SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Radio New Zealand registers as charitable trust

by Leave a Comment

MPs have accused Radio New Zealand of “taking up the begging bowl” after it registered as a charity.

The state-owned broadcaster set up a charitable trust for the Concert Programme last month, registering with the Charities Commission under the name Radio New Zealand Charitable Trust. [The RNZ charity’s registration number is CC 46801].

The Green Party broadcasting spokesperson, Sue Kedgley, said the move “shows the dire state of public broadcasting’.

“At first I thought this was a joke. I am appalled to discover that it is a serious proposition and that the board of Radio New Zealand has been forced by the Government ‘s funding freeze … to set up a trust so that it can go out with a begging bowl to the public.”

She questioned if there was a long-term plan to enable RNZ to solicit donations for their programmes at the network.

“This suggests to me that it could be intended to have a wider pupose in the long term – namely to enable Radio New Zealand to solicit donations for its wider radio network.” Labour’s Clare Curren said it was “a ridiculous turn of events”.

“The minister has already stripped TVNZ of its charter forcing it to become a commercial entity. What’s next? Morning Report brought to us by Fonterra?

Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman said the issue was an operational matter for RNZ.

Source: The Dominion Post Friday, August 12, 2011. P. A2.

Liberty Trust – Resurrected as Charity by High Court ruling

by Leave a Comment

The High Court has reinstated a Christian mortgage lending scheme as a charity after it was struck off the Register of Charities by the Charities Commission last April. Liberty Trust, suspected by the Charities Commission of being an illegal pyramid scheme, said its interest-free loans, largely funded by donations, were based on Bible principles. The trust was launched in Whakatane in 1989 and became a registered charity in 2007. “It is a scheme about giving in order to lead a Christian life free from the burdens of debt.” Justice Jill Mallon said.

Source: Dominion Post June 8, 2011, P. A3

[Liberty Trust: Charity registration number CC11287. Registered trust with the Companies Office (Reg. No. 428355)].

CHARITABLE STATUS OF LIBERY TRUST APPROVED BY HIGH COURT

2 June 2011: The Honourable Justice Mallon produced her judgement at 4.45pm today.  Here is the conclusion: 

Result

[124] I consider that the Charities Commission erred in finding that Liberty Trust does not have, as its main purpose, a charitable purpose. Liberty Trust was set up to advance religion. It seeks to do that through teaching financial principles that Liberty Trust proclaims are the Bible’s financial principles. It seeks to teach those principles through providing a scheme which allows its followers (and anyone else who wishes to join up) to pool financial resources for the benefit of themselves and others. It reinforces the religious beliefs on which the scheme is based through its literature promoting the scheme and its other publications and teaching activities. It is not merely inspired by or conducive to religion. Its purpose, through this scheme, is to spread what is viewed as being the Bible’s message. In my view the purpose of Liberty Trust falls within the term “advancement of religion” as it has been interpreted in the cases.

[125] I also consider that the Charities Commission erred in finding that Liberty Trust’s activities do not exist for the public benefit. As a trust which has as its purpose the advancement of religion, the starting assumption is that it has a public benefit. The activities are not contended to be subversive to morality or a sham. It is not for the Court to impose its own views as to the religious beliefs that are advanced through the scheme. The benefits of the scheme are not focussed too narrowly on its adherents. It is open to anyone and the money donated is “recycled” for the benefit of others. Overall it is a scheme about “giving” in order to lead a Christian life free of the burdens of debt.

[126] I therefore allow Liberty Trust’s appeal. The Commission’s decision is set aside. Liberty Trust is to be reinstated to the Charities Register.

http://www.libertytrust.org.nz/News/news_CC.htm

Read the full High Court judgment here:

http://www.libertytrust.org.nz/News/Judgement.pdf

Should registered charities lodge complaints about fraud and non-compliance?

by Leave a Comment

Police spokesperson Jon Neilson has told The Wellingtonian (24 March) that police would investigate complaints from the public about scams, including those targeting potential donors to Christchurch earthquake appeals, if there was sufficient evidence. The Chief executive of the New Zealand Red Cross, John Ware, has been quoted as having evidence that “scammers are trying to take advantage of the public’s generosity at this devastating time”, using online scams and setting up insecure websites that illegally seek to harvest details of potential donors’ credit card and bank accounts and other personal information.

But is it legitimate for any registered charity to lodge formal complaints with enforcement agencies such as the police when evidence comes to light of possible criminal activities? How can such complaints be justified within the humanitarian, philanthropic, public service objectives of a registered charity such as NZ Red Cross or The Salvation Army for example?

Of course it is legitimate and fully justified for any charity to lodge formal complaints when evidence of scams, lack of legal compliance, money-laundering, or any criminal activity comes to light in the course of its own activities. In fact charities have a social responsibility to do so because such scams are “injurious to the public good”. The financial cost of white collar crime alone in New Zealand has been estimated to be about one billion dollars per year, according to the latest KPMG fraud barometer survey. [Read more…]

A reminder that the administration of the abortion law is a travesty

by Leave a Comment

By KARL DU FRESNE – The Dominion Post 20/07/2010
OPINION: It went unnoticed by the media, but Justice Minister Simon Power recently issued a press statement announcing that Rosemary Fenwicke had decided not to seek reappointment to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. There’s a story behind this. Dr Fenwicke, a member of the three-person committee since 2007, is an abortion certifying consultant who earns fees by approving the termination of pregnancies. She is also a former medical director of the Family Planning Association, a major abortion referral agency. She was nominated for the committee in 2007 by the Labour government of Helen Clark, whose pro-abortion sympathies are well known.

The appointment seemed not only an unconscionable conflict of interest, but a calculated insult to the many New Zealanders who regard abortion as deeply repugnant. Were they really expected to believe the government couldn’t find someone who didn’t have a material stake in the abortion business? (Certifying consultants were paid $5 million in 2008, and even pro-abortionists acknowledge it’s a lucrative business.) The very nature of her professional activity suggested Dr Fenwicke was not neutral on this divisive issue, yet Parliament rejected an attempt by MP Gordon Copeland, a staunch opponent of abortion, to overturn her nomination. (It was supposedly a conscience vote but Labour MPs were instructed to support Dr Fenwicke, meaning her appointment was assured.)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3935262/A-reminder-that-the-administration-of-the-abortion-law-is-a-travesty

[Note: Article link sourced from Family First – a well respected charity registered with the Charities Commission.See www.familyfirst.org.nz and www.charities.govt.nz ].

Suspended Child Porn Doctor Should Be Named – says Family First

by Leave a Comment

Family First Media Release 2 September 2010

[Note Family First is a registered charity with the Charities Commission. See www.familyfirst.org.nz and www.charities.govt.nz ]

Family First NZ says that a doctor convicted of possessing and distributing child sex abuse images should be named.

“Patients and parents should be informed so that they can make an informed choice as to whether they continue having him as their family doctor, even after his nine month suspension,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of
Family First NZ.

“The doctor in question admitted 25 charges of possessing objectionable material and one charge of distributing an objectionable publication. He not only had 290,000 images of young girls in explicit sexual poses but as well as that, the doctor was found to be distributing objectionable material further. This is not a one-off slip.”

“The rights of the doctor to name suppression and privacy should not be greater than the right of patients and especially parents to know the character of their doctor. That is the price the doctor must pay to match the gravity of
the abuse of children. Many parents would rightly be concerned at a doctor with those convictions examining their young son or daughter.”

“Parents should be given the right to make an informed decision,” says Mr McCoskrie.