Editorial: Government in flustered rush to judge

When faced with disconcerting questions from publicity-savvy politicians like Winston Peters, the Government is apt, increasingly, to reach for the scattergun. Instantly, wrath and recrimination rain down upon all and sundry who are, or may be, the source of its embarrassment. Such has, again, been the case following the revelation that two members of Saddam Hussein's regime are living in New Zealand.

There is no doubt that the two men - retired diplomat Zohair Mohammad al-Omar and former cabinet minister Amer Mahdi al-Khashali - should not have been allowed entry to this country. Or that serious questions need to be asked about the immigration services at the New Zealand Embassy in Bangkok, which issued them visitor visas. But there is much to suggest that a more considered, and more focused, analysis might have occasioned a somewhat different response.

The Minister of Immigration announced immediately that overseas processing of "high-risk" visa applications had been frozen. A special team will be set up here to process these applications. It was, said Paul Swain, impossible to retain confidence in the workings of the Bangkok embassy. Implicit in this was criticism of the Thai nationals who process visa applications there. It did not take others long to point to the Bangkok post's chequered history, and to suggest that Thai nationals could not possibly have New Zealand's best interests at heart.

Yet it is apparent that even if that is a problem, it is far from the only one. Al-Omar entered New Zealand in the middle of last year, and subsequently applied for permanent residency. His file, including visa renewals, was handled by Immigration Service staff in this country. Clearly, they found nothing untoward. Local staff, as much as the slighted Thai nationals, would have been a suitable subject for Mr Swain's anger - and for further investigation.

Al-Omar, the former ambassador, has also, to a degree, been a victim of the Government's approach. When, in Mr Peters' parlance, he proved to be the rabbit, not the wolf, he might have considered that Mr Swain would reassess the decision to revoke his visa. His discovery had been, effectively, a sidelight of the Immigration Service's investigation, and he had declared his past when he and his wife entered New Zealand. According to his son, he had also presented a police clearance from the present Iraqi Government.

As it happens, the decision to order Al-Omar to leave the country remains the correct one. It is no defence to say that he was a career diplomat who had served not only Saddam but the preceding Iraqi regime. He chose to represent the brutal despot, most recently in South Africa at the time of the Second Gulf War. His utterances leave no doubt about the undesirability of his presence here. It seems apparent, however, that the Government, in its state of acute embarrassment, gave not a second thought to a reappraisal.

The debacle is, of course, a resounding triumph for Mr Peters. His initial probing has led to the netting of not one but two members of Saddam's regime. Now, he is clearly intent on drawing more political capital. Two or three other people who pose a threat are, he suggests, living in New Zealand.

If such is the case, and Mr Peters has evidence that they pose a risk to security, he must stop trying to score political points and make this information available to the Immigration Service. His duty is to New Zealand, not New Zealand First. This country's international reputation has already been dented. It would be damaged further by drawn-out revelations about other undesirables who have slipped through the immigration net.

It is easy to understand the Government's dismay at the turn of events. Calamity has been heaped upon catastrophe. But that cannot excuse a response that was unsystematic and, in some respects, unfair. Good government is never about a rush to judgment.