Late last year the NZAF embarked on a Constitutional review, caused by what some have described (rightly or wrongly) as the autocracy of certain members of the Board telling all the staff - and everyone else - what they ought to do. Then those members of the Board were reminded about the constitutional requirement of consultation. The Board had decided upon certain changes to the constitution that would prefer race over ability, which could have seen people sitting on the Board not knowing if they were there only to fill the 'quota,' or because they had real abilities required by the board. In making these decisions, the Board had not sought independent legal advice, which in itself causes concerns. If I, as a New Zealander of Scots birth, had been appointed to the Board, would it have been because of my abilities, or because I was there to make up numbers of Tauiwi? All this was done against a background of claims that the Foundation must broaden its base, not only to look towards those men who have sex with men who are affected by HIV/AIDS and those who are infected, but also to risk groups outside the traditional risk groups in New Zealand. It appeared the Foundation was seeking to do an ACON, and subsume all other groups that have a focus on HIV prevention. Such as groups that have a focus on immigrants, on women, etc. It seemed to many, particularly to many in the gay community who remembered the origins of the Foundation, that the Foundation was losing its way. Moving away from the reason it was created for - moving away from the objectives of its Trust Deed. This made some of use feel that we were having to fight not only against the depredations of the virus, government agencies who had little regard for the health of gay men, and sectors in society who cared even less, but, in the words of John Hamilton, Lord Belhaven before that fateful Parliament in Edinburgh on 2 November 1706, et tu quoque mi fili? You too my brothers? The objectives of the Trust Deed do state at 3.2(c) that the organisation formed will "[undertake] the education of all persons as to the nature causes prevention treatment and cure of AIDS but with particular regard to persons or groups of persons affected by or at risk of being affected by AIDS." While education in reference to the prevention, etc., of HIV is to be provided to "all persons," it specifically states: "with particular regard to persons or groups of persons affected by or at risk of being affected by AIDS." In 1985 when the Trust Deed was signed, the "persons or groups of persons affected by or at risk of being affected by AIDS" were gay men - men who have sex with men. The intention of the original founders was that what became the NZ AIDS Foundation should be centred and focused upon men who have sex with men as the group most affected by HIV, the group most at risk of HIV infection, who would be the group most in need of care after infection. With the apparent move to focus on other groups, the Foundation has found itself under some criticism. There appears to be less focus on men who have sex with men as a group that is at risk of HIV infection. And this angers people - rightly so. They - we - saw the deaths of large numbers of our friends and acquaintances. We buried scores of those who were close to us. Although there are new drugs that reduce the effects of HIV on the body and allow a longer life, they are not as effective as prevention. HIV has no cure. HIV is a killer. Despite the extra length of life the new drugs will give people- HIV will kill eventually. The only way to prevent this is to prevent infection. Some of us remember how the Foundation worked years ago. Its staff were very community oriented, centred on the gay community, but totally inclusive of men who have sex with men. Prevention was promoted strongly. Outreach teams went to gay venues, to sex on site venues, and to public sex environments- beats. Now, it appears the Foundation, through broadening its base, has forgotten how to promote positive sexuality and strongly promote prevention of HIV infection among gay men. This despite an increase in the rate of HIV among men who have sex with men that is unprecedented since the 1980s. And because of this, less and less gay men, let alone men who have sex with men, feel the Foundation is relevant to them. For this, the Board must be held accountable. The actions they took last year distracted the Foundation from its work. The policies they have put in place shifting the focus elsewhere have also done so. However, at the workshops earlier this year, I was astounded when someone questioned why the Foundation no longer does outreach to hear the claim that it was not possible for a community based organisation to do outreach. Given that I work for a community organisation with 6 community bases around the country, and we do outreach on an almost daily basis, I find that claim to be extremely stretched. It is claimed that the new medications in the mid 1990s saw a decrease in volunteers, as the intensive care that was required before the advent of those drugs was no longer required. This in turn led to a decrease in the general volunteers, leading to a lower community profile. Yet this can - and should - be reversed. The Board can set the necessary policies in place that would see a higher community profile and greater outreach happening. Greater outreach would lead to a higher community profile. A higher profile would lead to more volunteers. And more volunteers would lead to greater outreach services, leading to an ever-expanding profile, and community confidence. Men who have sex with men are fairly easy to find in the places they seek sex - various venues are obvious, but the public sex environments are also well known (at least to some). The only difference between now and the mid 1990s is the extensive use of the internet to make hook ups. Yet the Foundation has tackled this with ensuring one prevention worker is scouring Internet dating sites and also by starting adverts with links to the www.menseekingmen.co.nz site. To tackle the current increase, I believe the Foundation does need to get back to basics. It needs to return to its original Trust Deed for guidance. The Board needs to take its role of governance effectively, and ensure that the Foundation sticks to its original objectives, the prevention of HIV among men who have sex with men. It needs to return to the "particular regard to persons or groups of persons affected by or at risk of being affected by AIDS of being affected by AIDS" that the Trust Deed mandates, and the group that was the most "affected by or at risk" in 1985 when the Trust Deed was written. Yet perhaps the Trust deed needs to be rewritten - to make it more specific in today's changing times - to specifically include reference to gay men - or at least men who have sex with men. Perhaps it is time to look at some other form of guidance for the Foundation. Would an Incorporated Society model fit? Yet despite the increase required in prevention efforts, the Foundation must not forget to also care for those who are infected with HIV, as well as those affected by HIV such as the partners and other family members of people who are HIV positive. In 1994 I was part of Gay Men Fighting AIDS, a group that lobbied Government and related bodies for better funding of HIV prevention among gay men. During that time, one of the studies I looked at showed that when you forget about gay men, when you stop or reduce prevention programmes among them because they seem to be successful, you risk an increase in the rate of infection among gay men. And that is what we are now seeing. We need to fight this increase in HIV infection, and the best way to do that is for the Foundation to become accountable to the community it was intended to serve, and return to the community it was intended to serve. It will only do so if we fight for it to do so. In the words used in the Declaration of Arbroath: "it is in truth not glory, nor honour, nor riches for which we fight, but for freedom." In this case, the freedom to run our Foundation, by our own chosen people, to benefit us. And the only way to fight for this is by making a submission. Note: Written submissions to the Consitutional Review working group close Friday 25 August 2006. The review discussion document can be viewed at the link below. Calum Bennachie - 21st August 2006