Greenpeace
has moved away from the pacifist underpinning of its original constitution by
offering to change its rules in order to gain charitable status. Tax advantages available to charities
prohibit them from engaging in overt political activity. The Court of Appeal directed that Internal
Affairs reconsider Greenpeace’s application for charity registration.
Registration as a
charity was initially refused on the basis that amongst its charitable aims
Greenpeace stated as objects the promotion of “peace” and “disarmament”. These objects can be considered political in
nature. Greenpeace subsequently offered
to change its constitution to include the promotion of “peace, nuclear
disarmament and the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.”
The Court ruled that
this alteration significantly altered the nature of Greenpeace’s objects: from
a non-violent “peace at all costs” political stance to a stance broadly
accepted as being for the public benefit of the community as whole. New Zealand treaty obligations support both nuclear
disarmament and prohibitions on the development, use or stockpiling of
biological and chemical weapons. Nuclear
disarmament and a prohibition on weapons of mass destruction have broad public
support as being beneficial to society generally.
But registration as a
charity for Greenpeace is not a foregone conclusion. The Court warned Greenpeace that it will have
to convince Internal Affairs that it is not involved in direct political
lobbying in pursuit of its aims or that it has not been involved in any illegal
activity. The fact that Greenpeace
banners are sometimes seen at environmental protests when activists trespass on
industrial sites raises doubts about the legality of some Greenpeace activities.
re
Greenpeace – Court of Appeal (16.11.12)
12.036