The Australian (anti) Vaccination Network: a charity no more

In what has turned out to be an auspicious week for public health there is now news that the vile anti-vaccination pressure group, the Australian Vaccination Network has “surrendered” its Charitable Fundraising Authority. There is no word on how these wheels of justice turned, nor whether or not the ugly little group will apply for another CFA under its new deceptive name, the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network.

All we know is that if this is a permanent move the community will be better off in the knowledge that this little cabal of infectious disease advocates will no longer be able to claim to be a charity.

AVN 6745 CFA surrendered 2014Huzzah!

About reasonable hank

I'm reasonable, mostly.
This entry was posted in anti-vaccination dishonesty, australian vaccination network, meryl dorey, skeptic, stop the australian vaccination network and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to The Australian (anti) Vaccination Network: a charity no more

  1. Darkly Venus says:

    It could have something to do with the new transparency rules at the ACNC (charity commission). The deadline for submitting an annual information statement is the 31st of this month.


  2. @advodiaboli says:

    One would presume there are grounds to repeal an application if they seek another Charitable Authority. Although one would have expected grounds for revocation of the Authority held by AVN Inc. already existed. Still, under 16 below I’m not entirely sure AVSN satisfies, particularly subsections a, c, d and h.

    From Charitable Fundraising Act NSW 1991:
    Sect. 16 – How Application To Be Dealt With;

    The Minister may refuse an application for an authority if the Minister is not satisfied as to any one or more of the following matters:
    (a) that the proposed appeal will be conducted in good faith for charitable purposes,
    (b) that all of the persons proposing to conduct the appeal, and all persons associated with the proposed appeal, are fit and proper persons to administer, or to be associated with, a fundraising appeal for charitable purposes,
    (c) that the proposed appeal will be administered in a proper manner,
    (d) that the grant of an authority would not facilitate the contravention of any Act,
    (e) that the applicant can and will ensure that persons conducting or participating in the proposed appeal will comply with the provisions of this Act and the regulations and the conditions of the authority,
    (f) that the applicant has furnished all the information required to be furnished in relation to the proposed appeal,
    (h) that it is in the public interest to grant the authority

  3. Andy says:

    I’d feel more comfortable if it said “Revoked” rather than “Surrendered”, but I guess it’s a start – though I note it was to expire next month anyway. I’d hope Paul’s assessment of the situation (re: a new application) is correct but I think we’ve all been here before, where people find and publish dozens of legal reasons why a government department should act in a particular way in regards the AVN, and then find ourselves gobsmacked at what the acronyms actually do – or don’t do, as is more-usually the case.

    • I have a strong feeling the AVN was made an offer they couldn’t refuse, in the form of a show-cause letter from the OLGR. I’ll update the post when there is a statement from the OLGR.

      It only took 5 years.

      • Andy says:

        Yes, only five years. Luckily no children got sick during that time from vpds, or the people who work are employed in those departments might feel a bit guilty.

  4. Andy says:

    Also, I’m surprised you didn’t mention the B52 saga, but I guess it’s hard to type when you’re laughing.

  5. Cat says:

    I think they will re-apply with new name and hopefully fail.

  6. Andy says:

    Err, any guesses why the “ownership” of their FB page has changed recently (HT SAVN)? There’s a new section that says it’s owned by a fan named Ben Rush and the contact info has changed from info at avn dot org dot au (Google cache Feb 28) to a benrush4freedom gmail address.

    Shouldn’t a registered health care provider have their actual contact address on any public sites?

    Speculation invited.

  7. Pingback: It’s Brandivino all around at the anti-vaccination network | reasonablehank

Leave a Reply