Some NZ quasi-charities* have admitted that public support for their organisations has dropped off because of their lobbying for the Repeal of S59, also known as the "anti-smacking bill".
Well, actually, they might be worried, because then they'll lose their autonomy if they are completely government funded.
Barnardos was a good organisation, until it was highjacked by ideologues. Maybe that will serve as a warning for other quasi-charity organisations in the future - annoy the public at your peril!
HatTip: Lindsay Mitchell
* I call them quasi-charities as they are mostly funded by the government and therefore the taxpayer. Real charities are completely voluntarily funded.
Children's charity Barnardos, which has been a front line supporter of Green MP Sue Bradford's "anti-smacking" bill, says it has taken a hit from bill opponents who have stopped making donations.I don't think they'll be too worried, as the Government will most likely promise to fund the shortfall. It might make it difficult for those organisations to lobby the Government on anything in the future, as the Government doesn't fund directly for lobbying and lobbying money tends to come from public donations.
So far, more than 60 organisations, charities and businesses have publicly stated their support for Ms Bradford's proposed law change. Many of them, especially charities, rely on public donations to continue their work.
Barnardos said its backing for the bill had had an impact both in terms of public perception and financial support.
Well, actually, they might be worried, because then they'll lose their autonomy if they are completely government funded.
Barnardos was a good organisation, until it was highjacked by ideologues. Maybe that will serve as a warning for other quasi-charity organisations in the future - annoy the public at your peril!
HatTip: Lindsay Mitchell
* I call them quasi-charities as they are mostly funded by the government and therefore the taxpayer. Real charities are completely voluntarily funded.
I've been a bit worried about this as well, as far as my supporting Save The Children fund goes. I do donate to them, but they are one of the groups who is pushing for the repeal of s59. I am seriously wondering whether I still should support them, or maybe change to supporting World Vision.
ReplyDeleteMy folks say that STC still does good work.
I rant about this topic here:
ReplyDeleteIt's Not Kiwi to Give to Charity
Bernados may have taken "a hit" but going by the BERL study of NZ charity what they received in the first place would have been bugger all.
For charity giving, we average about $110 per year, the Canadians average about C$440.
50% of our charity is from legally obliged entities such as Lotto and only 35% is from out own pocket compared to 85% from USA individuals.
Also if the govt made up shortfalls for an Internation Charity that would be low farce because our current level of international aid is very low.
Has govt spending become so voracious they must now fund NGO charities directly?
Well that average of $110 is only high because some of us do much better than the average.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm in the fortunate position of being one of them - and these organisations will suffer for it!
On the other hand, the Rescue Helicopter and Caritas has done better by me this year.
Also, part of the socialist ideology is that high taxes fund "charities" thus excusing any need for extra donations. Scarily, many lefties argue that the government should abolish charities because governments "do it better".
ReplyDeleteIf the government allowed a 33% rebate on individual charitable donations, those on low incomes would get a bit more tax back for their generosity, and the top marginal tax payers get a fair whack of the tax paid back (but not the entire amount), which would encourage further giving.
I'm not sure the Labour party likes that idea. They really want the government to control more than it needs to.