Hands off our charities

I've recently been talking to experts on charities and taxation. The message to government is clear - keep your greedy controlling fingers off them, and leave charities alone.

In recent days, one of New Zealand’s most outspoken charities broke into, and occupied, port facilities causing much disruption.

Another charity has been busy promoting healthy eating and spending millions on the likes of the Weet-Bix Tryathlon.

Which of these two are legacy media, politicians, and progressive commentators focused on?

You guessed it, the latter. Sanitarium, not Greenpeace who recently broke through security and occupied the Port of Taranaki.

I would argue that at the very heart of the current push to change New Zealand’s charity taxation system is the desire to control.

Charities that promote in vogue issues like climate change, are to be rewarded. Talk about healthy eating, matters of faith, or family values – you will be harangued, attacked, and where possible deregistered.

As I hope readers know, the government has the charity sector in their sights. This is not the first time National has sought the monies of charities, but fortunately, such attempts have been previously thwarted. But not any longer, which probably reflects the changing values system of the Party.

For the government and others, they clearly want the easy monies that come by taxing charities, but just as importantly, they want control.

As context, it’s important to understand that charities are meant to stand apart from government. They are part of wider civil society, not some government approved agency at arm’s length. Nor are charities simply social service agencies. For hundreds of years, charities have existed to promote a group’s idea of the good – be this helping the poor, promoting education, or simply searching how to live a good life. They exist outside of government.

All this is changing and we should be concerned.

The New Zealand courts have shown both a lack of respect for legal precedence and a willingness to become political. The case of de-registering Family First as a charity illustrates this. I acknowledge that I work with Bob and the team, but I think you can see the point regardless of my connection.

Family First fought for it’s charitable status all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. It lost as the Justices decided they were the arbiters of social norms and beliefs, deciding unilaterally that promoting ‘family’ is no longer important in modern New Zealand. Yes, you read that right, a bunch of unelected judges deemed themselves best positioned to decide what values New Zealanders believe in or not. On top of this, the Justices said Family First’s activities only come from a single viewpoint and were consequently not charitable. This is a rather novel addition to charity law, and it may also come as quite a surprise to the likes of Greenpeace and other groups that also only promote a single view. I’m not holding my breath for Greenpeace to be advocating the benefits of coal fired power stations (and nor should they).

You can check out my podcast interview with Roger Partridge of The New Zealand Initiative above as he dissects in more details the Supreme Court’s increasing political overreach.

More worrying and something I had not considered until talking to various charity and tax experts , the purpose of a charity is what is critical – not what they do (their activities). A charity’s purpose, for example, might be to celebrate and promote family, the environment, or human rights.

What the Supreme Court decided, against hundreds of years of legal precedence, was that a charity should also be judged on ‘how’ and ‘what’ they do in relation to these purposes. The courts now say that they don’t care if you are advocating for social justice - they are more interested in ‘how’ you are doing so and more worryingly, whether they agree with what you are saying and how you are advocating.

Alongside the misguided courts, we have many in society who talk frequently about the separation of Church and State. Ironically however, the developing situation around charities is very much about the State imposing itself upon the Church. To be more precise – the state imposing itself into the charity space, dominated by the churches.

Charities and non-governmental organisations are meant to sit outside the State. The hint is in the name! They are independent and part of a flourishing civil society. Yet, increasingly, we see the State and it’s proxies seeking to influence what is, and is not, charitable.

It is also completely false to suggest that charities have a tax exemption, tax privileges, or concessions. They are not avoiding anything; they are instead contributing to society alongside the government. It also inaccurate, by in large, to say charities make profit. Charities raise money and use their surplus (profit) to do their charitable work. Simple as that.

In the corporate world, profit goes to shareholders. Within the charity sector, it goes to good works as fits the charity’s purpose. No one – stress, no one – in the charity sector receives any financial dividend.

Just some of the young people attending Sanitarium’s Weet-Bix Tryathlon in Auckland

We should also consider that every dollar the government may tax, is a dollar less for New Zealanders in need. Granted, not every charity runs soup kitchens and the like, but this does not matter anyway. We don’t want government using their taxation policy to dictate, influence, or punish those with views they do no agree with.

Some are suggesting that money taxed from charities can be used by the State to support those in need. As many of us know from direct experience, charities are often run by volunteers. To date, I have not seen one volunteer in parliament or the public service. If the State begins gutting charities finances through taxation, then much of the tax revenue will go to paid bureaucrats to hold meetings.

Reading legacy media, we also see a clearly anti-Christian motivation. In a recent article, the author questions the place of promoting religion as a charitable good in modern society. Rather than understanding charities as being groups of people seeking to promote what they view as good, and being open to widening the notion of the good – the author instead argues that we should limit and control; in this case those operating from a Christian viewpoint.

Those with anti-religious views will point to Sanitarium’s charitable business dealings as providing them an advantage, but last time I checked, Weet-Bix is no cheaper than other brands. They also argue that ‘promoting healthy eating’ is no longer charitable but I’d be pretty sure they would be happy to support mutilating children in the name of gender affirming care.

Let’s be clear – the State and media have little role in deciding what is, and what is not, charitable. Charitable purpose is not a pick and choose according to those in power, to promote their particular views.

What of Destiny Church I hear some cry? Well, it’s behaviours can be dealt with via the criminal law, not charity law. Charity law is about what they are, not what they do.

We also have some suggesting that because charity law rests on 400 years of tradition, it’s time to revamp. The hubris is astonishing.

Imagine applying this approach to other circumstances. Let’s start with the Treaty of Waitangi. It’s 185 years old, so let’s toss it out. The United Kingdom’s 1689 Bill of Rights underpins our own human rights here in New Zealand, but hey, it’s old, let’s ignore it. Magna Carta is well over 800 years old, well, out it goes.

That anyone would even write the argument is extraordinary but displays as I say, both hubris and ignorance.

I can only repeat - we will do well to keep the State, the courts, and busy body commentators away from controlling, censoring, and cashing up off charities.

Charities exist apart from government and allowed to pursue the goods those forming such charities deem appropriate. This is healthy for a civil society. Sure, there must be minimal regulation to ensure basic reporting and financial accountability, but that is it.

The State already has too much power, let’s not give it any more.

CHARITIES AND MEDIA

I’ve done several interviews of late with experts around charities, but only one is currently available. My podcast with renowned charity lawyer, Sue Barker, is being produced and a few days away from publication.

My insightful interview with Associate Professor Juliet Chevalier-Watts, from Waikato University is available here on RCR Media. She argues that charities need more freedom, not taxation to operate. Juliet notes she is an atheist and began her research convinced charities needed to be taxed, but came to the completely opposite conclusion. It was a fascinating discussion: