On Rankin’s watch

How could Social Development Minister Paula Bennett be so stupid as to appoint Christine Rankin as a Families Commissioner? For those who have forgotten, and I can only assume Bennett must have, here’s a brief summary of events under Rankin’s tumultuous reign as Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income.

October 1998 — Department of Work and Income (WINZ) established and Christine Rankin appointed Chief Executive.

November 1998 — State Services Commission lists concerns about Rankin’s leadership style.

WINZ staff exposed for selling beneficiaries’ private information to debt collectors and “repo men”.

December 1998 to Feb 1999 — State Services Commission conducts a review into security at WINZ.

February 1999 — Rubbish sacks of confidential WINZ documents found dumped on roadside in Waikato. A second security review commenced.

February -Apri1 1999 — WINZ bungles student allowances as students wait for months to be paid.

March 1999 — Rankin told off by State Services Commissioner after “attacking” Green MP Rod Donald through the media.

Education Review Office chief Judith Aitken writes to State Services Commissioner complaining about Rankin’s “inappropriate behaviour”.

April 1999 — Criticisms made of big spending in WINZ on corporate advertisements and uniforms.

July 1999 — News of the WINZ Wairakei training conference breaks – $235,206 spent by WINZ on a training course for 107 staff, including charter flights to get them to and from the conference. Another review of WINZ is started, this time by the Auditor-General.

October 1999 — Auditor-general’s report into the Wairakei affair released. Rankin issued with a “formal warning” by State Services Commissioner.

November 1999 — Performance review states Rankin has an “innovative and unorthodox style” but poses a risk of criticism of the department.

Revelations emerge that Work and Income staff concocted a story to secretly pay more than $100,000 to get rid of a senior executive.

December 1999 — State Services Commissioner asked by the new Labour Government about the possibility of sacking Rankin. He says there are not yet grounds to.

January -February 2000 — Management problems in WINZ with student loans show “no lessons learned” from the allowances bungle.

January 2000 — Revelations that Rankin had sacked an executive over the Wairakei affair and was paying $100,000 plus in a settlement.

May 2000 — The Hunn inquiry is damning of departmental practices at WINZ.

Rankin told she would probably not be reappointed. More legal inquiries over whether she could be sacked.

November 2000 — Rankin formally told her contract would not be renewed.

March 2001 — Rankin writes to Sue Bradford MP threatening legal action without telling Social Services Minister Steve Maharey.

April 2001 — Rankin told about WINZ being merged with the Minister of Social Policy. She writes to Wintringham requesting her performance during 2000-2001 be reviewed. She threatens to sue.

June 2001 — Employment Court hearing in which Rankin alleges unjustified dismissal begins. Rankin loses.

EDIT: I published this before the Herald on Sundayexpose” on Rankin’s private life. I don’t actually support that sort of attack dragging people’s personal lives into their public persona. My criticism of her appointment is based entirely on her past record of extravagance, self-agrandisement, and mismanagement. Her subsequent appearance on Sunday as the “poor maligned star” who read out a prepared statement but refused to answer any questions tends to reinforce my opinion that this leopard cannot change its spots.

I’d be interested to know if it were Sunday or Rankin herself who solicited that “interview”.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “On Rankin’s watch

  1. toad,

    The Rankin appointment is actually a cunningly construed master plot of Baldrick proportions to get rid of unwanted government ministries.

    She is getting paid moonbeams to possibly stuff up the family commision, the government instead of firing her will simply close that ministry and second her to the next (probably children) which when in final signs of possible mismangement will also be closed.

    And so forth and so forth.

    Stategically very smart.

    Family commision is a millstone of Peter Dunne proportion that adds nothing to society. What better way to minimise it’s influence (if it had any to start with) then by this appointment.

    So National gets Peter Dunne’s vote but gets rid of his Labour party hitching rail (the reason he went with Labour the election before the last).

  2. He and Blackadder survived each and every one so yes they must have been in a perverse sense.

    Any comment on Bruce Pilbrow status as co commisioner with Rankin?

    Not an automatic left wing choice I would think!

  3. Pingback: Melissing in Action – again! « g.blog

  4. Pingback: It’s a family affair « g.blog

  5. Pingback: Rank indeed « g.blog

  6. Pingback: Rank indeed, but could have been ranker « g.blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s