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.