The New Zealand government’s makeover of the 1987 immigration act is still in the pipeline.
The select committee considering the immigration bill was due to report back on Monday, but recently they’ve pushed their deadline out until July 21.
It’s a huge topic to be looking at, so it’s not surprising they want a bit more time. But I’d like to see new legislation go through before the election – I wouldn’t like to run the risk of New Zealand First having any more say in the matter than they already do.

The biggest change in the act will be the introduction of rules about secret evidence.
The use of classified information in the immigration process is a very real prospect in the wake of the Ahmed Zaoui case - which saw the Algerian refugee jailed for two years and facing deportation for two more due to secret SIS evidence that was later dropped.
The bill, as first devised, allowed for immigration officers to use secret information in making their decisions.
Justice cannot be done – nor be seen to be done – if a person is detained or deported without being told the reasons why and having the opportunity to defend her or himself.
It is unlikely that the select committee would recommend we use no classified information in immigration issues. So we should pay close attention to the provisions and safeguards on the use of secret evidence in the select committee’s report.

The government put out a discussion document and called for public submissions in early 2006. The submissions have been read, and the first draft of the new bill read in parliament in August last year.
Green MP Keith Locke and National MP Christopher Finlayson both raised concerns about how classified information could be used in the new law. Finlayson said he was concerned about how a “special advocate” might fit into the system and how that would affect the judicial process.
It will be interesting to see any changes that the select committee comes up with.

Logic 101 taught me that the idea of a “slippery slope” is a fallacy. Just because you smoke marijuana doesn’t mean that you’ll turn into meth addict in the future.
But allowing for secret evidence in immigration decisions does feel like the thin edge of the wedge. The law is only the overarching guide in immigration: policy detail determines a lot. We have to be careful that by law the use of classified information is tightly restricted and that the safeguards on its use are comprehensive.

Other posts by Katie Llanos-Small