A correct but inconsistent Supreme Court decision on charities

Stuff reports:

Traditional values advocate New Zealand has lost a bid to be able to register as a charity.

In a unanimous decision issued on Tuesday the said the main issue in the appeal was whether Family First met its stated charitable purpose of advancing education.

“The activities of do not support the proposition that its purpose is educational,” the court concluded after reviewing its purposes, activities and 17 research papers it had published.

lacked balance and objectivity, the court decided.

I actually agree with the decision. I do not think lobby groups should get charitable status. However the made the opposite decision with and ruled they can be registered as a charity. That decision was wrong – both Greenpeace and are lobby groups.

So effectively what we seem to have is a that says lobby groups we like can be charities, but ones we don’t like can’t be. That is very unfortunate.

I personally think the definition of charitable purposes should be far tighter. Charitable status should be reserved for charities that primarily actually help people like the Red Cross, CCS, Fred Hollows etc.

Comments (77)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment

%d bloggers like this: