KEY POINTS:
Civil libertarians have, quite predictably, been up in arms about the revamp of the 1987 Immigration Act tabled in Parliament this week. Green MP Keith Locke summed up their assessment by suggesting Immigration Minister David Cunliffe had weakly granted his officials a wishlist of extended powers. That is far from correct. During the development of the legislation, several provisions were diluted to meet human rights concerns. The outcome is a law that strikes a far better balance in the cause of ensuring this country can quickly and efficiently determine who comes and goes.
Central to the revamp is an overhaul of the regime used to attempt to deport Ahmed Zaoui when he arrived here in 2002 and sought refugee status. That system has proved unworkable in practice, as has a structure clogged up by overstayers. Much of the blame for this is attributable to the existence of four independent immigration and refugee appeal bodies - the Residence Review Board, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, the Removal Review Authority and the Deportation Review Tribunal.
The aim of this approach was to separate out and streamline decision-making but the result was appeals to more than one of the authorities, prompting backlogs. Farcically, overstayers who contested removal orders could spend as long as five years working their way through the four avenues of appeal. It makes sense, therefore, to place deportation appeals in the hands of one body, to be called the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The costs associated with long-running cases should become a thing of the past.
The supporters of Mr Zaoui will be disappointed that one of their main grievances has not been answered. He still does not know the exact nature of the claims against him, even as a security risk certificate issued by the SIS is judicially reviewed. Under the new system, there is no guarantee of change. Immigration officials will still be able to use classified information - of more types and from more sources - to remove unwanted would-be immigrants, who will be entitled to a non-classified summary of the allegations only "where possible". As much as critics will question the fairness of this, it seems a reasonable compromise, given the exigencies associated with security information.
There appears to be sufficient safeguards to meet potential sources of alarm about other aspects of the revamp. These include the tapping of new technology in the collection of biometric information. This will be limited to the taking of photographs of New Zealanders to verify their identity when they return from overseas. Under an overhaul of detention powers, some Customs officials also receive the power to search and detain people without a warrant for 96 hours. That hardly seems excessive when compared with the security measures introduced or contemplated by the likes of Britain and Australia, even if such countries' participation in the war in Iraq provides greater cause for concern about terrorism. The British Government is proposing to double to 56 days the period police can hold terror suspects without charge.
Such steps indicate why it is important for human rights groups to remain vigilant when legislation such as the Immigration Bill surfaces. As much as there is a need for enhanced protection in the post-September 11 world, that should not involve the needless trampling of traditional rights. Some countries appear to be losing sight of this. Here, the present immigration law works the other way, making border security needlessly difficult. This rebalancing is overdue.
