Greenpeace NZ to appeal ruling against charity status
BUSINESSDESK: Greenpeace New Zealand is appealing a High Court ruling last year that blocked its application to register as a charity that it was too political and its protests could land it on the wrong side of the law.
The environmental lobby group says the appeal is needed after the courts have upheld a series of decisions refusing organisations charitable status and is applying an outdated interpretation of the law.
The Court of Appeal in Wellington will hear the application tomorrow.
"At the heart of the challenge is whether Greenpeace's work on nuclear disarmament is too 'political' and whether the amount and type of advocacy it does in support of environmental protection is too much to meet the test for a charity," executive director Bunny McDiarmid says.
"This appeal raises the question whether New Zealand's charities law will be in line with the Australian law, which allows charities freedom of expression in political debate as long as it is consistent with their charitable purposes," she says.
Justice Paul Heath last year upheld the now-defunct Charities Commission's decision turning down Greenpeace's application, saying its political activities were a core part of the organisation, and that potentially illegal activities such as trespass that were designed to raise public awareness of activities the lobby group opposes disqualified it from meeting the criteria for a charity.
At the time, he said Greenpeace viewed itself more as an "advocate rather than an educator" and cited the commission's examples of Greenpeace's non-violent action including a protest over Fonterra's increasing use of coal, and a campaign opposing the importation of palm kernel oil that also targeted the dairy exporter.
Greenpeace says its backers are still eligible for tax rebates on donations, and the Greenpeace Educational Trust, which promotes conservation values, protects the natural environment and educates people, is a registered charity.
The lobby group brought in a smaller surplus in calendar 2011 after several large bequests in the prior year helped swell the organisation's coffers.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions8
The claim that this organisation is a "charity" is as credible as its "science"!
And the claim that the Church of Scientology is a religion and therefore entitled to tax exemption is as credible as its "science"!
Good to see the Charities Commission actually checking the credentials of one of the thousands of so-called charities on their books. There will be some very nervous organisations watching this case closely.
This radical Eco fringe group is supporting the Greens party in NZ and as such cannot be a charitable entity. Time for the appeal court to enforce costs against them, and let's see some jail time and damages for the costly delays caused by their idiots to exploration companies that are trying to improve NZ's economic opportunities, versus the dope smoking back packer lot that Greensleeze aligns itself with internationally.
This organisation is clearly a political entity.
To class it as a charity would be laughable.
liberte
Greenpeace should have to register as political party. It is an insult to all real charities to allow it to call itself a charity. Some of its activities qualify it to be on the international list of terrorist organisations.
It’s a wonder that unions – who are all affiliated to the Labour Party – can register numerous “charities” among their “Incorporated societies” and all whilst these unions and the various “tax-dodging” entities they create are allowed to be political activists to the point of colluding together to entice civil disobedience and unlawful actions. (See the educational unions telling parents / teachers not to comply with MoE requests for info)
These same “charities” receive plenty of funds from the unions – some of whom haven’t filed their minimum legal financial reporting requirements since 2006.
Where is the official oversight?
Where is the missing $4Million dollars the MWU hasn’t accounted for?
Who is looking / checking?
How can the unions act as political agitators, donating to Labour (likely against the wishes of the union members – who have zero say in the matter anyway) whilst remaining outside the regulatory compliance issues of a political party?
Why are they exempt??
Greenpeace support UN Agenda 21 and the UN push for global governance.
www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com
www.postsustainabilityinstitute.com