b. Where a grant of citizenship would avoid a negative impact on the public interest. The guidance stresses that each case will need to be determined on its facts, with all relevant public interest factors being considered. It recognises, however, that in some cases, there might be a public interest in the grant citizenship in order to “remedy unjust circumstances or avoid negative consequences for New Zealand”. The guidance refers specifically in this regard to the potential relevance of “New Zealand’s international obligations and observance of human rights”, noting, by way of example, that: …the test may need to take into account any impact on the unity of the family and the impact on young persons due to New Zealand’s international obligations regarding the rights of the child. As at June 2017, the Department had still not publicly promulgated its revised approach because it was still “exploring how to provide more detailed operational policy about section 9(1)(c) to the public”. However, in August 2017, the Department placed on its website a new operational policy document.73 That document mimics in most respects the internal policy guidance disclosed to the author in June 2017 (for example, by treating positive advantage or benefit as the starting point, but recognising that it may be in the public interest to “remedy unjust circumstances” or “avoid negative consequences for New Zealand”. However, the publicly promulgated document contains one noticeable difference: it does not acknowledge explicitly the relevance of New Zealand’s international obligations, the observance of human rights, or the importance of family unity and the rights of the child. Instead, the document states a non-exhaustive list of factors that may be taken into account by the Minister in determining whether the public interest test is met. Relevantly, the listed factors include: “an applicant’s family circumstances (including whether family members are New Zealand citizens)”; “the reason(s) why the applicant is applying for citizenship”; and “the impact on an applicant if they are not granted New Zealand citizenship”. The omission of any explicit reference in the publicly promulgated document to international obligation may perhaps be ascribed to a desire on behalf of the Department not to invite too plainly applications based on such considerations. But it is clear, in context, that the Department now understands that such considerations are highly relevant to the public interest assessment. 6. Was the Department right to revise its approach? The Helu decision arose in the arguably distinct legislative context of immigration law. It was not binding on the Minister of Internal Affairs in exercising his power under s 9(1)(c). Should his departmental officials have allowed themselves to be convinced that an analogous approach to public interest should guide their own Minister’s powers? The answer to that question is a resounding yes. The narrow approach previously taken to the meaning of “public interest” in s 9(1)(c) was demonstrably flawed, and the Department was, indeed, right to abandon it. This is for a range of interlocking reasons. First, and most importantly, the previous test stated by the Department was both unintelligible and inconsistent with the statutory language. As we have seen, the Department presented applicants for citizenship under s 9(1)(c) with a Catch 22. It required them to demonstrate a nexus between their humanitarian circumstances and a public interest, whilst simultaneously denying that any such nexus was possible. This is contrary to the terms of s 9(1)(c), which expressly contemplate that a public interest may arise “because of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian or other nature relating to the applicant”. The fact that s 9(1)(c) also contemplates the possibility that a public interest may arise from “other” (that is, non-humanitarian) circumstances surely does not permit an approach to s 9(1)(c) that renders the statutory reference to humanitarian circumstances entirely redundant. 73 “New Zealand Citizenship – Operational Policy”, above n 11, 16–18. 15 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094731