PM Luxon maintains Andrew Bayly deserved sacking after minister claims he was misled

The Prime Minister has reiterated former Cabinet Minister Andrew Bayly deserved to be sacked over an incident with a staffer in February. His position on the topic has not always been so clear. In a tense three-minute exchange with Mike Hosking at the time of Bayly’s resignation, Luxon struggled to answer the question, with the Newstalk ZB host telling the PM he’d “made a complete meal of this”.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon still believes Andrew Bayly deserved to be sacked, even as the former minister claims he was misled about allegations made against him and says he wouldn’t have offered his resignation.

Luxon is also endorsing the actions of the Department of Internal Affairs in its response to Bayly’s allegations, while Bayly maintains officials gave him incorrect information.

Bayly, the MP for Port Waikato, stood down as ACC and Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister after he “placed a hand” on a staff member’s arm during what he described as an “animated discussion” in February. He apologised to the staff member and said he regretted “placing them in an uncomfortable position”.

Speaking to Newstalk ZB yesterday, Bayly said he was told the allegations made against him had been corroborated by three other people. He now has evidence it was not.

“That’s what made me get to a position that I put my resignation in,” Bayly said.

“If I’d known what I do now, I wouldn’t have offered it,” Bayly said, adding that at the time he believed he was in a battle of “one against three”.

Luxon, speaking from Korea overnight, reiterated his view that Bayly’s resignation was appropriate.

“I don’t want to go into the ins and outs of it but the bottom line is, look, in the information I had at the time, the information I have today, coupled with the previous incident at the end of last year, I think he made the right decision to resign.”

Luxon’s mention of a previous incident refers to a complaint made last year about his behaviour at a winery in Marlborough. It included that he had sworn at, ridiculed and mocked a worker there, including by repeatedly calling the man a “loser” and telling him to “take some wine ... and f*** off”.

Luxon reiterated he would have fired Bayly had he not resigned.

Luxon’s position on whether Bayly deserved to be sacked has not always been so clear. In the days after Bayly resigned, Luxon wouldn’t give a straight answer as to whether he would have sacked Bayly if he hadn’t offered his resignation.

‘Why is this so bloody hard?’

The Prime Minister’s interview on Bayly with Newstalk ZB breakfast host Mike Hosking raised questions about Luxon’s communication style, with the Herald’s editor-at-large Shayne Currie describing it as “farcical”.

An exasperated Hosking told Luxon: “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.”

Here’s the transcript of the interview:

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.

Luxon later admitted he should have been clearer, explaining he had not wanted to make things worse for Bayly.

‘Not looking good’

No formal complaint was made against Bayly, official documents obtained by Newstalk ZB show, and no formal investigation was conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), the government department that is responsible for ministerial staffers.

As first reported by Newstalk ZB yesterday, Bayly said he was made aware of allegations against him in a conversation with the Prime Minister’s office the day after the February 18 incident.

Bayly, according to a letter written by his King’s Counsel Jim Farmer, was told during that conversation the allegations against him were very serious and that it was “not looking good”.

Asked about whether he should consider resigning, Bayly said he was told the issue was “of that nature”.

Bayly met with the DIA the following day. He alleged the facts he was presented with were “misleading”, claiming he was told the accusations about his conduct were corroborated by three people.

“This statement has been proved subsequently to be false,” Farmer claimed in his letter, which was sent to Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche in May.

“The claim by the DIA that the allegations were corroborated by all three people was a very significant contributing factor that induced Mr Bayly’s resignation.”

Bayly, according to Farmer’s letter, was dismayed after the meeting that there “could be such a divergent version of the ‘facts’.”

He told Luxon later that night that he couldn’t reconcile the difference in “the interpretation of events” and offered his resignation, which was accepted.

In the letter to Roche, Farmer called for an independent review of the matter and alleged the DIA appeared to have adopted a prejudicial approach to the investigation.

Roche, in a reply letter to Farmer, declined to launch an independent investigation into the issue.