Family First losing charity status

NZ Herald reports: Exclusive: Family First to lose charitable status

Family First is set to lose its charitable status, the Herald has exclusively learned.

The group was first notified by the Charities Registration Board in 2013 that its charitable status was in danger.

That was because the group advocated a controversial point of view, that was seen as lobbying for a political purpose.

The decision was challenged in court, and in 2015 the High Court ordered the Board to reconsider its decision.

The High Court decision did not rule on whether or not Family First was a charity.

The Herald understands that decision has now been reconsidered, and that the formal notification process is underway to tell Family First it is being deregistered as a charity.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said they’d be going straight to their legal team and instructing them to take the matter back to court.

“It may go as high as Supreme Court, because we’re not going to lie down on this one.

That may not be cheap, but neither will losing their charity status.

The Charities Registration Board has been more active over the last few years in reassessing the status of charities that also operate as political advocates or activists.

11 Comments

  1. Kitty Catkin

     /  May 16, 2017

    Family Fist-The Family that Hits Together, Stays Together.

    • Corky

       /  May 16, 2017

      Can you translate that for me.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  May 16, 2017

        It’s a parody of The Family that Prays Together, Stays Together slogan. I couldn’t find a rhyme for pray that meant hit.

        • How about “The family that smacks together, cracks together” …

          The family that beats together, depletes together …

          The family that bashes together, crashes together …

          The family that thump together, slump together …

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  May 17, 2017

            The family with blows together, flows together ?

  2. Blazer

     /  May 16, 2017

    some of these charities belong in a…sanitarium.

  3. Chuck Bird

     /  May 16, 2017

    The vast majority of parents oppose the anti-smacking legislation that undermines the authority of good parents.

    • Blazer

       /  May 16, 2017

      and you know this…how?

    • The vast majority of parents misunderstand the so-called “anti-smacking” legislation that protects children from parents who use excessive force … (and evidently there are plenty of them in New Zealand) …

      “A citizens-initiated referendum on the issues surrounding the law was held between 30 July and 21 August 2009, asking “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” Despite widespread criticism of the question’s wording, the referendum was returned with an 87.4 percent “No” vote on a turnout of 56.1 percent.” – Wiki

      Like … Ummm … What kind of referendum question is that!?

      59 – Parental Control … a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances …

      … Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

      Like … Ummm … How difficult is this to understand!?

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 16, 2017

        It’s not difficult to understand. It makes the police arbitrary lawmakers, not the courts. And you omit the excluding clause that invalidates 59 as I recall.

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  May 16, 2017

    Seems invalid criteria. Lobbying for a minority view can certainly be charitable whether or not it is controversial. Eg abolition of slavery, child labour, etc. The test should be it is not for profit. The courts should strike that criterium out.