KEY POINTS:
For quite some time, it seemed Ahmed Zaoui was an intractable problem. For the best part of five years, the fate of a man regarded as a folk hero by some and a threat to national security by others hung in limbo. A mixture of pride and politicisation led to the digging in of heels on both sides. That period has not proved without purpose, however. Times have changed and tempers have cooled, leading yesterday to the director of the Security Intelligence Service, Warren Tucker, removing the security risk certificate against Mr Zaoui.
The obvious catalyst for this development was the willingness of both camps to strive for compromise. Since Mr Zaoui was picked up by Immigration officials at Auckland Airport in December 2002, his lawyers have won a series of skirmishes, culminating in the granting of refugee status in August 2003, even while the security risk certificate remained under review.
But those successes encouraged them to embroider their position, and to lash out at the Government, claiming, for example, that it was abusing civilian conventions. This was hardly a recipe for settlement. Helpfully, the comments from the Zaoui team have become more temperate, particularly around the four-week hearing into the SIS's security risk assessment, which was held in mid-year.
The SIS, for its part, appeared to regard its analysis of the threat posed by Mr Zaoui as a matter of pride. In its defence, his arrival in Auckland came just 15 months after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Tensions were high. The passage of time and the appointment of Dr Tucker have undoubtedly proved pivotal in persuading the SIS to revisit its position. Even now, however, it is notable that it remains adamant Mr Zaoui was "clearly a risk" when he arrived here in 2002 because he had convictions in France and Belgium for participating in and leading terrorist networks.
Dr Tucker said the length of time that Mr Zaoui had been here had been one of the factors that diluted the rationale underpinning the original issuing of the risk certificate. Mr Zaoui had also been more candid in his disclosures, and new classified information showed his associates in Algeria were involved in terrorism, not Mr Zaoui himself. The deal announced yesterday saw Mr Zaoui accept that the action taken by the SIS in 2002 and since then was justified on the basis of the information which the agency held. If this concession was, in Mr Zaoui's words, necessary "in order to move on", it was also an acknowledgment that the SIS had reason for its action.
Subject only to formal approval from the Minister of Immigration, Mr Zaoui is now free to contribute to New Zealand society. His pledge is to promote inter-faith dialogue and harmony and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims. If it has taken him almost five years to achieve that ambition, and the outcome pursued so vigorously by civil libertarians, that is not a totally bad reflection on this country's security laws. One of the aims of the SIS from the outset was to ensure New Zealand did not succumb to easybeat status for those seeking refugee status. The prolonged nature of the Zaoui case achieved that, however perversely.
It also, of course, pointed to the glaring deficiencies in the Immigration Act's national security provisions, not least the failure to deal quickly with people detained as suspected risks. Legislation now before Parliament will achieve a better balance between border security and human rights, and allow this country to more quickly and efficiently determine who can come and go. Whatever Mr Zaoui's future, that will be his enduring legacy.
