There was a time when the security sweep which uncovered a man believed to be a step-son of Saddam Hussein working at Air New Zealand would have offended idealised perceptions of a free and open society. But that was a time when we believed New Zealand was invulnerable to infiltration. It was an era when many even questioned the need for the Security Intelligence Service.
The September 11 terrorist assaults on the United States have changed all that. Now, as never before, the need for vigilance dictates a compromise between principle and national security imperatives.
Thus, there should be no quibbling that the police and security agencies undertook a sweep of vulnerable industries in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A new, intimidating vulnerability demanded nothing less.
Airlines, the terrorists' chosen weapon, are obviously now a crucial piece of the security jigsaw. There is nothing to suggest that Mohammad Saffi, the aircraft engineer with a highly interesting Iraqi background, is anything but innocent. But at the very least his case raises questions about the vetting of prospective residents and the rule run over employees of the national carrier.
Air NZ was doubtless embarrassed to learn that it had a man closely linked to the Iraqi dictator within its workforce for four years or so. Even before September 11, airlines were vulnerable; at least one airliner had been blown out of the sky by terrorists. The airline is undoubtedly now aware of the need for greater security consciousness.
Indeed, all those who apply for work in vulnerable industries should be in no doubt that they will be subject to stricter vetting, sometimes by security agencies. Employers will have to be far more stringent and detached in assessing character and suitability. The word of a couple of nominated referees may no longer be enough, especially if those referees are close associates.
Civil libertarians may rail against what they consider intrusive questioning of job applicants for particularly sensitive jobs. There may be queries, for example, about drinking or sexual habits. But that is because people can be vulnerable because of such habits.
People subject to such scrutiny have the equal freedom to decline to answer questions or to provide only the information they consider proper. That is also as it should be in a free society. But Mr Saffi has demonstrated a sensible approach to his own vetting.
"They have the right to ask any time they want," he says. "I don't have a problem at all." Thus speaks a man who perhaps regards New Zealand as a breath of fresh air after the murky and dangerous politics of Saddam Hussein's court. And why he adds: "I don't think I have had a hard time compared to any other country."
Until now, New Zealand has never felt the need to resort to some of the stringent security measures found in other parts of the world. Thus, there will, and should, be vigorous debate about the level of vigilance necessary to protect us against those whose sole purpose is to destroy life. But New Zealand is no less vulnerable than elsewhere as terrorism spreads its tentacles.
The September 11 terrorists fixed upon New York, the centre of capitalism, and the Pentagon, the symbol of American military power. Yet Timothy McVeigh chose a federal building in Oklahoma City, a centre with half the population of Auckland.
Heightened vigilance is the only commonsense response to the new realities. No apology need be given for the security sweep of vulnerable industries. Mr Sammi's family connections with Saddam Hussein may have no implications for national security. But we should at least know about them.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
Waitangi Tribunal turns, 50 but there’s no cause to celebrate - John Tamihere
The Waitangi Tribunal turns 50 - happy birthday to you.