Family First New Zealand is a conservative Christian lobby group in New Zealand. It was founded in March 2006 by former Radio Rhema talkback radio host and South Auckland social-worker Bob McCoskrie, who continues to be its National Director.
Family First have been described as "New Zealand's most formidable conservative campaigners", and have campaigned to influence public policy in a number of areas, including lobbying against abortion, binge drinking, cervical cancer vaccines, drug decriminalisation, gambling, pornography, prostitution, comprehensive sex education in schools, and issues affecting LGBTQ rights.
Family First lost its charitable status in 2022, after its removal by the Charities Registration Board was upheld in the Supreme Court. In its decision, the court ruled Family First's activities were not charitable due to their lack of "fairness, balance, and respect", and that its published research lacked the balance needed to be educational.
Background Family First was founded in March 2006 by Bob McCoskrie, a former church leader and talkback host on Radio Rhema who serves as its National Director, with the objective to "seek to influence public policy affecting the rights and protection of families and promote a culture that values the family".
McCoskrie founded the group out of a "burning need" to be vocal on certain issues. He denied the group was funded or influenced by international groups, but acknowledged links to the local branch of Focus on the Family, an American fundamentalist group. Within its first two-year, the group received almost $410,000 in donations from groups and individuals, and had put out over 200 press releases.
Family First rose to prominence in 2007, during their campaign against Sue Bradford's "anti-smacking bill" and its subsequent referendum; Paul Morris, a religious studies professor at Victoria University, said the group had "successfully broaden[ed] the Christian agenda in New Zealand politics in a way never seen before".
Loss of charitable status Family First was established by a trust deed under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 in 2006 and was registered as a charity in 2007. In 2010, it was granted continued charity status following a review.
In May 2013, the independent Charities Registration Board determined the group did not "further religion or education, nor promote a benefit to all New Zealanders" and held that Family First did not qualify for charitable status. In its media statement and within the online copy of its decision, the Charities Registration Board held that Family First's objectives were primarily political and not the provision of social, educational or other charitable services as defined under the Charities Act 2005.Charities Registration Board: Decision D2013-1: Family First New Zealand: (CC42358): http://www.charities.govt.nz/assets/docs/registration/deregistration/Family-First-New-Zealand.pdf
McCoskrie challenged the decision, saying it was a ploy to "shut them up" and argued that their opposition to same-sex marriage had been the reason for their de-registration. He expressed concern about the group's future if the de-registration remained in place, including their income tax exemption and donations to Family First no longer qualifying for a rebate."NZ organisation deregistered as charity for views on marriage" Christian Today (Australia): http://au.christiantoday.com/article/nz-organisation-deregistered-as-a-charity-for-views-on-marriage/15346.htm On 30 June 2015, in response to an appeal lodged by Family First, the High Court directed the Charities Registration Board to reconsider the case, in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that recognised Greenpeace political advocacy as a charitable act.
On 21 August 2017, the Charities Registration Board released its reconsideration and again decided that Family First did not qualify for charitable status on the grounds that the group's activities could not be classified as being charitable for the public benefit. On 30 April 2018, the High Court in Wellington heard Family First's second appeal, and released its decision on 7 September 2018 to uphold the Charity Board's decision.
The revocation was later overturned on 27 August 2020 by the Court of Appeal, who ruled in Family First's favour. In mid December 2020, the Attorney General David Parker, appealed the Court of Appeal's ruling to the Supreme Court.
On 28 June 2022 the Supreme Court ruled that Family First did not qualify for charitable status, concluding that its research lacked the balance needed to be educational. The Supreme Court also held that group's activities were not charitable on the grounds that it lacked "fairness, balance, and respect."
Responses to the Supreme Court's decision Charities researcher Dr Michael Gousmett welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling on the grounds that Family First discriminated against some people, Charities Law director Sue Barker expressed concern that the revocation of Family First's charitable status could set a precedent for targeting charities with dissenting views. Barker also called on the New Zealand Government to clearly define charitable purposes as part of their review of the Charities Act. Before forming a Government in October 2017, both New Zealand Labour and Green parties had said they would reform the Act by "updating and widening rather than narrowing the definition of charitable purposes" so that NGOs would be "encouraged rather than penalised for their advocacy". The bill to revise the act is expected to be introduced in 2022.
Views and activities
Electoral campaigning
Family First has produced "Value Your Vote", a brochure and accompanying website which were voting guides primarily concerned with each party's or candidate's record and opinions on issues which it saw affecting the family, such as civil unions, same-sex marriage, prostitution, brothels, abortion, unborn child rights, embryonic stem cell research, anti-smacking, gender identity, abstinence-based sex education, parental notification, palliative care, public indecency, drinking age, alcohol outlets, Easter trading, loan sharks, gambling, welfare vouchers, affordable housing, GST on rates, facilities for families, paid parental leave, assisted suicide and euthanasia, medicinal and recreational cannabis and decriminalisation of all drugs. The guides were published for the 2008 general election, the 2010 Auckland mayoral election, the 2011 general election, the 2013 Auckland mayoral election, the 2014 general election, the 2017 general election, the 2020 general election and the 2023 general election.
100,000 of the guides were printed and distributed in 2023.
Smacking referendum
In 2007, Family First supported a petition for a citizens-initiated referendum to overturn the 2007 amendment act which replaced Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, which had allowed for a defence of reasonable force in child abuse cases based on corporal punishment. The petition gained 324,316 signatures although only 285,027 were required for a referendum. When checked for invalid signatures there was a shortfall of 15,000 signatures. Sufficient signatures were then obtained, and a postal ballot taking place between 30 July and 21 August 2009. Family First criticised the decision to spend $8 million on the postal ballot, rather than including it in the 2008 General Election or simply amending the law.
The referendum's wording, "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?", was criticised by many for being confusing and poorly worded, and that using a value-judgement like "good" before "parental correction" was leading."Caritas says child discipline referendum will not provide clarity", Press release, 15 July 2009.
Voter turnout for the referendum was 56.1%. Despite a result of 87.4% voting "no", the Government said they did not intend to change the law.
In 2016, the group published a report saying that the law had "failed to reduce child abuse"; former-MP Sue Bradford, ridiculed the report for suggesting that a "law to protect children from physical violence [would] solve the problem of child violence".
Pornography and censorship of explicit media
Pornography In 2010, after Minister Shane Jones controversially admitted to using his ministerial credit card for pornographic films, Family First wrote about what it viewed as the damaging effects of pornography on families and marriages, and promoted research showing negative effects of children being exposed to pornography.
In 2015, it petitioned to have lad magazine Zoo Weekly banned from Countdown supermarket shelves, picking up a campaign in Australia targeting Countdown's parent company Woolworths.
In 2017, Family First presented a 22,000 written signature petition to Parliament against pornography, promoted research showing the harmful effects of porn being a public health issue, and called for an investigation into the destructive effects of pornography. The media reported that the petition even had the support of "outspoken left-wing feminist parliamentarians".
Into the River On 6 September 2015, Family First successfully appealed a decision by New Zealand's classification office to lift an R14 restriction on the New Zealand author Ted Dawe's Into the River, a young adult novel about a Māori youth named Te Arepa Santos' experiences at an Auckland boarding school. Since its publication in 2012, Into the River had drawn controversy for its explicit description of sex, drugs, and coarse language. As a result of the appeal, the book was placed under an interim restriction order under New Zealand's Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, banning it completely from being sold or supplied in New Zealand. This was the first time a book had been banned in New Zealand in 22 years.
Family First's actions were criticised by Dawe, the book's publisher Penguin Random House, poet C. K. Stead, and several librarians as amounting to censorship. In response to public criticism, McCoskrie asserted that his organisation had not called for the book to be banned but had merely wanted censors to reinstate the book's R14 rating and require that copies of the book carry a warning sticker. In addition, McCoskrie also called for a wider film-like sticker rating system for books citing parental concerns and age appropriateness. Family First also claimed that the Classification Office had received 400 letters about the book from concerned parents. In a press statement, Family First also argued that the New Zealand Bill of Rights stated that "freedom of expression" and "freedom to access information" did not trump censorship laws aimed at protecting the "public good".
On 14 October 2015, the Film and Literature Board lifted the interim ban on Into the River; ruling by a majority that while aspects of the book were offensive it did not merit an age restriction. In response, McCoskrie accused the board of succumbing to book industry pressure despite what he alleged was the book's "highly offensive and gratuitous language, adult themes and graphic sexual content".
LGBTQ Issues
Same-sex marriage opposition