Open letter to the Board of the Charities Registration Board.
On what basis and what evidence has the judgement been made that Family First is of no public benefit?
Family First gives voice to the views of a significant number of New Zealanders whom otherwise would cease to have their views heard and would be increasingly silenced in today's changing society.
The fact that societies values may change does not therefore mean that a certain sector of society should cease to have a voice in the public debate on values in NZ. In fact representation becomes all the more important and of public benefit. Just because a particular group may not represent a majority group, or what is perceived as main stream, does not disqualify it from being of public benefit.
Family First serves the public good because it seeks to represent those New Zealanders whose views are being disregarded and becoming marginalised; values and beliefs that for years have underpinned our society. For this reason Family First's work is of greater significance when it comes to public benefit than, for example the NZ Vegan Society, but that doesn't mean the latter (a registered charity) is of absolutely no benefit and so should be de- registered and nor should Family First. The decision of the Charities Registration Board appears to be an anti-democratic one and how does that serve the public good?
Many churches would feel there is much common ground between the values of Family First and their members. Are churches next on the list for de-registration for not being of sufficient public benefit? After all their views, it could be argued, are seen as antiquated, of less relevance to today's society (in some people's minds) and their numbers are declining. (That in itself is not how public benefit ought to be defined). If churches are not next for de-registration, in the light of the Family First decision, why not?
Your decision is a grave misjudgement.
To say that Family First only invites people to its events / conferences that represent its views is factually incorrect when one considers the broad spectrum of political speakers that have attended such events in the past. The invited attendees / speakers are a matter of public record: Sue Bradford, Phil Goff, John Key, the Children's Commissioner. Such people are from a diverse political spectrum and certainly would not participate with groups whose purpose is indoctrination, as the Board has put it.
Having said that it should be of no surprise that organisations generally do seek the views of those who are supportive. That said I believe Family First can easily evidence its willingness to engage both sides of the debate on a wide variety of issues that affect NZ families.
Charitable groups which seek to be of public benefit must engage with the political process and engage in challenging the debate surrounding the issues and political decisions affecting the lives of NZ families. This does not make them single issue political pressure groups and therefore irrelevant, of no public benefit, to what is arguably an increasingly pluralistic society of tolerance and inclusion. Not that the de-registration decision reflects this at all. This decision appears to be one of political intolerance and political correctness.
The onus is on the Charities Registration Board, and its decision makers, to prove the objective basis for this decision and to hold it up in the light of other recent and comparable decisions. I put the challenge to the Board to be open, honest, consistent and transparent about the processes followed that lead to this outcome.
It is my view that the Board is there to serve society, and serve the public good, and not to drive any one political agenda. I believe there would be shock and surprise at the Board's decision to de-register Family First from a wide range of New Zealanders of various persuasions.
What recourse, or right of appeal, is there for Family First to pursue in order to challenge this decision of the Charities Board?
Respectfully
Blair Donkin
Dunedin
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
