Latest News [index] Political activities disqualify Greenpeace from registration as a charitable entity
The Charities Commission decision that Greenpeace can not be registered as a charity because of its political activities has been up-held by the High Court.
The High Court found that the Charities Commission was correct in holding that non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed in Greenpeace's eyes, to put objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent political purposes that disqualified it from registration as a charitable entity.
Greenpeace has advised that it intends to appeal the decision. However, in this regard it is noted that to date no decisions of the Charities Commission have been overturned on appeal.
Background
Greenpeace is an incorporated society that promotes a philosophy that encompasses protection and preservation of nature and the environment.
Before the enactment of the Charities Act 2005, Greenpeace was recognised as a charity under what was effectively a self-assessment regime administered by the Inland Revenue Department. When the Charities Act came into force, all organisations that had previously been recognised as charitable for tax purposes were required to apply to the Charities Commission for registration as a "charitable entity".
Although the vast majority of charities that were in existence prior to the Charities Act have been able to register as a charitable entity, the Charities Commission has declined to register some charities. As at July 2010 the Charities Commission had declined to register approximately 1,350 organisations. To date 9 organisations whose applications were declined have appealed to the High Court, which has upheld the decision of the Charities Commission in each case.
Decision
The Charities Commission declined Greenpeace's application for registration on grounds including pre-existing authorities that excluded political activities from being "charitable purposes" for the purposes of the Act.
Upholding the decision of the Charities Commission the High Court found that New Zealand had as part of its law a doctrine excluding political objects from charitable purposes. Accordingly:
· the Charities Commission was correct to conclude that the meaning of "charitable purpose" excludes political activities;
· Greenpeace's purposes of promoting disarmament and peace are non-charitable; and
· the extent to which Greenpeace relied on its political activities to advance its causes meant that the political element could not be regarded as merely ancillary to Greenpeace's charitable purposes such that the charitable purposes prevail over the political purposes.
It may be that whether or not it is still appropriate for organisations to be declined registration as a charity due to political purposes is a matter that is due public consideration and debate.
Recognising the importance of the issues raised, the Court made no order as to costs.