Is advocacy charitable?

May 7th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

The Green Party is calling for a public debate about how charities are defined after a decision to remove ’s charitable status. …

Ironically, the , whose MPs voted unanimously in support of gay marriage, were the only party to speak up for Family First yesterday. Green MP Denise Roche, who has prepared a bill defining advocacy as “charitable” if it is in pursuit of a charitable purpose, said the current law should be reviewed.

This is to allow to become a again. If you are going to allow highly politicised lobby groups to be charities, then wwhy not make political parties charities also? They all claim to promote policies to benefit NZ?

I think NZers should give money to the political parties and lobby groups they support. However they should not get to make a tax deduction for doing so.

Ms Roche, a former board member of Greenpeace NZ, prepared the bill when the former Charities Commission ruled in 2010 that Greenpeace was not a charity because of its political advocacy. That case is going to the Supreme Court in July.

If Greenpeace qualifies as a charity, then every lobby groups in NZ should.

Family First have queried the charitable status of the following:

Action For Children And Youth Aotearoa CC11198
Amnesty International New Zealand Inc CC35331
Caritas Aotearoa – New Zealand CC36055
Child Poverty Action Group CC25387
EPOCH CC31965
Te Kahui Mana Ririki CC28437
UNICEF CC27773
New Zealand National Committee For Unicef Trust Board CC35979
Human Rights Foundation Of Aotearoa New Zealand CC22917
Waves Trust CC24175
Humanist Society of NZ CC36074
Agender Christchurch Inc CC20922
Save the Children CC25367
QSA Network Aotearoa CC48531
Waikato Queer Youth CC29356
Rainbow Youth Incorporated CC24284

I can’t comment on all of these, but I would not regard the Child Poverty Action Group as charitable – they are a highly activist lobby group. Likewise the Humanist Society doesn’t seem charitable to me – they promote a belief system.

Tags: , , ,

56 Responses to “Is advocacy charitable?”

  1. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Definitely some reason to query some of those charities, but Family First seems to have sour grapes with some of them. Rainbow Youth and UNICEF immediately stand out as groups that are not primarily advocacy groups.

    What is obvious about all those groups is that they have all publicly taken positions opposed to Family First’s own on various issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    Just abolish the donations rebate and a fair amount of this charitable status stuff will fall away, the income exemption is really only important to the Seventh Day Adventists (Sanitarium) and a couple of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MT_Tinman (3,259 comments) says:

    Why public debate?

    char·i·ty [char-i-tee] Show IPA
    noun, plural char·i·ties.
    1.
    generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless:

    Surely only organisations involved in the above (and only that part of those organisations actively doing so) should be the only outfits able to claim charitable status.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    “What is obvious about all those groups is that they have all publicly taken positions opposed to Family First’s own on various issues.”

    What and THAT’S not advocacy?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    I’m tempted to argue the other way. I think that political advocacy is almost inherently charitable – I’m not sure that many people do it for personal gain (maybe I’m just being naive). So agreeing that political parties are charitable and therefore donations are tax deductable wouldn’t be too long a bow for me. I think the problem then comes at the next level – are unions charitable, are business councils charitable?

    Perhaps we should be clear on the distinction between not-for-profit (which all these groups are), and charitable. There are a set of tax exemptions that apply to not-for-profit organisations, but that’s different than being charitable.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. peterwn (3,312 comments) says:

    “…Likewise the Humanist Society doesn’t seem charitable to me – they promote a belief system.” So does promotion of religion which has been regarded as a charity for centuries. Interesting that after 400 years or so, people are asking serious questions about charities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Likewise the Humanist Society doesn’t seem charitable to me – they promote a belief system.

    So do religious organisations, but they are by definition charitable.

    Any why wouldn’t Child Poverty Action Group fall within the part of the definition relating to relief of poverty?

    The definition contained in the Act is essentially out of the 19th Century and at odds with the reality of modern-day not-for-profit organisations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    “What is obvious about all those groups is that they have all publicly taken positions opposed to Family First’s own on various issues.”

    What and THAT’S not advocacy?

    It’s not that charities aren’t allowed to advocate. It that advocacy isn’t allowed to be their primary purpose. Family First is nothing but an advocacy/lobby group.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    @toad: I think that is the nub of this. Is not-for-profit the same as charity? If we agree that most of these organisations are not-for-profit, does it matter whether they’re charities or not? If I donate money to a not-for-profit, should I get a tax deduction? What is the underlying rationale for a charitable donation tax deduction anyway – is it logically consistent?

    My feel is that there are exemptions from income tax and the like (I think) for not-for-profits. That makes sense, they don’t make a profit, why would they get taxed.

    Then there is a charitable donation tax deduction for those who donate money. The logic is that it’s a public good – when someone donates money to charity that is demonstrably a _good thing_, then the govt should give them a tax deduction on that so as to encourage it. I’d be interested to know whether this tax deduction makes any difference to the level of charitable giving – the difference in timing between the donation and the deduction may make it less of an incentive.

    Anyway, if we agree that the tax deduction for donations makes sense, I think it has to be for things that almost everyone can agree are charitable. So things that turn directly into services/goods for the poor (donating to a soup kitchen for example) I think we could agree is a charitable donation. Donating to a union some people might see as charity (they do good works you know), others might disagree. Donating to a business council, or a right wing think tank some people might see as charity (they do good works you know), others might disagree. I think for a tax deduction of this nature, it’s safer to stick to things that are clearly and inarguably charities, political lobby groups are a problem in that context.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    The definition contained in the Act is essentially out of the 19th Century and at odds with the reality of modern-day not-for-profit organisations.

    There are certainly good arguments in favour of reviewing the legislation. But as it is now neither Family First nor Greenpeace apparently fit the definition of a charity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    All of them are lobby groups in some capacity and are therefore political. Some more so than others. There is a temptation for people to consider them charitable based on whether, or not, they approve of the groups particular agenda. My view is they are all left wing activist groups.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. backster (2,185 comments) says:

    To what would the Waikato Queer Group and Rainbow Youth apply their donations? the mind boggles. As there is no longer a Commission what are the names of the people who make the decisions and are they required to make personal disclosures in doing so.?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Simon (763 comments) says:

    The state shouldn’t be involved. What purpose does the legislation serve other than codify trust case law? This is all lawyer, statist & jobsworth wank.

    Charities, societies, non-profits & trust law existed well before the state got involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    ….or leave the charitable rebate (it’s only a deduction for companies) and abolish the welfare state, that works too. Not sure we need both.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    What is obvious about all those groups is that they have all publicly taken positions opposed to Family First’s own on various issues.

    Well, exactly.

    The reason you get struck off is because somone challenged your status. FF have a disadvantage compared to their (always long) list of opponents, it is only fair that their opponents be put to the same scrutiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Ironically, the Greens, whose MPs voted unanimously in support of gay marriage, were the only party to speak up for Family First yesterday.

    Its not ironic. The Greens are the only party that CAN speak up about Family First.

    If National did it, Labour and the Greens would use it as an excuse to accuse them of being homo-phobes.

    Opportunistic faux-outrage; just another way the Left stifles debate and free speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    It’s not that charities aren’t allowed to advocate. It that advocacy isn’t allowed to be their primary purpose. Family First is nothing but an advocacy/lobby group.

    In case you missed the news, they just had their status *revoked* which means that when it was awarded, the comission disagreed with you. There are a number of things that FF do that does not involve lobbying politicans.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    DPF: Likewise the Humanist Society doesn’t seem charitable to me – they promote a belief system.

    Every church in this country is a charity. And that’s because gifts to churches used to be tax exempt, but then everything was reorganised under one head: charity, and we got a whole law covering that.

    But it appears DPF is saying that was only a temporary move, so we can now strike every charity from this list that promotes a “belief” system. Meaning that church goers who give from their AFTER TAX income to churches, can then be DOUBLE taxes as the churches have to pay tax again on their income.

    But hey, the budget gotta be balanced in election year right? National wasn’t below taxing 15 year old paper runners.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Those of us observant enough to understand what the sexual militants plan for “marriage equality” was really about, knew that this sort thing was inevitable – although even to me, that it has started a mere two and a half weeks after the law was passed, comes as somewhat of a surprise.

    Unlike social liberals, who live in a world perpetuated by feel-good delusions and fantasy-driven denials, some of us understand that “marriage equality” is a just another mechanism to elevate homosexuals to the status of super-citizens who are to be deemed beyond all reproach, and to enforce compliance and acquiescence to the homosexual agenda, for if you don’t, you’ll be criminalized and taxed.

    The pink jackboot marches on.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    @ berend is that any different to me using my after tax income to pay my pool guy? Giving money to the earthly representatives of the sky fairies is a consumer choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    My feel is that there are exemptions from income tax and the like (I think) for not-for-profits. That makes sense, they don’t make a profit, why would they get taxed.

    If they have zero profit, then they could have a tax rate of 100% and it wouldnt matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. chris (647 comments) says:

    Using your logic, Berend, then people buying products from company X are being taxed twice too.

    Meaning that shoppers who spend from their AFTER TAX income to shop X, can then be DOUBLE taxes as the companies have to pay tax again on their income.

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    Kimble: If they have zero profit, then they could have a tax rate of 100% and it wouldnt matter.

    Not much real world experience eh Kimble? If a charity has to maintain its building, it will have to save for that. That’s taxable. It still won’t make a profit.

    This is just another move from National to tax people more.

    When Labour had been in government the National Socialists would be jumping up and down.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dime (10,134 comments) says:

    Amnesty International should be kicked into touch.

    Started out with the right idea, hijacked by nutbars.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg/Chris: Using your logic, Berend, then people buying products from company X are being taxed twice too.

    Charities pay tax (PAYE) if they pay employees. It’s not that they don’t pay tax. They pay tax when they buy stuff (GST).

    The issue is if they have to pay tax on interest, and tax on the donations they receive.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg: Giving money to the earthly representatives of the sky fairies is a consumer choice.

    Removing charities means the government gets more income (you can’t subtract the donation, and charities get to pay tax on donations, a double whammy).

    But then, government is definitely the earthly representatives of the fairy of unbridled greed.

    We all remember John Key in parliament: National is not about taxing people more.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    I really don’t think you get it berend. PAYE is the EMPLOYEE’S tax, the employer just deducts it. In almost all circumstances charities get their GST back (it’s a little complicated but they do, trust me).

    Interestingly charities DON’T pay FBT which is really a PAYE proxy tax, just one of their many tax advantages.

    Donations would never be taxable, even if charities were, they are technically capital receipts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ciaron (1,441 comments) says:

    chris (265) Says:

    May 7th, 2013 at 11:39 am
    Using your logic, Berend, then people buying products from company X are being taxed twice too.

    Not convinced giving money to a person or entity is the same as purchasing goods or services from a person or entity. Nice try though.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg: In almost all circumstances charities get their GST back (it’s a little complicated but they do, trust me).

    Tell me more. Because not many charities are GST registered. How would this work?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Family First advocate for the preservation of traditional families and marriage being defined as being between one man and one woman.

    Waikato Queer Youth and Rainbow Youth Incorporated advocate for the destruction of traditional families and the redefinition of marriage to anything imaginable (or indeed unimaginable)

    … but it is Family First who gets struck off.

    National & Labour were hoping that all this was going to go away. Fat chance.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    Well if they don’t register for GST they cant, they need at least some activity that generates revenue from supplying goods and services for which they can register.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. pidge (56 comments) says:

    I think there is some confusion about Register Charities and Not For Profit Organisations.

    An organisation can be not-for-profit without being a charity. I understand that the difference for the purpose of tax with respect to a donator, donations to a charity are tax deductable, whereas donations to a not for profit are covered under Gifting.

    e.g. Sanatarium is run as a Not For Profit, as is a Private Hospital in Christchurch which has been in the news, I really want to apply the clue by four to the reporter and/or editor for failing to distinguish betweem a Charitable Organisation and a Not For Profit.

    From the “horses mouth” http://www.ird.govt.nz/non-profit/np-glossary/np-glossary.html

    A non-profit organisation is any society, association or organisation (incorporated or not):
    * that is not carried on for the profit or gain of any member, and
    * whose rules do not allow money, property or any other benefit to be distributed to any of its members.

    Charitable organisation or charity
    *This is an organisation (incorporated or not) that carries on charitable activities or exists exclusively for charitable purposes. Some charities may be registered by the Charities Commission.

    Registered charity
    * A trust, society or institution that is registered as a charitable entity by the Charities Commission.

    Sorry to introduce some facts to get in the way of a good argument :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Harriet (5,145 comments) says:

    Fine!

    The ‘charities’ should line up to advocate in order of the tax that they pay – and why not – as they’re now paying to be heard!

    Just like Telecom.

    Just like Fletchers.

    Hey fuck…..just like those fuckers who want to build a convention centre in Auckland!

    John Keys a Catholic now – with Marmite on his face! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    Ngai Tahu is a charity.

    A very profitable not for profit organisation…….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. pidge (56 comments) says:

    And I’m pretty sure tha Politcal lobbying is not a major activity of the Humanist Society, though the list it on their website as “makes representations to Government and public bodies on issues of general concern”.

    http://www.humanist.org.nz/activities.php

    Now, don’t make me break out LMGTFY :).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg #1: In almost all circumstances charities get their GST back (it’s a little complicated but they do, trust me).

    KiwiGreg #2: Well if they don’t register for GST they cant

    Better not trust you then…….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nigel Kearney (1,051 comments) says:

    The whole idea is illogical and will always be prone to loopholes and lawsuits. I don’t think there is any nice, clean definition that works. Even the soup kitchen example is not clearcut. If people are eating at the soup kitchen so they can spend more on booze and drugs, I doubt that the soup kitchen is really helping. The number of people who agree on the need for longer sentences is probably not that different from the number who want more soup kitchens.

    At the moment, it’s possible to donate a lot of money tax free in support of politicial advocacy as long as the organisation’s primary purpose is other work. The Salvation Army and Women’s Refuge frequently advocate on political issues but their tax free status is safe simply because of the amount of other work they do. It doesn’t seem right that some groups can use tax free donations for political campaigning and some can’t.

    I think it should be either no deduction at all, or a capped deduction for any donation to a non profit even including a rugby club membership.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. chris (647 comments) says:

    If a “charity” does good works (like presumably churches do) then yes, they should be able to be registered as charities. But does the Humanist Society do good works?

    From their own description, they don’t sound like a charity that does good works to me: “The Humanist Society of New Zealand (Inc) is an organisation that promotes Humanist philosophy and ideals. It meets in Wellington with members throughout New Zealand, and is affiliated internationally to the IHEU and the United Nations Association of NZ. The Society is incorporated in New Zealand.” Reading their activities page makes it look like it’s all about them too.

    I’m not sure churches should necessarily be considered charities as a blanket definition, but there are certainly some (most?) that probably should be. And this is coming from an atheist.

    And what Nigel Kearney says above makes a lot of sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    If a “charity” does good works (like presumably churches do)

    The trouble is that it is a purely subjective assessment. Whether someone considers a group does “good works” will depend on their own personal views.

    The law should apply equally to everyone and people should know what the law is. You can not satify those criteria on the basis of subjective assessment of a groups worth.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. chris (647 comments) says:

    The trouble is that it is a purely subjective assessment.

    Yes I suppose you’re right. Even just advocacy can be seen by some as “good works”. I was thinking “good works” were more along the lines of helping people out when they need help etc. Organisations like the Salvation Army, City Mission, KidsCan, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Viking2 (11,574 comments) says:

    Charity
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Charity may refer to:
    Contents

    1 Concepts and practices
    2 Organizations
    3 Places
    4 Entertainment
    5 Other

    Concepts and practices

    Charity (practice), the practice of benevolent giving and caring
    Charity (virtue), the Christian theological concept of unlimited love and kindness
    Principle of charity in philosophy and rhetoric
    Tzedakah, a Hebrew concept, literally meaning righteousness (Genesis 18:19) but commonly used to signify charity, and giving to worthy causes or people in need
    Zakah and Sadaqah, the Islamic concepts of mandatory and voluntary alms-giving, often translated as “charity”
    Altruism
    Alms

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity

    So where does the definition of charity include anything other than the practice of giving and caring.

    The lawyers, the left and the accountants and their mates the politicians have bastardized the definition of the word.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Not much real world experience eh Kimble? If a charity has to maintain its building, it will have to save for that. That’s taxable. It still won’t make a profit.

    Actually, it’s how an intelligent person shows that ‘profit’ isn’t really the issue when talking about the tax-exempt status of charities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    In case you missed the news, they just had their status *revoked* which means that when it was awarded, the comission disagreed with you. There are a number of things that FF do that does not involve lobbying politicans.

    Presumably Family First’s status was based on an application where their stated intentions were such that they qualified. Now, in practice, their activities have been reviewed and found to be not in keeping with their status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. simian (29 comments) says:

    As above this isn’t really about the tax exemption as if they are not a charity they would most likely become a not for profit and still end up paying no tax, I mean why would you donate to an organisation if it was taking those donations and keeping them as profit. What this is about is whether the donations to the organisation qualify for a donation tax credit for the people making them. If they don’t the donations to them will most likely decline as people want their refund. Less donations mean less money for the organisation.
    The only benefit for the government would therefore be less refunds issued by the government for donors. I don’t see the government being behind this as they are the same people that removed the $330 limit on those refunds to try and get more people donating. If that is now considered unaffordable they should add another limit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    DylanReeve, why use the word presumably when we know what happened?

    But the new Charities Registration Board, which replaced the commission last year, ruled on April 15 that Family First’s main purpose was “to promote points of view about family life, the promotion of which is a political purpose because the points of view do not have a public benefit that is self-evident as a matter of law”.

    If that’s not a political statement, I need a brain transplant.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Paulus (2,672 comments) says:

    Denise Roche a former (and current) Greenpeace employee is only getting into the act to change the non charitable status of Greenpeace.

    I am sure that if she waits long enough and we get a Green/Labour government laws will be changed to give Greenpeace legal charitable status.

    Try asking any of their staff/collectors where you can get a balance sheet – they look at you as though you are mad – so ask them how much of any donation goes to Head Office in Canada ? – I was once told it was 40%.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. flipper (4,229 comments) says:

    The problem here is at least five (may be more) fold:

    1. An insatiable desire on the part of state bureaucrats to maximise tax revenue. (The purpose of which will always be moot);
    2. A desire on oif the part of wealthy and ordinary folks to donate monies for good purposes in the belief that their contributions will be more cost effective (Note: It costs the State 25 cents to gather and distribute every dollar collected by way of taxes or other imposts.);
    3. A fundamental dislike by Labour/socialists of anything charitable, born from their erroneous, belief that they are best able to spend other folks money;
    4. A definition oif “charitable” that bears only passing relation to original purposes, but a definition that, in most cases, has been updated to recognise the world as it is in 2012/13 (Staples, good as it is, is neither up to date nor accurate in every instance).
    5. The inclusion of political activist organisations under the Charity umbrella.
    Under Lange, the IRD and Treasury made an attempt to kill charitable donations.

    I was a member of the “Charitable and Non Profit Working Group”, which included groups such as the Todd Foundation, The Sutherland Trust, IHC, all the major churches,, Barnados et al. Among those participating was one Patrick Millen, then also, by pure happenstance, Secretary of the Cabinet.

    The working group commissioned a detailed study by NZIER then headed by Alan Bollard- yes, The Alan Bollard. With Patrick whispering in the proper ears, backed by the NZIER report, which rubbished IRD/Treasury, the proposal was killed, stone dead.

    Central to the IRD/Treasury proposal was an organisation to, in effect, seize, and control charities and their distribution policies.

    Under Helengrad / Cullen they tried again, and largely succeeded. But not enough to challenge the really big charities. However, so many fringe groups were by then registered as charities that there needed to be a correction. Scrubbing Greenpeace and the like is great. They long ago moved past the charitable stage. They became, and remain, political action groups. Such groups are NOT charitable. Period.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Jack5 (5,167 comments) says:

    Quick, intelligent fix. Abolish all tax concessions for charities and giving to charities.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Huevon (223 comments) says:

    Here’s a novel idea…what does the law say?
    An organisation qualifies for registration as a charitable entity only if it “established and maintained exclusively for charitable purposes” (Charities Act 2005 section 13(1)(b)(i)). The law goes on to explicitly state what “charitable purposes” means:
    (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, charitable purpose includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community. (2) To avoid doubt, if the purposes of a trust, society, or an institution include a non-charitable purpose (for example, advocacy) that is merely ancillary to a charitable purpose of the trust, society, or institution, the presence of that non-charitable purpose does not prevent the trustees of the trust, the society, or the institution from qualifying for registration as a charitable entity.

    Seems to me that if Family First want to remain a charity they need to less political lobbying and more charitable work. I’m sure there wouldn’t be any problem with them running parenting classes, or handing out flyers. Perhaps they should have set up a different organisation to do the lobbying against the gay marriage law

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Good on Greenpeace for sticking up for Family First.Yes politics does make strange bedfellows.

    Two issues here-one is the blatant discrimination against family first because of their advocacy for the traditional family.Now that gay marriage is in Family first must be punished. This is part of the elevation of gay rights and the demotion of Christian and conservative groups through naked state power. And this under a National government! A disgrace in my opinion.

    Secondly is the desire by some people,known as big government liberals,to increase state power and maximise state revenue. Some of you are hopeless in my view. Why do you love big government so much? As if the government doesn’t take in enough tax! You need to change your world view. Love the little platoon that makes up civil society. The myriad of little organisations and clubs and charities and churches that make up a community. Don’t for goodness sake tax them to death. Family first should not be taxed as they are not for profit. Leave them alone big government! And the churches. And the other groups,the surf life saving,the 4 wheel drive clubs.

    Get out of our lives big government! Let’s stick up for the little platoon. Love your community. Stop loving big brother-for he sure as heck doesn’t love you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    @Scott: there’s a difference in losing your charitable status because you became an almost entirely advocacy organisation, and losing your charitable status because of the content of what you lobbied for. I think it’s the former that’s happening here. Do you have some evidence that it’s the latter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Paul I honestly don’t care. They are not for profit,government should leave them alone. And all the other little groups that are not for profit. I am making a big point. Liberals love big government. Conservatives love the small organisation,the little platoon,the community. I wish we were all like that. However sadly some people have learned to love Big Brother.

    However the timing is no accident and DIA is clear. They are not in the public interest. They support Mum and Dad and the kids. They must lose their charitable status.

    It is the gay lobby flexing their muscles. The sun will rise in the morning but not on Family First. Not if the government can help it. We must conform We must learn to love Big Brother.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    Also see Berend at 1.19pm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    The majority of charities actually help people, which to me is the point about a charity.

    There are also a number of charities who are gaming the charity status as it means they get more money.

    The situation would benefit from proper reviews of our approx 25K charities.

    The FBT advantages of charities remarked earlier are about to be removed.

    Tax rebates apply to both individuals and companies. The tax rebates to companies are probably more important as they tend to lead to greater contributions.

    Many charities will earn a profit as they may be trying to fund matters like cancer research and they have to collect the money PRIOR to spending it and sometimes use excess funds to earn additional funds. In this context not-for-profit means the profit is not distributed to those who run/own the organisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ChardonnayGuy (1,217 comments) says:

    How typical, and how spiteful of Family First to reciprocally target LGBT, transgender, children’s rights and international human rights charities because the Charities Service saw fit to revoke their own charitable status because they were primarily a lobby group. Which does raise the question, do we need a seperate regulatory regime for lobby groups to register as such?

    As for the Humanist Society of New Zealand, it is surely anti-pluralist to allow religious organisations to register as charities, but not organisations that promote non-religious secular ethical alternatives to religion to do so. New Zealand has no established faith or religious denomination, nor should we. Meaningful religious and philosophical freedom and diversity of opinion and faith/state seperation are hallmarks of healthy, diverse, pluralist liberal democratic societies. For the same reason, I’d support the charitable status of objectivist libertarians, existentialists and others should they decide to seek registration for the same reason.

    But Caritas?!!! Oh dear. The Catholics aren’t going to be happy about that.

    Incidentally, here are the real reasons why Family First was deregistered:
    “Family First and its Charitable Status” Charities Services: http://www.charities.govt.nz/news/media-releases/family-first-and-its-charitable-status/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Scott (1,821 comments) says:

    As usual Chardonnay gay you are totally off beam. Familyfirst is not being spiteful, familyfirst is asking for consistency. The guts of the matter, which the link you have chosen clearly spells out, is that the family first viewpoint that a family and marriage is about mum and dad and the kids, is now controversial and therefore political. It is controversial because Parliament has now passed the gay marriage bill and so groups like familyfirst can expect to be punished because they do not fit into the climate of political correctness. This of course does not apply to any gay and lesbian activist groups who can carry on business as usual and remain charities.

    As predicted the gay lobby is flexing their political muscle to clamp down on political dissent coming from conservative groups and churches. A mere 2 weeks after the legislation has been passed.

    So people like yourself were completely wrong when you said the gay marriage bill will not affect anyone else and the sun will rise in the morning as Maurice Williamson said. There is now a new climate of political correctness that allows only gay friendly organisations to exist. The sun will rise in the morning but not on familyfirst. They must be punished because they do not conform to the new government edicts. Welcome to the brave New World Chardonnay. I hope you are happy with yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote