Allowing Greenpeace registration as a charity creates a seismic shift in charities law. Political lobbyists can gain the tax benefits of charities registration; no longer is there any need for registered charities to directly carry out tangible good works.
Since 2008, Greenpeace has been fighting a legal battle to gain registration as a charity allowing donors to get a tax rebate for donations and Greenpeace itself to earn income tax free. The Charities Board refused registration; Greenpeace was a lobby group, often acting illegally though acts of civil disobedience promoting its causes, it said. On appeal to the Supreme Court, charities law was re-interpreted; advocacy on ‘public benefit’ issues through participation in the political and legal process could amount to a charitable purpose, it said. Acting against slavery and negotiation of Waitangi Tribunal claims were two past examples of activities given charitable status, the Supreme Court pointed out.
Armed with this Supreme Court ruling, Greenpeace again fronted up to the Charities Board. Again, it was refused registration. Greenpeace did not satisfy the legal definition of a charity, it said. Greenpeace was a lobby group advocating for political change, most recently promoting sustainable fishing, protesting dirty dairying and calling for fossil fuels to be phased out, the Board said. Supporters were encouraged to lobby members of parliament directly.
Back in the High Court, Justice Mallon ruled protection of the environment may be a charitable purpose in itself. As a global issue, success requires ‘broad-based support and effort,’ she said. Ruling that Greenpeace is eligible to register as a charity, Justice Mallon said there is a public benefit in advocating for environmental issues.
Greenpeace of New Zealand v. Charities Registration Board – High Court (10.08.20)
20.136