First the circumstances of the applicant (whether humanitarian or otherwise) must still be “exceptional”. As we have seen, this imposes a high threshold.92 Thus, in their advice and recommendation to the Minister on Mr Kun’s case, Department of Internal Affairs’ officials noted the risk that a grant of citizenship to Mr Kun might open the floodgates to similar applications, but concluded that the risk was: “minor given the exceptional facts of this case … which are likely to be able to distinguish this matter from others”. Secondly, as we have also seen, the Minister cannot exercise his power under s 9(1)(c) unless he is satisfied that a grant of citizenship will be positively in the public interest. The starting point for that assessment is the nexus requirement, which demands a public interest that arises, at least in part, out of the applicant’s humanitarian circumstances. Where the requirement of “exceptionality” has been met, some degree of associated public interest may not be hard to establish. After all, Helu recognised a general public interest in avoiding outcomes that are unjust or unduly harsh, as well as specific public interests relating to the protection of children and families. And the Department’s new guidelines recognise that a positive public interest may arise from a need to remedy unjust circumstances or avoid negative consequences.93 But this, to be clear, is no more than a starting point. On the one hand, the various public interests associated with averting human suffering (as recognised in Helu and elsewhere)94 may be implicated more or less depending on the circumstances. The extent that they are implicated will depend on the degree and nature of human suffering that is involved.95 On the other hand, as I have suggested above, an evaluation of the public interest necessarily invites a broad polycentric assessment of all the circumstances that affect the community’s interests. The Minister is thus entitled to weigh any other matters of public interest that are at stake in the particular case. As the new guidelines state, “all relevant public interest factors” will be considered.96 For example, the Citizenship Act stipulates that, in exercising his or her power under s 9(1)(c), the Minister may have regard to the criteria in s 8 governing “citizenship by grant”.97 It will be remembered that the s 8 criteria relate to matters such as the fact and duration of past residence, the character of the applicant, and the intention to reside in New Zealand.98 The statutory incorporation of the s 8 criteria as permissible considerations in an assessment of the public interest surely amounts to legislative acknowledgement that, in the ordinary run of cases, these criteria themselves embody what the public interest requires. The s 8 criteria would seem to reflect underlying public interests in, for example, citizenship generally only being granted to those who have demonstrated a sufficient (past and future) connection to New Zealand, and citizenship only 92 Above nn 43–44 and associated text. “Policy: Grant of citizenship by reason of exceptional circumstances and public interest”, above n 72; “New Zealand Citizenship – Operational Policy”, above n 11. 94 See, eg, above nn 75–80 and associated text, discussing various associated public interests in the context of the Evidence Act 2006. 95 See Helu, above n 13, at [166]–[177], [197] per McGrath J. See also Helu, above n 13, at [210] per Glazebrook J. 96 “Policy: Grant of citizenship by reason of exceptional circumstances and public interest”, above n 72; “New Zealand Citizenship – Operational Policy”, above n 11, at 18. 97 Section 9(2). As well, the Minister must have regard to the requirements of the Act with regard to disqualifying convictions. 98 Some of these factors are reflected in the non-exhaustive list of relevant considerations set out in the new policy guideline on s 9(1)(c): “New Zealand Citizenship – Operational Policy”, above n 11, at 17–18. The list includes: whether the applicant has held residency for the required length of time; the amount of time the applicant has lived in New Zealand with residency, the connection an applicant has with New Zealand and their on-going commitment to live in the country. 93 19 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094731