It was a warning I made when the state came after Family First. And the reason we fought it for 10 years at a cost of ¾ million dollars. There were 4 court cases, 2 in the high court, one in the court of appeal and one in the supreme court. We won 2 and the state won 2 but unfortunately they won the one that matters – the Supreme Court. But it’s not the only questionable decision that’s come out of the Supreme Court lately, is it. But I always knew that if the state succeeded against us because of our views on the natural family and marriage, then they would also come after churches – eventually.
Well, buckle up, its coming.
in the Briefing to the Incoming Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector from the Department for Internal Affairs after last year’s election and change of government, it said:
Issues that stakeholders want reviewed include fundamental matters such as CHARITABLE PURPOSE (for example, should the advancement of RELIGION still be a charitable purpose with associated tax benefits) and advocacy by charities.
That paragraph, in a government briefing, is VERY concerning. The fact that the Department of Internal Affairs has even SUGGESTED this, indicates that the charitable status of CHURCHES & OTHER religious groups MAY be a target for stripping away tax benefits – despite the fact that 80% of charitable work in NZ is done by faith-based organisations.
And according to the Government, the value of THAT work is at least $6 billion dollars each year. 157 million hours of volunteer work.
Leading up the last election, the media were hot on the trail of speculation that National were going to tax churches and charities.
Well it wasn’t.
But last week, the media – completely out of the blue and with no real current context or issue directly leading to the question – started to exert some more lobbying pressure to target churches.
They asked the Prime Minister about taxing churches.
It is very concerning that this agenda is not only coming from a Briefing Paper, but now from the Prime Minister.
The Mayor of Auckland Wayne Brown has already indicated the same target with rates – this was almost three weeks ago
Now, despite Luxon saying – well it’s on the agenda – this term – but not at the moment, Newshub weren’t going to let it just die there. They’re on a campaign.
And so it was this morning – on the soon to be closed AM Show, and Finance Minister Nicola Willis was asked about the same issue.
Now just before we watch the clip, let’s clarify the current law
What is a charitable purpose?
There are four categories of charitable purposes, which are set out in the Charities Act 2005:
4. Other purposes beneficial to the community.
Some examples of purposes that fit within the fourth category (“other purposes beneficial to the community”) include:
· advancing health (including through public participation in sports)
· supporting charitable needs, such as old age, disability or homelessness
· protecting the environment
· preventing or easing the suffering of animals
Now for Family First, we argued that we qualified on the basis of Advancing Education and Other Purposes beneficial to the community – because we promote research and advocacy around strong families, protection of life, strong marriages, religious freedom – and other moral issues. The state disagreed.
Here’s two really interesting points.
What category does the Helen Clark Foundation, the Drug Foundation, Greenpeace, National Council of Women, Child Poverty Action Group or Rainbow Youth fit? If Family First doesn’t qualify, why do they?
Good question.
But here’s the other key point.
The media and the politicians are not discussing so-called poverty groups, or education groups, or beneficial to society groups, or environment groups or animal groups or sports groups or Maraes.
Nope – only “religious groups”. And mainly “churches”.
You’ll never hear the question with the word “mosque”. Should mosques pay tax. Are mosques charitable.
They are charitable – but the fact that that question is never asked should tell you everything.
So have a watch from this morning
Ok – so specifically looking just at that one qualification. It’s very telling. It’s not a review of all charities. It’s just one. The one that provides 80% of charitable work, ironically
Not very Christian. Um – does Nicola Willis acknowledge just how many churches and faith-based organisations are funded by government funding to some extent to provide community services? So bills are already being sent to the Government. And those charities are doing a very good job as well.
But it’s worth a giggle for them both
This issue won’t go away anytime soon. The media have got the bit between their mouth, and rather than the politicians booting it for touch, they’re coming across as weak and easy to manipulate.
It is vital that church leaders ensure that they speak up with a STRONG message that while it’s not perfect – what organisation is? - faith & religion is charitable, it benefits people and society to the good, and should be supported because of the significant financial value it gifts the country from its volunteer and community work.
I knew that churches would be at risk under a left-wing government, but I expected better from what I assumed would be a more conservative government.