We’ve already written about the process and steps to set up a charitable trust in New Zealand (here).  But what next?

Once you’ve signed a Trust Deed and set up a charitable entity and just freshly received a certificate of incorporation from Companies Office then … congrats!  But what next?  Here is a list of steps we suggest you consider as a checklist of other things to do:

–       Open a bank account – usually can be done with certificate of incorporation – these days expect many queries about proof of funds and about identity of trustees.  It may pay to shop around as well;

–       Apply to Charities Services for registration as a charity, if you want to be charitable – if you’ve had our input on creating the charitable trust then we will be helping you with this as well;

–       Obtain common seal – yes, this is still required –  we’ve written more on this here – they can be prepared by this company https://shop.montarga.co.nz/collections/common-seal;

–       Keep good records of minutes of the Trustees meeting and other documents like contracts – we even have some templates you can adapt;

–       Consider what insurance might be needed?  Best to talk to a broker about this as it will depend on what activities you are undertaking;

–       Always keep an eye on how much your activities are going on overseas so it doesn’t creep above 25% as that could have implications for your tax donee status (see here); and

–       Prepare a terms of use for website and perhaps a privacy policy if collecting information – we can assist if needed.

We hope that checklist is of use to you and all the best as you start on the journey of doing good with the new charitable entity!

Some charities provide benefit partly for New Zealand purposes and partly for overseas purposes.  It is also possible for funds to be applied in New Zealand for overseas purposes or applied overseas for New Zealand purposes.  If a charity applies too high a percentage of its funds for overseas purposes, then it may not qualify for tax donee status.  The percentage permitted by IRD to be applied for overseas purposes is therefore very important.

In relation to this, on 20 September 2018, the IRD issued Interpretation Statement 18/05 regarding the meaning of the phrase ‘wholly or mainly’.  The interpretation statement is accessible here at and a shorter fact sheet is here.

This Interpretation Statement is important because an organisation may qualify for tax donee status if it applies its funds ‘wholly or mainly’ within New Zealand.  A charity focused primarily overseas will not qualify for tax donee status.  In the past, the view accepted by IRD has been that if more than 50% of funds were applied in New Zealand for New Zealand purposes then the organisation would qualify as operating ‘wholly or mainly’ in New Zealand.  That percentage has now been changed to 75%.  Earlier discussion papers had suggested the figure might rise to as high as 90% but it was later moderated to the lower figure of 75% wholly or mainly within New Zealand for New Zealand purposes.

What the key change actually entails

If an organisation applies more than 25% of its funds for the benefit of overseas purposes, then it may no longer be considered to be operating ‘wholly or mainly’ in New Zealand and could lose its tax donee organisation status.  The reason this may impact on charities you advise is that some charities have traditionally sent significant amounts overseas to support works there (disaster relief, orphanages, aid workers etc).  It is possible that religious organisations in particular who support people overseas may already be at, or close to, the new threshold, and be unaware of the changes.  It could cause them problems in the future if they continue to operate in the same way.

If you’re a lawyer advising a client who does send funds overseas, it would be important to advise them about the new approach.

The key provision itself

The section relevant in the Interpretation Statement 18/05 and related fact sheet is the Income Tax Act 2017 section LD 3(2)(a) which sets out the meaning of a charitable or other public benefit gift.  The type of entity that qualifies is:

“a society, institution, association, organisation, or trust that is not carried on for the private pecuniary profit of an individual, and whose funds are applied wholly or mainly to charitable, benevolent, philanthropic, or cultural purposes within New Zealand.”

In clarifying what these definitions mean – “within New Zealand,” means the purposes are what is looked at, rather than the location where funds are spent. “Wholly or mainly” – will mean “75% or more” of funds being applied in New Zealand. Lastly, “funds are applied,” means action of sorts needs to be taken by the organisation to either spend or accumulate the funds.

The Interpretation Statement has been issued to clarify what entities qualify as a donee organisation under that section. The new interpretation will be implemented from the 1st of April 2019. For those entities that do not have a 1 April balance date the new interpretation percentage will apply from the first day of their income year for 2019/20.

The “safe harbour exception”

There will be some flexibility in how the percentages will work. An organisation can choose a method to calculate a “safe harbour percentage.” The key steps involved in doing this is to calculate the total funds and then divide that by the amount spent for specified purposes within New Zealand to get the percentage.

If in any year the safe harbour of 75% is not met then IRD can also look at the two preceding years.  The purpose of this is to allow for some one off exceptions.  It does this by looking at the cumulative figures over the three years.  This means that the current year might be at say 70% but the previous two years were respectively at 80% and 90%.  By looking at the cumulative total the percentage over the last three years might average 80%.  IRD provides some key examples on the guidance of this, see here.

Another option for those sending funds overseas

Schedule 32 of the Income Tax Act 2007 could provide another exception to this new interpretation. If you are a lawyer with a client who will no longer meet the threshold proposed due to the significant funds applied overseas, this provides another option to them.

Applying to be added to Schedule 32 of the Income Tax Act 2007 can give qualifying charities a unique status in the New Zealand tax regime.  Schedule 32 status is only granted to a select few (full list here).  It provides the ability for those organisation to issue receipts to their donees for donations made to the charity even if applied wholly for overseas purposes.

At times the Government had a flood of requests and even published special guidelines to charities on how to make the application.  For those charities that do not have their charitable purposes principally (more than 75%) in New Zealand, then the charity cannot qualify as a donee organisation unless it is listed in Schedule 32.

When applying to be listed under Schedule 32, it is the purposes for which funds are applied which is the most critical point. This may be different to where you spend the money. For example, buying toys in New Zealand to send to children in third world countries would mean that the purposes are overseas, not in New Zealand.

Furthermore, there are other hurdles to be aware of if applying for Schedule 32 status.

  • The process for applying is long and arduous and IRD has to put a special request to Cabinet for final approval and these happen only once or twice a year.
  • The purpose of the overseas charity is also important. When applying, Cabinet will want to see that the charity’s purpose falls within these three humanitarian categories; “the relief of poverty, hunger, sickness, or the ravages of war or natural disaster; or the economy of developing countries; or raising the educational standards of a developing country.” Advancement of religion and political advocacy is thus not noted in this list.
  • You must “tell the story” of your charity, specifically focusing on who the trustees are, what they are involved in and how the charity purposes are being practically carried out. Furthermore, there must be evidence that the New Zealand trustees regularly visit any overseas offices and an audit of the money raised.

Why is this an important change

If someone makes a donation above $5 to a donee organsiation they receive a refundable tax credit/income tax deduction.  This encourages people to give to organisations that qualify.  If an organisation does not have tax donee status then it will be more difficult to solicit donations.

If you would like to know more information, please contact one of our Partners Steven Moe.

Steven can be contacted on:

E: stevenmoe@parryfield.com

M: +64 021 761 292

 

A review of the Charities Act 2005 (the “Act”) has been talked about for many years.  Originally an intention was expressed that a review happen a few years after the Act had been implemented in order to work out what needed changing.  In fact, 13 years have passed without such a review.  Some might also argue that if you look at the history of the Act itself that it was rushed through and originally needed more time to work out what it was aiming to achieve and so now a “first principles” review is really what is needed.  Whatever the history and reason for delay, a review is now under way.

Before the Charities Act

Prior to 2005 there was no formal registration of charities and therefore no list that could be referred to.  The Act introduced such a system, although registration is not compulsory. Therefore, we need to distinguish between charities and “registered charities”, as some charities are not registered.  Furthermore, there are many not for profits doing good and yet they would not qualify as charities.

There are also reporting obligations for charities. Since new reporting standards were introduced a few years ago there are four reporting tiers, each of which have different standards to meet:

  • Tier 1: Over $30 million annual expenses (less than 1% of all charities);
  • Tier 2: Under $30 annual expenses (6% of all charities);
  • Tier 3: Under $2 million annual expenses (36% of all charities); and
  • Tier 4: Under $125,000 annual expenses (58% of all charities).

The statistics on the percentage of charities in each tier comes from the latest annual report from Charities Services for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 (https://www.charities.govt.nz/assets/Resources/2018-Annual-Review-Report).

That report also notes that Charities Services received 1,087 applications in that period (815 approved, 268 withdrawn, 4 declined).  In the same period 1,069 were deregistered (506 for failure to file returns, 563 voluntarily).  These figures do explain why the total charities on the Charities Services site seems to hover around the 27,000 mark at present because as new ones are approved, a similar number are deregistered.

Reasoning behind the review

In the Terms of Reference of the Charities review, the rationale for it was set out as follows and this provides some context:

“Stakeholders in the charitable sector have sought a review of the Act for a number of years. The Government agrees that it is timely to review whether the Act is working effectively for the charitable sector, volunteers, our communities (including Māori) and the wider public, the Government, and others with an interest.

“The review will take into account the experiences of stakeholders over the last 13 years, and lessons from other jurisdictions …

“The purpose of the review is to ensure that the Act is effective and fit for purpose. This comprehensive legislative review will focus on substantive issues arising under the Act, while recognising and building on the Act’s strengths.”

https://www.dia.govt.nz/vwluResources/CharitiesReviewTOR/$file/CharitiesReviewTOR.pdf

The scope of the review

The review does not go back to first principles. A review of that sort would be costly and time consuming. Rather, policy statements have made it clear that the fundamental aspects of the Act, such as a registration system and public access to information about charities, are sound. The Act is ‘fit for purpose,’ hence the review is about refining the Act and how it works in practices, rather than completely overhauling it.

Specifically, the scope of the review focuses on “substantive policy matters,” as set out in Appendix One of the Terms of Reference. This considers whether additional purposes of the Act itself are necessary; matters of refinement and editing of regulatory framework; registration related content; the obligations of individuals working on the boards and in senior management positions of registered charities and the interrelationship of the Act with other legislation such as the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 and how they all align.

Operational issues are not going to be included in the review

If you are interested in more detail then we suggest you look at the Department of Internal Affairs website which is devoted to the review and has extensive material (accessed here).

Who will carry out the review?

Six external experts, representing a diverse range of backgrounds, experiences and cultures, consulted by the Department of Internal Affairs will be involved in the review of the Act.

They are – Sue Barker (Director of Sue Barker Charities Law); Charmaine Brown (Director of Creating Success and Trustee of Autism Intervention Trust); Donna Flavell (Chief Executive Officer of Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated and Trustee of Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust); Anaru Fraser (General Manager of Hui E! Community Aotearoa); Everdina Fuli (Research Advisor at Te Whare Wānanga o Aotearoa); and Dave Henderson (former positions include Chair of Kidney Health New Zealand and External Relations Manager for Hui E! Community Aotearoa).

When the review will occur

Originally planned for at the end of 2018, the consultation will now occur in March and April of this year. Input from the charity sector, stakeholders and the general public is invited and will provide information crucial to the review. During the consultation, there will be community meetings and hui, held throughout the country, where people can give feedback and ask questions to learn more about the review process and the charity laws of New Zealand.

Section 5(2A) of the Charities Act 2005 states that “the promotion of amateur sport may be a charitable purpose if it is the means by which a charitable purpose referred to in subsection (1) is pursued”. So, what sports actually meet these criteria for a charitable purpose?

The purpose of section 5(2A) is to ensure that the promotion of a sport can be a charitable purpose. While promoting a sport is not in itself a charitable purpose, the purpose of a charity could include the promotion of a particular sport for the purposes of promoting health or for the advancement of education, as is established in the section.

Recently, after six years of Swimming NZ being a registered charity, the Charities Registration Board decided to de-register it. The reasoning behind this was that it no longer had charitable purposes due to the competitive and elite nature of the high performance programme. This in itself does not promote a sport but instead promotes sporting success which does not benefit the public. They decided that while there was some promotion to health, the focus on promoting success in the sport outweighed this.

The impact of this decision by the Charities Registration Board is that sporting organisations set up as charities will need to prove that they are existing to promote health as opposed to promoting success in the sport, and ultimately be benefiting the public.

An article which discusses this in more detail was posted by the New Zealand Law Society and can be found here.

So, to answer the question above, any sport can meet the criteria for a charitable purpose as long as it relates to the promotion of health, the advancement of education or anything else that proves to be beneficial to the community, and it will need to be able to prove that it does continue to promote these.

The Charities Services website provides a helpful overview on this topic which can be found and here.

We offer legal advice on all aspects of charitable trusts and are happy to answer any questions that you might have. Contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com or 03-348-8480 for more information.

How can you ensure that people have the freedom to share their concerns at meetings without being worried about the consequences of recording them in the minutes? This is an issue which plagues various groups.

The Privacy Act 1993 applies to any agency. This is defined as a person or body of persons that collects, uses or stores personal information. Examples of this include businesses, organisations, church groups or societies. If you are a private organisation (i.e. not a government body), the Official Information Act does not apply and you will have a lower threshold of disclosing information.

Information is considered to be personal when it is about an identifiable individual. It does not have to be private or sensitive to meet this threshold.

When personal information is stored by an agency, the person it relates to has the right to access this information. This may include:

  • Any references to them in the minutes of a meeting;
  • Communication between the person and the agency;
  • Decisions made in relation to the person;
  • Any complaint the person has made or a complaint about that person.

A request to access this information may be refused if:

  • the information would disclose a trade secret;
  • the information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the agency or person;
  • disclosure would involve personal information about other people. An individual may only request access to information relating to themselves under the Privacy Act. This may mean that all other references to other people are taken out of the document before it is given to the requester;
  • disclosure would result in an unjustifiable breach of another person’s privacy.

If you are an agency concerned with not disclosing sensitive information about someone, you should consider:

  • censuring the names if disclosure was recorded. As personal information has to be identifiable, removing the names would avoid this;

Some of our staff from Parry Field recently attended an Institute of Directors seminar on the topic of culture and board. These are some key points that emerged that we thought were worth sharing:

  • When it comes to culture, Board members will always be looked at – so what culture will they model for those in the organisation?
  • Boards have a dual leadership role ensuring accountability (ensuring that purpose and values are kept to) and assurance (ensuring that executive is taking to action to achieve the desired culture.
  • Values may be written and put on the wall, with a vision statement and policies – those are visible, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. There are also invisible factors such as the water cooler conversations, the shared myths over what is important and the “unwritten rules”. An example is the the myth that Kodak did not innovate enough, when in actual fact they invented the first digital camera well ahead of the game. They commercialised one of the first digital cameras in the 1990s and spent a lot on R&D, but the people at the top of Kodak were ‘film’ people with 80% market share. So while values did not include profitability, ultimately the unwritten value, the invisible factors, drove the decisions that led to their end.

Reflection

  • How well is your culture living and breathing in your organisation? The key is that all of this needs to stay on the radar!
  • There are some key elements of culture indicated in the “Johnson and Scholes Cultural web” that include:
    • Stories – who is respected within the organisation? How are the events that occur interpreted?
    • Symbols – for example, who has open plan, who has corner office, who has car park?
    • Rituals and Routines – morning teas, Friday evening drinks etc.
    • Power Structures – who has the power within the organisation (whatever their title)?
    • Organisational Structure – what do informal relationships signal (for example, does the Chair defer to someone else on certain things)?
    • Controls – what is it that controls how things are done in the organisation? An example is asking whether budget and profit are valued over values (which could mean a person simply meets targets but does not model what the organisation stands for).

(More information here).

The real focus and point of this article was to make you aware of visible and invisible factors and the messages that are sent through the key elements set out above. It is important to make sure that values are understood and clearly communicated.

 

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should speak to your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact us at 03 348 8480 or by email Steven Moestevenmoe@parryfield.com

The Inland Revenue Department recently issued their views on the meaning of “wholly or mainly” in an interpretation statement and fact sheet. The upcoming change as a result of this new information will likely impact many donee organisations in New Zealand, so it is important that you are fully informed and aware of the implications.

We have received copies of the interpretation statement and fact sheet, which will shortly be available on the Inland Revenue website, and have set out below the key points to take away from this new information:

1. Interpretation of “wholly or mainly”

The “wholly or mainly” test, which relates to an organisation having “donee organisation” status, is governed by section LD 3(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act 2007, which requires:

“A society, institution, association, organisation or trust that is not carried on for the private pecuniary profit of an individual, and whose funds are applied wholly or mainly to charitable, benevolent, philanthropic, or cultural purposes within New Zealand”

The benefit of attaining status as a donee organisation by meeting the requirements of LD 3(2)(a) is the tax advantage whereby natural persons who gift $5 or more to the organisation are refunded 33% of that gift by Inland Revenue. Uncertainty has arisen as to what exactly is meant by “wholly or mainly”, which this new interpretation statement seeks to resolve.

The interpretation statement issued by Inland Revenue includes a 16 page analysis of the words “wholly” and mainly”, concluding that, “while something considerably greater than a bare majority is indicated, it is not possible to interpret the expression with any greater certainty”. Inland Revenue has adopted a “safe harbour” approach with a threshold of 75% which will assist in making inquiries under section LD 3(2)(a).

2. “Safe Harbour” approach

A “safe harbour” approach has been adopted for administering the wholly or mainly test, which will involve:

1. Using the organisation’s financial statements to determine the “total funds” figure (this is the sum of cash of cash at the end of a year and cash spent during the year);

2. Calculating the amount of funds that were applied to specified purposes within New Zealand; and

3. Dividing this figure by the total funds figure to calculate the percentage.

This new approach has the effect that if the percentage calculated meets or exceeds the 75% threshold, Inland Revenue will generally not need to make any further inquiries as to how the funds of the particular organisation are applied.

3. Three year rolling period

In exceptional years there may be flexibility around the 75% threshold. For example, there may be one year where there is a tsunami in another country, and the organisation wishes to give more funds than usual to an aid organisation overseas. In these situations, Inland Revenue will instead be looking at the way the organisation has applied their funds in the past three years. However, in any of those three years, the percentage of funds applied in New Zealand should not be less than 50%, and the average of funds applied for purposes in New Zealand over the three years should not be less than 75%. Organisations should contact Inland Revenue in this situation.

4. Interpretation Statement to apply from beginning of 2019/20 income year for organisations

The interpretation statement has taken effect from the beginning of the 2019/20 income year for organisations in New Zealand.

If you have any questions or if you would like to receive a copy of the interpretation statement and fact sheet, please feel free to contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com or 03 348 8480.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to your lawyer about your specific situation.

Sending your volunteers overseas can be a hugely enriching experience. It can benefit your organisation which  can provide on the ground support to projects, while the people who go have enriching and often life changing experiences.  However those who run the organisations must be careful to disclose the risks that the volunteers may face. For many, being overseas will involve exposure to new cultures, different standards of living, and different levels of security and safety.

In finalising arrangements for those you select to go overseas, we suggest some points which you may want to consider  include:

  • Language: We suggest you create a “key phrases” summary of the typical words used for greeting, asking for food, saying thank you etc.
  • Culture: Consider creating a briefing for those coming about your culture and any key differences that they should be aware of eg is tipping common?  Any cultural taboos?
  • Travel: Describe the best route to get to your location (train, bus, taxi etc) and anything else they should know eg.,any transport vendors to avoid?.
  • Immigration: the difference between paid working/volunteering and what is permissible, including visa requirements.
  • Living options: Where the volunteer will live and if there are different options (including family considerations).
  • Legal issues: Who is legally responsible in the event of things going wrong. (See discussion at the end of this article regarding a Deed of Release)
  • Discipline: The organisation’s rules about persoanl conduct and the consequences of not abiding by  them (eg being asked to return to their home country).
  • Orientation: Consider having a program of orientation for people when they first arrive, or at a pre-trip event .
  • Costs: What will be covered by who and what it is expected that will be paid for eg food.
  • Schedule: The usual schedule and rhythm of life and what is expected eg special groups / services / evening meetings / small group participation.
  • Privacy: Any policies around sharing of material about the experience and obtaining consent to use the person’s picture and information in publicity, if needed.

It is important that where possible, you give your volunteers adequate training to prepare them for this exciting time. Cultural insights and training for their particular roles will help make the transition easier.  It may be good to consider some language training before and after they go with that as well.

Despite the training that is provided to volunteers, an organisation should make it clear that it cannot take on the responsibility for everything that happens while overseas. Organisations need to be careful to make clear that they are unable to take on the risk against situations like civil unrest, accidents, injuries and sickness. Nor can the oprganisation be expected to be responsible for events that might arise because a volunteer acted outside the applicable rules and guidelines.

For this reason we encourage organisations to sign a Deed of Release with their volunteers before they embark on their journey. This Deed could acknowledge that the organisation will assist where it can, yet it cannot guarantee the safety of the volunteer.

The Deed can also set out the terms of the nature of the relationship which can be altered to each organisation. This can require the volunteer to seek independent legal and medical advice prior to the trip. Organisations can also use this Deed to cover the use of photos and film for promotional purposes.

“To go fast, go alone. To go far, go together”

By Steven Moe

Returning from a conference it is always important to reflect on some of the themes and key learnings while they are fresh. I’ve just come back from three days at Te Papa with around 500 attending the biennial Philanthropy Summit 2019 which is organised by Philanthropy New Zealand

Conference Overview

The theme was “The Future of Trust” and the conference was organised by Philanthropy New Zealand with 19 sponsors such as AMP Capital (and a big shout out to Rebekah Swan and Emily Woodland who invited me along). I enjoyed attending the conference because it got me out of the silo of only being with other lawyers or professionals – there were few of those here. Instead, those in attendance were mainly from large and small Community Trusts, private family foundations as well as people on the ground working in a variety of charities and social enterprises. Keynote speakers included Sir Stephen Tindall and Dr Jane Goodall – there were 9 key notes in total. There were also many workshops with 4 sessions of breakouts and 8 running at each for a total of 32 sessions. I counted in the program at least 140 different speakers who were involved in delivering content and there were around 500 who attended.
The event was curated well with a particularly noticeable and really beautiful strand woven through of Te Ao Maori that went beyond mere tokenism – for example, not only did key note speakers have a song sung for them when they finished, some of the topics tackled were thorny and not easy to grapple with (such as one key note “Undoing colonialism to do good: building constructive relationships between philanthropy and tangata whenua”). That session (discussed below) really raised the difficult – often ignored – issues around the current state of our society.

My hat is off to all of the volunteers and organisers led by Sue Mcabe and Yvonne Trask. These events take a lot of mahi – the content described below is good but just as important are the connections made over coffee or lunch, collaborations started and ideas shared that may only have measurable ripples some years in the future. It is possible that thought leaders in an area have connected with others and through challenges received each of their research and understanding will go deeper. The “vibe” in the room was not one of white privilege giving out grants – instead questions were being asked of how change can be empowered and enabled at a structural level and new ways of thinking about philanthropy encouraged – both from a Te Ao Maori perspective as well as looking to the next generation and harnessing their ideas as well as recognising the diverse ethnic communities in Aotearoa.

The Themes

As a way to break down the main theme of “The Future of Trust” there were many breakout sessions that you could choose from often centred around the following four themes:

Future trends in Philanthropy: What changes are coming?

Building trust: engagement and relationships and how to build them to in turn build capability

The work we do: the “how-to” and a focus on the practical side to enable bigger change

Impact: what difference are we making and how do we know?

A full description of the sessions is over here. Just a few of the key themes and questions that emerged were the following.

• The next generation is not trusting institutions and looking for online recommendations/social media guidance – threat and opportunity;
• Consumers have desire to do good with their dollar and technology enables them to do that;
• What form does new reporting take on impact?;
• Is there a new paradigm coming where business itself is transformed
• how do you actually measure “impact” across diverse sectors and drivers;
• how you report on it – what shape will reports in the future take and will their be standards of how you talk about impact?
• What due diligence is needed into an entity beyond the usual financial checks when you are also concerned about impact?
• How do you build a community of investors who are willing to think in this way and could there be co-investment opportunities?
• How much do we each know about the past and have we thought about what the implications are for the present?
• What does meaningful engagement look like and what shape does that take?
• how do you transfer wisdom between generations – is it a baton passing? Is it another wave rolling in? Do you reinvent / disrupt the old ways or adapt the old and combine with new thinking?;
• how do you identify and encourage those young people with skills coming up and give them opportunities for leadership – and potentially failure too – so that they can learn and grow;
• What does the next generation need, particularly millenials, who may want to be fluid with how they use their time and what they are supporting/

We are fortunate in Christchurch to have a great ecosystem supporting entrepreneurs and start-ups. One of the weekly events that I always encourage people to head along to is Coffee & Jam which has been running every Tuesday at EPIC from 12:30-1:30 for many years.

The hour long format is simple – a pitch from a start-up or established entrepreneur. A break in the middle for networking. Another pitch, often with an educational or social enterprise slant. A shout out time to inform others of things going on in the community. All this is delivered with the food and drink of the title promised in the form of both coffee and jam (great bread and spreads).

We’ve presented a couple of times and it is always a very welcoming and friendly crowd. Here are some videos:

The time we juggled talking about start-ups

The time we chatted about Seeds Podcast

I asked Jack Whittam, who was an intern at Parry Field Lawyers over the summer of 2018-2019, what he thought of his first visit and he said: “The foundations of Coffee and Jam are a show reel of what Christchurch has learnt from its own shaky foundations; innovation, courage, and at the centre – community. In an age where self-promotion is vital for business exposure, it was encouraging to see this done in a way that is friendly, unpretentious, and gives value to others by sharing from both failures and success.”

To find out more, visit here