|
At the Residents2010 Conference one of
the side issues raised was the treatment of some residents'
associations by the
Charities Commission.
Why should this be of
concern to you? Consider these two recent stories:
1)
White Poppies
The RSA was reported to
be up-in-arms over a peace group selling white poppies to raise money and
awareness for their cause, just prior to ANZAC Day.
In a media release the
CEO of Fundraising New Zealand (FINZ) - James Austin - said “It’s
intolerable that an organisation not registered with the Charities
Commission can collect funds from the public in direct competition with
a registered charity". See
here for full details.
On a a Radio New Zealand interview
it was said
that, because Peace Movement Aotearoa was not registered with the
Charities Commission there is "no way of proving where the money's gone" and
that it was "inappropriate" to be collecting at all.
The employee of a
high-profile charity said it was "honourable" to "register" the appeal week
with the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand. However that body says
on their website that "To raise funds for your club or group you do not
need to be registered with anyone, nor do you need a licence."
Listen to the
recording
HERE.
As an aside, the
Auckland RSA President - also interviewed on National Radio said
"...certainly the timing is not what we'd like, you know there are plenty of
other days in the year to do that, however, it's understandable why a peace
movement would choose to do it at this time."
Peace Movement Aotearoa
have said they changed their appeal week back next to ANZAC Day because of
demand by people who wanted to wear white poppies (symbolising
justice and freedom of expression amongst other things won by the blood of
soldiers and civilians) alongside their red ones.
People should be free to
give to whatever charity they choose and to suggest the State
(through the Charities Commission) or the industry bigwigs (through
the Fundraising Institute) or anyone else can make that decision on behalf
of a person is nothing less than anti-democratic.
2) Otaki Market
The Otaki Women's
Community Club is upset at being told to
stop making food for the local
market. Kapiti Coast District Council says the stallholders need to
have registered kitchens.
The Council's Manager
for Assets and Services, Gary Simpson, said that people selling food
must have registered kitchen to protect against outbreaks of illness.
The Council then went on
to say that only charities or vendors whose complete profits go to a
charity are permitted to prepare the food they sell in their own
kitchens.
So... who defines
what is a "charity" in this instance. The Charities Commission?
Looks like red tape either way!
And as an aside, are we
to conclude that when money goes completely to charity the chance of an
outbreak of illness is less?
Despite
Minister Tizard's
expectation that "the commission will not prevent an organisation
from being able to register if it engages in advocacy as a way to
support and undertake its main charitable purpose", it appears many groups
are being rejected from gaining charitable status due to their advocacy
activities.
As a residents' association or
any similar group that aims to improve your community through
promoting a
strong 'civil society' you run the risk of being rejected charitable
status. This means that you will not be able to apply to an increasing
number of funders (like the
Paul Newman Foundation, or technology donor
Tech Soup as well as several gaming machine
funds such as
The Trusts
Charitable Foundation).
In addition, from 1 July 2008 an
organisation will only be tax-exempt if it is a trust, society or
institution that is registered as a charitable entity by the Charities
Commission. In other words any charity not registered by the Charities
Commission is liable for income tax (see
IR255 brochure, p11).
According to Charities
Commission CEO Trevor Garrett it is currently "expanding its monitoring and
investigation and education functions" (see
here for story). What's next on the
cards... a ruling that bequests can only be made to registered charities?
Buskers having to show charitable status before being allowed to
perform music? Stormtroopers marching down the street,
smashing windows? Is it time, perhaps, to start learning the words of
this song?
(Okay, that was a step too far. But hysteria aside, we still need our
civil society to protect us from going down this path).
Unless the
Charities Commission
is made to change its stance and relax the rules on what is "charitable" we
will see civil society slowly choked by a lack of access to funds,
donated resources and - if the Fundraising Institute has its way - access to
the ability to publically raise money.
Last year the
Parliamentary
Social Services Committee produced a report entitled 2009/10 ESTIMATES FOR
VOTE COMMUNITY AND VOLUNTARY SECTOR. An excerpt reads "We were ...
interested to hear that the commission had rejected 3,000 applications
in six months, and asked the Minister whether the commission was perhaps
being too rigorous or pedantic in evaluating applications. The
Minister said she had raised the issue of the registration procedures, which
she believed might be partly responsible for the length of time it had taken
to clear the backlog of applications, but that the commission was
reluctant to change its processes and criteria for approving applications."
See full report
here.
We
have made an initial approach to Trevor Garrett, CEO of the Commission,
for a meeting to discuss the issue but to date he has not replied (or
acknowledged our request).
Using the Official Information Act we
have uncovered at least 29 cases where residents' associations have
been rejected charitable status. There are a number still out there
who have received a rejection letter but still have time to appeal, or have
appealed and are under consideration and we have requested documents
relating to those instances.
The reasons vary but all of them hint at
a government department flexing its legislative muscles through a strict
interpretation of the law.
Whilst further information is being
sought one of the conversations we would like to see happen is "What
is the RELEVANCE of the Charities Commission?", given that
the ability of the public and private sector to engage in philanthropy and
charitable activity is being stifled. Already people are starting
to ask for evidence as to what benefit they bring to our New Zealand society
aside
from another level of bureaucracy.
If you have been rejected from, given the
run-around by, or discouraged to apply to the Charities Commission then
please let us know.
Email
us
here,
we will get in touch to have a further conversation. |
