John Armstrong: Rankin choice mad or a bold shake-up

Christine Rankin's appointment to the Families Commission is the closest John Key's Government has come to seemingly losing its marbles in the six months since it won last year's election.

The decision is political madness - unless one subscribes to the conspiracy theory that Rankin's reputation and the unfortunate political baggage attached to the former head of Winz (now Work and Income) is craftily being used to discredit the autonomous Crown agency as a first step towards abolishing it.

The decision looks like political folly - unless you subscribe to the slightly more credible theory that Rankin has been installed on the commission's board to shake up a sleepy outpost of government and make it start producing the kind of policy ideas a National Government likes to hear.

The only other credible explanation is that the appointment - as Labour claims - is reward for services rendered during last year's election when Rankin positioned herself as a "voice for families", thereby deflecting attention away from minor parties which threatened to take votes off National on its right flank.

The appointment may be another example of the kind of lateral thinking in National's attitude to state organisations that saw Labour's Michael Cullen placed on the board of New Zealand Post.

However, Rankin is a far more unpopular and polarising figure. Furthermore, unlike Cullen's, Rankin's appointment carries huge risks for National. Her bolshiness and trouble have often been companions - as National found to its huge cost when it was last in Government.

It is difficult to see much upside politically in finding a job for someone remembered mainly for creating a "culture of extravagance"in the public service during her brief, but flamboyant tenure as a departmental chief executive.

If - as reports suggest - ministers were split over the appointment, it might have occurred to them that it would be equally, if not more, controversial outside the Cabinet room.

Few appointments have provoked such immediate and widespread scorn, with two of National's three support partners - the Maori Party and United Future's Peter Dunne - adding their voices to the criticism expressed by Labour and the Greens.

Given the commission was established by Labour at United Future's instigation, it was not surprising Dunne was the most damning of the Cabinet's decision, saying Rankin did not enjoy sufficiently widespread political support to make her appointment tenable.

That goes to the heart of it - more so given Rankin seems to have doubts the commission should exist at all.

But it does. Dunne's support agreement with National contains specific reference to maintaining "the policy, research and advocacy role of the Families Commission".

Stuck with the commission, National has apparently decided to force it to undergo a radical change of direction rightwards through placing Rankin, and Bruce Pilbrow, chief executive of the advice service Parents Inc, on the its seven-member board.

The commission has struggled to make an impact on government social policy compared to such heavyweight organisations as the Ministry of Social Development.

Yesterday's announcement of up to 200 redundancies within that ministry - on top of an ongoing four-year staff-attrition programme - may point to a shift in the balance of influence.

Injecting a more conservative flavour into the commission's work suggests Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is seeking alternative sources of advice than just that coming from her ministry's officials - in the same way that Sir Geoffrey Palmer's Law Commission became a think tank for Helen Clark when she wanted advice on justice and sentencing matters.

The test of that theory will be whether this month's Budget sees the commission not only escaping the clutches of the Cabinet's razor-gang, but being beefed up as well.