Disappointing

It’s always wise not to be partisan when your follower base isn’t there for a clear cut, political reason. And for organisations with a charity status, it’s usually illegal. 

I have read the ACNC website which states 
Any advocacy or campaigning charities conduct MUST NOT have a purpose to
promote or oppose a political party or candidate for political office

All charities and CEOs Should be apolitical 

The Guide Dogs has had repercussions some donations cancelled and their board is doing a internal investigation into the CEO 
Stork

Wow.

The Age's (and the Sydney Morning Herald website) 'Election 2022 LIVE Updates' at12.26pm today, 'Second charity accused of backing Frydenberg':

https://www.theage.com.au/national/election-2022-live-updates-scott-morrison-and-anthony-albanese-go-head-to-head-in-first-leaders-debate-solomon-islands-china-security-pact-fallout-continues-20220420-p5aevl.html?post=p53mdf#p53mdf

Excerpt: 

'Under Australian law, charities risk losing their not-for-profit registration if one of their stated purposes is to “promote or oppose a political party or a candidate for political office”.

Yesterday, the board of Guide Dogs Victoria launched an investigation into why CEO Karen Hayes appeared in the Liberal pamphlets. The board said it had no knowledge of the material before it was circulated.

In response to questions about the appropriateness of the TV appearance, a spokeswoman for the Breast Cancer Network Australia told this masthead that the charity “does not endorse individual politicians or political parties”.

“We have been very fortunate to have the support of many political leaders and our focus is to ensure we can be part of policy decisions, no matter who is government.”

I'm incredibly disappointed to read this this morning. I would never push my political views in a health forum or as part of an apolitical platform and having an organisation I'm a member of do so is most upsetting.

There is a lot of  commentary on Twitter about this today.

Yes, we all have to be quiet, but still allow our government funded broadcasting stations to present biased information!  :)

@Romla my above comment was a bit of sarcasm.  I don't think her comments are representative of all members, but rather how she finds communications with JF to be clear.  

It would be interesting to know the full story i.e. what the question was and why Kirsten answered that way.
As @Keeping_positive1 says, Kirsten may have simply been saying that she's had good communication with Josh over time.  Note that she was working at the time, it was not a sit-down interview.
Funny how some stories are shown and sometimes taken the wrong way.
I am sure Kirsten is aware of the implications which supporting political parties may have on BCNA funding.
@Kirsten_BCNA, perhaps you would like to give a brief response to concerned members.

Hmmm, A very interesting point indeed, @June1952 - the need for the whole context of the reporting should be addressed  ...  

It would definitely seem inappropriate for any Charity CEOs to openly back a specific political party ...  with possible consequences of loss of donations & even loss of Tax Free Charity status ...... 

@June1952 so true we need to get the full picture.  People being human sometimes jump to conclusions, and there you go, you get slandered on Twitter.  You basically can't open your mouth without someone accusing you of something, which may not be true.  

I steer clear of Twitter for that very reason.