Since December 2002, and the arrival in New Zealand of Algerian asylum seeker Ahmed Zaoui, national security issues have assumed a far greater significance. Initially detained on the basis that he had apparently admitted membership of the GIA, an extreme Islamic party which promoted violence to achieve its aims, Zaoui was initially considered to be so dangerous that he was transferred to the maximum security facility at Paremoremo in Auckland and placed in solitary confinement. It seemed New Zealand had netted a dangerous international terrorist.

As previously noted, threats to national security and terrorist threats often sound like one and the same thing. However, even under the security provisions of our Immigration Act, there are two different sections – and Zaoui, a man widely believed by the New Zealand public to have terrorist connections, is not subject to deportation as a terrorist threat under section 73, but under section 72, as a threat to national security. In a rather bizarre twist, a suspected terrorist has the right of appeal, where a person considered a threat to national security does not. So at what point does the line get crossed, and what does national security really mean?

The answer is that nebulous definitions of national security are broader than may be imagined. Probably the most significant definition is that a person classified as a national security risk may have the potential to cause economic harm to New Zealand. And if New Zealanders think that national security equals Ahmed Zaoui, equals terrorist, then they had better take a closer look at the Passports Amendment Act of 2005.

While ostensibly introduced to reduce the life of a passport from ten years to five years, supposedly to lessen the likelihood of sophisticated forgeries, section 8A of the act also contains provision for the Minister of Internal Affairs to refuse to issue or to revoke for up to a period of twelve months, any New Zealand passport on the grounds of a perceived threat to national security. Part 1a(i) actually deals with terrorist acts, (ii) with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and (iii) any unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage to New Zealand.

Consider the pressure being put on many countries by the US to accept genetically modified food. The proponents of GM would have us believe it is necessary to help feed the world and alleviate hunger, by utilizing quicker growth techniques resulting in greater production. The world already produces enough food to feed itself, the real problem is how that food is distributed. So perhaps an anti-GM activist, who is able to convince a growing number of people that this technology is potentially dangerous, and largely benefits multi-national corporations, might well be perceived a threat to national security on the basis of causing economic harm. And therefore may be prevented from leaving the country to spread the word, for example, at an overseas conference. This type of action has already taken place in less democratic countries. Could it happen in New Zealand too?

The recent case of US activist Scott Parkin in Australia parallels the Zaoui case and national security issues – because he was a foreign national, national security legislation was used to deport Parkin from Australia. He had been highlighting some questionable practices of US Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company Halliburton – mainly involving post-war contracts in Iraq – and, half way through a six-month visit, Parkin found himself detained under national security law and even put in solitary confinement. He could have contested the reasons for his detention. However, the clear intention of the Australian authorities seemed to be to make life as difficult as possible for him, so rather than stay in detention fighting an uphill battle to remain in Australia, he accepted deportation within a short time. Of course, the Australian authorities refused to disclose the security information they claimed to have held on Parkin. The case caused considerable disquiet among the Australian public.

So, New Zealanders need to be wary of hidden intentions in national security legislation. The often predictable reaction of “if I’ve got nothing to hide, it won’t affect me” is exactly what governments want people to believe. It ensures they can push through legislation unchallenged without proper debate. Using the Zaoui case as an example, I imagine the stock response would be “I’m not a terrorist so it won’t affect me.” Forget about terrorist connections, false passports and all the other smokescreens used to hide the real issue – the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The same politicians who will tell you, falsely, that Zaoui has no rights, think that under the mantra of national security, it is perfectly acceptable to accuse people without providing any proof. If Zaoui can be proven guilty, fine. But he doesn’t even have the chance to defend himself in court. Largely faceless bureaucrats determine his future.

One day, national security legislation, if still on the statutes in its current form, might well adversely affect New Zealanders. No-one can know the nature or intentions of future governments. Is not knowing that a risk New Zealanders should take when it comes to issues of national security?