Greenpeace claims the Govt often requests them to liaise with them

August 2nd, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

 Charities which were “all sizzle and no sausage” should miss out on official recognition and the accompanying tax breaks, the Supreme Court has been told.

The court is hearing argument today about what limits should be placed on the advocacy work of charities before they go beyond what is allowable for a .

Environmental and peace organisation is arguing its political advocacy should not disqualify it from having charitable status.

They are a lobby group, not a charity. If Greenpeace can qualify to be a charity, then so can almost every lobby group in New Zealand.

At the moment this “charity” is running a billboard campaign personally attacking a Government Minister and calling him a liar.

The lawyer for the Charities Registration Board Peter Gunn, said the law permitted charities to be advocates but you could not have a charity that was only an advocate.

“You can’t have just sizzle and no sausage,” he said.

That’s a good point.  Does Greenpeace actually do anything practical to help the environment? Or do they just do campaigns?

To compare them to Forest & Bird, F&B do actually do a lot of actual conservation work – and they advocate on conservation issues also. Greenpeace seem to do nothing but run political campaigns.

Earlier Greenpeace’s lawyer, Davey Salmon, said Greenpeace and many other charities “engaged” with parliament and government.

They were asked to make submissions to select committees and they lobbied to change government policy.

They liaised with government often at government’s request, Mr Salmon said.

Okay here’s a challenge. Name one occassion since 2008 when the Government has requested Greenpeace to liaise with it? I don’t mean the standard “Here is a bill or policy which we seek feedback on which goes to everyone on a department mailing list”. I mean something significant.

Tags: ,

15 Responses to “Greenpeace claims the Govt often requests them to liaise with them”

  1. NK (1,067 comments) says:

    Greenpeace lawyer is called Salmon and Charities Commission lawyer is called Gun()n.

    How weird!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,793 comments) says:

    Shooting fish in a barrel?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. NK (1,067 comments) says:

    Well the hired Gun is going after the Greenpeace Salmon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (7,612 comments) says:

    A charity?

    More like an international criminal conspiracy to destroy heavy industry ,cheap electricity and productive employment in the west.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. peterwn (3,156 comments) says:

    An environment application under the Exclusive Economic Zone requires the consent seeker to liaise with various ‘stakeholding’ groups. The consent seeker may well consider that it should consult Greenpeace and the like out of an abundance of caution. Because of this and because the courts set a very low threshhold for a party to have ‘standing’, the state (ie NZ) is virtually forced to have interaction with the likes of Greenpeace. However this would not make Greenpeace any more deserving of ‘charitable’ status than a business lobby group.

    On the contrary, there would be a case to treat the money that Greenpeace ships overseas as taxable income in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Fisiani (953 comments) says:

    Is there any other charity in NZ that spends all it’s funds simply opposing progress? Is there another charity that finances pirates?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    At the moment this “charity” is running a billboard campaign personally attacking a Government Minister and calling him a liar.

    Don’t be so defensive. He is a liar. Christ, he’s tried to claim that he’s a hick from the country but in reality is a born and bred Aucklander. Strange that he’d be prepared to lie about something that can be so easily verified. A liar and a dumbarse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Name one occassion (sic) since 2008 when the Government has requested Greenpeace to liaise with it

    Shouldn’t you be asking Greenpeace that question?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Here’s one practical thing that Greenpeace has done, and at the same time directly liaised with a govt dept.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1110/S00235/greenpeace-volunteer-team-assists-rena-clean-up-operation.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lance (2,448 comments) says:

    Bloody Greenpeace people have started turning up at the door recently like JW’s.
    Wanting money and telling you how evil oil exploration is.
    Maybe they are a religion?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    Duh. Unfortunately, local and central governments make it a practice to try and engage with every shit-stirring group. It’s got nothing to do with valuing their input. It’s more about being seen to be “engaging” with them. This bare-faced spin on that reality is another reason to not bother.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ross12 (1,148 comments) says:

    I thought that when Greenpeace appealed the lose of their charity status they said they would back off from political lobbying ( as part of the deal with the court). Well now they seem to want it all ways again !!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    wow .. watching the Green leader in Oz downloading on Rudds Govt budget adjustments .. Shearer should be watching

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. peterwn (3,156 comments) says:

    Ross12 – but if Greenpeace ships its donations overseas, it should not be issuing charitable donation receipts for such amounts. Various NZ churches including the ‘mainstream’ one cannot give such receipts for for money given to ‘overseas missions’ even if the money is used solely for genuine charitable purposes overseas eg running schools, hospitals, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ross12 (1,148 comments) says:

    Totally agree peterwn. I’m definitely not defending GP

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.