Cabinet hotly debated Ms Rankin’s appointment.
Christine Rankin says she is “really surprised” by the reaction to her controversial appointment as a Families Commissioner.
United Future leader Peter Dunne, architect of the Families Commission, today lambasted the appointment as “a mistake” and called on Ms Rankin to reject the position.
Ms Rankin, who recently remarried for the fourth time, said today she had not expected the furore over her appointment.
“I am really surprised by the level of reaction,” said Ms Rankin.
The Government confirmed today Ms Rankin was one of two new appointees to the commission in a decision which has already sparked controversy.
The Families Commission was set up as a Crown agency to promote better understanding of families issues as part of a support deal between United Future and Labour following the 2002 election.
National was previously scathing of it but agreed to retain it as part of its post-election support agreement with Mr Dunne.
Ms Rankin led a group opposed to Ms Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation – which National voted for. As head of For The Sake Of Our Children Trust she went head to head with former Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro and child advocate groups.
During the anti-smacking debate Ms Rankin referred to former Prime Minister Helen Clark as childless, which Mr Goff said was an unacceptable personal attack.
Ms Bennett said she had argued for the appointment.
“I think we were pretty strong in putting her forward, and she certainly presented well,” she told reporters.
“I think Christine has some pretty strong views on things, I think she will bring those views to the commission and as a consequence the decisions that come out of it will be fairly robust.”
Lobby group Family First NZ welcomed the appointments.
“Both Christine and Bruce will bring the Commission ‘down to earth’ and rather than being blinded by ideology, it will hopefully start listening to the voice of families and advocating for them in a relevant way,” said Bob McCoskrie, national director of Family First.
I feel Christine will be excellent. Who is “Bruce”?
She has a down to earth common sense approach that these commissions have been sadly lacking. Congratulations, we are seeing good forward thinking decisions.
Just so long as she never hangs up her earings or miniskirts 🙂
An interview with Christine Rankin
Alastair please click on the link to read the full article from it’s source.
Bruce Pilbrow, chief executive of the advice service Parents Inc is the other appointee.
Reading The Parents inc website, we would be hard pressed to find a better nominee. This should put a bomb under thw woofters. That only leaves the childrens commission and MWA!
Dunne quoted as saying:
“Families Commissioners need to be impartial, not highly partisan.”
How come National were prepared to appoint a highly partial person such as Jill Moss as a family court judge, after she had spent many years as a radical women’s advocate.
So let me get this clear here….
a miniskirted, push up bra-ed, pouty red lipped, stilletto heeled Rankin who’s been divorced 4 TIMES
is the new Commisioner for families?
It gets weirder every day!!!……
Christine Rankin interviewed –
“Men are supposed to earn big bucks,
be macho and still be in touch with their feminine side”.
For goodness sake someone please tell her we men DON’T HAVE A FEMININE SIDE.
We have a soft male side or you could call it….
a sensitive maleness or….
nurturant masculinity or…..
any other term which drops the godawful stereotype of all things soft,
sensitive and nurturing only being feminine and not masculine….
I am NOT going to bite my tongue.
Tick … tick …. where’s your candidate? … tick …tick, where’s your movement? …. tick … tick, why haven’t you achieved yet and she is? … tick … tick, how much longer are you and your kind going to stay in the starting blocks? …tick … tick,
I love your Rankin!
They are afraid you are going to discover all the evil work they did (labour, the greens)
to distroy nz families.( My family is one of them. destroyed last year)
Look. It is the same camp with big guns against Rankin.
I used to be a labour guy, a green guy and I then despised you Rankin. Not anymore.
I love you woman.
Quite correct Julie. The easiest thing for anyone to do is critisise, but not offer a positive alternative. Can you do better Skeptic? Can you offer a better suggestion? Personally I doubt it.
I figure that either you or I could do a fine job of that role Alistair. Although I do think that Rankin is easier on the eye than both of us.
My Candidate for chewing up husbands and flashing upper thigh.
Let me see now, I suppose Liz taylor would be a good start.
My movement is working fine…..it sure pushed your button.
I’ve achieved loads too, but don’t expect you’d be aware.
In the starting blocks? What a hoot! I’m miles ahead…..
It’s a patsy position I wouldn’t suggest anyone take.
Delusion rules the day
Good for you! You must be close to winning.
Isn’t strange Julie that when a person has no credible response, the not only descend to derision, but are Anonymous. I note the most credible in this discussion use their christian names, I suggest we know who each of us is and our achievements.
I don’t expect you to understand why some of us choose to go by
You haven’t shown the gumption to ask.
A quick skim of the thread will show where the derision started too.
Candidate hahahaha. For the ‘Family Commission hahahahaha
Is that as in Candid or date? Or just candida?
This gets better.
At least we know that Ms Rankin has loved at least four men. That’s gotta be better than a vicious man-hater.
I believe she may stem the tide of feminazism but I doubt much will roll back. There’s too much money to be lost by too many people for much to change. Bah… we might see the odd token gesture but it will be all mirrors and shadows.
PS: I would love to use my real christian name but someone else beat me to it 🙁
A serial divorcee who still dresses like an 80s corporate grrrrrrrl power
bimbo, let into a patsy organisation that’s made NOT THE SLIGHTEST dint on fatherlessness, divorce culture, the rampant spread of social fragmentation.
Yeah right. That’ll do it for me every time.
She’ll be enjoying her $500 a day for strutting around like madonna and issuing statements no doubt.
How desperate people must be to pin thier hopes on her.
Let’s examine a few salient FACTS here folks.
Has she ever advocated getting rid of the stupid no fault divorce laws in order to disincentivize divorce? – NO.
Has she ever gone public with the fact that most child abuse is committed
by women? – NO.
Has she ever invited any of her numerous previos husbands to offer the public a performance review of her ability to be family focussed – NO.
Has she ever advocated publically for that festering den of misandry the NZ ‘Family’ court to be made open and accountable to public (TAXPAYER) scrutiny? – NEVER.
When I highlight such things I get lambasted for remaining anonymous and basically it’s inferred that doing so is innefectual and cowardly.
Such notions seem arrogant and way of mark to me.
Again some salient facts.
Has Angry Harry who has remained anonymous asan MRA for over a decade been inefectual in raising a worldwide audiences awareness of misandry been inefectual? – NO.
What about Thugtician then? Armfortas? The many other commentators well known and not so well known who don’t use their birth name? – NO.
The cowardly tag gets pompously bandied about as an excuse and a diversionfrom meeting the facts with new evidence which revises the facts.
One more question –
During Rankin’s watch as WINZ head honcho did the rate of divorce, fatherlessness and and child abuse decrease? – NO.
Labour’s been kicked out……goodbye socialist feminism….
welcome to the new corporate feminism……You go grrrrrrrrl!
Here’s yet another guy who doesn’t use his birth name but who is reaching increasing numbers of people with his MRA message.
Do I have no credibility here because I’m unable to use my real christian name? I don’t appreciate being anyone’s collateral damage thank you. Should those of us who use aka’s refrain from posting here or are we welcome to do so?
SicKofNZ, there is politics within the feminist movement. And that is why NZ targets radical feminists. Most of the groups on the ground are unhappy with the way radical feminists control the women’s movement. Most women who care in the community are upset about the radicals.
It is the same for the men’s movement. They too have a bunch of guys who are radical wanting to take over through men’s misery.
Most people around the world want neither side.
Alistair and men like him are aware of what and who holds back this movement. It is not directed at you personally.
We don’t need (none of us ordinary folk) a war between the Patriarchy and the Matriarchy. The majority of humans are more than capable of making their own decisions.
Anyone is welcome to post and comment on MENZ using a pseudonym.
Seriously?…I’ve been married twice, was engaged to a girl who I didn’t marry when I was young, and was engaged to my son’s mother when she left me in 2004…I could easily have been divorced 4 times myself, and yet I think I would be the perfect candidate for a Families Commissioner.
At the end of the day, if we want a commissioner to advocate on the part of separated parents, then who better than someone who has separated. We know from experience that people who haven’t been through the Family Court are the hardest to get on side…and in many cases don’t beleive what we say about the abuse being metered out by FC judges (Simon Powers for instance).
It might be that because Rankin was tossed out of WINZ, she might be the first to suggest changes to the way WINZ and IRD policies promote divorce, separation, and the alienation of children from parents.
I say give her a go…and if she succeeds…great…if she fails, she’ll go down creaming and that will give lots of publicity to the waste of seats they call the Families Commision, whose greatest claim to fame (and only one so far) was the grossly misleading family violence campaign.
Just a few thoughts from an anonomous dad…
Whoops…I meant she’ll go down screaming not creaming…but with Rankin…who knows eh…
Well put. Whatever she achieves it will alter the course of the families commission. Let’s face it, they could be much more useless. Whatever she achieves it must be for the better.
I watched the following 3 News interview of Ms Rankin. I think her comments about families, fathers and the criminalizing of parents who smack their children were encouraging.
Full interview with Christine Rankin over commissioner appointment
I’ve been trying to find a video where Helen Clark says the repeal of section (whatever it is) aka anti-smacking bill was to bring us in to line with our trading partners. She gave the impression that there may have been pressure from those who NZ secures credit from to change the laws regarding the smacking of children by parents. When I find it I’ll post that here.
That video did make me ask:
What international monetary punishment could we expect to receive if we did an about-face with the smacking of children?
Whose arm is up Sue Bradford’s arse? I knew that puppet was too ugly to be a real person.
I don’t need to ask why Helen promoted the criminalizing of child smacking. Her reward is obvious.
Yes it was good to hear her saying something general in favour of the value of fathers in the lives if children. She appears to have an issue with the criminalising of parents with Bradford’s Anti- smacking law which also is good news.
I’m waiting for her to express publically how much parents (most often fathers) get criminalised and or marginalised by law as much as Dr Stephen Baskerville who says –
“It is not called the welfare “state” for nothing.
Unnoticed by reformers and even more striking than the economic effects have been subtle but far-reaching political developments.
These developments involve the quiet metamorphosis of welfare from simply a system of public assistance into nothing less than a miniature penal apparatus, replete with its own tribunals, prosecutors, police, and punishments: juvenile and family courts, “matrimonial” lawyers, child protective services, domestic violence units, child-support enforcement agents, and other elements. Originally created to treat ills endemic to low-income, single-parent homes, this machinery is increasingly intervening with police actions in middle-class families.
Kafkaesque in its logic, this machinery lends plausibility to the warnings, most famously by F. A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom (1944), that socialist and welfare-state principles would eventually
threaten not only economic prosperity, but also civil freedom”.
Time will tell though whether she has the courage to advocate for the leviathon that is governement getting out of the lives of families or continuing to reach into every home as Baskerville ably describes……..