Analysis: Mike Hosking spent almost three minutes seeking a simple yes or no answer from the Prime Minister over the Andrew Bayly saga. Why was it so hard? And will it prompt a rethink of Christopher Luxon’s communications style?
Before the 2023 election, Christopher Luxon called upon the services of a well-known former TVNZ presenter to provide him with media training, partly to help him come across as a straight-shooter in media interviews.
He may need a refresher course with Mary Lambie – or his communications team, at least, might well need to provide some forthright advice that he takes on board.
The Prime Minister’s interview with Newstalk ZB breakfast host Mike Hosking turned farcical yesterday as Luxon continually failed to answer a simple yes or no question: Would he have sacked Cabinet minister Andrew Bayly if he had not resigned last week?
The exchange would likely have lasted 10 seconds if he’d simply replied in the affirmative or negative. Instead, it was drawn out for almost three minutes as Luxon provided a word salad of replies.
An exasperated Hosking was soon asking: “Why can’t you just answer the question? This is why you get yourself reputationally in so much trouble.”
And then a short time later: “Why is this so bloody hard?”
And by the end: “Well, you’ve made a complete meal of this.”
The interview showcased Hosking’s skills as a broadcaster and interviewer, even if some ZB listeners did think he was haranguing Luxon. But it’s also given plenty of ammunition to those who believe the PM’s communication style is missing the mark.
Here’s the exchange about Bayly – you can watch, read and judge for yourself:
Hosking: Would you – because you’ve got yourself into the usual trouble with you being too nice – would you have sacked him [Bayly] if he hadn’t offered to resign?
Luxon: Well, [that’s] hypothetical, he did resign.
Hosking: No, I know that, but just answer the question. Would you have sacked him?
Luxon: Well, he didn’t meet the expectations of a minister.
Hosking: So was it a sackable offence?
Luxon: Well, I think given how clear we’ve been on the first instance ...
Hosking: Why can’t you just answer the question? This is why you get yourself reputationally in so much trouble. Would you have sacked him? Yes or no?
Luxon: I could say he didn’t meet the expectations I have of ministers.
Hosking: So you would have sacked him.
Luxon: I didn’t need to, because he resigned.
Hosking: See what you’re doing here?
Luxon: Well, you’re talking about a specific case, right, which is, have I done a good job of laying down expectations of my ministers? Yes. Crystal clear.
Hosking: The next step is really simple: ‘I’m glad he offered to resign because I tell you what, if he didn’t, I would have sacked him.’
Luxon: He wouldn’t have met my expectations as a minister.
Hosking: Why are you saying it that way? I don’t understand.
Luxon: Well, that’s what I mean. If he hadn’t resigned, I would have made an intervention.
Hosking: Why is this so bloody hard? ‘I would have sacked him.’
Luxon: No, no, but there’s an issue here ...
Hosking: What is it?
Luxon: The issue is that most importantly, the standards are really clear of my ministers. They know the standards I operate within. Whenever we have any personnel issues, I think we’ve acted incredibly decisively but what I’d say in this case is I laid down, after the last instance, crystal-clear expectations, he reassured me there wouldn’t be another incident. He knew there was an incident. He then actually made that decision himself. It didn’t meet my expectations, it didn’t meet his.
Hosking: Count how many words you’re using to explain this. This is why you’re in trouble in the polls. People want something decisive. And look, if you wouldn’t have sacked him, say so. Either way, I don’t care, but people want from you, the Prime Minister, to go: ‘This is my expectation; I’m glad he resigned because if he didn’t, I would have sacked him.’
Luxon: Well, that’s exactly what has happened here though, isn’t it? I mean, he has resigned, and I’ve said to him, he hasn’t met his own expectations, which is important, right? I want ministers to understand. I saw examples ...
Hosking: He came to his own conclusion, fantastic, good on him for doing that. But are you the sort of person that would have sacked him if he had not come to that conclusion?
Luxon: I think you’ve seen me act very decisively on personnel issues. That’s something I’ve done all my life, you know. It’s critical.
Hosking: No, that still doesn’t answer that. I don’t want to get bogged down on this. Why can’t you be decisive enough to simply say ‘I would have sacked him’, or not?
Luxon: In this case, he resigned. If that hadn’t happened, I would have been involved with that and would have made a decision to say he didn’t meet my expectations.
Hosking: Which would have led to what?
Luxon: It would have led to him losing the role anyway.
Hosking: So he would have been ...?
Luxon: He would have been demoted.
Hosking: Demoted?
Luxon: The ministry would have been taken away.
Hosking: Right, sacked.
Luxon: Yeah, you can call it sacked.
Hosking: You’ve made a complete meal of this.
It’s not as though Luxon isn’t aware that his communication style is under scrutiny.
In another recent interview, he referred to the media giving him a hard time when he described members of the public as “customers”.
He fails to see that that’s not how people talk, let alone think. (And in reality, the public is his employer.)
While he might have the best policies in the world for his supporters and voters, the former Air New Zealand chief executive’s style of communication – particularly corporate-speak – is raising eyebrows once again, including within his own party.
That Luxon could not answer a simple question yesterday is either a sign he’s not receiving the right advice, or he’s ignoring it.
It may well be time to call in a communications expert – someone like Lambie, perhaps, who helped Luxon before the election in 2023 but has not been used since. Or any one of a number of former journalists or PR agencies who now ply their expertise in this area. Even Hosking was offering him advice at one stage in the interview yesterday.
As Media Insider reported in 2023, Lambie, who runs a media training business, had been hired by National as its leader strived to attract a bigger and wider cross-section of the public.
Even then, seasoned political observers believed Luxon needed to break loose of corporate speak and to appear more natural and self-assured in interviews, especially on screen and radio.
He had been appearing sometimes too tightly aligned to talking points – repeating them regularly – rather than responding naturally to questions. His on-screen presence was often completely different to one-on-one interactions, where he was warmer.
The Hosking interview illustrated the massive challenge facing Luxon’s relatively new chief press secretary, Finn Stichbury, who started in that role in December following the resignation of Hamish Rutherford. Stichbury had been the National Party’s 2023 campaign communications manager, before taking on the role in Luxon’s office.
Also taking a keen interest will be the PM’s newly appointed strategic communications manager, Kerri Osborne, who has just spent some time at NZTA and whose extensive CV has covered stints at Transpower, Pharmac and time in Australia including with industry group Alcohol Beverages Australia.
The communications job, previously filled by Joanne Black (she resigned soon after the election), is seen as a strategic role, overseeing all of the Beehive communications and communications strategy. The chief press secretary role is much more operationally aligned to Luxon.
Neither Stichbury nor Osborne responded to messages yesterday. Emailed questions to the PM’s press office have yet to be answered.
As the coalition Government nears the halfway point of its term, and as the three parties start jockeying for position, Luxon’s team is likely to be only too well aware of the more natural media instincts of NZ First leader Winston Peters and Act leader David Seymour.
The last thing the National Party strategists will want is a repeat of what unfolded on ZB on Tuesday.
Editor-at-Large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand’s most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor and Herald on Sunday Editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.
Judge on political activist: 'I have to say his approach has left a lot to be desired.'