Comments on: Demonising Rankin

By: tweetybird

tweetybird — Sat, 16 May 2009 05:09:36 +0000

“But what the hell does the death of the former wife of her husband have to do with it, except to almost imply she was responsible for the death”
Well pardon my ignorance but was that what Colin Espiner, in the quotes in the original post was implying?

By: jackp

jackp — Wed, 13 May 2009 04:30:20 +0000

Ian Wishart did some investigative reporting and he wrote in his book , Absolute Power, Christine Rankin was a light weight in government compared to the labour party. I am always amused that people can question her ability to make decisions for families when we had Helen Clark making decisions for families. Did she ever have a husband? I don’t think so. These people complaining about Christine Rankin are living in glass houses and they should stop throwing their rocks.

By: Richard Aston

Richard Aston — Wed, 13 May 2009 03:17:35 +0000

Well that’s two entirely different views. It fact they are so far apart you could insert a small third world country between them.
Nigel – who are the socialist elite ? So far it seem people are worried about who Rankin is rather than what she is saying , a matter of style rather than content – I have not seen all the media on her but has she made any statements about what she plans to do or which direction she’d like to see the Families Commission head?

Danyl – yes I remember the debacle with WINZ it was a disaster and of course not long after that WINZ was consolidated into MSD . Not sure she singlehandedly bought about the defeat of the National Party I think thats stretching it a bit

By: Danyl Mclauchlan

Danyl Mclauchlan — Wed, 13 May 2009 02:37:00 +0000

The thing is, during her tenure at ‘Winz’, Rankin didn’t show any of this flair for ‘robust debate’ or ‘gutsy decision making’ she’s supposedly reknowned for. She distinguished herself by pissing away vast amounts of taxpayer money on frivolities (branding, promotional videos, private jets etc) while her department hit the headlines every week for its incompetence and mismanagement. She was a DISASTER who singlehandedly damaged the National Party in the opinion polls and helped bring about their defeat.

By: Nigel7

Nigel7 — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:57:04 +0000

Yes she will Richard. She is a passionate, determined, and hard working lady who has done well in life. Her views naturally disturb those who want us kept uninformed, dumbed down and ruled over by the socialist elite. So they attack her personally.

By: Richard Aston

Richard Aston — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:29:04 +0000

I think its interesting the reaction we are all having to Rankin’s appointment, some seem to assume she is taking over the Families Commission but she will be one of 7 commissioners with Jan Pryor as Chief Commissioner. Does she have such super human powers that her mere appointment as a commissioner means the end of the Families Commission as we know it?
Given her tough individualistic style it may be she has been thrown in to stir it up. She has already stated, in a interview with Mary Wilson on Radio NZ yesterday, that she doesn’t at all like the commission’s policy of consensus decision making and will be bringing “robust debate” into the mix. I think robust debate can be great but it can also be a code word for mindless shit stirring. I think the Families Commission deserves some of the criticism leveled at it but I think it could hold great potential in effecting social change at a grassroots level – killing it as some suggest seems premature and well, kinda mindless really.
Will Rankin be able to creatively contribute something of value?

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:56:42 +0000

I have found her to be a shallow thinker in what I have seen of her in the past.

This is just another mistake by our weak new government as far as I am concerned.

Crusher Collins and Chopper Tolley have already been disappointing. Add the name of Paula Bennett.

How difficult would it have been to find a more appropriate candidate?

Is attention seeking now a qualification?

By: Razork

Razork — Tue, 12 May 2009 08:17:57 +0000

She was fantastic on Close up!
Go Christine!!!!!

By: Tauhei Notts

Tauhei Notts — Tue, 12 May 2009 08:01:44 +0000

I watched this woman on the Sainsbury show. I listened carefully to what she had to say. Then I thought that her’s was an inspirational appointment. And I’m sure that Key knows that she will take “no shit’, even if it means maligning her employer, if, in her mind, her employer needs maligning.
I get the impression that her comments in the future will marginalise the Goff crowd. I’ll love that.
But spare a thought for the tangata whenua. No longer, under Rankin’s reign, will it be defensible to abuse the taonga, the tamariki. Expect some vigorous criticism in this field. And about bloody time.

By: Paul Williams

Paul Williams — Tue, 12 May 2009 05:27:42 +0000

That’s a tricky one. If her qualifications for the Trust required her to have/maintain a particular marital status, then she’s not qualified for that Trust but personally, I don’t think being a divorcee should disqualify you from anything. Being a poor parent’s possible whether you’re married or divorced. I still think Rankin’s unsuitability is function of her previously poor public performance, not her personal circumstances.

By: Kimble

Kimble — Tue, 12 May 2009 05:27:12 +0000

Why are politicians appointing this woman to run our families?

By: side show bob

side show bob — Tue, 12 May 2009 05:20:27 +0000

So Rankin has gone through three husbands, big deal. Does a doctor have to get three diseases before they can practice medicine?.

By: Russell Brown

Russell Brown — Tue, 12 May 2009 05:01:18 +0000

The odd thing is that John Sax originally hired Rankin in 2005 to run a campaign demanding social policy changes to stop families from breaking up. At the time, he said “We claim we have the right as adults to pursue any relationships we like – but at the cost of our children, do we?”

I can only presume that this was some sort of social moral conservative humour to which I am not privy.

By: NoCash

NoCash — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:15:23 +0000

Can Stuff.co.nz get rid of that pic of Rankin on the front page please… it’s an eye sore…

By: lyndon

lyndon — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:55:39 +0000

Probably at 12:52. And the byline changed?

By: lyndon

lyndon — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:54:18 +0000

The relevant passage has apparently been removed.

By: KiwiGreg

KiwiGreg — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:49:25 +0000

“We can expect the family’s commission to start really helping New Zealand families. ”

Because god knows what they were doing before there was a commission to tell them how to do it.

The correct government response would be to toss Dunne out (he will be gone in the next election so no need to even pretend Nats are building a sustainable coalition with him) and get rid of them all – Childrens, Families, Human Rights, Maori Language and all the other Commissions soaking up good money.

By: backster

backster — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:28:26 +0000

As I recall it Social Welfare was run very efficiently by RANKIN partly because she was resolute in exposing waste within the department and immense fraud by welfare recipients, matters which the Liabour Government quickly put on the backburner. The most blatant examples of Government wastage was by the WANANGA for which one MALLARD had oversight. Likewise the same MALLARD was prepared to gift over a billion taxpayer dollars to Auckland to build a sports stadium. It ill behoves him to complain about proflicacy…..As for Party patronage the best examples of that are surely the inverted racist DeBRESS and the former Trade Unionist NOONAN…..Of course all these Commissions are a waste of money and should be dispensed with. DUNNE is of no value to the National Government and should do a ‘Spector’ and revert to Liabour.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:16:10 +0000

I like the appointment. If Sue Bradford and Phil Goff are against it, then I am generally for it!

She is a social conservative, which I like. We can expect the family’s commission to start really helping New Zealand families. Rather than the previous regime which was really a mouthpiece for the Marxist/feminist social policies of the left.

I just think we need to get a clue. I honestly believe that the principles, let’s face it most of them Christian, that guided us in the past are the correct ones to guide us in the future. I honestly believe this remaking of the family to be whatever you want it to be, is completely wrong. The best family is mum and dad, married, looking after their children. Research says that, the word of God says that, our experience says that — I honestly believe we have to face reality.

I for one, am tired of radical left-wing, gay rights, feminist, elite ultraliberal people running this country. We need to get back to what works. It’s not returning to the 50s, but it is giving due weight to the principles of the past that will serve us well in the future. We need to re-establish family and marriage back into the centre of New Zealand society.

I for one applaud this appointment and hope that more right-thinking people get the chance to be appointed to these key positions. And yes I appreciate that she is a flawed human being, but God knows aren’t we all?

By: gd

gd — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:11:25 +0000

Sorry folks you missed my point I didnt explain myself.

Good govenrnace is all about good judgement. The head of any Commission or Department must be able to make good judgements if they are to be successful

Long and stable marriages are in part all about good judgement in selecting the right partner.

Now As I said if one makes THREE bad selections one has really got to ask the question is this the right person to be advocating on family matters.

IMHO NO. Its all about credibility. And THREE divorces does not a credible candidate for this post.

No offence against Christine My wife worked with her in the then Social Welfare in the 1970s and she was a good person and well respected