Radio NZ’s bizarre handling of the Bayly fiasco

Written By: - Date published: 4:08 pm, February 25th, 2025 - 42 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, Deep stuff, making shit up, Media, national/act government, Politics, spin, uncategorized, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

This morning’s Radio New Zealand was somewhat perplexing.

Early on Nicola Willis claimed that National was doing the right thing by showing humanity by allowing Andrew Bayly time to tell his family before releasing the news publicly.

“I think there’s just a little bit of humanity involved in making sure that he had told the relevant people and then that’s been made public at the latest opportunity.”

Then during his normal RNZ slot Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, the David Brent of New Zealand politics, chose to answer questions by not answering questions. Even Ingrid Hipkiss, who most of the time is frustratingly deferential to National politicians, was not putting up with his evasion as shown by this exchange where she attempted to get Luxon to describe what Bayly had done:

Hipkiss – What do you know of the nature of this arm touch, from what you know about that, was it inappropriate behaviour for a Minister? 

Luxon – Here’s the deal. I mean, after the last incident and with all my Ministers, it’s pretty clear what the standards are. Andrew understood those standards. After that incident, he made a decision himself. It was his decision to say, look, I haven’t actually hit the standards that I hold myself accountable for.  It’s certainly not the standards that would be expected of a Minister.

…

Hipkiss – What exactly did happen? Because there are, well, we’re actually getting people texting and saying it doesn’t sound like a hanging offence, touching someone on the arm.  What do you know about the nature of this arm touch?

Luxon – Well, Andrew’s outlined it in his statement yesterday …

Hipkiss – Well, not really. No one’s very clear about exactly what happened. Was it a touch in anger?

Luxon –  Well, again, he talked about the fact that it was an animated conversation, an intense interaction, and he talked about that yesterday. As I said, I’ve got really nothing much to add to that. 

Hipkiss –  Do you know exactly what happened, though? Because animation can be like, you know, your mate’s just scored a try and you’re animated, and it doesn’t sound like that.

Luxon – Well, I think the fact that Andrew’s made a decision that the nature of interaction didn’t meet his standards and he’s resigned is actually good enough, and that’s the reality of it. You know, he’s made that decision. 

Hipkiss – Yeah, yeah, but do you know exactly what happened? Do you know exactly what happened? 

Luxon – Yes, I have a very good sense of the incident, which Andrew detailed yesterday. 

Hipkiss – And will you tell us?

Luxon – Well, he’s detailed that incident yesterday.

Hipkiss – Well, not written.

Luxon – No, because he’s just said there was a touch.

Hipkiss – So you know more than what I know about this?

Luxon – I know exactly what Andrew has detailed to you and also to me, and I would say to you that the important thing here is that he has made a decision that actually that interaction wasn’t of the standards that he would expect or what I would expect of ministers.

Hipkiss – OK, so you know more than what I know. You’ve got details that you aren’t going to share with us. Is that correct? 

Luxon – Well, no, I’ve got nothing further to add than what Andrew talked about.

Hipkiss – Have you got details that you’re not going to share with us? 

Luxon – He described the incident, I think, very well in his statement yesterday, and I’ve got nothing more to add to it.

Hipkiss – So do you have details that you’re not going to share with us? 

Luxon – Again, he’s described the incident. He’s resigned. I accept that, and we’re moving forward.

Luxon would have been given chapter and verse on what happened. His failing to describe exactly what happened is derisory.

And letting Bayly give his own description of the event is not sufficient. Luxon is lucky that Parliament is not sitting and that he is off to Vietnam this week.

The presented timeline is full of holes. An allegation of assault is made against a Minister, the Prime Minister’s office hears about it and delays telling Luxon for 24 hours which fortuitously for him means that he avoids the risk of having to answer questions about the resignation in Parliament or indirectly express confidence in all of his ministers.

And he says nothing during the weekend, does not front the media about the issue, instead he answers questions at a media event about gang patch seizures. He should have fronted this issue immediately. The delays all appear to be self serving.

As for the rest of Radio New Zealand’s coverage there was sharp analysis by Jo Moir about the timing of events.

But there was this bizarre choice by RNZ to allow Brigette Morten exclusive time to speak about the issue. She is National through and through, and a former National Party staffer. Every time I hear her speak I am astounded at her ability to spin reality in such a National friendly way.

So why offer her the oppunity to comment and to “provide analysis”? She was always going to say it was a good thing. It is like asking Kim Jong Un’s wife what she thought about the North Korean leadership.

And shock horror Morten thought Luxon handled it well and thought compassion was in order.

Clearly partisan hacks may have a role to play when they are pitted against other partisan hacks for debate about politics. But allowing them unfettered ability to comment and to offer this comment up as informed opinion feels like something that happens in North Korea.

As for Luxon there are two burning questions that he should answer:

  1. What exactly did Andrew Bayly do?
  2. Why did Luxon take to long to tell us about it.

42 comments on “Radio NZ’s bizarre handling of the Bayly fiasco ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Nordy 1
    25 February 2025 at 6:01 pm

    Well said. A third question I would add is why Luxon did not sack Bayly? After all, it was his third strike – undisclosed shares, the 'loser' incident, and now this assault. I agree it appears to be about being a weak and ineffectual 'leader', avoiding accountability and playing word games with interviewers. We deserve better.

  2. Phillip ure 2
    25 February 2025 at 6:17 pm

    I don't share in the general rejoicing at the demise of baylys political career ..

    A few years ago I attempted (I failed.. that's another story) to get some basic facilities for the homeless in his electorate..

    He was sympathetic to my arguments/case..and lobbied local govt for me..(to no avail)

    I found him to be intelligent/erudite and open minded…and in our discussions he told me of the areas he would like to work in..and what he would do…and much of the reforms he advocated made sense…

    And my understanding is that this is the work he was doing…

    ..so his exit is a loss for us all..

    I view him as one of the best of a bad bunch…

    And derive no joy from this outcome for him…

    • thinker 2.1
      25 February 2025 at 9:53 pm

      I've never met Bayly, but I have known a person who inspired others to say to their child "you're so lucky to have a relative like that" but it was all for show.

      Once the doors were closed and the rest of the world couldn't see into the child's home, the child's life became one of harsh treatment and super bullying.

      There are genuinely nice people as you described and I hope Bayly is one of them, but don't underestimate the ability of superbullies to hide their dark lights under bushels. That's how they get away with being a superbully for so long.

      Think Bing Crosby, for example.

  3. Ad 3
    25 February 2025 at 6:21 pm

    Bayly is horrible and had no problem working with a fellow MP against me and making sure my senior management knew about it.

  4. aj 4
    25 February 2025 at 6:31 pm

    I wanted Hipkiss to call it an assault, and to ask if Bayley had been drinking.

  5. Mike the Lefty 5
    25 February 2025 at 6:48 pm

    If Luxon wanted an opportunity to show that he was a real leader then this was it.

    Again, he failed.

    Luxon completely fails to comprehend that the public can and do see the difference between a PM sacking a cabinet minister, and a cabinet minister voluntarily resigning.

    The difference is LEADERSHIP, something that Luxon lacks.

    The grumblings within National are growing stronger.

  6. mickysavage 6
    25 February 2025 at 6:58 pm

    What if it was a light touch in anger but evidence of a, ahem, personal arrangement.

    And this was the reason why Bayly needed time to talk to his family.

    In that case Luxon letting Bayly frame it would be a major mistake.

    • weka 6.1
      25 February 2025 at 9:24 pm

      why? What would be the problem in being honest about it? and if it was an affair, why did it need to be public at all? He could have resigned for "family reasons"

      • weka 6.1.1
        25 February 2025 at 9:25 pm

        I can't actually think of any reason why they couldn't just be honest about it unless it's something that would mean he'd have to resign as an MP. Maybe a deal has been done. Or maybe someone has something over Luxon. None of it makes sense.

        • Belladonna 6.1.1.1
          25 February 2025 at 9:48 pm

          Agree that it doesn't make sense from a political management point to be obsuring the facts.

          Luxon would have come out far better if he's said something like "In the course of a heated discussion, on X date in Y location, Bayly grabbed a staffer by the upper arm" (or struck them on the shoulder, or shook them, or whatever he actually did). "This is not acceptable behaviour for a Cabinet Minister. He recognizes this, and has tendered his immediate resignation. I have no hesitation in accepting this, and would have required him to resign, if he had not already offered. I reiterate that his behaviour has been unacceptable, he's let down his office, his colleagues, his government and himself. The staffer concerned has been offered counselling, and continued employment in a similar role "(or whatever is actually going on – I'm hoping they're being supported). "I'm not prepared to take any further questions about the incident, which would risk breaching this person's privacy."

          This tells us:

          • Exactly what happened and when.
          • What action has been taken.
          • That the PM considers the behaviour is unacceptable – and there *will* be consequences to anyone perpetuating it again.
          • That the victim is being supported

          However, that would have required effective PR skills. Hiding the story is always the worst possible outcome – there will be leaks.

          The only PR positive that Luxon has is that Bayly has fallen on his sword, and both admitted responsibility and resigned as a Minister. No long-winded investigation needed, to keep this is the public eye.

          The natural follow up question is over whether he should be sacked as an MP – Luxon can outline the criteria for sacking an electorate MP (which are pretty onerous) – and say that he sees no need for these to be invoked at this stage. Which puts Bayly on warning that there had better not be another incident, because that option is available.

          • weka 6.1.1.1.1
            25 February 2025 at 10:06 pm

            that's how the grown ups would do it. Do you think it's simple incompetence?

            • Belladonna 6.1.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2025 at 10:15 pm

              I fail to see how it could have been the result of competent HR advice

              [Many moons ago, when I was in the position of potentially having to front to the media in an organization, we had media training which emphasised never trying to obscure the truth (you'll get caught, and the story will be considerably worse)]

              I guess it *could* be a result of the old boys club – letting him go with 'dignity'. Though that seems very old-fashioned, and out of step with the cut-throat reality of politics.

              But it does happen in the corporate world. Where executives are 'let go' and there is an agreed fact sheet that both sides read from (it's to avoid PG disputes, and also to get rid of the problem from the company in the shortest possible time). A recent example of this was the extended "family emergency" which was the excuse for Kamahl Santamaria being let go from TVNZ (rather than the sexual harassment, which was the actual reason). It's also an example of why not to do this…..

    • thinker 6.2
      25 February 2025 at 10:02 pm

      Christopher Luxon says he would have fired Andrew Bayly had he not resigned https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542861/christopher-luxon-says-he-would-have-fired-andrew-bayly-had-he-not-resigned.

      Near the bottom of the article Willis tells us the victim was a male…

  7. weka 7
    25 February 2025 at 10:09 pm

    The other thing that stands out is that it's not about Andrew's personal standards. It's about conventions around what is ok in a workplace and how that plays in a Ministerial setting. The whole focus on Bayly's moral fibre is weird.

  8. thinker 8
    26 February 2025 at 7:32 am

    When I saw that Scott Simpson had been moved from Chief Whip to take over Baylys ministries, I thought how cool it would be to have Andrew Bayly and Sam Uffindell as joint party whips.

    A whack with a pillow filled with textbooks would bring a few Ministers into line.

  9. Mike the Lefty 9
    26 February 2025 at 8:00 am

    If by "bizarre" you mean unusual in some respects I'm not sure I agree. Morning report and Checkpoint in particular are heavily dominated by the female journalists so you can expect a certain level of scrutiny when there is suggested violence and intimidation (even on a very minor scale) involved.

    They handled it pretty much the way I thought they would – getting more and more excited by the minute risking rupturing a blood vessel.

    • Belladonna 9.1
      26 February 2025 at 9:32 am

      A profoundly misogynistic statement. Equating female journalists with hysterical coverage.

      Yes, I know you didn't use the word, but it's difficult to interpret "getting more and more excited by the minute risking rupturing a blood vessel." in any other way.

      • gsays 9.1.1
        26 February 2025 at 12:57 pm

        So, how should someone, who is having an inordinately emotional reaction to circumstances, be described?

        • Belladonna 9.1.1.1
          26 February 2025 at 3:12 pm

          Not associating the inordinately emotional response with being female, would be a good start.
          I really can't believe that we need to be having this conversation in the 21st century.

          • gsays 9.1.1.1.1
            26 February 2025 at 7:04 pm

            Why is that so surprising. All my life, hysterical was an ok term for someone reacting overly emotionally to a situation.

            In the last year, reading threads here I became aware that it is verboten to describe a woman as being hysterical. To the best of my knowledge the etymology is problematic.

            So, I ask again, sincerely, how should someone, who is having an inordinately emotional reaction to circumstances, be described?

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 7:18 pm

              hysteria has a long history of being used to oppress women. When it get's used to suggest that women are too emotional, it's just another tedious expression of the same.

              I disagree somewhat with Belladonna, I think women are more emotionally expressive than men (generally, notallwomen/men obvs). The problem is where being emotional is seen as wrong.

              There's an additional problem that in a sexist society, men are passionate, women are emotional.

              So, I ask again, sincerely, how should someone, who is having an inordinately emotional reaction to circumstances, be described?

              It wasn't a someone, it was specifically female RNZ journos. In what way is their emotional reaction inordinate?

              • gsays …
                26 February 2025 at 8:43 pm

                Chur, all good and I get yr point about passionate/emotional and the bloke eye rolling/here we go again.

                I didn't hear the RNZ announcers that Mike was referring to. I am not bringing them into the convo.

  10. Tiger Mountain 10
    26 February 2025 at 8:01 am

    There will be more to come on this one for sure. He is part of the christian Natzo faction which may be why the PM is going easy on him and not telling the full story.

    Bayly has had an interesting career that Wiki just skates over…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bayly
    Envirofert has caused problems with locals with excessive odours and not following standards.

    He blasted his twin brothers leg whilst crossing a fence with a loaded shottie…
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10696339/MP-reluctant-to-tell-of-shooting-brother

    • Belladonna 10.1
      26 February 2025 at 9:34 am

      He blasted his twin brothers leg whilst crossing a fence with a loaded shottie…
      https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10696339/MP-reluctant-to-tell-of-shooting-brother

      Good lord – more than 40 years ago! You must be desperate for something to use against him. I'd have thought that his recent actions give you enough 'ammunition' that you wouldn't need to trawl through ancient history.

      • Tiger Mountain 10.1.1
        26 February 2025 at 9:58 am

        Mr Bayly is hoist by his own proverbial…no help required, the historical reference does illustrate that he is not a particularly risk averse fellow.

        Luxo has been less than forthcoming for what reasons–though Micky does point out some obvious ones like arse covering for the PM in Parliament.

        Whenever a “don’t be mean to a nice tory” pops up I think of “Dirty Politics” by Nicky Hager and the “Hollow Men” which exposes NZ Natzo culture very well.

      • lprent 10.1.2
        26 February 2025 at 10:23 am

        Personally, once proven to be an idiot with a firearm, I’d always treat them as a reckless idiot.

        • Belladonna 10.1.2.1
          26 February 2025 at 12:47 pm

          But many on TS are reluctant to apply the same standard to MPs actually convicted of offenses. Should we treat someone who has been convicted of theft as a criminally untrustworthy thief for ever after?

          • lprent 10.1.2.1.1
            27 February 2025 at 9:31 am

            Basically you seem to buying into the idea of original sin – how sanctimonious and plain religious of you.

            Whereas I'm talking about being aware of the potential for repeated reckless behaviour that follows the same profile. In Andrew Bayly's case of being a dangerous self-assured dickhead who isn't careful about others. Exactly the same reason he just 'resigned' over.

            I don't think that the issue is with the conviction. Because the people you are lauding haven't been referring to that. They have instead been highlighting events that are merely suspicions and taking unlawful actions related to those.

            After all, the conviction has been through the courts and the sentence done. The 'suspicions' haven't been anywhere what would be unlawful. But the actions of her harassers have been

            It is the sanctimonious vigilantes who keep doing the action of leaking photos and materials that are required to be private. Presumably because it is way of caressing their gonads for pleasure effects and for a sense of repeated superiority. So far it has been cause for the dismissal of a security guard, raised questions about the security of surveillance footage and other data stored on private shared databases, and even the legitimacy of those databases.

            These acts aren't about being careful around an known idiot. They are simple harassment. A series of attack actions by interfering prurient arseholes. Just like you and your obvious archetype Mrs Grundy.

            • Belladonna 10.1.2.1.1.1
              27 February 2025 at 11:29 am

              Hardly original sin. It's actions, rather than inherent evil.
              You feel free to refer to Bayly's past history "once proven to be an idiot with a firearm, I’d always treat them as a reckless idiot." But are reluctant to accept that others may apply the same standard for politicians you approve of.

              Did you condemn the TS poster who trawled up Bayley's historical misdeeds (from long before he was a politician). Do you regard them as a "sanctimonious vigilante"?

              Please note that I'm on record on TS, as defending the right of past politicians to privacy. I don't have any interest in, or support of leaks in relation to suspicions of further poor behaviour. I was referring to an actual criminal conviction.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 10.1.3
        26 February 2025 at 11:55 am

        … that you wouldn't need to trawl through ancient history.

        Otoh, "Those who do not learn from [ancient?] history are doomed…" Maybe CoC MP Bayly is a slow learner – he's certainly shot himself in the foot on this occasion. Anyhoo, I've learned something from TS today – thanks TM.

        It's understood that, while a student at exclusive Wanganui Collegiate School in the 1970s, [Andrew] Bayly was climbing over a farm fence with a loaded shotgun.

        The gun discharged, hitting [his twin brother] Paul Bayly in the calf and causing severe damage.

        I can understand Bayly's reluctance [in 2014, just after he was first elected to parliament] to talk about what must have been a painful memory – schoolboy roughhousing is best kept all in 'the family'.

        Look, you know, what I would say to you is that the important thing here is Bayley was not hitting his standards – he needs to up his aim.

  11. Jilly Bee 11
    26 February 2025 at 1:24 pm

    I read the transcript of Mike Hosking's absolute excoriation of Christopher Luxon this morning on Granny's website, wow for the first time in my long life I'm in full agreement with what the Hosk said. I will add the link, though it's paywalled of course – there's moments like this that I feel that my subscription is justified!!! https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/media-insider/media-insider-newstalk-zb-host-mike-hoskings-interview-with-prime-minister-christopher-luxon-youve-made-a-complete-meal-of-this/ORACEWPNWVDDLOH4N6BV6ODD4A/

    Not only that, but on Stuff's website, Paddy Gower has joined the fray as well, praising his colleague. The worm is turning, nay wriggling and perhaps CL's long descent into oblivion will start to accelerate somewhat. I don't always agree with Paddy either. https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360594324/paddy-gower-mike-hoskings-takedown-pms-corporate-waffle-has-done-us-all-favour

  12. observer 12
    26 February 2025 at 1:33 pm

    Luxon can lose RNZ, but much worse, he has now lost Mike Hosking (see NZ Herald, Stuff etc). That's fatal for a National PM.

    And there's no indication at all that Luxon learns from these media failures. He doesn't change his robotic, repetitive stonewalling. It is quite fascinating in a bleak kind of way … either his advisors have told him this works (it doesn't) or they've urged him to change and he won't/can't. Bluster, bluster … every interview, every time.

    After Hosking gives up on him, the caucus will follow.

  13. gsays 13
    26 February 2025 at 1:49 pm

    He's like the 3yr old with brown smears around their mouth and hands denying they've been in the open jar of Nutella.

    A'la Jophesine in Comedy Company.

    https://www.tiktok.com/@thisguymattford/video/7215154361419222273

  14. powerman 14
    26 February 2025 at 4:03 pm

    Somehow along the way, Bayley has been portrayed as a victim because of the effect that this incident has had on his career and family–how bizarre!