Yesterday Andrew Bayly, the former Commerce and ACC Minister, revealed he had resigned from his ministerial portfolios on Friday night after grabbing a staffers upper arm during a discussion that’s been described as “lively”. It comes after a messy public relations failure in October, when it was revealed Bayly had repeatedly called a worker a loser during a visit to a South Island business. He apologised and kept the job, but this was one step too far. The Prime Minister told Mike Hosking he relied on Andrew Bayly to do the right thing, and he did: 

“Look, honestly, he was doing a very good job making good contributions in two very technical portfolios. I'm sure Scott Simpson will carry that on. But look, the reality is you've got to have some standards, Mike. And you know, I watched the last lot go through a series of Ministers and it wasn't either clear... It was clear in this case and, and importantly, he recognised that he had met his own standards and that's his decision, so I respect that.” 

There's a lot of people complaining that Andrew Bailey shouldn't have had to go, shouldn't have felt that he had to go, but I can't imagine a situation where I would be touched by my boss during a lively discussion – and we have plenty of them. I cannot imagine him grabbing my arm and saying listen, you're wrong. We have very lively discussions with lots of argy bargy and neither of us hold back, none of us within the conversation hold back. I just can't imagine a situation where I would be held by the arm as a way of stressing the importance of the point that I was making. If my boss ever did, I can't imagine calling for his head. I’d say ‘get your bloody hands off me’ or something like that. But if the employee didn't like Bayly and found them difficult to work with, then the former minister gave him an absolute sitter of an opportunity to get rid of him.  

So Bayly’s gone from cabinet, but not from his electoral seat. The leader of the opposition is crowing. Chris Hipkins has accused the Pime Minister of handling the situation poorly, sitting on the information for two days before doing anything about it. Then, having Andrew Bayly himself resigned, not telling the public about it for several more days, then sneaking out before jumping on a plane to escape overseas. Chris Hipkins own words. He added “I think people will see that for what it is”. Nicola Willis, on the other hand, says it's about showing humanity, allowing Bayly to tell his family and come to terms with his professional demise before it became the public fodder it has become.  

Look, it's just politics. National certainly uses the departure of successive Labour ministers to point to Labour's lack of credentials to govern. There were a lot of them. Iain Lees-Galloway and on we went. Stuart Nash, Meka Whaitiri resigned to go to Te Pati Māori, Kiri Allan – there were a lot of ministers whose careers ended up being in the toilet. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that. If National can make hay whilst in opposition as Labour ministers came and went, then when they're in opposition, they can do the same when National ministers are doing much the same.   

I really think the hoo-ha about a couple of days is neither here nor there. I don't know what the fuss is about that. Darleen Tana was suspended from Parliament on the 14th of March. She was finally got rid of on the 22nd of October, all while drawing her parliamentary salary. Two or three days I can live with, but Andrew Bayly, I'm sorry, did have to go. Parliament has had a history of being a toxic workplace and you can't have a minister being a part of that if you want to change the culture. For those complaining it's a sign of wokeness and an overreaction, really? I don't recall anybody saying that when Labour ministers were in strife. And I really don't think laying hands on staffers is considered acceptable business practice in this day and age.  

He had to go, and he has. End of story.