AUSA Protects Young Nats, But Not ProLife Group

Media Release 12 October 2017
Family First NZ says that in the latest bizarre twist in the debacle covering the Auckland University Students Association’s (AUSA) attempt to disaffiliate the student club Prolife Auckland, a similar attempt to disaffiliate the Young Nats has been blocked by the AUSA.

In the latest round of Referenda questions for students to consider, the AUSA has accepted yet another attempt to disaffiliate ProLife Auckland, but in an extreme act of hypocrisy, they have rejected a question asking ‘Should AUSA disaffiliate the Young Nats?’

The justification for their selective judgement is that “the question is contrary to the AUSA Constitution” which states that “Every alteration, addition or amendment must meet the requirements of the Charities Commission for the objects and rules of a charitable entity.”

“It appears that the AUSA believe that a vote on the disaffiliation of the Young Nats would be discriminatory. Yet they are not willing to apply that same yardstick to the attempts to punish the ProLife group. Their own process is being abused by radical groups who refuse to accept that others may have a different opinion. This is an embarrassment for an academic institution that prides itself on diversity and debate,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“It is incredible that this selective attack on freedom of association is happening in a university where freedom of speech and debate should be treasured and protected at all costs. It’s also hilarious that the student’s union is more interested in protecting National party supporters than a group who support women and unborn children.”

Family First is calling on the AUSA to reject the repeated and frivolous attempts to disaffiliate ProLife Auckland and to upgrade their rules to prevent this continued abuse of the democratic process.

“As with the attempts by the Charities Board to deregister Family First because of its views, this action by the AUSA will have a chilling effect for groups who advocate for causes, beliefs and on behalf of their supporters, and who may then find their freedom of association and belief under threat by opponents who can’t handle opposing views to theirs,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“We’ll continue to fight political correctness and attempted muzzling of free speech because of the threat it places on other charities & causes and their freedom to speak and advocate on behalf of their supporters in a civil society.”
ENDS