Bridges’ outburst cynical and vindictive
ONE might expect Simon Bridges to be a little more confident and poised than before, after the latest pointless political poll, having risen, in the ‘‘Preferred Prime Minister’’ stakes, from 5% to 9% (still well below Jacinda Ardern at 39%), while Judith Collins languishes at 5%. But on Morning Report on October 16 he sounded like the Simon Bridges who disgraced himself — shouting unceasingly and irrationally at John Campbell — on TV3, back when television stations still ran current affairs programmes at reasonable times.
He was attacking the decision of Immigration Minister Iain LeesGalloway to grant residency to a man who, because of New Zealand’s adherence to the International Convention Against Torture, couldn’t be deported to his home country, so had been given, by Michael Woodhouse, Immigration Minister under the previous Nationalled government, a temporary work visa, with the intention of rolling it over indefinitely.
The man in question had, in the past, ‘‘drinkdrived’’ six times. Mr Bridges feels he should remain on a temporary work visa, rolled over as necessary (for the rest of his life, presumably) despite, apparently, not having offended for seven years.
After that blitzkrieg, contrary to Mr Bridges’ assertion that the minister refused to be interviewed about this, Immigration Minister Iain LeesGalloway responded calmly, a few minutes later, to his diatribe.
He noted that the person had been in New Zealand for nearly 20 years, had not offended for a long time, that granting residency rather than repeated temporary visas didn’t increase risks to New Zealanders, and that it was the job of the criminal justice system, not the Immigration Ministry, to deal with driving offences.
The minister may have stuffed up the Sroubrek case, but he’s right this time.
And he emphasised the most important reason for making a definite decision, rather than ‘‘kicking the can down the road’’. The security of permanent residency will ‘‘give him the opportunity to settle well’’.
Mr Bridges accused the minister of being ‘‘lazy’’ (presumably in not wanting to have the matter come up every three years, which suggests that he expects the minister still to be in office in three years’ time), but it would have been politically lazy not to have addressed seriously the question of residency, accepting the risk of denunciation from Opposition politicians thumping the ‘‘tough on crime’’ drum rather than encouraging rehabilitation.
And didn’t National, when in office, talk of improving efficiency in the public service? Isn’t it more efficient to make a final decision than to clog up bureaucracy with renewing a temporary visa every three years?
The Opposition should hold ministers to account. But this was just cynical, vindictive, purportedly (but not) ‘‘tough on crime’’, Trumpean, electioneering.
Winston Peters is electioneering too, with his usual immigrantbashing. He claims NZ First made Immigration NZ tighten its rules, preventing New Zealanders from marrying overseas and bringing their spouses to New Zealand, unless they’ve been living together for a year.
That’s racist: for instance, Indian New Zealanders contracting arranged marriages with women in India have, unlike many New Zealanders, no shared life prior to marriage (Shane Jones’ remark that Indians marrying overseas shouldn’t expect to ‘‘bring the village with them’’ is contemptible misrepresentation).
It’s also religious discrimination: some New Zealanders who meet their future spouses overseas will still adhere to the traditional religious (and social) rule that marriage precedes living together.
And many New Zealanders marrying overseas won’t be able to spend an extra year there after marriage.
Marriage to a New Zealand citizen should give the right to citizenship (a past prime minister wouldn’t have existed without the equivalent rule in 1930s Britain). As has been said before, in other contexts, the state has no place in the nation’s bedrooms.
A valid marriage certificate should be the only test for such citizenship: not prurient examination of the couple’s intimate life together.