Luxon Tells The World Andrew Bayly Lied

This is an excerpt from the Mountain Tui substack post

In today’s press conference, Christopher Luxon re-affirmed his government’s commitment to bringing back the live animal export ban: claiming that National will do it to a “gold standard”.

Heard of that term before?

Well lobbyists spent $1m to help with the National-ACT-NZF reversal of Labour’s ban and the marketing term “gold standard” was key to its campaign.

RNZ:

…Livestock Export New Zealand (LENZ) will spend $366,000 on a “trust and understanding” campaign, $100,000 on media training advocates and nearly $200,000 creating a “gold standard” for animal welfare.

LENZ says it will also spend $160,000 on “political lobbying and legal fees”.

“It is vital that the industry help to fund a sustained communications programme to influence public opinion ahead of the ban being included with a reinstatement bill,” it says.

The LENZ document says the group Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE) will be a formidable opponent…

ACT MP Andrew Hoggard, former president of Federated Farmers and now Associate Minister of Agriculture, has the responsibility of reintroducing the trade.

Conversely, Australia voted this year to ban all live sheep exports.

Elsewhere in the press conference, Simeon Brown postured about Wellington Council, saying he was still “considering all options” without being willing to expand on any – and talking up roads – i.e. no surprises there.

But the highlight – and well reported – is Chris Luxon defending Minister Andrew Bayly for telling a factory worker who stayed back at work to “f*ck off”, and repeatedly call him a loser while forming the L sign with his fingers.

(Well reported in most places except NZME. Newstalk ZB instead today pleads: “Has the Andrew Bayly-bashing gone too far? ZB senior political correspondent Barry Soper says the media’s going too hard in criticising Minister Bayly.”

I’m sure I will find Soper pleading for Golriz as well after she admitted her mistake, and got summarily convicted and her career destroyed. I’ll hold)

Last week Bayly denied he said “F*ck off” and wondered why the complainant took offence – “It was only for a few minutes,” he opined – in a disturbing display of abuser code language.

Bayly:

I had a brief interaction with a person for a matter of a few minutes.

And out of that, he’s taken great offence. So I have apologised to him unreservedly.

There was no intention to offend him….

[Did you tell him to F off?]

I don’t believe I used that word at all.

Does Mr Bayly not realise that a few minutes is enough when being subject to what he did, let alone his recorded denials do not reconcile with the version the marketing Prime Minister sold NZ today?

Instead, according to Luxon, Bayly feels “genuine contrition”.

When the journalist pointed out Bayly didn’t even try to reach out to the worker to apologise at all, until well after the news blew up, and instead only apologised to the business, Luxon again affirmed Bayly was sorry – according to Luxon.

Media:

Is it a genuine apology though if he hasn’t accepted, if he disputes some of the facts, like he’s disputing that he swore at the guy, he wouldn’t even be kind of drawn on whether he used the loser word.

So if he’s disputing some of the facts, how much of a genuine apology is it?

Luxon:

..[He] clearly got this horribly wrong, you’ve caused hurt and insult to somebody. I expect a fulsome apology to them which he did and he also fulsomely apologised to me and reassured me it wouldn’t happen again.

And that’s the standards that I expect.

Media:

His first apology wasn’t directly to the worker.

It was to the business in which he mentioned the worker and sort of apologised for causing it…

Luxon:

Oh look, I can tell you in my conversations with him on Friday morning,

he clearly understood he had got that very, very wrong.

Luxon’s video is self explanatory – and so is Bayly’s interview last week – I have juxtaposed it in the clip above to show how starkly different Luxon’s account and Bayly’s is.

I won’t belabour the obvious –

But will note Luxon defended him with an iron ear – not hearing what he was being told, uninterested in anything but maintaining his storyline, and clearly advised to take the wind out of this story.

It’s like watching a morally vacuous individual at play – one who is certain of his own moral rectitude – but doesn’t seem to care what is truly right and wrong, and what is true versus what he can spin as true. And all Luxon really did too was show up Bayly for the liar he is after Bayly’s denials last week.

What a sad, vacuous time we live in.

It was good the complainant had witnesses – or I wouldn’t want to think about how they would have been treated and portrayed by this right wing government.

For example, I thought about this 74 year old protestor who David Seymour called a liar and assaulter after he told media he was manhandled for protesting peacefully at an ACT event.

Seems the complainant sent his email to a number of political parties, including National seeking a response – and despite it reaching inboxes – including Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni, it was later marked as spam and physically wiped from the mailboxes.

Luxon claimed today “he wasn’t aware” – of course – and Garry Brownlee refused to comment.

RNZ –

Labour leader Chris Hipkins told media on Monday afternoon he had contacted the Speaker because it “ultimately draws into question exactly how an email can be received and withdrawn again”.

“It does seem somewhat strange that an email can be received, read, and then disappear from their inbox.”

The Prime Minister’s office says it was not responsible…