Protection Tribunal.13 This approach recognises that individualised humanitarian predicament, while not determinative of a public interest, may well be relevant to it. This is not because the private interests of an individual are, themselves, at stake in a public interest assessment. Rather, it is because the community has an interest in ensuring the fair treatment of the individuals that constitute it. In Part 6, I argue that the Department’s new approach is correct. I suggest: firstly, that the new approach is more consistent with the statutory language; secondly, that there is no proper basis on which to distinguish the Helu case on the relevant point; thirdly, that support for the Helu approach to public interest can be found elsewhere in the statute book; fourthly, that the Helu approach is consistent with the limited academic commentary available on s 9(1)(c); and finally, that the earlier (narrow) approach is not necessary to preserve the undoubted legislative policy that grants of citizenship under s 9(1)(c) should be rare and exceptional. Part 7 expands on this latter point and, more generally, explores the significance of the Department’s new approach for prospective applicants for New Zealand citizenship. I set out a number of reasons why we should expect that grants of citizenship under s 9(1)(c) – certainly in humanitarian cases – will continue to be rare. Nevertheless, I suggest that the Roland Kun case has prised open a cranny through which at least some prospective applicants will be able to slip. It is now clear that, if a grant of citizenship will assist in resolving an applicant’s exceptional humanitarian circumstances, it is open to the Minster to make such a grant. In deciding whether to do so, any public interest arising from the applicant’s exceptional circumstances will form the starting point. But it will remain with the Minister to form a view of where the community’s interests ultimately reside. 1. The Political Persecution of the Kun Family The background circumstances that gave rise to Mr Kun’s application for citizenship – interlaced, as they are, with the intricate political situation in Nauru – are somewhat complex. For the purposes of this article, the following brief summary will suffice.14 Mr Kun was a Nauruan politician and, until June 2013, Cabinet Minister. In that month, following a general election, Mr Kun found himself in opposition, and with powerful political opponents now in control in Nauru. In the months that followed, he and his family became the victims of political persecution by the incoming government. The deterioration of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Nauru since June 2013 has been the subject of attention in the international media, from human rights watchdogs such as Amnesty International, and from a number of groups of lawyers.15 Suffice to note here that it has 13 Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2015] NZSC 28, [2016] 1 NZLR 298. In addition to publicly accessible documents such as media reports, this summary draws on the supporting documents attached to Mr Kun’s application for citizenship, which included extensive references from persons of high standing within the New Zealand, Australian, and Pacific communities. I am grateful to Mr Kun for his permission to rely on these documents. For privacy reasons, I have limited discussion of his personal circumstances to what is strictly necessary to give context to the legal analysis. 15 See for example Open letter from 29 legal scholars to Hon Murray McCully (Minister of Foreign Affairs) regarding the situation in Nauru (July 2015) <img.scoop.co.nz>; “Nauru: Weakening Human Rights Protections and the Rule of Law: Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review” (November 2015) Amnesty International <www.amnesty.org>; “NZ suspends Nauru justice funding” Radio New Zealand (online ed, New Zealand, 3 September 2015); “Nauru: crisis for rule of law deepens” (31 March 2014) International Commission of Jurists <www.icj.org>. 14 4 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094731