SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Problem Gambling Foundation of NZ: A charity’s ‘political advocacy’ and litigation

by Leave a Comment

It was announced in the NZ Herald on Monday (19/03/14) that The Problem Gambling Foundation [“PGF”], will take the Ministry of Health to court to try to overturn a decision the ministry recently made, under which PGF will lose most of its funding (apart from its Asian Family Services), in favour of the Salvation Army. PGF claim, with support from Labour Party and Green Party spokespersons (see below), that there are big questions yet to be answered over the alleged flawed process behind that decision, one which could leave many of its 63 employed staff out of a job. The foundation has been the key provider of addiction and treatment services for gambling problems for about 20 years and has dealt with 25,000 people in that time.

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc  points out that what the media needs to investigate more fully are the implications of the fact that (1) The Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand [“PGF”] is a registered charity (registered on 1 May 2008 – Reg. No. CC23709) – and as such cannot be involved in political advocacy – which it has been, and (2) it received $4.7 million in tax-payer fund income in 2013 ($4.6 m in 2012) , via the Ministry of Health budget, the very Ministry it intends to take Court action against via an expensive High Court judicial review. Furthermore, the media has not highlighted the fact that PGF does not have anything in its constitution authorising its trustees/officers to allow the foundation to be involved in litigation involving tax-payer sourced money (via Ministry of Health funding) and/or from donors who can claim tax rebates (because PGF is a registered charity). [Read more…]

Political advocacy charity – Child Poverty Action Group Inc. – fails to file financial accounts

by Leave a Comment

Political advocacy group – Child Poverty Action Group Inc. [“CPAG”] – a registered charity (CC25387), and an incorporated society (No. 921414), is directed by Associate Professor Susan St John of the University of Auckland. [http://homes.eco.auckland.ac.nz/sstj003/] St John was appointed as an officer of CPAG on 5 June 2008 on the date the Society was granted charity status by the Charities Commission.

The NZ Herald reported yesterday that St John says CPAG was considering its next move in consultation with its lawyers, following a negative decision issued by the Court of Appeal against its challenge to the Government’s in-work tax credit, that claimed discrimination against beneficiaries. CPAG took the case to the Court of Appeal, which was heard in May 2013, after both The Human Rights Review Tribunal and the High Court ruled against it.

Who exactly are these CPAG lawyers? What fees have they been charging the charity to engage in political advocacy?

These questions are important as none of the financial accounts lodged by CPAG with the Charities Commission and/or Register of Incorporated Societies record any costs (or associated liabilities) incurred by it in legal action. CPAG remains in breach of the law having failed to file financial statements for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 – the three years prior to it gaining charity status. As an incorporated society, CPAG is required by law – the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 – to do so. How could such a group with its financial accounts in such apparent disarray and continuing to remain in breach of the law, be granted charity status and continue to operate as a political lobby group/political advocacy group?

References:

NZ Herald. Story by Lucy Bennett. 30 August 2013

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11117118

www.charities.govt.nz

www.societies.govt.nz

Child Poverty Action Group Inc: Court of Appeal rules against this charity’s appeal.

by Leave a Comment

Child Poverty Action Group Inc., [“CPAG”] a registered charity (Charity No. CC25387) deeply committed to political advocacy, has had its appeal to the Court of Appeal to have the Working for Families package made available to beneficiaries, dismissed. The appeal was heard in May 2013. Wikipedia describes CPAG as a “political advocacy group for the abolition of poverty and social exclusion, led by senior University of Auckland economist Susan St John” [appointed CPAG officer 5/06/08].

In 2006 the Government enacted the Working for Families tax-credit scheme to offer financial support for struggling families. CPAG which was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission on the 5th of June 2008, alleged the scheme’s in-work tax credit discriminated against people who receive income-tested benefit, as those who already received benefits were ineligible.

On Thursday 18 May 2006 CPAG defeated a New Zealand Government appeal in the High Court that would have prevented it from taking “legal action against the Government’s Working for Families package.” CPAG decided to take legal action because it felt that the Working for Families package discriminated against the children of parents on benefits. [see ref. 1]

CPAG had a total gross income of $156,962 for the financial year ended 31 March 2012, including $100,000 received from the JR McKenzie Trust and $30,729 from donations. Its total expenses were $118,298 and from that $42,600 was paid out in wages for “administration” and $59,288 in wages to a “researcher”. The total wages $101,888 paid out to three people employed part-time and together working on average a total of 60 hours per week, plus ACC ($567 paid on behalf of employees); constitutes 65% of total gross income of the charity. If the “office administration” costs of $3,393 are added to these expenses, the figure increases to $67%.

The Office of Human Rights Proceedings (OHRP) represented CPAG in both the Human Rights Tribunal and the High Court cases relating to the  In-Work Tax Credit case.

As an incorporated society (No. 921414), registered as such on 13 August 1998 under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908; CPAG has failed to comply with the law and file Financial Statements for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 with the Companies Office. Despite these serious breaches of the law, the Charities Commission registered the entity as a charity on 5th June 2008.

CPAG officers amended the entity’s constitution on 10 April 2008, shortly before it was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission. Nothing in the constitution empowers or authorises its officers to take legal action in a political advocacy role to challenge existing laws as part of its “charitable activities”.

References:

Ref 1. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/child-poverty-action-group/news/article.cfm?o_id=600551&objectid=10382423

2. www.societies.govt.nz

3. www.charities.govt.nz

4. Dominion Post, August 31, p. A3.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Poverty_Action_Group_(Aotearoa_New_Zealand)

Further reading:

Poverty group’s appeal against tax credit dismissed.

By Lucy Bennett. 31 August 2013

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11117118

Child Poverty Action Group website:

http://www.cpag.org.nz/

http://www.cpag.org.nz/in-focus/cpag-in-the-court-of-appeal/

Child Poverty Action Group v Attorney-General: employment status discrimination

See: Links –

Tribunal Decision

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2010/1568.html

High Court Decision

http://www.hrc.co.nz/office-of-human-rights-proceedings/part-1a-decisions 

Rainbow Wellington: Political advocacy of a charity supporting “LGBTI communities”

by Leave a Comment

Rainbow Wellington – The Wellington Rainbow Network Incorporated is a registered Charity (No. CC43245 registered on 30/06/08) that was incorporated  as a Society (Inc. No. 854300) on 15/07/1997 under the name “GAP-The Business and Professionals Association Incorporated”. Its name was changed from GAP to “The Wellington Rainbow Network Incorporated” on 19/05/2007 and it is widely recognised as having engaged in political advocacy as one of its primary (unstated) objects for years. Such advocacy work tends to go on under under the radar and is largely unnoticed by those who think the Network’s focus is on the more “visible” activities such as financing “events” for the “lesbian, gay,bisexual, transgender, and intersex (l,g.b,t,i) communities”.

An article published on GayNZ.com on 26th May 2013 provides reflections from Tony Simpson who has just stepped down after “the best part of a decade” on the Rainbow Wellington Board, mostly as chair. He reflects on some of his proudest RW [Rainbow Wellington] moments and the issues he thinks are most important moving ahead.

“Although RW tends to work under the radar and so its achievements go mostly unnoticed I would count among our successes: getting a major international insurance company to change its application forms to exclude some highly offensive personal questions.

“We have also been instrumental in reaching a position at our initiative with the Salvation Army which ensures that for the immediate future they will at worst remain neutral in any controversy over gay rights and at best take an active support role on some other issues if RW wants to build on it.

“It was also partly our pressure which narrowed the criteria for excluding gay men from blood donation.”

Tony Simpson says the group has also successfully prosecuted a couple of cases in the Human Rights Commission, one against the Blood Service, the other against the ANZ Bank, arising from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

“We have made our submissions to various Select Committees on legislation of interest to LGBTI people and, I flatter myself, had some effect on the outcomes, most latterly the marriage amendment legislation.

“We were able to bring a number of trans issues to the fore also by keeping up the pressure to have the recommendations of ‘To Be Who I Am’ implemented.

“My only regret is that I didn’t bring the blood donation matter to a final and successful conclusion although that is under way and there should be a further official review of international best practise this year.”

Source: http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/45/article_13401.php

The “Objects” of this charity/lobby group are available on the Charities website www.charities.govt.nz

Objects:

Rainbow Wellington is a non-profit association that aims to communicate with and educate the community at large on lesbian, gay,bisexual, transgender, and intersex (l,g.b,t,i) issues by:

1. Promoting a strong and positive sense of community for members of lgbti communities, in particular but not exclusively for those who are members of Rainbow Wellington, by encouraging social interaction, co-ordinating events of interest to them and celebrating our communities.

2. Offering support and encouragement to members of lgbti communities affected by discrimination and prejudice, and pursuing redress of discriminatory issues by engaging in public debate on such issues so that all those in lgbti communities enjoy the human rights available to all New Zealand citizens.

3 Providing financial assistance through grants and donations for individuals and groups undertaking specific activities that advance the causes of lgbti people.

4. Affiliating with and offering support to other organisations pursuing objectives consistent with those of Rainbow Wellington.

__________

The whole purpose of this pressure (lobby) group seems to be to highlight the alleged denial of human rights to members of the glbti communities.

See: http://www.rainbowwellington.org.nz/

Rainbow Wellington is a group representing the interests of, and organising social functions and activities for, lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual and related people in the greater Wellington region. We have about a hundred and thirty core members, individual, business and corporate, and a wider contact list of several further hundred gltb people. We publish regular electronic newsletters giving notice of our various activities, and keeping members and friends up to date on current events of interest.

We take up issues of concern to our community in the human rights field. We have, for example, recently been pursuing the limitations on blood donation by gay men, and are urging the government to fully implement the Human Rights Commission report on transgender discrimination. We also are currently taking a lead in initiatives to end homophobic bullying in schools, and have taken up such issues as single gender parent adoption and the gay marriage option.

RW Campaigns [involving political advocacy] include:

Civil and Human Rights in New Zealand

Employment Relations Bill
Salvation Army

Meetings with Political parties

Education (Freedom of Association) Amend Bill

Prisoner Voting Bill

Homophobic bullying

Transgender

Adoption

Gay Blood Donors.

See article on glbt lobby group Rainbow Wellington – “The great gay blood donation debate”. 15 November 2009.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/7/article_8146.php

See article – “Rainbow WGN’s bad blood over gay ban”. 20 June 2008.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/printer_6103.php

The Partial defence of provocation
Homophobic abuse at the Stadium

Foreign Policy & Human Rights

Insurance – positive outcomes

Submission on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Written by Tony Simpson.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/32/article_12551.php

See: http://www.rainbowwellington.org.nz/Issues.htm

 

SAFE: “Political advocacy advertising” by a registered charity – lobby group

by Leave a Comment

SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation Incorporated), a registered charity (CC40428), funded an expensive “political advocacy advertising” “campaign” on Television Four during 2012/13 – aimed at changing New Zealand law to bring an end to factory farming of pigs and chickens. The slick emotive propaganda depicting scenes of emaciated and crowded caged farm animals, screened at 7.35 p.m. during “a family orientated movie”. Towards the end a SAFE logo appears along with the words: ”imagine a world without factory farming” pointing viewers to the website “www.stopfactoryfarming.org.nz” (run by SAFE campaign director Eliot Pryor and featuring a promo by SAFE director Hans Kriek). The song “Somewhere” was played in the background as a piglet was shown sprouting wings and escaping from the crate. (Mr Pryor was part of the ground crew coordinating the blockade of Mainland Poultry by SAFE and other animal “rights” activist groups in June 2012).

See: https://www.spcs.org.nz/2012/safe-save-animals-from-exploitation-a-registered-charity-its-political-advocacy/

https://www.spcs.org.nz/2012/safe-save-animals-from-exploitation-a-registered-charity-demands-ban-on-rodeo-animal-abuse-industry/

In response to a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by M. Burton, who described the SAFE advertisement as “appalling”, “emotive” and using “ cynical shock tactics” to influence vulnerable children, the ASA Board ruled (Decision 13/051) that the “images shown in the advertisement were emotive and may be distressing to some viewers”. Whilst it ruled that the advert did not exceed the limits of GXC classification guidelines, it noted that the Commercial Approval Bureau on behalf of Media classified it as “political advocacy advertising”.

The charity SAFE has only two “objects” in its Constitution and both were approved as “charitable” when it was registered as a charitable entity by the Charities Commission on 30 June 2008. They are:

(1) “raising awareness of the suffering, abuse and exploitation of animals” and

(2) “promoting education on human-animal relations”.

SAFE gained charity status on the basis of its “Advancement of Education”. However, it is well-documented and obvious to the public and media that one of its primary objects (deliberately unstated) is to change the law in relation to the treatment of farmed animals – and this involves it aggressively engaging in “political advocacy” campaigns that go much further than just raising awareness of a problem(s).

SAFE’S call for “STOPfactoryfarming” is a very different propaganda call to one that encourages farmers to merely modify their farming practices and comply with existing New Zealand law.

In its response to the ASA Board investigation, SAFE tried to defend its propaganda advert stating that its purpose was to:

“… inspire and empower people to TAKE ACTION ON BEHALF OF THESE ANIMALS. The TVC invites people to suspend belief – to believe in a world where animals can sing and pigs can fly, an END TO FACTORY FARMING is in fact possible” [Emphasis added].

Eliot Pryor and his team of political campaigners are so passionate about changing the law that they break the law to impose their beliefs on others. For example, blocking a roadway and preventing workers accessing Mainland Poultry in 2012, deprived other citizens of their rights to go about their lawful business. Such unlawful actions are the ‘bread-and-butter’ pursuits of Greenpeace activists and Greenpeace has so far been refused charity status based in part on its involvement in such activities.

On the positive side, registered charities are entitled under the Charities Act 2005 to engage in “political advocacy” if it advances one or more of its charitable purposes, provided the extent and degree of such advocacy is only ancilliary to its purposes.

In the case of SAFE’s advertising campaign and its officers’ protest actions that breached the law, such activities involving demands for changes in the law, are not signalled in any shape or form in the purposes of the charity.

Whilst not upholding the complaint from M. Burton, the ASA Board took the view that “the advocacy advertisement [engaged in by SAFE] was intended to raise awareness about the cruelty of caged animal farming”. However, it clearly went much further than that by pointing to its propaganda website “stopfactoryfarming.org.nz”. A careful analysis of the activities of SAFE (see: www.safe.org.nz) and its associated websites reveals that SAFE is an animal “rights” lobby group that perpetually advocates for a particular point of view and is intent on changing the law.

“Advocacy advertising” is a expression of opinion and is a desirable part of the functioning of a democratic society” (Principle 11 ASA Code of Ethics). However, in the case of SAFE, there appears to be nothing in its constitution that connects it with this charity’s perpetual advocacy of the view that the law on farming practices must be changed to prevent the alleged widespread “cruelty” and “torture” of animals in New Zealand.

Note: In another complaint against the advertisment from O.Turk (Decision No. 13/043 dated 21/02/13) the Chairman of the ASA ruled that there were “No Grounds to Proceed”, but did note that it constituted “advocacy advertising”.