I think it was Bill Gates who said that good companies often start out with all 'A' grade people. Then, a 'B' joins, which isn't so bad, until the 'B' employs a 'C'.

'B' is for Bennett and 'C' is for Christine.

I've had a gutsful of 'feisty' 'brave' women who mistake arrogance for strength, and one thing I took from the last election was that lots of other people felt the same way.

You're right on the spot Bill re Rankin and Bennett.

When i read Bennett's response i thought "Is she for real?" and as for Key, what a ludicrous situation to back himself into.

Rankin was her choice and now the govt's paying, at a time when they should be trying to get back on track after Melissa Lee, the Mt Albert bye-election and the Worth scandal.

Bad political management is one thing - stupidity another.

Bill, I have an idea, lets just let Christine have her opinion and agree or disagree. She is entitled and just because she is on the families commmission that doesnt make her any less effective.

Its the commission that shouldnt be there in the first place.

As for that poisonous dwarf Dunne he is simply trying to bring attention to himself because he has no relevant policy to do it for him.

Hopefully his electorate will wake up to him next election.

According to their web-site ... "The Families Commission provides a voice for New Zealand families. We speak out for all families and promote a better understanding of family issues and needs among government agencies and the wider community."

If a commissioner is not able to speak out against the smacking legislation then it wouldn't be speaking out for ALL families.

Indeed it would apear to be the Commissions DUTY to allow commissioners to speak up against legislation that criminalises parents at the cost of the entire family for minor infringements.

I do disagree with Christine BUT it makes me feel sort of ill to hear that the government can effectively gag someone from stating their opinion in NZ. Has a sort of communist china feel to it. We all have a chance to make up our own minds and vote in this referendum. Freedom of speech is important in a democracy and I don't like this being squashed especially by government officials.

I thought Bill Ralstoon's examples (Race Relations Commissioner, Chief Censor) were spot on. Pity they were a little too subtle for Kevin Campbell#3 - who completely missed the point of the column! No, it's NOT acceptable fo Rankin to hold, let alone publicly promote, an opinion that is countrary to the Families Commission's stated position on something as major as the . Rankin is not employed or contracted in some backroom role, she is a front person, and should be advocating the Families Commission's offical position - until that official position changes. By the way, I myself am not sure about Substituted Section 59. But I am sure of one thing - Rankin has got to go!!

I think Phil Goff said at the time of the last grubby Rankin furore that one would expect people in roles such as Rankin's to embody the values of the organisation they represent. Not only does she fall down on this measure generally, but she is active in the promotion of views that directly contravene her role. It is a screaming conflict of interest, like appointing a fox to run a chicken coop, and the I'm quite sure that Key and Bennett will come to regret their astonishing lack of political nous very soon (if they don't already).

THe basic truth is John Key and Bill English like to have a bob each way and National is a broad church, particularly at the moment when there trying to keep in the tent all those voters who weren't traditionally National- hence a westie like Paula Bennett and an act like fundamentalist like Rankin. Rankin is part feeding her only political base and minding her livelihood and expressing definace at the Sue Bradford legislation which is probably civilised and correct but will probably mmean more lawless children from the proletariat and lower orders> Personally I think we should write off the bottom 20% who need this kind of discipline because it does more harm to the rest of society the intelligent, bold and beautiful to allow corporsl punishment and this sort of discipline. You wouldn't wish social workers on your worst enemy but the smackers and whippers are often worse than your worse weapons. Go Sue.

Good analogies with the Race Relations Commissioner, Chief Censor. I was concerned to hear John Key nonchalantly say he's "comfortable" with Christine Rankin pushing her agenda in Investigate as long as she didn't attend the vote no launch.

Its nothing like communist china or any attack on free speech, she is welcome to have her one opinion, and even air it publicly, but don't do it while employed by the tax payer to advocate the completely opposite point of view.

If she's passionate about her right to hit children she should step down, if she's passionate about taking $56,500 tax payer dollars for a part time job she should keep her pro-smacking stance to herself.

Melissa#5 Would it be sensible for the head of water safety NZ to advocate the use of boats without the need for life jackets on children.Once upon a time life jackets were laughed at by the macho brigade in this country.Same for road safety,would it be ok to advocate abolishing safety belts if you were on the road safety council and would you expect the government to gag you if you did so.This is not about Rankin's democratic rights.