John Armstrong: Clark's Zaoui headache growing by the day

COMMENT


The detention of Algerian asylum-seeker Ahmed Zaoui is turning into a nasty little headache for Helen Clark's Government.

The cumulative impact of embarrassing bungles by the authorities, the most recent surrounding the whereabouts of a missing portion of a videotaped interview with Zaoui, along with the mushrooming of public disquiet beyond the confines of the left is causing some nervousness in the Beehive, although the issue is still deemed a relatively low-level irritant.

For most of the year during which Zaoui has languished in Auckland jails, the Government has been under little pressure because Opposition parties on the right have left the case well alone.

NZ First has restricted its comments to demanding Zaoui's immediate deportation, exploiting allegations he is linked to an Algerian terrorist group, the Islamic Armed Group (GIA), as ammunition for pinging the Government as a soft touch for dubious refugees and immigrants from Third World countries.

For National, the issue is national security.

Presuming the independent watchdog with oversight over the intelligence agencies - the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Justice Laurie Greig - determines the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) was justified in declaring Zaoui a security risk, then National too will expect his removal forthwith.

Likewise Act, although the party harbours reservations about Zaoui's treatment.

Act is giving the SIS the benefit of the doubt on the threat Zaoui poses on the grounds that relevant classified information supplied by foreign intelligence agencies cannot be divulged.

But Act is warning if it subsequently discovers its trust has been breached, then watch out.

Those campaigning on Zaoui's behalf, such as Progressive MP Matt Robson, argue such confidence in the security services is already misplaced because the police, SIS, Customs, Corrections and Immigration have deliberately and systematically violated their own procedures to deny Zaoui his rights.

National's backing for the Government is based on a confidential SIS briefing provided to Bill English when he was Leader of the Opposition, after which he declared the Government was "going down the right path".

But National's support is conditional. If Greig upholds the SIS, but Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel then overrides Greig and frees Zaoui out of concern for his human rights and his safety following deportation, then National will slam Labour for being weak on terrorism.

The Government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

Post-September 11, Labour has made much of its anti-terrorism credentials, beefing up anti-terrorism laws, tightening immigration and customs procedures and deploying troops, warships and aircraft to American-led operations in the Middle East.

The Government's firm view is that this response is what the overwhelming majority of the public expect of it. It believes the public is not perturbed that one individual has been inconvenienced, especially when he is persona non grata in other Western jurisdictions.

All that image-building would dissolve if Zaoui is freed. His release would amount to a major vote of no confidence in the SIS and the police's national bureau of criminal intelligence, which, in a confidential memo, tagged Zaoui as "a senior member of the GIA" on his arrival last December.

However, in the subsequent information vacuum and lack of any public explanation as to exactly why Zaoui is a threat, pressure for his release is snowballing.

While the Government can brush off the likes of Robson and the Greens' Keith Locke, dismay is seeping into the homes of the liberal, Labour-voting middle class.

Luminaries like cartoonist Tom Scott, actor Grant Tilly and former Race Relations Conciliator Gregory Fortuin have entered the debate, worried not solely by Zaoui's plight, but what his treatment says about New Zealand's adherence to international conventions on human rights and torture.

Closer to home, the issue surfaced at last weekend's meeting of the Labour Party's ruling council. And resolutions urging better treatment of Zaoui have been passed by the Council of Trade Unions.

The affair is also straining coalition relations. Robson's advocacy for Zaoui - the MP's latest move is to call in the Ombudsman - prompted one Labour colleague to tell him to cease visiting Zaoui.

The Government is in a cleft stick. Zaoui's detention triggered security provisions in the Immigration Act.

The Government is hostage to that process while Zaoui's file passes through the hands of Justice Greig, the High Court, back to Greig, then to Dalziel and, inevitably, to the Court of Appeal.

The Government is largely a bystander, but the time all this is taking is leaving it frustrated.

That was evident in Dalziel's outburst blaming Zaoui's lawyers for prolonging the process when they are merely exercising their client's rights.

There is also frustration that Zaoui's supporters can fight their case through the media, but the SIS cannot.

To contain the political fallout, the Government has adopted a variety of strategies. First, it has emphasised it cannot interfere in a statutory process. However, distancing itself is difficult given Zaoui's fate is ultimately in Dalziel's hands as the minister with statutory responsibility.

Second, the Government has tried to shift the debate away from Zaoui to one about New Zealand remaining in the international intelligence loop, saying that would be jeopardised by the release of classified material.

Third, the Prime Minister has indicated that once Zaoui's case is resolved, security provisions in the Immigration Act will be reviewed.

Safeguards might be strengthened by requiring the SIS' declaration of a security risk to be validated by the Attorney-General. A review would also examine the extent to which similar overseas jurisdictions make public the reasons why someone constitutes a threat to national security. There is no reason why New Zealand should be less transparent than other countries.

For Zaoui's supporters, however, the flagging of a review is tantamount to admitting the existing system is flawed. Furthermore, they say, a pending review effectively undermines the legitimacy of current procedures.

A review will not save Zaoui.

However, two things are becoming increasingly clear.

The Government is in a sticky position. It is now no longer politically viable to simply whisk Zaoui out of the country without providing adequate justification.

And, regardless of whether that justification stands up to scrutiny, that day is not going to be a happy day in Labour Party history.