SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation) – a registered charity & its “political advocacy”

by 2 Comments

Protest challengers cage egg industry: SAFE – registered charity and political entity: its “perpetual advocacy of a particular view”. TV One 7 AM News reported this morning that animal welfare activists from a registered charity SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation Inc.) and other animal rights lobbyists have mounted a campaign of civil disobedience by blocking the entrance to the Mainland Poultry complex in Waikouaiti, just north of Dunedin, in order to protest against the farming of poultry in colony battery cages.

SAFE issued its Media release to Voxy News at 4.54 am today that alerted media to the protest (see link below). A TV One News crew was at the protest site reading for filming at the crack of dawn today  – thanks to the registered charity SAFE.

The array of lobbyists are demanding that the law be changed to outlaw such farming practices and intend to remain in place infringing the rights of workers and management to enter the complex and go about their lawful business, until they are removed by police. SAFE campaign director Eliot Pryor was part of the ground crew coordinating the blockade of  Mainland Poutry, and was supported by other SAFE members present.

Since it was registered as a charity (CC40428) with the Charities Commission headed by Mr Trevor Garrett, on 30 June 2008, SAFE’s vociferous lobbyists have been engaged in the “perpetual advocacy of a particular point of view”, to use the ‘terminology’ of the Charities Commission’s Monitoring and Investigations Team.    

SAFE’s  financial accounts (available on line on the Charities Commission’s website www.charities.govt.nz), reveal that in the financial year ended 31 March 2011, it employed nine full-time charity workers and 5 part-timers. SAFE records a total annual salary and wages bill of $589,430, for the financial year ended 31 March 2011. This pay-out constituted 61% of the charity’s annual income of $917,315 sourced from donations from the New Zealand public.

Voxy News reports today:

MEDIA RELEASE BY SAFE

Protest challenges cage egg industry

Access to the largest battery cage facility in New Zealand has been blocked today by animal welfare activists protesting against cages for layer hens.

Early this morning eight metre high tripod structures with climbers suspended were set up at the entrance to the Mainland Poultry complex in Waikouaiti and activists from The Coalition to End Factory Farming expect to remain in place until they are forced down.

“The action is being carried out to highlight the continued cruelty of cages,” says SAFE Campaign director Eliot Pryor, “and especially to stop the introduction of the proposed colony battery cage system. Both SAFE and The Coalition to End Factory Farming want to see all cages banned for egg-laying hens. The so-called enriched colony cages are not an acceptable alternative to the existing system as the welfare benefits are so minimal.”

“Mainland Poultry has refused the media access to these new colony battery cages and it is easy to see why,” says Mr Pryor. “They do not want the public to see the abhorrent conditions the animals are forced to live in. They do not want to explain to consumers why hens are crammed inside cages so cramped they have barely any room to move.”

Secretly filmed images of the colony battery cages in the Mainland facility, showing a dark future for New Zealand’s three million battery hens, were revealed by activists on national television earlier this year. The Minister for Primary Industries, David Carter, is considering approving the introduction of colony battery cages as part of the new welfare code for layer hens.

Colony battery cages do not provide the hens with the opportunity to display their normal behaviour as required by the Animal Welfare Act. Both New Zealand and international animal welfare agencies have condemned them, declaring the cages “fail to properly meet the hens’ physical or behavioural needs”.

“The law does not meet the welfare needs of these animals and as the law fails the hens, and producers resist moving to better welfare systems, you will find more reaction from consumers,” says Mr Pryor. “All retailers need to be looking again at their supply chain and asking themselves what their customers would find acceptable.”

Eighty per cent of Kiwis are opposed to battery cages, and SAFE encourages the public not to be fooled into believing that the new colony battery cages are acceptable. Consumers can contact the Minister directly to demand a ban on all cages at nocages.org.nz.

Media Release from Animal rights activist charity SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation).

Voxy News. Monday 25 June 2012

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/protest-challenges-cage-egg-industry/5/127249

Reference: www.nzopenrescue.org.nz “SAFE campaign director Eliot Pryor was part of the ground crew” [in the blockade of Mainland Poultry]

 

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc – registered charity engaging in political advocacy

by Leave a Comment

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc. is listed alongside the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) in The Encyclopedia of New Zealand under its section entitled “Cause Interest Groups“. Both are registered charities with the Charities Commission.

“Forest and Bird”, as it has come to be known in the media, was registered as a charity on 30 June 2008 (Reg. No. 26948) and one of its objectives is identical to that of  the SPCS (CC20268) – fund-raising so that it can advance its objectives. SPCS which was registered as a charity on 17 December 2007 also raises funds (see s. 2[g] of SPCS constitution). Both entities are incorporated societies. SPCS was registered as an incorporated society on 25 September 1975 (Reg. No. 217833).

Forest and Bird objectives are aimed at saving society from the negative impact of the degeneration and degradation of the physical and biological environment, with the consequent loss of invaluable species. SPCS objectives are centred on advancing spiritual and moral welfare and alerting the public to the negative impact of the degeneration and degradation of moral and community standards.

The Encyclopedia entry confirms that Forest and Bird is a lobbying group, heavily involved in political advocacy:

“Scenery preservation societies were formed in the 1880s to maintain town belts and urban reserves, and then began lobbying for the preservation of native forest in general. This led to the Scenery Preservation Act 1903, a landmark measure in protecting New Zealand’s heritage.

“In 1923, angered by the destruction of Kapiti Island’s natural ecosystem, Val Sanderson founded what became the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (later Forest and Bird). Since then the society has lobbied governments to protect endangered animal species and wild places. In 2011 its management team included a lawyer, marketing managers and professional lobbyists. It had 50 branches and 70,000 members and supporters.”

Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/interest-groups/3

In the financial year ended 28 February 2011, Forest and Bird received grants and sponsorship totalling $1,459,709. It spent $2,248,348 of its gross income of $5,363,055 on salaries and wages. Its total expenses were $5,830,455 (source: www.charities.govt.nz).

The vigorous lobbying work undertaken by Forest and Bird – an environmental charity group – involves some of its officers having to regularly publicly criticise Ministers of the Crown, company officials, regional councillors and other public officials, over their policies, attitudes and actions. Some may well feel targeted and aggrieved to be singled out. Such ‘victims’ often like to remain hidden in anonymity behind their corporation structure or ministry machinery.

Robust debate is entered into by Forest and Bird and great efforts are engaged in to prod the consciences of some of these officials, to spur them into action to save the environment. Protest action is not foreign to Forest and Bird whose members have been known to trespass on private land by ‘nesting’ high in trees and chain themselves to earth-moving equipment to campaign against the logging of native forests. Such zeal is greatly admired by the environmental community and applauded by SPCS members.

Charities such as Forest and Bird must not be allowed to have their wings clipped by those seeking to stifle freedom of expression and who are determined to curtail robust public debate on ‘sensitive’ issues.

The moral and spiritual welfare of our physical and biological environment is worth upholding, as are the community and moral standards that have been the foundation of our society.

Call from registered charity Family First NZ to politicians to change Anti-Smacking Law

by Leave a Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, has yet again called on politicians “to adopt the ‘Borrows’ amendment which did not ban smacking but which clearly stated what was abusive and what was not.” It has highlighted cases it claims “Reveal CYF Ignoring Intent of Ant-Smacking Law”.

Family First protest

NZPA Images
Reference: 25524
Photograph by Tim Hales

Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/interest-groups/3/5

Cases Reveal CYF Ignoring Intent of Ant-Smacking Law

Media Release dated 18 June 2012

Family First NZ has released further cases highlighting how the anti-smacking law is being used to criminalise and persecute good parents.

“These cases add to the extensive list of cases already listed on the website www.protectgoodparents.org.nz and our documentary “My Mummy’s A Criminal” highlighting five families and the inaccuracies of the Prime Ministerial review led by Psychologist Nigel Latta,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“These latest cases show a disturbing trend. Not only are police resources being wasted on investigating ‘smacking’ allegations, but Child Youth and Family (CYF) are ignoring the intent of the law and are removing children from good homes where the parents may use a smack, are failing to adequately investigate the background of families before uplifting children and traumatising families, and are refusing to place children with extended family who may use a smack even when CYF acknowledge the expertise and safety of the parents. They are also ignoring the fact that in many cases, the police are seeing no reason to prosecute.”

At the time of the law being passed, Prime Minister John Key said “Good parents want to have confidence that they will not be criminalised by this legislation if they give their children a light smack. It sends a strong signal that the level of violence against children in our society is unacceptable, but at the same time gives parents confidence that they will not be criminalised for carrying out their normal parenting duties.”

“The law was always sold to the public by pretending that non-abusive smacking would not result in a visit by the police or a social worker to remove the children. But the cases released today – and previously – show the exact opposite is happening,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Parenting has been put on trial in New Zealand, and they have every right to be concerned about a flawed, confusing, and badly applied law.”

“It is significant that the ‘discretion’ clause only applied to police and not CYF. At least with the police, parents get to have their day in court to defend themselves – even if it means going all the way to the Court of Appeal as one of our cases highlights. But with CYF, they are unaccountable to the families.”

Family First continues to call on politicians to adopt the ‘Borrows’ amendment which did not ban smacking but which clearly stated what was abusive and what was not. This has been successfully used in other jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia.

ENDS

For case studies see:

http://familyfirst.org.nz/2012/06/cases-reveal-cyf-ignoring-intent-of-anti-smacking-law/

NZ Charities Commission – to be disestablished – Update

by Leave a Comment

Last night (29 May 2012) the House of Representatives voted by a strong majority (71 to 49) to split the Crown Entities Reform Bill into three: The Charities Amendment Bill No. 2; The NZ Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill and the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. The first of these, passed through its committee stages on the evening of 23 May (see earlier post). All three will be treated as one piece of legislation when they come before the House for the Final Reading and vote (they are on the Order Paper for today).

The Charities Amendment Bill No. 2, once passed into law will see the Charities Commission disestablished on 1 July 2012 and its functions transferred to the Department of Internal Affairs.

(Note: The Charities Amendment Bill, which came out of the Statutes Amendment Bill No. 2, had its third reading and was passed on 16 February 2012. It has received the Royal Assent).

Is The Definition Of Charitable Purpose Relevant To NZ? – Scoop News

by Leave a Comment

Press Release: Hayes Knight NZ  Scoop News 26 April 2012

Is The Definition Of Charitable Purpose Relevant To New Zealand Society In 2012?

The Charities Commission hosted a forum to specifically explore the appropriateness of the existing definition of “charitable purpose” in New Zealand. This two day event was held in Wellington on 17 and 18 April 2012. Those selected to attend represented a cross section of people involved in the sector; all leaders in their respective areas.

Hayes Knight Audit Director Craig Fisher was invited to the forum as a panel presenter.

Below is an extract from the paper he presented.

For Full Paper see: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1204/S00806/is-the-definition-of-charitable-purpose-relevant-to-nz.htm

The issue of advocacy

This has been the source of much contentious, and sometimes what appears to be sensational and erroneous, media regarding decisions of the Charities Commission arising from the legal cases taken.

Political advocacy as a primary purpose is not currently considered charitable. This is especially the case when it comes to political parties which are not and should not be considered charitable. This is sound logic. [Read more…]