Claudette Hauiti is gone

Written By: - Date published: 1:12 pm, July 22nd, 2014 - 74 comments
Categories: national, same old national - Tags:

John_Key_and_Claudette_Hauiti

National list MP and Kelston candidate Claudette has announced that she is resigning from politics.  In a tersely worded press release she has confirmed that she will not stand again and that she will not make any further statement.

This morning as I drove around West Auckland in the Kelston electorate I noted how there were no Hauiti billboards up although there were plenty of generic National billboards up.  Then the news broke.  It seems that the decision was made a little while ago.

No doubt the decision was made because of her recent difficulties with her Parliamentary credit card.  I understand that there may have been aspects of her explanation that were, ahem, inaccurate and that further news was going to break.  So efficiently and effectively National has ended her parliamentary career.  Like all of the other National MPs who have retired she has gone quietly.  It makes you wonder if the rumours about the means of persuasion are correct.

She was up against it.  I understand she was number 57 on the National list and she is standing against Carmel Sepuloni who is a very talented and capable campaigner.  Hauiti had been moved out of her home seat of Mangere so that National could pretend to be socially conservative on social issues.  She also had a previous mishap where she employed her civil union partner in breach of Parliamentary rules.

Her replacement will be interesting.  The rumour is that Elizabeth McEwan will be their candidate.  I wonder if they are thinking of doing a deal with Colin Craig to stand here instead?

Hauiti had to go because she broke the basic rule of politics.  National hate it when their individual MPs remind people that National is only there to look after themselves and the privileged few at the expense of Kiwis.

74 comments on “Claudette Hauiti is gone ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Liam Hehir 1
    22 July 2014 at 1:25 pm

    “… so that National could pretend to be socially conservative on social issues…”

    What’s the basis of that statement?

    • Te Reo Putake 1.1
      22 July 2014 at 1:34 pm

      google is your friend, Liam.

      • Liam Hehir 1.2.1
        22 July 2014 at 2:03 pm

        Okay, so a minority of National members voted for a private member’s bill legalising same-sex marriage. That means a majority voted against.

        Doesn’t that means that National is the most socially conservative Parliamentary party after progressive heroes New Zealand First?

        • Weepus beard 1.2.1.1
          22 July 2014 at 2:20 pm

          Could be wrong but I think MS was pointing to National moving a candidate who happens to be in a same sex civil union out of Mangere in order to appeal to what they perceive conservative Pasifika values to be.

          The wider conservative policy of the National government is nothing but damaging to Pasifika people and they both know it.

          [Dead right WB – MS]

          • Liam Hehir 1.2.1.1.1
            22 July 2014 at 2:29 pm

            Maybe so – but that doesn’t mean National is pretending to be socially conservative. Social conservatism is a minority position now. It is a very large minority, but a minority nonetheless.

            Of the two major parties, one is has a latitudinarian approach to social conservatism and the other arguably much less so. That is the best social conservatives can hope for from a maintream political party in 2014 New Zealand.

            • McFlock 1.2.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2014 at 2:35 pm

              Actually, if national is picking outwardly non-queer candidates in specific electorates to appeal to what National believe is the social conservative bias of those electorates, then that does mean that National are pretending (to voters in those electorates) to be socially conservative.

              • Liam Hehir …
                22 July 2014 at 2:43 pm

                Or, to put it another way, National have selected a candidate that they think locals will consider better represents their views. There is rarely a “National Party position” on contentious social matters.

                In any event, I doubt it worked quite like that since National candidate selections are typically undertaken by vote of local members, with minimal input from the central party (at least compared to other parties).

                • McFlock …
                  22 July 2014 at 2:57 pm

                  So the Kelston branch just happened to pick a random MP for another electorate as candidate? lol

                  Either way, it says more about National’s attitudes to the electorates than it does about the electorates themselves.

                  • Liam Hehir …
                    22 July 2014 at 3:36 pm

                    By that logic, why isn’t Joanne Hayes standing in Dunedin South? Why did Christchurch East “pick a random MP for another electorate as candidate?”

                    • McFlock …
                      22 July 2014 at 4:10 pm

                      No idea. Which is sort of the point, if you bothered to read the link in the post.

                    • Liam Hehir …
                      22 July 2014 at 4:15 pm

                      I did read it, I just didn’t see anything in there to persuade me that National is pretending to be a socially conservative party. It certainly is more tolerant of social conservatives than others – but that’s more of a fact than a pretence.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 July 2014 at 5:04 pm

                      It certainly is more tolerant of social conservatives than others – but that’s more of a fact than a pretence.

                      But the debate isn’t about “tolerance”.

                      If national’s “tolerance” results in no social policy differences between national and Labour, what’s the point of having token-conservative candidates? It’s a “pretence”.

                      If national’s “tolerance” [for intolerance] is reflected in actual social policy differences, then national isn’t “tolerant” to social conservative views, it is socially conservative.

                    • Liam Hehir …
                      22 July 2014 at 5:58 pm

                      In one party, more than half the caucus voted in a socially conservative way on that issue. That’s hardly tokenism. National didn’t legalise SSM – Parliament did (with most National MPs voting against – which is strange for a party with a supposedly determined social liberal agenda).

                      National is and always has been an coalition of town liberals (drawn from what used to be the United/Liberals) and rural conservatives (drawn from the Reform Party). This is why that party’s organisation is a lot more decentralised than Labour’s and why its MPs have traditionally been allowed more leeway to deviate from the party line.

                      It is, in what is apparently the cliche of the day, a “broad church”.

                      On the other hand, only about 10% of Labour voted the same way. That’s fine – you’ve got to go with what you think is right. It’s also more ideologically coherent so if ideology is important to you, it’s a good way to go.

                      But you can see why some people who feel strongly about social conservatism might feel one is more welcoming than the other.

                      On the other hand, I don’t think that people generally base their votes on those things and that economic issues will almost always be decisive.

                    • felix …
                      22 July 2014 at 7:00 pm

                      Liam, none of that actually conflicts with the observation that National shunted a queer candidate out of her electorate because they wanted to present themselves, in that electorate, as anti-gay.

            • Tiger Mountain 1.2.1.1.1.2
              22 July 2014 at 2:41 pm

              National does whatever it takes. Key greasing around the Big Gay Out at Pt Chev each year and even Banksie on anti emetics finding his gay rainbow side when standing in the first super city mayoral race while still a Nat.

              • North …
                22 July 2014 at 11:29 pm

                Yeah, mincing around like a nervous wee first-timer. Hilarious. The dog’d cancel Christmas if he thought there was plus in it for him.

  2. Ad 2
    22 July 2014 at 1:27 pm

    And with Act’s Mr Whyte taking on Pakuranga, could we just remotely see Maurice semi-retire to the list only so National has a safety card?

  3. karol 3
    22 July 2014 at 1:28 pm

    I thought I passed a Hauiti billboard while traveling on a bus down the Great North Road, either yesterday or Sunday.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      22 July 2014 at 1:36 pm

      Was it one of the billboards advertising the recent public meeting that were put up a couple of weeks ago?

      • karol 3.1.1
        22 July 2014 at 2:20 pm

        Probably – top of Waikumete Hill – near the Kelston Community Centre.

        • Tracey 3.1.1.1
          22 July 2014 at 2:46 pm

          still no goldsmith billboards spotted by me in Epsom, smile and wabpve is up tho.

          • sophie 3.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2014 at 5:22 pm

            Have only seen Party Vote National signs up in Ohariu.

            • Tracey 3.1.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2014 at 8:21 am

              yup. The whole dont becomplacent and assume we have won speach was, imo, a message to epsom and ohariu voters. No cuppa required

              • Rojo …
                23 July 2014 at 12:36 pm

                There’s a Goldsmith billboard on a private site on the corner of Balmoral and Mt Eden.

  4. Once was Pete 4
    22 July 2014 at 1:36 pm

    Well, thats got to be good news. The less incompetent MP’s we have in parliament the better. Now if we could despatch a few more, I would be even happier.

  5. Enough is Enough 5
    22 July 2014 at 1:49 pm

    How could they do the Colin Craig deal here?

    If they gave him a free run here he would still loose to Carmel.

    • mickysavage 5.1
      22 July 2014 at 2:00 pm

      My tongue was in my cheek …

    • David H 5.2
      22 July 2014 at 3:25 pm

      “If they gave him a free run here he would still loose to Carmel.”

      FFS the word is LOSE. Loose is when your pants fall down because you forgot to do up your belt. At least try to get it right. If you not sure Google is your friend.

      http://www.ross.net/notes/loose.shtml

      • Enough is Enough 5.2.1
        22 July 2014 at 4:25 pm

        See 5.1 you psycho spelling nazi

        • David H 5.2.1.1
          22 July 2014 at 6:33 pm

          I did And Mickey probably uses a checker so as not to make such basic mistakes. Unlike you, who seems to type from the hip without checking what you have written, before hitting the send button. Me I reread before sending.

          Psycho ? Probably
          Nazi ? No
          Suffers fools gladly ? I would be just behind Lprent in what I think about said fools.
          Sorry Lprent for taking your name in vain. Just making a point.

        • deep throat 5.2.1.2
          22 July 2014 at 6:50 pm

          psml.
          roflmao.
          tell him enough.
          who is making the rules round here?
          have the trolls taken over?

          [lprent: The people talking obsessively about trolls worry me. ]

      • Daveosaurus 5.2.2
        22 July 2014 at 6:38 pm

        “At least try to get it right. If you not sure”

        Oh, the irony…

        • joe90 5.2.2.1
          22 July 2014 at 6:54 pm

          Muphry wins.

        • David H 5.2.2.2
          22 July 2014 at 7:09 pm

          @Daveosaurus you said “At least try to get it right. If you not sure”

          Oh, the irony…

          If you are going to quote me, then please use the full quote. I actually said At least try to get it right. If you not sure Google is your friend.

          The last 4 words give it a whole new connotation and yes I did miss a R (too much texting for this old brain) So shoot me. I admit it. I made a mistake. But on here it’s continual there’s Moran for Moron and Loose and lose these are basic English. And I am not the only one here who pulls up people for these mistakes.

          • felix 5.2.2.2.1
            22 July 2014 at 7:14 pm

            “… and yes I did miss a R … “

            Oh dear he’s done it again.

            David, you get one more shot at this. If you mess it up this time then I’m afraid you’ll be required to turn in your jackboots and dictionary.

          • Disraeli Gladstone 5.2.2.2.2
            22 July 2014 at 7:39 pm

            “But on here it’s continual there’s Moran for Moron and Loose and lose these are basic English.”

            And your and you’re. People these days, huh?

            • Murray Olsen 5.2.2.2.2.1
              23 July 2014 at 1:57 am

              Their, their, DG, don’t be so hard on David. He’s just trying. Bloody trying.

    • Clemgeopin 5.3
      22 July 2014 at 7:05 pm

      May be he will dress in a colourful Rainbow outfit with a sleek peacock feather up his head and do the fashion moon walk like Hash-Key once did and try to impress the crowd or may decide to just lie in a romantic pose somewhere in Kelston grass.

      See this amusing video:

  6. The Lone Haranguer 6
    22 July 2014 at 1:50 pm

    A good move on the part of the Nats. She may be the only politician in Wellington who made Aaron Gilmour look good.

    • David H 6.1
      22 July 2014 at 6:45 pm

      But also one that could be construed the wrong way, as she is a Gay, Pacific islander. Not the ideal National Party candidate, if you look at their record.

  7. infused 7
    22 July 2014 at 1:50 pm

    Can’t say that’s bad news…

    • Kiwiri 7.1
      22 July 2014 at 7:51 pm

      Not really for her bank account that will continue to suck up taxpayers’ money until when – Sep 20? Or till new MP sworn in?

  8. Craig Glen Eden 8
    22 July 2014 at 1:58 pm

    I said last week that Kelston wouldn’t want her I suspect National and Key knew more was to come and she would be a boil on Nationals back side internal polling also could have indicated that her presence would effect the Party vote. Lets face it once she has resigned the media are not likely to run many if any stories about her and what the true reason is for her resignation.

  9. Tom Jackson 9
    22 July 2014 at 1:58 pm

    Who cares about this trougher? The Herald would rather report about David Cunliffe being attacked by a cat, or a time he farted in front of someone 25 years ago.

    • Hami Shearlie 9.1
      22 July 2014 at 4:00 pm

      OMG he tooted in public – really? Surely that would be a hanging offence to our MSM? It’s a wonder that Claire Trevett hasn’t written a book about that, the length of which would rival War and Peace!!

      • Anne 9.1.1
        22 July 2014 at 5:31 pm

        It’ll be in the Herald tomorrow. Toss up between Audrey Young and Claire Trevett. Source – Labour insider on an online blogging site.

    • Bearded Git 9.2
      22 July 2014 at 7:46 pm

      Don’t give them ideas Tom….

      In the meantime Key’s inability to say sorry over the (alleged) rape despite promising to*, followed by the corrupt Hauiti have landed 2 blows on National in one day. Nice for a change.

      *terrible body language at press conference where he refused to say sorry; gave the impression doesn’t give a toss about rape

      • Clemgeopin 9.2.1
        22 July 2014 at 8:02 pm

        Nearly three weeks ago, John Key said he would say sorry if he knew who she was, but now says he won’t.
        Today Key said : “I don’t make apologies unless there’s a serious reason for me to do that.”

  10. Michael who failed Civics 10
    22 July 2014 at 2:05 pm

    Good to see the back of her. Does she get the 40K retirement payment from taxpayers? What about the 300K one the Nats are reported to “incentivize” their dead wood to stand down? I think we should be told.

    • Tracey 10.1
      22 July 2014 at 2:53 pm

      Has anyone from the media aske d Key of rhe puppet president of national this question?

  11. Craig Glen Eden 11
    22 July 2014 at 2:36 pm

    Another #TeamKey corpse disposed of!

  12. Tracey 12
    22 July 2014 at 2:50 pm

    “The facts (according to Derek Cheng of the NZ Herald) are:

    Last year, Mr Heatley used a 75 per cent airfare discount available for MPs on a holiday with his wife in the Cook Islands [costing $1800]
    And when Mr Key introduced an MP housing allowance limit at $37,500 a year, Mr Heatley’s Wellington residence was found to be $15,838 over budget.
    He rented a Wellington apartment for $946 a week, and also owned another he rented out to fellow National MP Louise Upton for $355 a week “2010

  13. dv 13
    22 July 2014 at 4:36 pm

    Was/is she on the team key poster?

  14. feijoa 14
    22 July 2014 at 5:08 pm

    Claudette’s performance on Backbenchers was a shocker. Phil Goff walked all over her, in terms of breadth and depth of knowledge, and communication skills.

  15. Tracey 15
    22 July 2014 at 5:34 pm

    good question

  16. Ben Adam 16
    22 July 2014 at 5:53 pm

    I wonder how much ‘severance moola’ was put in a brown goodbye brief case in return for her secretive silence and continued loyalty. Considering her stupid sins, may be less than what the other misfits that were made to resign got. $100,000 + 3 months pay I would say. What is your guess?

    • Skinny 16.1
      23 July 2014 at 1:20 pm

      Investigative journalism in this country is being shutdown by the rich masters. There is enough noise about to say Goodfellow and co are golden hand shaking grudgeful (rejected) National MP’s with 300k. If true you can guarantee the pushed MP’s will be signing a rock solid confidentiality agreement. All these suspect political donations go towards topping up the grand exit trough.

      If only the public could see through to the dirty dealings being masked by the “Working for rich New Zealander’s.” political party.

  17. felix 17
    22 July 2014 at 7:10 pm

    I recently noted her blatant dishonesty and stupid expectation of getting away with it when she was asked a simple question on tv.

    Not surprised at all.

    • Te Reo Putake 17.1
      22 July 2014 at 7:25 pm

      Yep, getting away with that shit takes years of experience, a compliant media and the certain knowledge that there’s always 50 million bucks and the house in Hawaii to fall back on if it goes tits up.

  18. deep throat 18
    22 July 2014 at 8:51 pm

    of course she is gone.
    anyone who saw her trying to bully everyone and hector them on Backbenchers last week would see just what sought of person the National Party had recruited and why they were so glad to see the back of her.
    unfotunately they are all like that but dont get exposed like she did.
    Not a good advertisment for any outfit.

  19. Anthony B'stard 19
    22 July 2014 at 10:06 pm

    This was a good post, until the very last sentence….

    “National hate it when their individual MPs remind people that National is only there to look after themselves and the privileged few at the expense of Kiwis.”

    You’re trying to claim that thats the reason they moved her on? Because they were reminded of something?

    This is exactly the reason why Labour is so far up the proverbial creek. Everyone involved with the party has their red blinkers on, and can’t see the wood for the trees.

    The reality of the situation is that someone who added little value to the party overstepped the line, and were swiftly cut loose. Its an example that Labour should be learning from.

    • mickysavage 19.1
      22 July 2014 at 10:46 pm

      The decision to move her on occurred at the same time the news of her credit card problems broke. Until then it appears that she had a fighting chance of keeping her parliamentary career alive.

    • North 19.2
      23 July 2014 at 12:16 am

      Yes Bastard……you got it right at 19 above.

      “She also had a previous mishap where she employed her civil union partner in breach of Parliamentary rules” –

      reminded them too much of –

      “Judith also had a previous mishap where she was employed by her milk company marriage partner in breach of Parliamentary rules”.

      It’s lovely seeing an arrogant hollow person Tory person getting fucked over.

  20. North 20
    22 July 2014 at 11:13 pm

    What is that sick hooting fool Paul Henry on about on TV3 tonight ?

    Not that I have any particular sympathy for the NZ First MP Lole-Taylor (name, not sure, sorry) and even less for Claudette Hauiti, but here he is mocking them hard out – “useless things etc” – “Oh God these MPs…….blah blah blah such arses they are……my taxpayer dollars !” So screeches the nasty old queen. The only person in the world ever gladly to be hand out for putea to confirm itself a prick/bitch. “Hey, the 80s want their hair back ! Humph Humph Snigger.”

    Ummmh…….who went hard out trying to be a National Party MP years ago Paul dear, in Wairarapa ? Yes……You…….Darling ! Except that you fucked it up on the eve of election day by outlandishly, preeningly, incredibly, particularly incredibly, asserting – “At least I’m a real man !” In cheap bitchy sneer directed at your transsexual Labour Party opponent Georgina Beyer. Who went on to win reasonably convincingly as I recall. Kia Ora Paulie.

  21. Vanessa Rare 21
    23 July 2014 at 4:29 pm

    So glad that she’s left. She’s worth her weight in gold this girl, having worked with her in the past, I know this. It was only a matter of time before she would of recognised the hypocrisy’s and contradictions within this party. As for her misdemeanour’s, this is definitely not in her character, and I’m sure there is a logical explanation. In any case, I’m glad she’s left, now maybe her brilliance can spread into other community needs.

    • mickysavage 21.1
      23 July 2014 at 9:51 pm

      Kia ora Vanessa. I met her recently and I actually liked her. I also thought that she was in the wrong party. I suspect there was some complicated stuff happening in the background …

      • Clemgeopin 21.1.1
        23 July 2014 at 10:26 pm

        I agree. She came across as a bubbly, lovely person in her interviews and on the Back Benches TV appearance (even though she was spinning away her party lines like a very loyal servant of the stupid controlling rich man’s party and Crosby-Textor’s-Hash-Key!). I sort of feel sorry for her and her stupid low level mistake, no matter how many shady million dollar donations from big business are secretly siphoned into Nat corrupted coffers without public knowledge!

        Hauiti and the other forcibly ‘kicked out’ MPs should expose all the rort in the hollow nasty Nats. They may yet get some respect back now and in our political history for their guts and integrity. But probably won’t happen because money, like lust, is very powerful!