Greenpeace of New Zealand v Charities Registration Board

Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated (Greenpeace NZ) is part of the international Greenpeace movement that seeks a greener and more peaceful future. Greenpeace NZ’s focus in New Zealand now is advocacy for the protection of the environment, particularly protecting the environment and its population from climate change and protecting the ocean environment. Greenpeace NZ appealed from a decision of the Charities Registration Board |Te Rātā Atawhai (the Board) declining its application for registration as a charitable entity. This decision was made in the background of a legal case between the Charities Commission (now the Board), and Greenpeace NZ resulting in a Supreme Court decision (Re Greenpeace of New Zealand [2014] NZSC 105), where the Supreme Court remitted the decision back to the Board in light of its decision that a political purpose does not necessarily disqualify an organisation from charitable status if the advocacy is of public benefit. The Board declined Greenpeace NZ’s application, including because it advocated its own views on environmental issues and it could not be established that it was of public benefit and charitable ([6]). In addition to the appeal of the Board’s decision, Greenpeace NZ also applied for judicial review on the ground of apparent bias. Ultimately, Mallon J held that Greenpeace NZ was entitled to be registered as a charity and should be registered ([12]). The Charities Act 2006 (CA) provides for the registration of entities as charitable entities, with a society qualifying for registration if it “is established and maintained exclusively for charitable purposes” and is “not carried on for the private pecuniary gain of any individual” (s 13(1)(b)). S 5 of the CA defines “charitable purpose”, which includes whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community. Any purpose of the entity, that is not ancillary to its main purpose(s), must fit within one of the four heads of charity (relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community) and be of public benefit ([15]). One of the reasons the Board declined Greenpeace NZ’s application was because Greenpeace’s main activity is advocacy on causes that it considers will protect the environment (of which climate change falls within). In relation to climate change specifically, the Board found that “most of Greenpeace’s activities involve advocating its points of view on climate change and promoting those views to the public. The Board considers it is not possible to say whether the views promoted by Greenpeace on climate change are of a benefit in the way that the law recognises as charitable” ([76]). On appeal, the Attorney-General submitted that, in relation to climate change, while it accepted that addressing climate change is a public benefit, and advocacy aimed at that goal may be a public benefit, it depends on what is being advocated. The Attorney-General compared where advocacy was “simply that there is an urgent need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels” which might be of public benefit, versus if the advocacy was “that we must stop all deep-sea oil drilling now” which the Attorney-General submitted was not a public benefit because there are complex choices to be made ([81]). Mallon J, in relation to climate change, found that “avoiding catastrophic climate change is also of benefit to the public. Advocacy to this end is a charitable purpose of public benefit, depending on its nature. Greenpeace NZ’s advocacy promotes reducing global emissions by limiting fossil fuel use and switching to clean energy. It is uncontroversial science that is an available mitigation measure” ([90]). Ultimately, the Court held that the Board erred in finding that campaigning for the protection of the environment (including climate change) was not a charitable purpose of public benefit ([101]).