A Weekly Report from the Keyboard of Murray McCully MP for East Coast Bays

The Zaoui Case

Yesterday’s decision by SIS Director Dr Tucker to lift the security risk certificate issued against Algerian refugee-status claimant Ahmed Zaoui has been greeted with predictable sanctimony by the nation’s leftie/civil liberties brigade. Some have attempted the anatomically challenging feat of simultaneous chest-beating and hand-wringing. They choose to ignore the inconvenient facts that New Zealand has very good reason to be choosy as to who it allows to pass it’s border, and that the New Zealand authorities had very good reason to apprehend Mr Zaoui as he entered this country.

What is clear is that Zaoui had some associates during his time in Europe, over ten years ago, that were at the very dodgiest end of the scale. What was not clear was the extent to which authorities could pin on him responsibility for some of the specific terrorist activities emanating from that circle. The fact that Zaoui was far from free and frank in responding to questions about these events led authorities here to assume the worst.

Yesterday’s announcements make it clear that Zaoui quite recently decided on a major shift in approach. Dr Tucker’s statement refers to “Mr Zaoui being more candid in his disclosures. In responding to SIS concerns Mr Zaoui has offered new information he had not previously disclosed, even to the authorities that decided his refugee status. This included information that could be prejudicial to him. Mr Zaoui has also willingly responded to questions asked of him by the NZSIS since the hearing process. Some of this new information cannot be disclosed publicly because Mr Zaoui is concerned it might affect his ability to return safely to Algeria in the future.”

The formal decision of Dr Tucker states that Zaoui has been “more open about his links with others that could have led to adverse security assessments in the past.” The decision refers to the fact that Zaoui had “admitted for the first time” his links with identified individuals over whom our authorities would have security concerns. “While Mr Zaoui denies any wrongdoing himself he does accept that those he associated with or worked with may have had more radical tendencies,” Dr Tucker states. The decision is accompanied by a sworn undertaking in which Zaoui commits to ongoing assistance to the SIS. Specifically he undertakes to inform the SIS in the event of any contact with a list of individuals, the names of which are deleted, but the length of which makes it clear that it covers a significant number of individuals.

So, folks, work it out for yourselves. Amidst the guesswork and the supposition, two very clear facts emerge: first the Mr Zaoui who entered into New Zealand was clearly an individual that sensible, responsible, mccully.co-reading New Zealanders would expect our authorities to take a robust interest in. And second, the Mr Zaoui who has recently been the recipient of a more generous security assessment is clearly a significantly more helpful and open individual than had previously been the case.

The Lessons

There is universal agreement that the whole Zaoui saga has taken way too long. But beyond that, wildly differing conclusions will be reached about the lessons to be drawn from this affair. And the worldwide headquarters of mccully.co firmly rejects the fanciful notions being propounded by some that Mr Zaoui has been harshly treated and is owed some form of apology. Indeed, the streamlining of the immigration laws that is clearly required may well have resulted in a significantly more negative outcome from Mr Zaoui’s point of view.

At the heart of the matter lies a debate as to where some important lines should be drawn as refugee-status claimants are considered for entry into New Zealand. And specifically whether some form of “beyond reasonable doubt” test needs to be applied before determining that previous misdeeds, or suspicion of such on reasonable grounds, should lead to a claimants exclusion. The Foreign Affairs select committee has been treated to liberal doses of this perspective in hearings over the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill.

The worldwide headquarters has an old-fashioned and quite uncharitable perspective on this matter. Providing a high degree of security for citizens is one of the most basic obligations of any government. New Zealanders are entitled to expect that those allowed to enter this country will have been subject to rigorous assessment. Past association with groups promoting terror should lead to microscopic inspection. And the balance of proof must lie with the refugee-status claimant, not with the New Zealand authorities.

The notion that matters such as the Zaoui case might lend themselves to some form of judicial hearing in which the authorities should prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the unsuitability of any applicant, is utterly fanciful. Intelligence from international sources simply does not lend itself to such a process. In realms that must necessarily be dominated by such doubt and uncertainty, surely New Zealanders would wish to see decision-makers act with great care and conservatism?

Mugabe Consultants On Board at Environment Ministry

The State Services report on circumstances behind the disengagement of Ms Setchell from the employ of the Ministry for the Environment is, reportedly, a little way away. The notion that a state sector employee can now be fired because of the political associations of their partner is a radical departure from past practice, and will take some explaining. And Ministry for the Environment (MFE) documents obtained this week demonstrate just how far off the mark they were. Faced with the Setchell embarrassment their immediate response was not to retreat to conventional public service practice, but to invite President Mugabe on board to dispense employment law advice.

On July 2, the MfE papers show, group leaders within the Ministry held a meeting. Clearly minuted is a decision to “agree to introduce a new declaration of outside interests form in the recruitment process (Appendix C).”

Deeper into the paperwork is a copy of the aforesaid Appendix C, requiring that employees sign the following declaration:

“I declare that I have outside interests in the following areas/activities (include all own involvements with any other organisations/political groups and, if any, relationships which may exist between partner/family members and political groups or organisations with whom the Ministry for the Environment contracts eg financial interests, official positions such as Board member. For example “I am a Board member with/I am a shareholder of/my partner is a member of/my brother in law is an employee of a company with whom the Ministry has a contract”):

Then follows the large space that would naturally be required for any employee to complete such a declaration. Just imagine the complications of undertaking such an exercise in a city like Wellington where the only business conducted is politics or government ? To participate in any sporting, cultural or civil grouping is to rub shoulders with those involved in the processes of politics or government. And Mugabe Employment Consultants have told the Ministry they should collect details of all such associations, not just for employees themselves, but their partners, brothers-in-law and wider family grouping. All of which suggests that there is something very very sick in the Ministry for the Environment. Something that will require serious attention once the SSC reports have come to hand.

Parliamentary Rugby Team Victorious

Regular readers will be aware that the humble Member for East Coast Bays has been absent in recent days. A brief break and an opportunity to participate in the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup in Paris were on the agenda. The event in Paris has been somewhat more heavily publicised than originally expected. And not because the New Zealand team, for the first time since 1999, won the Cup.

Despite the sometimes unflattering publicity, the Member for East Coast Bays remains a strong supporter of Parliamentary rugby. Parliament’s rugby team is the only genuinely non partisan activity that operates in the institution. In the partisan bear-pit that our House of Representatives has become, for that reason alone it is worthy of preservation.

Equally important, the team builds strong personal bonds with members of other Parliaments. In a big world in which small nations compete for attention, those linkages can only be positive.

Some focus has rested upon the fact that the team has no formal status – that it is a creature of considerable informality. It may well be argued that an organisation that purports to represent the New Zealand Parliament, especially on the international stage, should have a more formal mandate. It is a fair point.

But such moves would not be helpful. Anyone who has experienced the dead hand of Parliament’s increasingly bloated bureaucracy would not wish that on anyone. Particularly a team that relies on a unique spirit of non partisanship and co-operation amongst members of otherwise fiercely competitive political parties.

ENDS

© Scoop Media