Charities & Advocacy
Charities played a pivotal role in the abolition of slavery in 19th century Great Britain. They have also been at the heart of many environmental movements – such as Forest and Bird’s instrumental position in saving Lake Manapōuri in New Zealand. In fact, when we look closely at a number of campaigns and legal developments – the charities sector, and more broadly the for-purpose sector, can be found to be at the forefront of change.
Problems around advocacy
Yet, in recent years there has been a growing sense of unease amongst charities in advocating for their charitable purposes. In response to the government’s review of the Charities Act 2005, a number of submitters commented on their reluctance to advocate, despite wanting to. The reasons for this include “possible loss of government contracts”, “uncertainty” of the legal rules, and “risks” of deregistration.
In a survey, 59% of community respondents said that being registered affects their willingness to advocate. It appears that Charities Services’ approach to advocacy has been “highly subjective”, which has caused concern within the sector and a reluctance to use their voices.
Court cases
Two recent court cases have (hopefully) clarified the position. These cases have confirmed charitable status and affirmed the role of advocacy. The first is a High Court decision requiring Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated (Greenpeace) to be registered. After a battle that lasted more than 12 years, including a Supreme Court decision holding that political and charitable purposes are not mutually exclusive, Greenpeace’s entitlement to registration was finally confirmed. Mallon J ruled that environmental campaigning (including advocacy for ends of mitigating climate change, sustainable fishing, improving freshwater and protection of the oceanenvironment) is of a public benefit, and furthers a charitable purpose.
Her Honour found Greenpeace’s purpose of promoting peace and nuclear disarmament was not disqualifying, and that Greenpeace does not have an illegal purpose in its non-violent actions to draw attention to activities harmful to the environment. Civil disobedience may in fact sometimes be for the public benefit. The case is a significant win for environmental advocacy groups in New Zealand.
In the second case, the Court of Appeal declared that Family First New Zealand (Family First) qualifies for registration. The majority judgment found a common thread of advancement of education and research running through Family First’s four objects and a common theme of improving public understanding of the importance of the roles of marriage and the family in our society.
Their Honours noted that “the fact there may be a political element to the promulgation and public dissemination of the research cannot be said to negative its utility.” Their Honours went on to find that Family First’s activities fulfilled its charitable objects and that if they were wrong in finding an educational charitable purpose, Family First still met the requirements of charity under the fourth head (“other purposes beneficial to the community”). Significantly, the majority noted the role of advocacy in a flourishing society. They recognised “the public benefit associated with free speech and associated political discourse in a rule of law, liberal and democratic society such as New Zealand”.
Arguments against advocacy
Some might argue that charities should not be “advocating”: they should be delivering food parcels to people who need them, or planting trees to protect our freshwater. But aren’t these just band-aid solutions to much wider, systemic issues? A food parcel may feed a hungry family – but engagement in discussions around fruitful conditions for food security in Aotearoa could feed many families. Planting trees is beneficial, but advocating for the planting of a billion trees by government could be more impactful – or advocating for freshwater reform could lead to sustainable farming mechanisms and healthier rivers across the whole country. As one major philanthropic organisation argues, “advocacy may be one of the most effective tools a charity has for advancing its charitable purpose”.
Why advocacy is important
In addition, advocacy encourages democratic debate and engagement on social and environmental issues. With our voter turnout decreasing in New Zealand, we should be striving for a thriving civic society embedded on widespread debate and engagement.
We should also be looking to charities who engage closely with communities and who lift up issues their communities are facing, when they might have no other avenue to voice concerns. Some of these issues may be controversial, but as one community representative has said, “a robust democracy requires that all voices are heard and considered”. Without charities, many of these voices may not be.
Conclusion
In my view, the view of many charities, and thankfully the view of the Courts – charities in New Zealand should be free to advocate for their charitable purposes as they see fit. It’s also great to see in Charities Services’ most recent newsletter that “charities can advocate for their charitable purposes”. All we need now is a legal framework that reaffirms, protects and supports advocacy – and allows charities to thrive.
