Urgent Debates — Hon Andrew Bayly—Ministerial Resignation

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public business.

One of the core responsibilities of a Prime Minister is to set standards for ministerial conduct and hold them accountable when they do not meet those standards. The current Prime Minister has set the bar so low that Ministers now need to sack themselves, as Andrew Bayly did last week.

Let’s recap the facts. It appears, for Andrew Bayly, that abusing someone for working late, calling them a loser, and telling them to “eff off and go home” was insufficient for the Prime Minister to do anything. Then, when Andrew Bayly manhandled a member of his staff, finally it seems that the Prime Minister reached his particular threshold. However, no one in the Government, other than Andrew Bayly, is willing to offer an account of actually what happened. It seems justice, in this Government’s eyes, is that the only person who gets to speak, the only person whose version of the facts gets heard is the perpetrator; the victim, the person who made the complaint, is invisible in the process.

The complaint was received on Wednesday. Andrew Bayly, even though the complaint had been received, continued to act as if nothing had happened, continued to do media interviews as if nothing had happened. The Prime Minister wasn’t even told about the complaint until, by his office’s own admission, very late on Thursday night. What kind of outfit is this Government running that a complaint about a Minister physically manhandling a member of their staff was not even presented to the Prime Minister until more than 24 hours after it was received? And what kind of outfit are this Government operating where the Prime Minister did nothing about it until the following night when, allegedly, Andrew Bayly offered his resignation—offered his resignation to the Prime Minister, apparently, and yet there is no record of that happening.

In fact, it appears that Andrew Bayly’s resignation didn’t actually take effect until the following Monday. Is that correct? Who was actually the Minister of those portfolios over the weekend? If Andrew Bayly had resigned on the Friday, when did the resignation take effect from? Who was the Minister over the weekend? And why did the Prime Minister do media conferences over the weekend where he didn’t think to mention it?

What kind of level of transparency have we reached now that the Prime Minister can stand in front of the media, knowing that one of his Ministers had been accused of manhandling a member of his staff and had either resigned or maybe was refusing to resign or was being told they should resign, and yet he didn’t think to say anything about that to the New Zealand public? Business as usual for the Government, no transparency with the New Zealand public, and yet the Prime Minister thinks that’s OK. We have a Prime Minister now whose bar for ministerial conduct has fallen that low that he will wait for an entire weekend to pass, five days after the alleged incident took place, before actually taking any concrete action to hold Andrew Bayly to account.

Still, we hear no account from the Government about what actually happened. Andrew Bayly said he grabbed the member of staff by the arm. That’s the only account of what happened. What does the complainant say? Why won’t the Government be up front about exactly what the complaint was that led to Andrew Bayly resigning? Has the Prime Minister asked him exactly what happened? The Prime Minister wouldn’t even answer that. If he has asked him, what did Andrew Bayly say? Did the Prime Minister or anyone in his office speak to the person who had the complaint; if they hadn’t, why didn’t they? It’s a pretty serious allegation.

Where a Minister in the Government is accused of something like that, it is very reasonable for the New Zealand public to expect that it will be thoroughly investigated. There was an incident where this happened before, an independent investigation took place, and the outcome of that investigation was shared with the public, and there were consequences for the Minister concerned. Under this Government, nothing. The facts are not being shared with the public. The Prime Minister did nothing. The Minister himself had to resign, had to hold himself accountable in a way that the Prime Minister was not willing to, and still we don’t know exactly what it was that happened.

We have a Prime Minister now who has set the standard, set the bar so low that criticism of the courts is OK, threatening to cut funding of other organisations is OK, and now laying hands on a staff member is something that the Prime Minister did not think was a sackable offence—although, did he? It’s still not entirely clear whether Andrew Bayly would have been sacked, had he not resigned, or not, because depending on what day of the week the Prime Minister is asked a question, the answer seems to change. It’s a relatively simple question: would Andrew Bayly have been sacked had he not resigned?

That’s why the time line is important, because did Andrew Bayly actually resign on the Friday? Will the paper trail, which the Government should release—and by paper trail, I include in that text messages—will that actually reveal that Andrew Bayly resigned on the Friday or will it actually indicate that Andrew Bayly didn’t resign until the Monday?

Actually, the critical thing here is: when was the Governor-General informed that a Minister had resigned? If the Prime Minister was told of the resignation of Andrew Bayly on the Friday and did not relay that to the Governor-General until the Monday, the Prime Minister has not lived up to his constitutional responsibility, because it isn’t actually the Prime Minister’s job to receive a Minister’s resignation; that is the Governor-General’s responsibility. If the Prime Minister received the resignation and did not pass that on to the Governor-General, then he has actually breached his constitutional obligation when it comes to Ministers holding ministerial warrants.

When did the Prime Minister tell the Governor-General that he had received the resignation of a Minister? Once he had received it, he has one obligation at that point, and that is to tell the Governor-General whose job it is to issue and retract the warrants that he’d received the resignation. If he received it on the Friday and didn’t tell the Governor-General until the Monday, then he has not fulfilled his constitutional responsibility. Will, on the other hand, the paper trail show that the resignation was not actually received until the Monday? In which case, why should the New Zealand public believe anything the Prime Minister is saying?

Is the real reason that the Prime Minister did not say, in his media conferences over the weekend, that he’d received the resignation of Andrew Bayly—is the real reason he didn’t mention that because Andrew Bayly, in fact, was refusing to resign? That is a question the Prime Minister should be answering for the New Zealand public. These are serious allegations—allegations that we still do not know the full extent of, and yet the Government aren’t willing to share the details of that with the New Zealand public.

Privacy is important. The privacy of the complainant is important. Details of the nature of the complaint can be shared without the identity of the complainant being revealed, and, in fact, the Government have a responsibility to do so. It’s well and truly past time that the Government fronted up and answered questions about exactly what took place.

What exactly did Andrew Bayly do—and not Andrew Bayly’s version of events, but what he is alleged to have done? What does the complaint actually allege Andrew Bayly did? Why did the Prime Minister’s office not tell the Prime Minister until late Thursday night, 48 hours after it actually happened? Why did it then take three more days for the Prime Minister to be up front with the New Zealand public about that? Did the Prime Minister fulfil his obligations as Prime Minister to inform the Governor-General of a resignation of a Minister?

These are serious questions; they’re not trivialities. They actually cut to the heart of the integrity of the processes of the New Zealand Government, and it’s about time the Prime Minister fronted up and answered those questions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this urgent debate. Let me begin by saying, as Andrew Bayly has made very clear in his statement, that there was an animated discussion in which he inappropriately put his hand on the upper arm of an employee. Andrew Bayly has apologised, and Andrew Bayly has taken full responsibility for his actions. Andrew Bayly has then subsequently resigned from his ministerial portfolios, which shows personal responsibility for his actions.

Now, I’ve listened to the Leader of the Opposition try and find a conspiracy here. All he’s been doing for the last 10 minutes is trying to find a conspiracy. Well, the reality is: it’s not. What this is called is “personal responsibility”, and Andrew Bayly has taken personal responsibility for his actions. He has apologised to the staff member, and then he has resigned because, as he said, the actions which took place didn’t meet his own expectations and his own standards. He has, ultimately, taken responsibility for his own actions, and that is something which I recognise and all members of the National Party recognise.

We acknowledge Andrew Bayly for taking that action, for recognising that, and for, ultimately, resigning from that position because he did not meet his own standards and because of the actions that he took. Ultimately, on this side of the House, it is very clear that whilst Andrew Bayly did something which was inappropriate, we have standards, and we take responsibility for our own actions, and that is why Andrew Bayly subsequently resigned from the positions that he had in his ministerial warrants last Monday. I just want to acknowledge Andrew Bayly for doing that.

The second issue here is in relation to the points that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition. Here he is, trying to stand up like some sort of self-righteous individual who’s better and more holier than thou. That’s what he’s trying to do. We all remember the number of Ministers, under the last Government, who they held on to week after week after week, trying to hold on to them. We had Stuart Nash. We had Michael Wood being told 17 times from the Cabinet Office—17 times from the Cabinet Office—to sell his shares.

I’ll tell you what happened in that instance. Well, when finally—finally—the story came out on 6 June 2023 and the media reported on Wood’s Auckland Transport shares, he was only stood down from his transport portfolio—only stood down from his transport portfolio. He then took two days to sell them; he had had 18 months or two years. He sold them in two days. But he failed to tell the Prime Minister, “Oh, well, I’ve also got some other shares.” Then it took 15 days from the day the story broke until Michael Wood resigned from his ministerial portfolios. As it says here, Hipkins announced Wood’s resignation from that portfolio. He resigned, and he did the right thing in that instance.

Of course, we all remember Stuart Nash giving the old Police Commissioner a phone call every now and then, interfering and sending some Cabinet information to his friends, and the weeks that these stories dragged on. What did we hear from the Prime Minister of the time, Chris Hipkins? Crickets. Again, week after week after week and nothing happening, because that was the approach under his Government: there was no actual accountability.

We come to the instance of Kiri Allan. We all remember Kiri Allan, don’t we? We all remember Kiri Allan. She turned up to an event here at Parliament and, despite the fact that she had ministerial responsibilities, decided to criticise RNZ over its approach, interfering with independent journalists at an event here in Parliament, around the employment of her then partner and her employment at the broadcaster. That took weeks for that instance to be sorted under that Government. But, in that instance, all she did was apologise, and Hipkins let everything go—let everything go. Standards now, no standards then—that’s what we saw. There’s a word which starts with “hypo-”, which I can’t use in the House, which we can all talk about.

Of course, we’ve got our friend Shanan Halbert, don’t we? Shall we talk about our friend Shanan Halbert? He received an e-mail about bullying and harassment. What happened there? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Hipkins made some inquiries. No action; no investigation even took place—no personal responsibility. On this side of the House, we take personal responsibility for our actions.

We remember what happened with the Hon Ginny Andersen and the teenage girl who volunteered for her complaining to Labour about several instances of bullying over several years. No action taken by Mr Hipkins. In fact, in this instance, we saw that Hipkins promoted Andersen eight places and gave her more portfolios. That was what happened under Hipkins. After the election, she was promoted eight places, given more portfolios, and he said he has full confidence in her and expects her to do an excellent job. On this side of the House, we take personal responsibility. On that side of the House, they drag these issues out. They don’t take accountability; they don’t take responsibility.

For what Andrew Bayly has done and for the actions which he publicly has put on the record as to what he has done, how he has stated very clearly that he did not meet his own expectations of behaviour, he has taken responsibility by resigning. I acknowledge the action that he has done in this instance.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, this is the first opportunity I’ve had to raise it; I didn’t want to interrupt the member in his flow. I’ve overheard what I understand is an unparliamentary comment being made by the co-leader of Te Pāti Māori. I’m not sure if you heard it. I think the Minister speaking actually referred to this term being unparliamentary. I’m just wondering if you might like to reflect and maybe the member might like to withdraw and apologise if he recalls the comment he’s made.

Well, I do make every effort to concentrate on the person speaking and did not hear other comments that were made, but if there were comments made that were inappropriate, then the member themselves should take some action with regards to that.

Throughout this debate on the resignation of Andrew Bayly, I think I have two key points that I want to communicate. The first one is that I think what people are expecting us to do is to do better. I think it’s a disservice, actually, to workers—whether it’s in the Beehive or out in the streets—to see actually political point-scoring on a debate that actually is related to an incident that involved a complainant and a worker who was not treated in a way that I think any of us would expect or aspire to. It is disappointing to see the Government’s side being unable to take it on the chin, to acknowledge that what the former Minister did was wrong, and then to simply actually send a message of aspiration and standards to what we should all rise up to, which is actually just treating workers with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

At the end of the day, the chairs may change—we may have a new Minister in charge of Andrew Bayly’s portfolios—but the premise actually remains the same, and that is that working people, whether inside or outside the Beehive, are simply collateral damage to this Government’s agenda. The incident with Andrew Bayly speaks to a broader culture of how the Government speaks in relationship to working people, whether it’s calling parents—today—“lazy” for simply not having the means to provide decent lunches for their kids; calling people on the benefit “bottom feeders”; or undermining the right of workers to fight for better pay and include safer working conditions. Those safer working conditions many workers aspire to could include, actually, better work and safety guidelines in the workplace to prevent harmful engagements between themselves and, for example, people in positions of authority and power.

Ultimately, I think for us the issue isn’t resolved here; it’s resolved when we actually see a change of culture and approach to working people from Government, because I do not expect that the new person holding Andrew Bayly’s portfolios will suddenly bring a shift of culture when it comes to how working people are treated and spoken about. I do want to pick up on some of the comments from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins in relationship to questions that remain, in regards to the transparency and communications of this news. I do think the Government needs to step up and provide greater clarity and transparency when it comes to this series of events. I think some of the questions that have been raised are simple ones: a matter of time lines, a matter of when the resignation was offered, and a matter of simply being able to provide clear answers.

The other thing that I was quite shocked and disappointed by is that, in the comments from the National Party Minister, we did not see a single mention of the complainant or the parties affected by these incidents. Instead, we saw a range of political attacks, but at the core of it, we have workers who, through no fault of their own, have been dragged out into the public on a very, very public incident that has led to a Minister’s resignation. These are workers who didn’t choose to show up to work to end up being in the news in relationship to a Government Minister resigning. I think the least the Government side could do is to pay tribute and acknowledge the complainants that have led to Andrew Bayly’s resignation, to at the very least wish them well and to, at the very least, commit to some level of accountability. We haven’t seen that. It is concerning when we have these serious incidents that lead to a Minister of the Crown resigning, when at the core we have political attacks that are put before the wellbeing of those very workers who are affected.

With that, the Greens will continue to do the mahi so that all of us—all of us—take accountability for the wellbeing of workers in this place and outside these four walls.

I rise on behalf of ACT as part of the urgent debate about the Andrew Bayly resignation. A couple of reflections and observations from me—and I’ll be quite brief.

Outside of the four walls of this House, the number one issue is the cost of living—the number one issue. We’ve got health issues, we’ve got crime issues, we’ve got infrastructure issues. This gentleman has apologised, and I think if he was to share his thoughts, he would probably say the incident in question he was embarrassed by, it was a dumb mistake, he has taken personal responsibility for it, and he has resigned. Novel, isn’t it? Someone stands up when they do something wrong, says to the community at large, “I didn’t mean to do it; I apologise.” We do it at home with our families; we do it with our friends. We’ve had a gentleman in an esteemed position who has conceded a terrible mistake. He’s borne the consequences of that and resigned the post as a Minister.

Outside of the four walls of this building, people loathe the piety of politicians—“You said it.”, “He said it.”, one side of the House pointing fingers at the other. It happens all the time, the left and the right. No one really resolved anything other than the chap—he’s quit. Go out and talk to the real people outside—there’s a novel idea. For 50 percent of the people I talk to, it’s the cost of living. Everything’s too dear.

Let’s talk about the salient issues, not this. This chap has quit; he’s moved from his post. Someone else will replace him—invariably, that will be the Hon Scott Simpson, and, hopefully, the work in and around deregulating the financial sector and the enormous task therein will be picked up by his skill set. Let’s go back to common sense. There’s a lot going on outside the political sphere of this building.

I tie off by saying it actually pays for the politicians in this building to listen to constituents. Their core issues are not this. He’s apologised—move on, and let’s get back to business.

I’m just waiting for the Labour Party, which wanted the urgent debate, to take the call—but, anyway. I don’t have much more to add to what my good friend and colleague the Hon Simeon Brown said in his contribution. This is really a waste of Parliament’s time. A Minister made a mistake, he owned up and took accountability for it, and he resigned. I mean, the matter is literally as simple as that.

Over on this side of the House, we believe in ministerial accountability. Whether or not he resigned or was going to be sacked is actually not that material to the point. The point is that there was a Minister who was doing a good job—I think most people agree—as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. He made a mistake, he acted inappropriately, he accepts that, and then very quickly he resigned. The matter literally is as simple as that. That is exactly what happened, and that has been well canvassed throughout the media and also in this debate. There is not much more to the situation than that.

The fact that the Labour Party has called for an urgent debate and then apparently doesn’t seem to want to say very much about it, I think—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The inference from that member is that Labour missed a call. It was New Zealand First’s call that he has taken. I want to put that on the record, so that he’s not giving incorrect information to any members of the public that may be watching.

SPEAKER: And, at the time, you might have heard me say that was an inappropriate comment.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He just did it again.

SPEAKER: Well, he shouldn’t have done that. I’ve actually indulged the National Party by accepting the transfer from the New Zealand First Party, so it’s not a particularly smart line. My apologies; I was actually trying to work out who else might be speaking in this debate, because it is somewhat disorganised and unclear. The member can continue without that line of offering to the House.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I apologise, Mr Speaker. The overall point I’m trying to make—the overall point I’m trying to make—is this: there is not much more to this issue than has already been said, both in the first half an hour of this urgent debate but also that has been well traversed in the media.

I’ll just point out that the Parliament has, over the last few years, or the last 18 months to two years in particular, been witness to a series of degrading incidents to the standards and the mana of the Parliament. Suffice it for me to point out the litany of appalling incidents that happened in the last year of the outgoing Labour Government’s administration. Need I remind members about Meka Whaitiri, who went through a long process to do with an incident all the way back in 2018—fought it all the way. The contrast to this particular incident is extremely clear, which is that something happened and the Minister owned up and accepted responsibility. There was no long investigation which produced an outcome and then eventual removal as a Minister.

In relation to Meka Whaitiri, the incident was on 27 August 2018. The Prime Minister was advised two days later—so very similar to what happened in relation to Mr Bayly’s case—Ms Whaitiri stood aside a day later, but there was a month-long investigation before Ms Whaitiri was removed as a Minister, and then, of course, a couple of years later she was actually reinstated. The contrast with this is pretty apparent—I think members will be able to work it out—which is that there was an incident, the Prime Minister and his office was advised about what happened, and two days or so later Mr Bayly stood down as a Minister. It is really as simple as that.

Of course, we need not traverse the long history of the Michael Wood matter, where on—I forget the exact number of occasions—

Hon Members: Seventeen!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Seventeen—thank you. I knew my friends would remind me—I knew my friends would remind me. The Cabinet Office advised Michael Wood to divest his shares in Auckland Airport and Contact Energy on 17 separate occasions, and none of that happened. And, in the meantime, the Prime Minister of the time knew about that—or, at least, their office knew about that—and nothing was done. So, if you want to talk about accountability and talk about, as Mr Hipkins was voluminously exclaiming at length in his initial contribution to the debate—if you want to talk about accountability and the jobs that Prime Minister absolutely have to do—I would point him to the Michael Wood saga of 2022, 2023, and so on.

I would also point him to the Kiri Allan disaster, which, of course, we don’t need to go into the precise details of, but I think everyone watching is familiar with exactly what happened there. And, then, of course, there is the Stuart Nash affair. Now, Stuart Nash has become a friend to this side of the House in recent days because of his voluminous support for the Government’s action when it comes to citizen’s arrest. Whether or not he’s still a member of the Labour Party is unclear or not—

SPEAKER: That’s not a matter for this debate.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we’re having a debate about ministerial resignations and, in particular, the resignation of the Hon Andrew Bayly, and I’m just simply pointing out that, if we’re going to have a debate about it, we need to view things in the round. Is this the downfall of the Government? No, of course it isn’t. Did Mr Bayly act badly? Yes. Did he take accountability and resign? Yes, he did. And that is really the end of the matter.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I join this debate listening to the two sides deflect, and I guess one of the things that we need to be really mindful in this is that there is a staff member involved. There’s a staff member, the staff member’s whānau, and probably a whole lot of other peers involved who are sitting there watching this really distasteful discussion. I think if we were to talk about where is the end point and the starting point, we have a Government that has promised to be more transparent and be better than the last. I’m not sure if that is really where we’ve landed.

The reason that I think we’re having this debate is because it is simply about the abuse of power, and it is about the abuse of power that we have not only within this House—but Ministers particularly—but the abuse of power that we see asserted financially from this Government, and the abuse of power across to communities. When we have the risk of abuse within this place—and, again, I’ve struggled with this “animated discussion” and “hand on shoulder”, because it does sound like assault. I don’t want to put words in those who have survived or those victims’ mouths, but there has been a really colourful display of words being used to deflect.

What we have been seeing since the Minister’s resignation is, sadly, what we continuously call out, which is the politics of distraction. The politics of distraction is only used when things have to be covered up, and I think that’s what we should be really concerned about, as a nation. I agree that those we speak to out in our communities are really concerned with the cost of living crisis, but also the disconnect from a Government that doesn’t seem to feel the pain that they are experiencing or to care about them. This debate is actually about: did our Prime Minister care enough about his nation to be able to say this is what went on?

The time lines, we agree, are really, really disturbing. On 18 February, we have a Minister who touched a staff member’s shoulder—and, like, I do that often to my co-leader and our staff and I don’t see the reaction, so I think we need to, first of all, stop minimising what happened to one of our own in this building. To sit there and justify this by saying “So and so did it in 2000”, “Such and such did it but he’s now my friend” is actually poor form. It’s poor form for those who have to survive and work amongst us in this environment.

Then we saw, 21 February, there was a resignation behind closed doors. Then, 24 February, we hear about it. That’s disturbing. Six days, a victim has had to survive all this knowing what’s going around while everybody got their architects and their advisers and their comms team all lined up. That’s poor form. Our staff and our community and those we serve—our voters—deserve better. That’s what this debate is about.

We saw the Prime Minister’s own media shocked that he could not say, “Would you have sacked him if he didn’t sack himself?” That is not the accountability that our nation deserves. They are experiencing unprecedented pain at the moment. They are experiencing unprecedented, huge, huge, horrific loss of jobs, of cuts in services, health, ferries, you name it. This Government has made promises, and in order to hold those promises you must maintain the confidence of your communities. The minute one of their own—the real workers; the people that hold us up in this place—are abused, then we should be sitting here, not saying, “They apologised on the spot therefore forget it and move on.” We should be saying, “How else are we making sure that the Government and their Ministers,”—I’ve no doubt, having never been one, but one in waiting, that it is extremely difficult, but that does not give us the excuse to abuse and assert our power incorrectly.

There has been a lot of that—a lot of that pain. We’ve seen, you know, two strikes, three strikes, you’re out. We continuously have heard justice talk about their concern here on each side of the House about the victims. We haven’t seen that aroha from the Government. There has not been the humility to just take it on the nose and accept what it is that you’ve done. There needs to be more transparency, and I’m really glad we have this debate. Kia ora rā.

I have been highly disappointed by the speeches that have come from the Government members and the way that they have attempted to minimise the behaviour of the former Minister. We have heard from them that in some ways they’re almost implying we should be grateful that there was a resignation put forward, that that former Minister has acknowledged he did wrong, but what we haven’t heard from them is any level of empathy for the staff member who was put through a distressing situation, the detail of which the vast majority of us in this House have no access to.

Now, we have heard from that side of the House that the resignation has been given; he is no longer a Minister. I think Minister Bishop said, “That’s the end of the matter.” Well, actually, it’s not the end of the matter because in this country we expect transparency. We expect accountability. We know that that former Minister had an episode where he swore at a worker, where he told him to “eff off”, where he criticised him for being at work and berated him. He was allowed to hold on to his job as a Minister, and now we are told, in another way of minimising the situation, that he had an animated conversation with his staff member and he put his hand on his shoulder.

Well, I tell you what, an animated conversation and just simply putting your hand on someone’s shoulder is not going to lead to a resignation from a Minister. There is much more to it. I’m going to say on this side of the House that we’re concerned about the level of abuse that may have been experienced by that public servant by that particular Minister at the time and the fact that the Government is covering it up and not willing to share any of the information. In fact, telling us that the matter has ended and it has been dealt with. Well, it hasn’t been dealt with.

Sadly, what we’re seeing here is another demonstration of the lack of leadership by the Prime Minister. We see it often with his engagement and his relationships and inability to kind of keep tabs on his coalition partners, but now we’re seeing it with his own team. He gave that former Minister another chance. He would not have been given another chance under the circumstances that we saw from Minister Bayly at that time—swearing at a worker, acknowledging that he did that, berating him for still being at work. There is no way a Labour Minister would be allowed to continue in their role.

Then, what we hear from that side is a constant desire to reflect back on other examples where Ministers were had up for a level of misconduct. OK, I get that. However, at some point in time that Government has to take responsibility, that Prime Minister needs to take responsibility. The Prime Minister needs to set some standards for his team. The Prime Minister needs to lay out clearly what his expectations are of his Cabinet. What we don’t need is the Prime Minister and his team coming here and expressing remorse for their colleague—remorse for their colleague—when their colleague would have inevitably been sacked anyway, whether or not the Prime Minister is willing to go so far as to say that, reflecting back on that three-minute interview with Mike Hosking. He would have had to have been sacked anyway. A resignation, in many ways, was the only opportunity that he had to save himself a little bit of face. He shouldn’t have actually been given that opportunity.

If the Prime Minister was the leader that New Zealanders expect of their Prime Minister, he would have acted swiftly and he would have dismissed that Minister. He would have made it clear that, under his watch, that type of behaviour and that treatment of staff is not appropriate, that it is misconduct, and that will never happen under his watch, but he didn’t do that. The thing that I think New Zealanders are most concerned about is the lack of leadership; it is the lack of transparency, it is the high level of concern for what actually went on in that office and the level of abuse that potentially that staff member had to endure. That side of the House should hang their heads in shame and they should not be coming here apologetic for their colleague.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge a number of things in my contribution this afternoon.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the apology that Andrew Bayly gave after the matter was brought to his attention and to the public’s attention. He said—and I quote—“As many of you know, I have been impatient to drive change in my ministerial portfolios. Last week, I had an animated discussion with a staff member … [and] I took the discussion too far, and I placed a hand on their upper arm, which was inappropriate. I have apologised to the staff member and regret placing them in an uncomfortable position. There are times when you have to hold yourself to account. [and] Today is one of those days.”

That was from Andrew Bayly taking responsibility and accountability for what took place, and the Prime Minister then said, “Mr Bayly fell short of my expectations and the expectations he sets for himself, and, as such, offered his resignation as a Minister, which I have accepted.” Members on the other side can’t seem to read, see, or hear the apology given in that statement and at that time. I understand and I know, looking through this litany of previous incidences which we can speak to under their administration, but we need to be crystal clear: our colleague, our friend, a Minister, has taken responsibility for their actions and resigned. This debate is, effectively, a farce, because actually the Minister has taken accountability for what’s happened.

For most general New Zealanders, they are not worried about the inner politics of this place. They’re worried about putting food on the table; having their kids in quality clothes to wear to school; ensuring that the roads they travel on each day are up to standard; that if they need it, there is quality and timely healthcare available to them; to ensure that the education system is delivering for their kids so that our next generation of leaders in this country are coming into the real world prepared and ready to give back. But members on the other side want to debate matters that happened two weeks ago, because to them, that’s the only issue at play here. Everything else is not a priority to them. The only priority, to the other side, is around Andrew Bayly’s resignation—which he gave, and it was accepted.

If we’re to look back, and it seems like short memories have come across the other side. Let’s look back: Meka Whaitiri, how many chances was she given? How long did that investigation take while she was under investigation for doing even worse to a member at that time? Michael Wood: how many opportunities was he given from the Cabinet Office to get rid of his shares? Seventeen times—17 times—Michael Wood was told “Remove those shares, you are a Cabinet Minister”, and he didn’t. He was removed, eventually, and thank goodness. Stuart Nash—oh, I’m sitting next to my friend Katie Nimon, from Napier, and it’s refreshing to have a change in that part of town, because Stuart Nash disclosing Cabinet information to friends—don’t you forget that. Then he had his disagreements, and Nash was allowed to resign rather than being sacked by the Minister.

Then we move on: Kiri Allan—in a diabolical situation there. Gaurav Sharma: who remembers Dr Gaurav—the Sharma drama? And what did that do? It gave us the gift of Tama Potaka to this House as a strong representative for Hamilton West. And then the list goes on—the incidents of Ginny Andersen and the volunteer during that campaign as well in 2023. I would say to members opposite: do not throw stones if you are in glass houses. This member and former Minister has taken accountability for his actions, which the Prime Minister has accepted.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Not one mention of the victim.

TOM RUTHERFORD: There is mention of the victim, and the victim is an important part of this process; we’ve acknowledged that throughout. What I’m saying today is, without a doubt, Andrew Bayly gave his resignation, it was accepted, there are bigger things in this country for us to focus on as a Government, and we’re going to deliver on it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We come to some trouble here as a Parliament when the Government has been asked a series of reasonable questions, which are in the public interest, about how a worker was treated, and constitutional questions of responsibility in a time line which has not been disclosed. Instead of the Government Ministers who have fronted this debate acknowledging those questions and endeavouring to answer them, they have in fact attacked the Opposition.

We’re at a crossroads here where we as a Parliament can accept that and move on, and that is the standard that Ministers will be held to in the future, or we can choose to pursue these questions. I hope that we do. I hope all members of this House take it incredibly seriously that it is not clear whether the Prime Minister himself knew about the situation of how the worker was treated, and it is not clear whether Cabinet knew, it is not clear whether that information has been compiled, and it certainly has not been made public. The ACT Party have argued in this debate that this is a waste of time, and we had National member, Tom Rutherford, who has resumed his seat say that this debate was a farce, when in fact we should be focusing on the cost of living.

Well, the irony is that Minister Bayly’s resignation—for the few New Zealanders who did know his name he will always be remembered as a Minister with issues of personal conduct. Yet he was the only Minister around the table who was charged with the most important issue on voters’ minds right now, which is the cost of living, which is the fact that New Zealanders are being charged too much at the supermarket, and too much in banking services. He was the person charged with this incredible responsibility, and yet we now have a supermarket plan which is weak. It has no hope of reducing prices for Kiwis, and no Minister to stand behind it. It is completely indicative of the crisis that the National Party faces now. There’s no shortage of tough talk on corporate interests, but nobody around the table who will actually back it up with regulatory reform, and no plan to see prices coming down for ordinary Kiwis.

What are we meant to take away from the way this Government operates? We’re actually seeing big corporates responding to those signals. Instead of the supermarkets being out there in the newspapers saying how they have a plan to address the cost of living for ordinary consumers at the checkout, they are in fact telling the National Business Review that they are redoubling their efforts to lobby Government. It is more in the interests of corporates to get cozy with Government Ministers than it actually is to bring down prices for ordinary New Zealanders across many sectors. That’s because this Government is going from announcement to announcement, to chaos to chaos, and there is no one who is willing to take on the leadership that it will require to actually make serious change.

When we think about what the commerce Minister, who was so passionate about those portfolios, will be remembered for, it is for being the Minister who obfuscated about calling a worker a loser and then was caught out in question time. It is for being a Minister who asked a worker repeatedly to join him and his staff who were having drinks, and it is a Minister who didn’t seem to get a worker’s hesitance to say no to him when he was on the job late on a Friday night. That is the legacy of this Government in the competition space. That is the record for consumers, and it is a shame in the record of that Government who promised at the election that they would address these consumer issues and the lack of competition in these sectors, and actually bring prices down.

This will all require more leadership than what we are seeing now. The Government is so out of touch with how important these cost of living issues are for ordinary Kiwis that it is not putting the people on the job who should be on the job. The guy who was around the table who had responsibility for this and was out there telling the supermarkets that they were on notice has now resigned and his portfolios have been consigned to the most junior Minister in Cabinet.

The Government requires leadership. Governing requires leadership. The Prime Minister has been asked to explain the nature of the complaint. No Government Minister would come down here and tell us what the plan is to ensure that this worker’s story is taken into account when addressing the conduct issues of a Minister on that side of the House. This Parliament is no clearer about how things will improve, and nobody in New Zealand is clear about this Government’s plan to improve things for ordinary Kiwis who are paying too much at the checkout. Both of these things require leadership, and on both counts this Government is failing.

We deserve as New Zealanders to understand what the standard is for Ministers. People in Government need to hold themselves to a higher standard and to make it clear what has happened, and to own up to it, and take responsibility.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, honestly, this is an exercise in clutching at straws by the Opposition, in my view.

I just want to recap quickly: there was an incident, which was subsequently escalated and investigated, which is the right and good practice and what we would expect when something like this happens. A discussion took place between the Prime Minister and Andrew Bayly, and the Minister resigned his position and portfolios. He stated that he did that after reflection that his action didn’t meet his own high standards. As Andrew Bayly apologised, he held himself accountable and he resigned as a result. I don’t think there’s any value in dragging this out when the Minister owned his actions and took action and resigned. What else could there possibly have been to be done? That was what the end result was.

I want to personally thank Andrew Bayly for his great work in consumer finance, insurance, and ACC—and acknowledged by the Opposition, who sound like they are missing Andrew Bayly already—because I genuinely believe he was doing a great job in areas that require specific expertise and focus. He has taken this on the chin. That work now, of course, will be carried on by the Hon Scott Simpson, who has been a fine whip for our great caucus and I want to thank for him for his service and wish him well. He has led us through the last year and been a great whip, a great mentor to those of us who needed it—and kept us all in line.

The vain hunt by the Opposition for a conspiracy in this whole case is ridiculous. There is no conspiracy—it’s been dealt with and we have now put it to bed. We have to get back to what this country expects us to be talking about, which is how we’re going to fix the mess that we were left in 2023, and how we are going to get the economy back on track and get moving again. We could stand here for ages, we could talk for—I don’t know—two hours on the vagaries of what happened in the previous Government and those who should have resigned and didn’t, or those who should have been sacked and weren’t—we could go on and on. There’s no point in going back through that because this actually has been sorted. It’s been done: Andrew Bayly resigned. There’s no further outcome to be met. I would argue, in closing, that it’s time we just got back on with it.

Could I also now just welcome Stuart Smith to the role of whip—he’s the chief whip. He will come in and continue to deliver for this Government, as the result of us will, as we get on with the job at hand. I don’t think there’s much more to be said on this, and I think that’s where we should end it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.