The House: Urgent debate on Andrew Bayly resignation - Prosecution and defence

Parliament's first formal business this week was an urgent debate on the circumstances of last week's ministerial resignation by Andrew Bayly.

An urgent debate can be requested by an Opposition MP when an event occurs that falls within ministerial responsibility is judged by the Speaker as serious enough to demand the House's attention. In this case, Chris Hipkins made the request.

Unlike policy debates, urgent debates usually have a specific point of target. This can give them a trial-like air, with opposition and governing-party MPs acting as prosecution and defence.

If this was a trial though, it was one where the 'defendants' themselves were absent, since neither Andrew Bayly nor Christopher Luxon were present.

The 'Prosecution'

Hipkins, with first right to speak, targeted the prime minister instead of Bayly.

"Andrew Bayly said he grabbed the member of staff by the arm. That's the only account of what happened. What does the complaint say? Why won't the government be upfront 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 [made] the complaint; if they hadn't, why didn't they? It's a pretty serious allegation."

Chris Hipkins didn't get that entirely correct. In fact, Andrew Bayly's own account was "I placed a hand on their upper arm". The Leader of the Opposition's parapraxis may have been a misremembering of Bayly's account, or a conflation of it with another account.

His line of questioning highlighted the prime minister's own actions in response to the complaint, the lack of transparency surrounding Bayly's resignation, and whether Christopher Luxon informed the Governor General promptly enough (as the PM is only the conduit of a resignation; it is only the Governor General who can retract a ministerial warrant).

Speaking for the Greens, Ricardo Menéndez March focused on the complainants.

"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. …In the comments from the National Party Minister [Simeon Brown], 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."

Other opposition speakers focused on the only account given of the incident (Andrew Bayly's), and saw it through a somewhat conspiratorial lens.

For example, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer speaking for Te Pāti Māori.

"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. …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."

Labour's deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni agreed with that analysis.

"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. … 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."

And finally, there was also discussion of the impacts and flow-ons from the resignation. For example, Labour's Arena Williams saw some irony in the defence (noted below), offered by ACT and National MPs.

"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."

The 'Defence'

The Speaker of the current Parliament, Gerry Brownlee, gives fair warning of an urgent debate. His hour notice (given prior to Question Time) gives MPs some chance to get their thoughts in order. This can lead to a more reasoned debate than used to occur when an urgent debate was announced immediately before it began.

It can also lead to a more disciplined and less interesting response. This is because the extra time allows a party to distribute pages of agreed talking points to their prospective debaters. That is what appeared to occur this week, with each of the National Party MPs leafing through printed-out pages of things to note. As the National Party speakers were the primary defenders, this made for a pretty consistent defence with two primary elements: minimisation and what-aboutism.

Chris Bishop demonstrated the first.

"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."

Simeon Brown was rowing the same boat, but added one of the National party's core messages as a flourish.

"What this is called is 'personal responsibility', and Andrew Bayly has taken personal responsibility for his actions."

Even with talking points, the short time frame can cause difficulties. Perhaps with more time to prepare his thoughts Simeon Brown might have avoided offering what felt like congratulations to the offending minister.

"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…"

The second major response from National was comparative finger pointing. Brown spent much of his speech naming ministers and MPs from the previous (Labour-led) government who fell short of expectations, or were accused of doing so. These included Michael Woods, Kiri Allen, and Stuart Nash.

Bishop compared the current case to that of another former Labour 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."

Hipkins also drew comparison with Whaitiri's case.

"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."

A third, minor defence put forward by both National and ACT MPs was 'the public don't care, they have bigger fish to fry.'

Mark Cameron, for ACT said "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."

And from National's Tom Rutherford, "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… ."

Outcomes

While this kind of debate has the taste of prosecution and defence, there is no equivalence to a jury except, nebulously, where an issue resonates with the public strongly enough to influence an electoral vote.

As for politicians' disciplinary procedures, those are the province of the party leader (for an MP), and/or the prime minister, in the case of a minister.

The Governor General gives and withdraws a ministerial warrant, but only on the advice of the prime minister. It is the prime minister who both interprets and acts on the expectations laid out in the Cabinet Manual.

Parliament also has a behavioural backstop, the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, who may get involved only if an incident has not "reached resolution".

Resolving HR issues somewhere as contentious as Parliament is inherently problematic. Even when aspects are highly public (which is not always the case), the details and the outcomes often remain heavily shrouded in secrecy. This is understandable - particularly if desired by a victim.

A publicly acknowledged incident with a secret complaint and a muted resolution can leave the 'public jury' wondering what really occurred, whether good processes were followed, and what is not being said.

As was noted in the current debate, the Labour-led government commissioned an independent investigation in response to a similar issue, and made the results public. The Green Party did something similar in the current Parliament. But this approach takes time and is open to attacks of stalling, protecting perpetrators, or dithering.

There are inevitably approaches that are better and worse, fairer and less fair, more or less open - but all are open to political attack.

---

RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.