Genuine charities only ones we need

BOB McCoskrie, national director of Family First NZ, is not a happy man.

No change there, you might think, but Bob has a particular reason to be unhappy at the moment

... Family First has been stripped of its charitable status.

There are a  number of financial advantages, primarily tax rebates, for an organisation to be recognised

as a charity, and Family First is appealing the decision of the Charities Registration Board and it

will remain a charity until that appeal is heard in the High Court.

The Registration Board has ruled that FF's purpose does ``not meet the charitable purpose recognised in

New Zealand law''.

It states: ``Family First's main purpose is to promote particular points of view about family life'' ...

surely, not even argumentative Bob could take issue with that.

Does he not seize every media-given opportunity to promote his views?

Does he not sound-bite his way into the political arena?

Family First is a lobby group promoting a particular strain of thinking and aiming to align the laws

of New Zealand with its concerns. Where is the charity?

But it seems the legal definition of the word is swimming around in murky waters.

Once upon a time, charity was what people did selflessly and without  expectation of gain _ either

financial or political to help those less fortunate.

The game has changed somewhat, with any number of charitable-status groups advocating for this or that.

The Green Party is even preparing a bill to widen the definition, allowing political lobby groups to stand

alongside the Salvation Army on the Charities Register.

We really need fewer charities getting those tax perks, not more.

Battling Bob has called for the Registration Board to investigate the status of a variety of so-called

charitable organisations and, for once, I agree with him.

If these advocacy groups don't have the powers of persuasion to get by without a leg-up from public

funds, then maybe their arguments  are not quite as strong as they think.