The ACT Party thinks its own favoured child, the Productivity Commission, has proven a disappointment to its parent.
The party says the Commission has been "hijacked" and its current leadership is not right for the job.
The Productivity Commission was set up by the John Key Government in 2011 on the insistence of the ACT Party.
The party, which was led by Rodney Hide at that time, refused to support National on confidence and supply without getting the Commission established.
The current ACT leader, David Seymour, says the Commission has done some useful research which his party can draw on.
"But I think the Productivity Commission has frankly been hijacked," he says.
"The way the Productivity Commission has been staffed and directed in the past five years means I think that it is an open question about whether you would actually continue it."
The Commission was formerly led by a former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, Murray Sherwin, but he was replaced three years ago by Ganesh Nana, an economist from Business and Economics Research Limited (BERL).
Seymour initially declined to name personalities, but then indicated Nana was not the right man for the job.
"I wouldn't have appointed Ganesh Nana as the Productivity Commissioner. That is basically due to a difference of view about what economic priorities New Zealand should have."
"I haven't thought about appointing (another) person, I am just thinking about the policy goals we have."
Seymour made no further comment on Nana, but the two have very different histories. Nana once told Stuff that New Zealand was "sold a lemon" on Rogernomics. His organisation also produced a report on economic disadvantage for some people and castigated New Zealanders' unwillingness to "shift the dial."
By contrast, Seymour is a child of Rogernomics.
Other Productivity Commission reports have looked at a wide variety of subjects, such as a low carbon economy, trade, housing affordability, local government and advocated moving away from an "ad hoc" immigration policy.
The Commission is declining to comment on Seymour's criticism.
It says agencies like itself with a statutorily independent role will often need to continue to perform that role through pre-election and post-election periods, and should undertake their role in a way that does not involve entering the political debate.