Give us the facts about Thiel

The case of Peter Thiel raises some hard questions. The German-American billionaire and Trump supporter gained citizenship under a special clause which seems to allow the immigration minister to give it to any ‘‘exceptional’’ person he chooses. In this case the argument seems to have been that as a rich investor and charitable donor he would bring special benefits to New Zealand.

Does he? That is rather difficult to tell, partly because we don’t know everything he has done here. In the time before he became a citizen he gave money to the Canterbury earthquake fund. He also invested in a failed bid to launch a second undersea internet cable, and his company has invested in Xero (which hardly now lacks for investors). He has certainly made complimentary remarks about this country. He might well have done far more than all this.

On the face of it, though, this doesn’t necessarily make a good case for granting him citizenship without apparently fulfilling the usual requirement of living for some years in New Zealand. By becoming a citizen, moreover, Thiel was able to buy a valuable piece of land by Lake Wanaka which some say would qualify as a piece of sensitive land under the overseas investment legislation. As a citizen, Thiel was free to buy any land he liked.

This is a troubling part of the case. New Zealand has the fundamental right to protect its taonga, including land. What’s more, it has the right to restrict foreign ownership of land in general. This is a small country and the billionaires of the world could buy and sell it many times over. They could price many locals out of the market and, as John Key once said, turn New Zealanders into tenants in their own country.

So we must be selective about allowing foreigners to buy our land and especially our most precious land.

Similarly, our citizenship should not be simply for sale to the highest bidder. We normally require somebody to show a real commitment to this country before being allowed to become a citizen. Usually this means they must spend 1350 days here during the last five years. It doesn’t seem that Thiel did this.

Nathan Guy, the immigration minister who granted Thiel citizenship, has refused to discuss the matter beyond saying that he accepted his officials’ advice in this case. This refusal to discuss the case properly is a disgrace. Guy might have forgotten the details of the case. So he needs to refresh his memory and then answer to the voters.

Prime Minister Bill English’s response hasn’t been much better. He makes a vague and unspecific defence of the need for flexibility. But this is too general to be of use. Perhaps a politician should have the right to grant residence and maybe even citizenship in exceptional cases that don’t fit the usual rules.

But in that case each decision must be weighed on its merits. We don’t know all the circumstances in this case, and English’’s bland remarks about Thiel’s charitable giving and investment don’t clear away the fog.

We need answers.

Questions remain about how an American billionaire became a Kiwi.