Citizenship as humanitarian relief: the case of Roland Kun
Claudia Geiringer*
(2017) 27 NZULR
Within a twelve-month period in 2016–2017, the broad power conferred on the Minister of Internal
Affairs by s 9(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act 1977 to grant citizenship where, because of exceptional
circumstances, the Minister is satisfied there is a public interest in doing so made headlines on two
occasions. The most recent occasion involved the grant of citizenship to controversial American
billionaire and venture capitalist Peter Thiel.1 This incident drew public attention to the inherently
imprecise character of the “public interest” test that underlies s 9(1)(c), and to the politically
contestable nature of decisions made under it. Public reaction to the incident may well have given
Ministers of the Crown pause for thought about the circumstances in which an exercise of power
under s 9(1)(c) might, or might not, turn out to be politically defensible. But it did not destabilise the
legal test on which that power rests.
From a legal perspective, it is the earlier story – involving the acquisition of New Zealand
citizenship by Nauruan politician Roland Kun (as a result of his, and his family’s political persecution
by the Nauru government) – that is more significant. Media coverage of the grant of citizenship to
Mr Kun tended to focus on the thrilling cloak-and-dagger aspects of his story: the smuggling of a
New Zealand passport into Nauru; and Mr Kun’s covert departure, the morning after the Nauruan
election, while his political opponents had their eyes off the ball.2
But for lawyers, the real significance of the Roland Kun incident lies elsewhere: in the fact
that his case marks a critical shift in administrative interpretations of the legal test underlying s
9(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. Prior to Mr Kun’s case, the Department of Internal Affairs adopted an
interpretation of the public interest test found in s 9(1)(c) that was profoundly hostile to grants of
citizenship based on the humanitarian circumstances of an applicant. As a result of Mr Kun’s
application, this approach was revised and a new approach instituted: one that is receptive, at least
in principle, to the possibility that a public interest may arise directly out of humanitarian
considerations. The statute book remains un-amended, and Mr Kun’s case has never seen the
insides of a courtroom. Yet the law of New Zealand, as understood and applied in practice, has
changed in an important way.
*
Chair in Public Law, Victoria University of Wellington School of Law; Director, New Zealand Centre for Public
Law. Professor Geiringer represented Roland Kun (with assistance from Antoinette Besier) in his application for
citizenship. My gratitude: to Mr Kun and his wife Dr Katy Le Roy for permission to write this article; to Louise
Grey and Carlos Smith Diaz for research assistance; and, for comments on the draft, to Dean Knight, Dr Katy Le
Roy, Sir Geoffrey Palmer (who also gave strategic advice on Mr Kun’s application), and an anonymous
reviewer.
1
See for example Matt Niepert and Francis Cook “Revealed: How Peter Thiel got New Zealand citizenship” The
Herald (online ed, Auckland, 1 February 2017). The grant of citizenship to Mr Thiel had in fact been made six
years earlier, in June 2011.
2
For example “Roland Kun flees Nauru with NZ passport” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 12 July 2016).
1
Electroniccopy
copy available
available at:
Electronic
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094731
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094731