NEW ZEALAND’S RIGGED CHARITIES LOTTERY

A cursory skim over New Zealand’s mangy charities landscape

Let’s kick off by deploying a brace of vogue phrases.

So first up…a trigger warning; some content in this Substack is distinctly uncharitable towards charities and people who populate the Charities “communiDy”. Secondly, while one of my purposes is to give a few teasers to those of you who may want to Do your own research on New Zealand charities, good luck with that.  The Charities arena is opaque, impenetrable, and politically partisan.

The main advantage of being a registered charity is financial. Charities are exempt from paying tax.

Under New Zealand’s charities legislation (the Charities Act 2005), an entity only qualifies for registration as a charity if it is “established and maintained exclusively for charitable purposes”, with charitable purpose defined to include “every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community”. (You can legitimately ask yourself, with the world in its current state, why the advancement of religion is deemed to be “beneficial to the community”).

Under the charities legislation, an entity is not disqualified from registration as a charity if a “non-charitable purpose (for example) advocacy” is “ancillary”, defined as “ancillary, secondary, subordinate, or incidental to a charitable purpose” of the entity.

In 2017, New Zealand’s Charities Registration Board determined that Family First New Zealand did not qualify as a registered charity and should be de-registered. Family First appealed through the Courts and in 2021 the Supreme Court (New Zealand’s top Court) decided that Family First New Zealand does not qualify charitable status and must be removed from the Charities Register.

The case against Family First was taken by the Attorney-General, New Zealand’s highest-ranking Government lawyer, a position held at the time by Labour Minister David Parker. Family First is a conservative organization, promoting what might be described as traditional “family values” and commissioning reports. For sure, Parker personally detests Family First’s values and everything Family First stands for.

The Supreme Court unsurprisingly decided that Family First’s advocacy for the traditional family, to what the Court described as the “disadvantage…of others”, was not charitable. In short, New Zealand’s Charities Commission and Supreme Court consider Family First and their likes to be politically unacceptable Redneck Troglodytes, unworthy of charitable status. In a separate, personal judgement, Justice Joe Williams got mightily stuck in, claiming that Family First cannot be charitable because it is not “fair, balanced and respectful”, while (in Justice Joe’s words) the “promotion of human rights, protection of the environment and…the promotion of post-colonial reconciliation” are “self-evidently charitable”.

Consider, by contrast, the charitable status and prestige afforded to The Helen Clark Foundation, a “think tank” dedicated – in broad terms - to making New Zealand a Wokeily better place, socially and environmentally. Like Family First, the Clark Foundation funds reports and arranges meetings, but on different sorts of matters, such as how Aotearoa can decarbonize, make its cities more resilient to climate change and regulate “harmful” online content. The Clark Foundation “partners with” (gets money from) such organizations as the Auckland University of Technology and the Rata Foundation. Unlike Family First, the Clark Foundation is significantly Government-funded.

The Clark Foundation’s name in the Maori language is “Mahi o Rongo” (Work of Peace). According to the Foundation’s website “The name was gifted [grifted? Was he paid?] by Dr. Sir Haare Williams…”. While Williams is a prominent Māori educationalist and broadcaster, the nature of Williams’ entitlement to gift Maori words to the Helen Clark Foundation is not clear. Naturally, Williams is “Advisor Māori to the [Clark Foundation] Executive Director”. And who’s that coot on Helen Clark’s left, in the shot below? Well, that’s her husband Peter Davies; the dude who wrote endless columns lauding the Labour Government’s COVID response, without disclosing that he is the husband of Jacinda Ardern’s mentor and spiritual guide, Ms. Clark.

No-one has ever formally challenged the Helen Clark Foundation’s charitable status. But what exactly is the difference between Family First and The Clark Foundation? The only real difference, of course, is that Family First dwells on the political Right, whereas The Helen Clark Foundation inhabits the political Left.

Moving right along, in our quick sweep across some of our Cryptic Charities Landscape…

The Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust and the National Urban Maori Authority (NUMA) are each Government-funded registered charities. John Tamihere is the chief executive of both the Waipareira Trust and NUMA, as well as being the President of the Maori Party (Te Pati Māori).  Waipareira Trust and NUMA have made about half a million dollars’ worth of interest-free loans to Tamihere, which remain un-repaid. Tamihere has used that money to fund Te Pāti Māori, as well as his 2019 tilt for the Auckland Mayoralty.

According to Stuff:

Tamihere says he and the charities have done nothing wrong and criticism of their arrangement is “a hit on the Māori [sic]”.

He says his charities have been more transparent than other charities, who implicitly support political parties. And he says, in a free democracy, charities should be able to back political candidates.

“It is a sad day for democracy in Aotearoa when Māori get demonised for being honest in publicly ensuring that every cent spent is to advance the Te Pāti Māori,” he said.

Tamihere claimed to The Herald “To pretend that we can’t use Māori money to advance Māori interests politically is a totalitarian state”.

Charities Services, our charities regulator, has taken a diametrically different approach to the Waipareira Trust/NUMA/Tamihere/Te Pāti Māori Party than it took to Family First. Waipareira Trust and NUMA remain registered charities, with Charities Services doing, in response to those charities’ brazenly partisan monetizing of Te Pāti Māori…precisely zip.

Sanitarium is a food company and registered charity owned by a religious organization, the Seventh Day Adventists Church.  According to the Charities Register, Sanitarium qualifies as a registered charity simply because it advances religion (bizarre, but consistent with our Charities legislation) and undertakes “Commercial activity for raising funds to promote & educate healthy eating & healthy living in accordance to [sic] religious beliefs”.

In September 2023 Sanitarium stopped supplying The Warehouse with Weet-Bix, because – according to Sanitarium – it was running short of Weet-Bix. Until then, The Warehouse had sold Sanitarium-supplied Weet-Bix more cheaply than New Zealand’s supermarket duopoly of Foodstuffs (New World/PACK’n SAVE) and Woolworths (Countdown). The Warehouse complained to the Commerce Commission and engaged newly appointed Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden to investigate the matter. Who knows what went on behind the scenes. Perhaps our supermarket duopoly put pressure on Sanitarium not to supply The Warehouse. Perhaps Sanitarium unilaterally decided not to supply cheap-Weet-Bix-vendor, The-Warehouse. What we do know is this…according to his very own “LinkedIn”, Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden was the “Executive General Manager – New Zealand” of Sanitarium for 12 years and six months, until June 2017. So, if Sanitarium was up to mischief in depriving The Warehouse of Weet-Bix, what’s the chance of Pierre doing anything about that?

In these discombobulating times, one is inclined to wonder…does New Zealand possess any straight-shooting senior public servants, at all?