KEY POINTS:
Forget about meat pies, copies of Penthouse magazine and missing briefcases. In one swoop - rather than snoop - the Security Intelligence Service has finally discarded a public image somewhere between Maxwell Smart and Enid Blyton's Secret Seven.
Has the SIS backed down in revoking Ahmed Zaoui's classification as a security risk? Obviously. At the same time, however, the agency has displayed refreshing openness, accountability and, above all, common sense and pragmatism.
Mr Zaoui, of course, is the big winner. But not far behind is the Labour Party, which can breathe a huge sigh of relief that the Government will not have to literally prise the Algerian from the grasp of his supporters had it been obliged to deport him, something which would have pitted Cabinet ministers against party rank-and-file.
Those who think Mr Zaoui should have been booted out long ago will sniff the unholy smell of compromise engineered at the highest levels to get the Government off the hook.
The Prime Minister denies any such role. But someone brokered discussions between the Zaoui camp and the SIS which saw both sides reach a face-saving compromise.
However, the decision to withdraw the security risk certificate is a victory not just for compromise, but also for common sense, the application of which is down to the SIS's director, Warren Tucker.
In the post for less than a year, the former head of the even more secretive Government Communications Security Bureau, has brought the SIS into the 21st century.
That process began under his predecessor, Richard Woods. But yesterday's eight-page explanation of Dr Tucker's decision to revoke the certificate first applied by Mr Woods is a huge leap forward in terms of the agency being serious about demonstrating accountability for its actions and thereby building trust with the wider public.
Dr Tucker's report shines light where previously there was murk regarding the claim and counter-claim over whether Mr Zaoui was in fact a terrorist. It offers credible reasons why the SIS initially assessed him as a risk to the country's security.
The report vindicates those who argued Mr Zaoui was not quite the saint his supporters were portraying him as. Its contents explain why most political parties - with the exception of the Greens - were extremely cagey about backing his cause.
That was partly because politicians did not wish to be on the wrong side of majority public opinion which wanted rid of Mr Zaoui. However, the bigger factor was confidential SIS briefings to senior politicians which are understood to have disclosed far more about his past than the public was being told.
Mr Zaoui's supporters will argue yesterday's events add up to a humiliating backdown by the SIS. They will say the agency was left with little choice but to explain itself given the intense public interest.
That is simplistic. If the agency has backed down, Mr Zaoui likewise retreated by recently disclosing compromising information about himself to the SIS which he had previously withheld. He has also made specific assurances as to how he will behave in the future.
However, it is more accurate to say both sides have been pragmatic.
It was in the Government's interests to move in case the security risk classification was upheld by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor.
That would have forced Mr Zaoui's deportation, resulting in a confrontation of Springbok Tour proportions as the state sought to extract him from the human shield which would undoubtedly have been erected around him.
It was similarly in Mr Zaoui's interests to make concessions to avoid deportation. That produced common ground for a compromise.
Ahmed Zaoui: The $3M man
* Dealing with the Ahmed Zaoui case has cost the New Zealand taxpayer millions, MPs estimate.
* Both New Zealand First and the Greens have kept a close eye on the bills incurred while it was determined whether Mr Zaoui posed any threat to this country, and each put the figure at more than $3 million.
* The cost to the Department of Labour alone has been nearly $1 million. Up to July 31 this year, internal legal costs had been $62,102.88, Crown Law Office fees $731,411.69, and Mr Zaoui's legal costs were $122,843.52.
* In 2006 Finance Minister Michael Cullen told Parliament that the cost of the Zaoui case overall had been roughly $2.4 million, including legal aid costs of $483,744, Crown Law costs of $1.273 million, court costs of $250,000 and SIS costs of $357,000.
* In June this year New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown told Parliament the costs of the Zaoui case were spiralling, claiming they could eventually reach $6 million.
