Charities/NFP - Parry Field Lawyers

All registered charities must now review their governance procedures every three years. We have heard it said that this is simply another burden for charities. We disagree and here’s why.

Why this requirement has been introduced

The policy goal seems to be to help charities succeed.

Some charities are large, well-established entities with robust governance procedures and highly-experienced people governing them. There is a reasonable likelihood that they review their governance procedures routinely.

However, a large proportion of charities are small and many are governed by people with mixed governance understanding and capability. We talk to many people governing charities who have not looked at their governance documents for years and some who are operating outside of what their rules allow. This places the people governing the charity at risk of doing something that is not legally permitted. It can also lead to charities not being well run and potentially failing.

We see this new obligation as the codification of good practice. Every charity (every legal entity) should regularly pause and reflect on how they operate. It will be time well invested.

What are ‘governance procedures’?

What does the term ‘governance procedures’ refer to? The Charities Act does not provide any firm answers, but we suggest governance procedures include, but are not limited to:

Key documents
- The key governing document – a charitable trust deed for charitable trusts, a constitution/rules for charitable incorporated societies, or the constitution for charitable companies.
- Secondary documents supporting the rules, such as bylaws, regulations, charters or policies.
Important practices
- How the charity deals with conflicts of interest.
- How does the charity deal with disputes and complaints.
- How the charity recruits and onboards new trustees or officers.
- The effectiveness of meetings and relationships.
- Financial practices.

How to satisfy the legal requirements

Below is a simple approach which can be tailored to your charity and circumstances. We suggest you focus on what you feel needs most work, most urgently. You do not have to do all of this at once and that is not the intention. You have a three-year window so we suggest scheduling the reviews across your calendar of meetings.

Step 1 – Look at your rules

When were your rules drafted or last updated?
Do you follow the rules? If not, why not? Do the rules need to be updated to reflect how you operate in practice?
Do the rules reflect recent legal changes such as the Charities Amendment Act 2023, the Trusts Act 2019 and the Incorporated Societies Act 2022? Remember, the legislation will usually trump the rules, so being aware of the legal changes is important for keeping those in governance safe.
Do you understand what every part of your rules mean? Ask for legal advice if something in the rules is unclear – you need to know what you are required to do and why.
Document your review briefly, setting out what you considered and what action you propose to take.

Step 2 – Update your rules (if NECESSARY)

Consider updating your rules if they do not reflect current practice and/or do not take account of recent law updates.
You may need legal advice to do this properly. Don’t forget to update Companies Office and Charities Services.
Document that you have amended your rules or why you haven’t if they are fit for purpose.

Step 3 – Review your supporting documents

Read over the documents. Do they correspond with your rules? Do they make sense? Is anything out of date?
If you don’t have a Board Charter, consider creating one. These make it easier to onboard new governors and make it clear how relationships are to work. There are excellent templates available free online that you can tailor to your circumstances.
If you do not have a Health and Safety Policy or a Privacy Policy, we recommend having these drafted to ensure you and any employees, contractors and volunteers understand their legal obligations.
If your charity involves vulnerable people and/or children, we also urge you to have a Child Protection / Vulnerable Persons Policy and Police Vetting Policy.
If you amend existing policies or draft new ones, ensure that these are well-communicated to all relevant people.

Step 4 – Review your practices

Does the charity have robust processes in place to manage conflicts of interest? If not, we recommend creating and following a policy and introducing an Interests Register.
How do you induct new trustees/officers onto the Board? What documents do you provide to support their understanding of what’s involved and key decisions from the past? A Board Induction Pack is ideal.
Do you review your meetings? This can help put a focus on constructive relationships and efficiency.
Are your financial processes robust? Are you confident that all payments are made according to your delegations? Is more than one trustee/officer required to approve payments?
Do your contractors and employees have proper contracts in place? Is there are clear understanding of who owns intellectual property?
Once you have considered the above, identify what could use some improvement and get to work. Then document what you reviewed, and what action you took as a result of the review.

Our key takeaways

Charities that invest in reviewing their governance practices will benefit by ensuring documents and practices are up-to-date, helping to keep people and the charity safe and effective.

Avoid a last minute scramble by scheduling the process throughout the three-year timeframe.

More information

We help charities to thrive. That’s why we provide a wide range of free resources to support them. Visit our Charities Information Hub for advice and guides.

We welcome questions too and offer free, no obligation 20 minute conversations – just get in touch.

Please note that this article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact us by completing the enquiry form or call us on 03 348 8480.

Is your organisation thinking of setting up a branch overseas? While local law will need to be considered, governance and structures which ensure there are connections into the future are also important factors in setting up branch organisations.

We have written this with international charities in mind, as for a business venture, there are different considerations at play.

This is to ensure that child organisations are linked to the founding body and that they have same vision and share a sense of unity and uniformity. Without such governance mechanisms, it becomes difficult for a founding body to guide branch organisations in other countries, or hold them accountable. This can be a problem if connection is lost and potentially the reputation of the parent organisation is impacted by the actions of an offshore affiliated group.

Governance Principles:

Some examples of oversight measures we can help to incorporate into the local organisation’s documents might include;

Appointment of Governance – before directors/trustees are appointed to the branch organisation, the founding body must give prior written consent of the appointment.
Removal of Governance – the founding body might be able to remove those in charge of the branch organisation by written notice.
Amendments to documents – The founding body could be consulted and approve of any changes to founding documents. This should including any changes to the clause that gives you this power, meaning that clause is entrenched.
Reference of your mission statement or overall purpose (including the specific purpose of branching out globally) and the founding body throughout governance documents.
Ensuring a consistent name is used at the branch level as well as any logos (see below).
Ensuring there are consistent purposes across each branch (while recognising there may be local law around what qualifies as charitable if you are a charitable organisation).
Considering how each branch relates to each other, and how you will incorporate this into the governance documents.
Ensuring that there is a consistent statement of faith included in all documents if your organisation is religious. This can help diminish the branch disseminating different interpretations or views that are not aligned to the founding body.

In implementing these principles, it is also important to get local tax and accounting advice to ensure there are not unintended consequences.

Intellectual Property:

Another important consideration is intellectual property (IP). This is often a very valuable asset for an entity and is also how an organisation is known. It is important to ensure that the founding body owns the IP that is used by the branch organisation.

We suggest trademarking the logo and name in jurisdictions where you will operate so that you own it.
We suggest an IP license with the branches setting out how they can use it and grounds for terminating use.
Consider ownership of domain names and that you retain ownership of those for each jurisdiction.
Consider social media accounts and who will run or own them.

This is also another mechanism that can be used to distance yourself from a branch organisation if they are no longer aligned with your views.

Policies:

Having consistent policies will also help as part of the overall governance structure and we suggest creating the following to start:

Privacy Policy & Data Protection Policy
Conflict Of Interest Policy
Child Protection Policy
Gifts Policy
Non-Disclosure Agreement

If you are interested in your options and would like to discuss further, please contact our team.

Please note that this article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact us by phone 03 348 8480.

新法新要求

新西兰现有约2万4千个法人社团（Incorporated Society），涵盖体育俱乐部、兴趣爱好者团体、社区支持组织等广泛领域。这些法人社团都必须依法完成重新注册。

规范法人社团及其管理人员权利与义务的法律法规已完成了期待已久的修订，并于2022年4月获得皇家批准，即《2022年法人社团法》（下称“新法”）。

因为所有的法人社团或多或少都需要进行合规审查以符合新法的规定，我们将关键注意事项列举如下供您参考。同时，也会在我们的信息中心持续更新相关内容。

每个法人社团都要有新的社团章程，以符合重新注册的资格。有些可能调整变更幅度较小；有些可能会大幅增补且需要较为复杂地调整。对于有些法人社团而言，这也是一次机会，重新考量是否继续以法人社团的形式继续运营，还是以其他形式更为适合，比如慈善信托的形式。

关于我们

Parry Field 律师事务所乐于为您助力 – 提供您所需的信息，助您更顺畅地推进整个流程。我们律所长期致力于支持社区组织，善于根据具体情况量身定制方案，尤其是制订社团组织章程方面。

我们推出了《慈善机构健康检查》指南，您可以访问我们的网站查看下载。我们也欢迎您通过电话电邮的方式与我们联系。我们律所拥有约100名员工及4个办公室，是一家拥有全面综合业务的律所，可以就房地产、争议解决及合同等事务提供支持全方位的支持与服务。

重新注册的要求

自2023年10月5日起至2026年4月5日，根据新法要求，所有法人社团必须在此期间完成重新注册程序。

公司注册局（Company Office）简化了流程且不收取任何费用，仅需要填写在线申请表，并提供下列主要信息：

新西兰商业编号（NZBN）及注册编号；
拟注册的办公室实际地址；
财务结算日；
指定联络人信息；
所有拟任干事的姓名，并就每位干事提供以下内容：
- 实际地址（不会向公众披露）；
- 担任干事的书面同意；
- 声明—确认其未被取消担任干事的资格—公司注册局提供的标准模板；
确认法人社团拥有至少10名成员；
确认一名干事已审核拟议社团章程并确认其符合新法规定。

此外，法人社团必须上传一份符合新法要求的社团章程。就此专题，我们撰写了六篇文章予以详述。您可以在我们的网站信息中心查阅这一专题。我们律所协助了众多法人社团进行新法合规审查与修订，也希望为更多的法人社团服务助力。

如何做好准备

目前是重新审核社团章程及运营机制的良机—确保您的社团符合新法规定。比如，审核是否已建立争议解决机制？对于干事的利益冲突是否有明文处理程序？在我们的网站信息中心，提供了大量的关于新法对于法人社团影响的资料信息，供您查阅。我们也乐于协助您的社团做好全面的准备。欢迎您致电致函联系我们。我们将为您定制个性方案，竭诚为您服务。

注：本文内容不构成法律建议。如需进一步协助，请随时联系 Parry Field 律师事务所。

When it comes to changing your founding document, some rules state that permission must first be sought from IRD. This is a hangover of the past when it was required and has sometimes caused confusion as to whether it is actually necessary these days, or not.

The good news is that IRD no longer requires charities to seek approval before amendments can be made to their rules. One reason for this is that with close to 30,000 registered charities they just do not have capacity to review every such rule change. The IRD have stated in their Operational Statement (OS 06/02) that:

“…Inland Revenue strongly recommends that [charitable] organisations remove any requirement in their rules for Inland Revenue to consent to rule changes. To enable this to happen, Inland Revenue hereby consents to an amendment removing any such rule. Inland Revenue will not otherwise give specific approval to any rule changes.”

Charities Services has confirmed this by saying here:

“Tip – Do you have a clause in your rules that says you must get approval for changes to your rules from Inland Revenue? If you do, please note that this is no longer required, because Inland Revenue has agreed to the removal of such clauses. Check their website www.ird.govt.nz for more details.”

A charity registered with Charities Services must still notify them of any changes to its rules, however this doesn’t mean consultation or approval from Charities Services is needed in advance.

Its timely to remember that changes to the Charities Act now require boards to confirm every three years that their rules are “fit for purpose” – that includes both founding documents like Trust Deeds as well as other documents such as policies or charters.

So it might be the right time to review your rules and ensure, as a whole, they are fit for purpose, and are able to sustain your charity in the future. Changes in the charitable sector, as well as the implementation of the Trusts Act 2019, has meant that an organisation’s rules may no longer be up-to-date, and officers can be given more protection by altering the duties of Trustees that otherwise apply. The reference to IRD approval is just one example of an existing clause that may no longer be relevant or enforceable.

We review, amend and draft rules for many charities regularly, and help organisations implement rules that are workable and efficient. We would be happy to help your organisation update their rules or draft new ones.

Please note that this article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact us by completing the enquiry form or call us on 03 348 8480.

We are pleased to announce the release of our paper on Fundholding.

Fundholding is a flexible solution that can apply to many groups seeking to carry out charitable purposes, but are held back by common barriers, such as administration or a lack of funding streams.

The paper focuses on:

Discussing the basic elements of a charity in New Zealand and why fundholding might be an option for some projects;
Defining fundholding;
Discussing the various forms of fundholding;
Outlining the key provisions for a written fundholding agreement; and
Giving examples of fundholders in New Zealand.

We are at the early stages of the journey here in New Zealand. It is our hope that by preparing this paper that it will bring into sharp focus the potential of fundholding but also the challenges that will be faced to implement it well here.

Thank you to all those who contributed to the paper.

We help hundreds of charities and are New Zealand’s leading lawyers for this sector – if you’d like to discuss this or any topic, let us know.

You can download the paper here.

Launch of our Fundholding Paper. Recorded 4th March

Who is liable if there is a breach of health and safety? A new case gives us some insights.

A former Port of Auckland CEO was found guilty for breaching his duties as an officer under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (the “Act”). It is an important reminder that all officers have critical roles to play in health and safety – even if they are operating at some distance from ‘where the work is done’.

The former CEO, Mr Gibson, was found guilty as an officer of failing to exercise due diligence under section 44 of the Act. A port worker died while loading containers on a ship berthed at the port. The judgment found Mr Gibson had exposed the worker to a risk of being struck by objects falling from cranes.

In this situation, the port was first found guilty and required to pay a fine of $561,000.

Why is this newsworthy?

We are more used to hearing about directors and / or entities being charged with health and safety at work breaches. This situation is about an officer being found in breach.

Under the Act, any person that has ‘significant influence over a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking’ (“PCBU”) may be an ‘officer’ and subject to officer duties and liable for any breaches of these.

It is a little confusing as to why the Board itself was not also held liable.

What does due diligence mean?

The Act (Section 44) requires officers to exercise care, diligence and skills to ensure the PCBU (in this case the port) complies with its duty. The Act says that due diligence includes taking ‘reasonable steps’, as set out in column A of the table below. Note the use of the word ‘and’ at the end of each point – officer due diligence includes all of the matters.

Failure to exercise due diligence is a strict liability offence – an officer need not have acted recklessly or intentionally to be found in breach of the requirement.

In this situation, the Court noted, among other things, that the CEO had been put on notice regarding insufficient monitoring of ‘work as done’ in a report from KPMG and had not taken action to implement its recommendations.

The Court also noted that the CEO should have known there were shortcomings around the management of exclusion zones and should have addressed these in a timely manner.

What can officers do to help ensure they are exercising due diligence?

In column B we provide some suggestions for how an officer might exercise due diligence, including useful questions for officers to ask.

We do not suggest relying on this or any other industry guides – what due diligence constitutes is specific to the circumstances and the nature of the work. The court may consider industry standards and guidelines when determining if an officer has exercised due diligence, but this is not determinative.

Column A	Column B
(a) to acquire, and keep up to date, knowledge of work health and safety matters; and	How mature is the PCBU’s safety culture? What message does leadership send through its actions and words? Are we continuing to upskill our health and safety governance knowledge?
(b) to gain an understanding of the nature of the operations of the business or undertaking of the PCBU and generally of the hazards and risks associated with those operations; and	Know the business, what it involves, the tasks and how they are performed. What are the special health and safety implications for our work? Get expert advice on the hazards and risks.
(c) to ensure that the PCBU has available for use, and uses, appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise risks to health and safety from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking; and	What policies and procedures are in place? How often are they reviewed and updated? What personal protective equipment is available? What training is provided?
(d) to ensure that the PCBU has appropriate processes for receiving and considering information regarding incidents, hazards, and risks and for responding in a timely way to that information; and	What health and safety monitoring is done, how often and by whom? Are ‘near misses’ recorded? What trends are emerging from the data?
(e) to ensure that the PCBU has, and implements, processes for complying with any duty or obligation of the PCBU under this Act; and	What action is taken following any near misses or incidents? How well do you understand the duties set out in the Act?
(f) to verify the provision and use of the resources and processes referred to in paragraphs (c) to (e).	What records are there to confirm that actions around health and safety?

What else can officers do in terms of health and safety?

Leaders set the tone from the top. When leaders demonstrate visible leadership in health and safety, it shows that it is an important part of the organisation’s culture.

Visible leadership includes more than just making and following rules. It means taking a genuine interest in how health and safety is managed and understanding and acting to remove any barriers to a safety culture. Officers should ask to visit the relevant PCBU and to speak to workers, to ask workers what is working well and what could be improved when it comes to safety.

They should also act in a timely manner to address any shortcomings in health and safety.

Resources

There are many resources available to help officers at all levels with health and safety governance, such as:

Institute of Directors Health and Safety Governance: A Good Practice Guide: https://www.iod.org.nz/resources-and-insights/guides-and-resources/health-and-safety-a-good-practice-guide#

Parry Field Lawyers Charities Healthcheck Part 3 People: https://www.parryfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Part-3_People_Charities-Healthcheck_PF.pdf

Worksafe – Health and safety leadership guide: for owners and company directors of small to medium businesses: https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/businesses/guidance-for-business-leaders/

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please contact a qualified legal professional. Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit to the source.

A recent decision by Charities Services is a reminder that charities have restrictions around political activity. In late 2024 the charities regulator signalled its intention to deregister the Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust – the key reason being the trust’s perceived political activity, namely money provided to a political party and a political candidate.

Why not support politics with charitable donations?

Charities may engage in political activity, the proviso being that it must further the charity’s stated purposes. Only recently confirmed by Greenpeace is that charities may also have political purposes – however, this does not extend to supporting particular political parties or political candidates. Below are some reasons why.

A charity’s funds must only be used to support the charity’s purposes and should be non-partisan. Some of a political party or candidate’s policies may be consistent with a charity’s purposes, however, the political party or candidate is likely to have much wider ranging policies overall, extending well beyond those of the charitable trust. This makes it difficult to argue that supporting a political party or candidate is consistent with a charity’s purposes.
If a charity donates money to a political party or candidate, it is using money intended for ‘charitable purposes’ for ‘partisan and non-charitable purposes’. Consider a donor – how happy would they be with their donation being used to support a political party or candidate?
At least at face value, a charity donating to a particular political party or candidate is not consistent with the touchstone for charities – selflessness. It could certainly be perceived as self-serving, particularly if a person is both involved in the trust and a politician that trust gives to – a conflict of interest. It would be perverse for funding from one government to be used to assist another political party into power – or if funding originating from government was used to endorse or support its re-election.

Remuneration

There is no doubt that remuneration of executives in charities is just as important as remuneration in other entity types. It is critical for attracting and retaining good quality staff. Decision makers should keep in mind Charities Services guidance about remuneration when deciding what should be paid – the payment of salaries and other expenses are acceptable provided the payments are “reasonable” to attract the right people to work and advance the charitable purpose.

Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust has also raised eyebrows by choosing to pay executives considerably more than the market rate and more than comparable charities. It’s average salary was $510,000 for 13 executives.

In deciding what is reasonable, a trust should benchmark itself against similar entities with similar purposes and of a similar size. Decision-makers should also take care to ensure that their decisions would meet ‘the front page of the newspaper’ test – would people be shocked and dismayed if the salaries became public?

Public trust

There is a broader issue at stake when charities go rogue, by supporting politics for example. These negative examples tend to be the charities that receive the most media attention, for all the wrong reasons. This undermines public trust and confidence in the charitable sector overall, making it harder for reputable charities to do critical work.

We will be watching with interest for the outcome for Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust as this will have implications for all other charities in New Zealand.

We help hundreds of charities and are New Zealand’s leading lawyers for this sector – if you’d like to discuss this or any topic, let us know. Also check out the free videos and books at www.parryfield.com

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please contact a qualified legal professional. Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit to the source.

All incorporated societies in New Zealand need to reregister under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022 by April 2026 or they will cease to exist and have their assets distributed.

What does this mean in practice? The consequences are significant for your existence, assets and name.

The incorporated society will cease to exist. This means the incorporated society would be removed from the register and its assets distributed. There are only limited reasons that this could be undone, so it’s important for incorporated societies to meet the reregistration deadline.
The incorporated society will no longer have the right to make decisions on its own behalf, including what happens to any assets. The Registrar could put the society into liquidation and have its assets distributed in accordance with its constitution.
The name of the incorporated society will no longer be protected, so another group may take that name, impacting on the brand and marketing.

Before they can reregister, all incorporated societies must update their constitutions to meet the requirements under the new Act.

We are New Zealand’s legal experts on incorporated societies. We are helping incorporated societies of all types and complexities to update their constitutions – we would be delighted to assist your society as well.

Find out more on our comprehensive Incorporated Societies Information Hub or get in touch for a free 20 minute conversation.

Most entities will be aware that if they issue debt securities (otherwise known as taking money by loans) they have obligations under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (the “FMCA”). Charities need to be aware that the same obligations apply to them if they issue debt securities.

Some charities might be in a position of issuing debt securities by having loans made to them. The FMCA defines a debt security as a right to be repaid money, or interest on money, which is deposited with, lent to, or otherwise owing by any person.

The FMC rules require charities to prepare a detailed PDS (Public Disclosure Statement) – unless they fall within an exemption. Common exemptions for a charity are:

Small offers, raising money from less than 20 people, in 12 months and it is less than $2 million; or
Wholesale Investors – getting the people who are loaning funds to certify they know what they are doing.

If charities use an exemption category they need to provide documents which clearly indicate that the entity is relying on an exemption and has appropriate disclaimers. They can also mix and match, for example, $2m from Small Offer exemption, and $2m from Wholesale Investors.

Examples of the wording to use are in this article. Although the article was written for start-ups and family and friends investing money, the same principles apply.

When it comes to actually preparing loan documents, we can assist with ensuring they are compliant with the FMCA.

If an exemption applies it will reduce the amount of information that needs to be supplied. However, at all times charities will need to monitor what is being provided to ensure that it is accurate and fairly represents the position. The key is to avoid any hint of misrepresentation of facts and information. Even presenting information which is true could be misleading if not disclosed in the right way. Information should be true and accurate.

—

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please contact a qualified legal professional. Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit to the source.

For more guides for charities check out our free information and information hubs, like these:

The effects of Better Public Media Trust v AG and what it means for advocacy charities.

The Court of Appeal decision Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General from November 2023 lays down some guidance as to advocacy charities. In its decision, the court discussed and drew analogies from the Supreme Court judgements Re Greenpeace (SC) and Family First (SC).

The Case Facts and History

The Charities Board declined Better Public Media Trust’s (the “Trust”) application to be a registered charity under the Charities Act 2005. The Trust’s purpose is primarily to advocate for media platforms which are publicly owned. [1] In its view the Trust’s advocacy purpose of promoting public media, particularly its benefits and importance and advocating for public media’s funding and support, is not directed toward a charitable end. [2]

The High Court Judge upheld the Board’s decision, finding the advocacy purpose was not charitable as it was not beneficial to the community. [3] One reason was because there was no connection between its purpose and the public benefit. However, the Court of Appeal found the High Court erred in its decision.

Court of Appeal’s Findings

The Court of Appeal found the Trust did meet the fourth head of charitable purpose under s 5(1) of the Charities Act, being a charitable purpose “beneficial to the community”. To determine this it looked at analogous charitable objectives. It found that the Trust’s means and manner of carrying out its purposes were achieved by presenting all viewpoints in order to help inform viewers and readers of public media issues. This differed from the Trust in Family First (SC). In that case, the Supreme Court found the Trust’s means and manner of achieving its purpose were not beneficial to the community as it promoted one sided views and information only reflecting its view.

Further, the Court of Appeal did not find that there is a general prohibition on advocacy and it stated that the Trust advocating for publicly funded media does not mean it lacks a charitable purpose. [4] In Re Greenpeace (SC) advocating for environmental protection was able to be charitable; similarly, in Latimer v Commissioner of Inland Revenue advancing Māori claims before the Waitangi Tribunal were charitable as it promoted racial harmony and social cohesion. The Trust’s additional purpose of protecting and promoting democracy in New Zealand was also analogous to Re Draco Foundation (NZ) Charitable Trust.

What does this mean for charities?

It is clear that the courts determine whether a charity’s object amounts to a charitable purpose by looking to other similar charitable objectives. [5] The trust’s purpose can be determined from both its trust deed and activities. [6] Furthermore, a trust is not disqualified from being registered simply because its purposes conflict with other opinions and interests, nor because its primary purpose is advocacy. [7] However, where its purpose is primarily advocacy it seems that it is more likely to be considered charitable if it ensures opposing views are heard to inform people of all views, not just ones advocated by the trust.

It is clear that each case turns on its own facts and analogies to trusts with similar purposes. Therefore, it is difficult to draw the line of what is a charitable purpose and what is not, particularly in relation to advocacy notwithstanding the recent Supreme Court cases.

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please contact a qualified legal professional. Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit to the source.

We support many charities and have prepared many free guides such as:

[1] Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General CA171/2020 [2023] NZCA 553 at [80]-[82].

[2] Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General at [57]-[58].

[3] Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General at [66] and [81].

[4] Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General at [36].

[5] Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General at [35].

[6] Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General at [87].

[7] Better Public Media Trust v Attorney-General at [83] and [36].

Intellectual Property:

Policies:

新法新要求

关于我们

重新注册的要求

如何做好准备

Launch of our Fundholding Paper. Recorded 4th March

Why not support politics with charitable donations?

Remuneration

Public trust

The effects of Better Public Media Trust v AG and what it means for advocacy charities.

The Case Facts and History

Court of Appeal’s Findings

What does this mean for charities?

Christchurch CBD

Christchurch

Rolleston

Hokitika