More on the Families Commission

Marital Careers and the Rankin Rule

The genie if out of the bottle. Several days ago, we blogged on the atrocious coverage in the NZ Herald and the Dominion Post attacking Christine Rankin. We suggested, in an open letter to the respective editors, that if the exposure of these matters was in the public interest, then surely the marital careers of the current and existing Commissioners should likewise be publicly exposed, debated, and discussed. Presumably those Commissioners with marital form should be pilloried in similar fashion in the Press as being unsuitable to serve on the Families Commission.

We note that the Dominion Post has taken the point--which no doubt was made by fair minded folk far more eloquent and persuasive than we at Contra Celsum. (The Herald, however, must have decided that the whole thing was beneath its dignity, and has ignored the call. This justifies a fair presumption that The Herald has not been acting in the public interest all along in this matter, but was primarily interested in the gossip and titillation.)

Returning to the Dominion Post, they have run a piece on how Families Commissioners are refusing to comment on the marital career of Mz Rankin.

The piece opens with this gem:

Members of the Families Commission are supporting or refusing to give their personal views on the Government's appointment of four-times married former welfare chief Christine Rankin.

The twice-married chief commissioner, Jan Pryor, was not available for comment.

Alright. Good start. What we need now is a breathless, panting follow-up piece on whether Jan Pryor is fit to be the Chairman of the Families Commission. What do you think? Has Jan led an impeccable life which shows her commitment to families? How about comments from Peter Dunne, Phil Goff, and Mz Sue Bradford on whether they, in the light of the marital career of Jan Pryor, think she is fit to be a member of the Commission in the light of the Rankin Rule. Oh, and while we are at it, can we have comments from Pryor's former husband, her former husband's friends, and from any children from the first relationship, plus insight from the family cat, on whether they think her appropriate for the role. We can hardly wait.

But there are other questionable appointments as well.

Auckland lawyer Sandra Alofiae, who is married and a mother of three - including one informally adopted son - and justice reformer Kim Workman, who described himself as a divorcee with four children from his first marriage and two adopted children by his second marriage, did not want to comment.

Former race relations conciliator Gregory Fortuin said: "There is no way I can make judgment about rumours." He separated three years ago after being married for 32 years and has three daughters and one son.

Lyn Campbell would not comment or provide information on her marital status.

Commissioner David Smyth could not be contacted.

Tons of "public interest" questions are begging away here. For example, what on earth is an "informal adoption". Surely that undermines the integrity of family law? Has the Family Court been consulted and ruled on that arrangement? Has this "informal adoptee" been denied rights? Has CYFS been consulted. What does WINZ think? Engaging in "informal adoption" clearly suggests that Sandra Alofiae may not have due regard for the law, despite the fact she is a lawyer. There has to be a story in there somewhere for a good investigative reporter. After all, it's public interest, guys.

Now, Lyn Campbell is clearly a suspect. Don't the antennae go up over her. Murky. Very murky. In refusing to provide information on her marital status, she evinces the tendency of the guilty to cover up. She must be hiding something. Maybe she has had five husbands, tipping Mz Rankin's marital career. And as for David Smyth, who could not be contacted--he must have the most to hide. Plenty of work here for intrepid, febrile reporters.

With respect to Commissioners Fortuin and Workman, obviously their commitment to marriage and families must be equally suspect, if the Rankin Rule is applied. Let's hear what Mz Bradford thinks about those guys. And while we are at it, let's hear about Mz Bradford's marital career; and Phil Goff's; and Peter Dunne's. Let's see if they are competent to comment on who should be a Families Commissioner, using the Rankin Rule.

The Dominion Post has taken the first step in proving to us all that it is a paper of professional integrity. It has broached the subject of the marital careers of the current Families Commission. But in order to give the full and equal Rankin Rule treatment, much more remains to be done. So many public issues raised. So many questions begged. Get to work.

And when it is all done, no doubt everyone will say, "What was the point of it all?" Precisely. But you started it--and as they say, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Clearly that has rapidly dawned on the existing Commissioners: in their hands there is not a stone to be seen. Good for them.