[2] In 2009 Victoria University religious studies professor Paul Morris said Family First was "successfully broadening the Christian agenda in New Zealand politics in a way never seen before".
In May 2009, Family First criticised the Government for spending $8 million on the referendum, rather than including it in the 2008 General Election, and suggested they simply amend the law.
[13] Family First has produced "Value Your Vote", a brochure and accompanying website which were voting guides primarily concerned with each party's or candidate's record and opinions on issues which it saw affecting the family, such as civil unions, same-sex marriage, prostitution, brothels, abortion, unborn child rights, embryonic stem cell research, anti-smacking, gender identity, abstinence-based sex education, parental notification, palliative care, public indecency, drinking age, alcohol outlets, Easter trading, loan sharks, gambling, welfare vouchers, affordable housing, GST on rates, facilities for families, paid parental leave, assisted suicide and euthanasia, medicinal and recreational cannabis and decriminalisation of all drugs.
[23] In May 2013, the independent Charities Registration Board determined the group did not "further religion or education, nor promote a benefit to all New Zealanders" and held that Family First did not qualify for charitable status.
This development was welcomed by McCoskrie as a victory for charities that advocate for difference causes in the context of an earlier landmark Supreme Court decision which recognised Greenpeace's political advocacy as a charitable act.
[31][32] On 30 April 2018, the High Court in Wellington heard Family First's second appeal against the Charities Registration Board's decision to remove its charitable status.
McCroskie welcomed the Court of Appeal's decision as a victory for their freedom to advocate on behalf of their supporters in civil society.
[36] On 28 June 2022 the Supreme Court ruled that Family First did not qualify for charitable status, concluding that its research lacked the balance needed to be educational.
[37][38] Before forming a Government in October 2017, both New Zealand Labour and Green parties had said they would reform the Act by "updating and widening rather than narrowing the definition of charitable purposes" so that NGOs would be "encouraged rather than penalised for their advocacy".
[42][43][44] Family First's actions were criticised by Ted Dawe, the book's publisher Penguin Random House, the poet C. K. Stead, and several librarians as amounting to censorship.
In addition, McCroskie also called for a wider film-like sticker rating system for books citing parental concerns and age appropriateness.
[47] On 14 October 2015, the Film and Literature Board lifted the interim ban on Into the River; ruling by a majority that while aspects of the book were offensive it did not merit an age restriction.
[48] In 2017, Family First launched a campaign called "AskMeFirst" to stop transgender women using female-only facilities like toilets and changing rooms.
While applicants wanting to change the gender on their birth certificate then had to go through a lengthy process in the Family Court, the Government proposed a simple statutory declaration.
[62] Family First director McCoskrie of the "Say Nope to Dope" campaign said that he was "pretty stoked" with the cannabis referendum results and that New Zealanders "understood the perceived benefits of legalisation were not greater than the harms that were going to come on society".
Aaron Ironside, spokesperson for the SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) NZ Coalition, that included Family First and other Christian, Muslim and secular groups, said that he was happy that New Zealand younger people would not be enlisted in a "social experiment.
[69] Earlier in the year, following a similar question of UK Labour leader Keir Starmer, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins had struggled to answer journalist Sean Plunket when asked to "define a woman" and the video went viral.