" in the record, and "This image is unavailable for online viewing at this time" in the all-images film.
I'm trying to view the list from the Ulimaroa from 5 Apr 1926 in Auckland. Currently the film is only unlocked for March; this appears beyond the 100 year rule.
1 -
It might be a manual resync, with reviewers physically going over things to make sure that items aren't being released inadvertently. In which case, it'll be as fast as the reviewers can do it, but will feel slow.
There is a lot of caution in trying to navigate the world's legal minefield.
1 -
@David Alan Webber said "… There is a lot of caution in trying to navigate the world's legal minefield."
Except that a lot of this cannot be anything to do with legal minefields, at least not in terms of Data Confidentiality. Take the recently lost years on the England & Wales Registration Indexes. Since all those years are on open access on FreeBMD, Ancestry, FindMyPast, etc, there cannot be any legal reasons to remove such access on FS. It must surely be contractual - that's fine by me but I wish FS would trust us with the facts.
3 -
I kind of group "contractual" in with the legal realm. Cross the lines on any day and legal consequences come your way. It's very unfortunate for those trying to find their family lines, but at least we have this organization trying to keep it all possible.
2 -
@David Alan Webber said "I kind of group "contractual" in with the legal realm …" Fair point, but it does illustrate the lack of clarity about what the exact issues are in so many cases.
4 -
Very true, the behind-the-scenes actions that affect us, don't get disclosed, at least not without yet more legal/contractual repercussions.
0
