KEY POINTS:
The Prime Minister has an appropriate description for legislation that has played no small part in ensuring the case of Ahmed Zaoui remains unresolved after four years. It is, in her words, "a dog's breakfast". The law relating to security risks will be revised when Mr Zaoui's future is finally decided, but, in the meantime, the Government has announced well-merited changes to other aspects of immigration legislation. In many ways, they will remedy a situation every bit as convoluted as that which has sponsored the Zaoui saga.
The Government's main change to the 1987 Immigration Act, announced yesterday, would replace the four existing independent immigration and refugee appeal bodies with a single tribunal, with a single right of appeal to that authority.
Doubtless, there were good intentions when the Residence Review Board, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, the Removal Review Authority and the Deportation Review Tribunal were established. Each had a single purpose which, presumably, was meant to separate out and streamline decision-making.
In practice, it has been a muddle. The main interest served has been that of the unwanted. Frequently, people have appealed to more than one of the authorities, creating delays and backlogs. In 2004-05, for example, more than a third of the appeals to the Removal Review Authority were by failed refugee status claimants, most of whom had been to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority.
Clearly, it is inefficient for different bodies to be assessing the same cases, particularly when the sharing of knowledge is restricted. New Zealand's new, more sensible and less costly approach, which will be incorporated in legislation to be introduced in April, will put it in line with Britain.
In another change, the Immigration Minister and Associate Immigration Minister will give a significant amount of their work to officialdom. Senior officials will have the power to make exceptions to residence policy, a job now done by the associate minister. A discussion paper last year noted increasing pressure on ministers to intervene in individual cases. This raised questions about the best use of ministerial resources and the danger of routinely creating exceptions, thereby creating de facto immigration policy. If any further push for change were needed, it came from accusations that ministerial powers were being unfairly exercised in favour of applicants supported by the now suspended Mangere MP, Taito Phillip Field.
Whatever the motivation, this is a welcome step from a Government that has been increasingly prone to increase, not diminish, ministerial power. The stricter laws also indicate a strength of purpose. These are not changes that many of the Labour Party's staunchest supporters will favour. As much was indicated by the mixed nature of the submissions on the proposal to move from four separate appeal bodies to one. Likewise, most submitters were keen to ensure ministers retained the power to intervene in residence decisions, thus ensuring exceptional circumstances were covered. Other concerns about privacy and human rights issues led to some amendments.
But there is no doubt that the changes are fully warranted. Unwieldy immigration law has led to well-documented instances of unwanted overstayers clogging the system. As much as there must be safeguards to ensure fairness, there must also be strict laws in the interests of border security. Now, a far better balance is being struck.
