National MP Andrew Bayly has discovered it is a short walk from Last Chance Saloon to the exit – and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon cannot afford for any more of his ministers to misbehave.
Luxon had put Bayly on notice when he opted to keepthe minister on after the infamous “loser” exchange with a worker at a winery last year.
Now Bayly has racked up a second offence and become the latest to declare he is happy to just be the MP for his electorate, rather than a minister.
Luxon could at least chalk it down as a success for the “Everyone Must Go” tourism campaign slogan he’d launched the week before, although he presumably did not intend his ministers to take it as an instruction.
However it played out, once Bayly’s transgression was known, his ministerial career was over.
Whether Bayly was pushed or read the neon signs himself, he was in a situation of quit or be sacked.
Luxon was in a situation of waiting until the resignation was offered and accepting it – or sacking him straight away. He went for the former.
The situation of an otherwise competent minister losing a job so abruptly in such circumstances may well send a chill down the spine of other ministers.
Luxon has demoted a few ministers so far, but Bayly is the only one for whom the issue has been personal behaviour rather than a question of competence or performance.
Andrew Bayly during visits to a winery where he made the L sign on his forehead to a worker.
Luxon did, however, set a very high bar for meting out swift punishment to ministers when he was in Opposition.
Luxon made a lot of noise about the length of time it had taken for them to be sacked – and the number of chances Hipkins had given them.
Luxon even returned to that theme 10 days ago when Hipkins was questioning him in Parliament about Act leader David Seymour’s letter to police about Philip Polkinghorne.
In his answer to why he had not sacked Seymour, Luxon gave the roll call of Labour ministers who came a cropper, noting it was an “ironic” line of questioning from Hipkins.
Of course, Labour responded by pointing out they were all sacked.
Hipkins – who sacked most of them after varying lengths of time – is now the one saying Luxon should have walked his 2023 talk and sacked Bayly after the first offence.
He is also arguing that Luxon should have sacked Bayly instantly the moment he was told of the incident rather than waiting until the next night for Bayly to decide to resign.
Bayly did at least fall quickly rather than try to argue his way out of his plight.
He was at pains to insist the resignation was very much his own decision after reflecting on it and deciding to hold himself to account – but Luxon was also clear that it was the right one.
That is another way of saying Luxon would have sacked him if he had not done so.
Judging from the timeline, it took a few days and a formal complaint for Bayly to reflect and hold himself to account.
The situation most comparable to Bayly’s was Whaitiri’s. She was sacked as a minister in 2018 for allegedly grabbing the arm of a press secretary in frustration.
Luxon has at least avoided the drawn out process Whaitiri’s case went through – Whaitiri had disputed elements of it and a review was ordered before she was sacked.
As with Whaitiri, the exact circumstances around what happened with Bayly are sparse.
It was apparently an animated discussion during which Bayly touched or grabbed a staffer’s arm. Whether that was in anger, exasperation, or simply to emphasise a point, he wouldn’t say.
It is almost irrelevant, anyway. It was enough for a complaint to be laid and for Bayly to then decide (or be persuaded) that explaining was losing.
Nor should it be excused under a shield of being “impatient to drive change”, which was what Bayly put up as the reason for this animated conversation.
Had it been a first offence, Bayly may have dug in – although the tolerance for anything that might be described as bullying behaviour should not be high.
Alas, he had no leeway left. Rumours were already circulating on Friday. It would have become a drawn out, distracting mess. No Government needs a drawn-out, distracting mess.
Then there is the gap between Bayly’s resignation on Friday night and announcing it publicly on Monday.
That meant it overshadowed the Government’s attempts to focus on its law and order achievements in Luxon’s press conference of the day.
Bayly explained the wait was because he was too upset to front on it over the weekend and needed the time to tell his family and staff.
Luxon said that was a reasonable request.
I’m sorry, but if you’re a minister who has got into strife, you should at least not let it overshadow the Government’s attempts to highlight its achievements.
Whaitiri was restored as a minister two years later but there will be no road back for Bayly – Luxon will not want to take the risk.
The story will subside quickly – the media questioning soon moved on to slightly more concerning issues, such as China warships in the Tasman Sea.
However, Luxon can’t afford for any more ministers to come a cropper. It is both a very messy look for a first-term Government – and he has an attrition problem.
Luxon still has a limited pool with which to replace any ministers. He has already had to start promoting first-term MPs to become ministers – such as James Meager.
Scott Simpson will replace Bayly and has a fair bit of experience in Parliament. He has been chief whip since 2023 – and usually the chief whip is among the first in line to get promoted, but Simpson was overlooked in the last reshuffle.
Beyond that, Luxon really has only first-term MPs, who he will be hoping get up to speed quickly.
