Women in Stoush with Charities Commission

Yesterday, the National Council of Women of New Zealand (NCWNZ) notified its membership that the Charities Commission office was recommending to the Charities Board deregistration of NCWNZ as a charitable organisation. This follows on from the Commission’s notice of intention to deregister received in mid-April 2010.

NCWNZ was one of the few NGOs prepared to speak out publicly against the ramifications of the then proposed amendments to the Charities Act in October 2006. At the time that NCWNZ was signalling that the Act would be a backwards step and barrier to public participation, other countries were taking steps in the opposite direction to New Zealand. The Canadian Government had already established and funded a working group of voluntary sector members in 2002 to look into reforms of the charitable sector with a view to broadening the scope of advocacy by charities. By 2006, the Canadian Government had issued a paper acknowledging that little would be done via the Courts to address the problem and that it would be left to Parliament to make more comprehensive law changes.

The Charities Commission in the UK has also adopted measures which clearly advise charities of the limits and lassitude when it comes to advocacy or campaigning.

“To the best of our knowledge, we are the first NGO of our size, structure and age facing deregistration,” says Elizabeth Bang, NCWNZ National President. “So, if the Charities Board follows through on what the Review and Investigation team advises, then a precedent will be set which could affect a lot of other charitable organisations in the near future.”

Member bodies of the Council are not subject to this deregistration.

“We are being targeted at the upper most level, our officers and national office,” says Elizabeth Bang. “Few organisations can operate effectively when their head is severed.”

NCWNZ submitted to the Charities Commission process and issued a submission, including evidence of its activities, at the end of May. At that time the review was focussed on the law; legal interpretation only.

“On the surface of it, we thought we would be fine,” says Elizabeth Bang. “The majority of advocacy work undertaken is, we felt, representational advocacy. We operate consultation within our membership, we research past submissions and policy, we research what information is out in the public domain, and our officers talk to the experts. We then write our submissions.”

NCWNZ is currently partially funded under a government contract to provide advocacy and representation as one of four core functions under the service description. This activity includes regular political lobbying, yet is recognised by the funding government agency as a legitimate means of communicating changes, or continuance of government policy in areas vital to social well-being.

“We are in a catch-22 situation,” says Elizabeth Bang. “One side of government contracts us to advocate, while the other side seeks to punish us for this. We have had 114 years to develop our reputation as a well-reasoned, voice for ordinary people. We are able to provide gender analysis on policy where it has too often been absent, and as a body we are one of the most prolific submitters in the country. The whole time that we have been doing this, we have remained apolitical.”

The Charities Commission office advised that no further information would be considered or accepted. NCWNZ has made a request to the Charities Board that it be open to receiving further evidence from the Council.

“We would like the opportunity to defend ourselves,” says Elizabeth Bang. “We prepared our submission based on the body which would be examining it and the advice this body gave. They wanted case-law and the likes.”

NCWNZ has to prove that it is in the “public interest” that it be able to continue operating as a charitable organisation. It also needs to prove that its work is of “benefit to the community”.

According to the House of Lords:

A Trust for... political objects has always been held invalid, not because it is illegal, for everyone is at liberty to advocate or promote by any lawful means a change in the law, but because the court has no means of judging whether a proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit, and therefore cannot say that a gift to secure the change is not a charitable gift.

“The Court, or legal interpretation, is not able to determine whether political advocacy works for the benefit of the community or is in the public interest,” says Elizabeth Bang. “Yet, the advice received by the Charities Commission office to its Board considers only the legalities; it readily acknowledges that it cannot make a value-judgment.”

NCWNZ contends that the Charities commission needs to address this anomaly, otherwise the Board is operating from a position where the argument for deregistration is always weighted against the charitable organisation concerned.

“Yes, the Commission needs to consider the law, but it should also have an assessment team which can provide some analysis of the value of the work done and who has benefitted from it,” says Elizabeth Bang. “And if it won’t do that, then it needs to let organisations submit evidence directly to the Board.”

“We have a documented history. Where the Courts feel there is no evidence to guide them on whether a law change has been effective or not, we feel pretty confident that the evidence of such resides in our history and current work today,” says Elizabeth Bang. “We have touched the lives of people for 114-year.”

For more information visit: http://ncwnz.org.nz/ncwnz-and-the-charities-commission/

ENDS

© Scoop Media