-
2017 Greenpeace NZ Annual Impact Report
The year didn’t start well. A man with a vested interest in oil companies became President of the USA, promising a new era of climate denial, of racism, and promising…
-
More than half of NZers say too many cows – Greenpeace poll
A Horizon opinion poll commissioned by Greenpeace reveals that 52 percent of Kiwis think are too many cows for our waterways to cope with. David Parker has gone on record…
-
Russel Norman: Climate Commission needs teeth like Reserve Bank
Greenpeace New Zealand Executive Director, Russel Norman, says the new Government’s Climate Commission needs to be given teeth if it’s to have any significant impact on reducing emissions.
-
2016 Greenpeace NZ Annual Impact Report
When Clair Patterson, a geochemistry professor at the California Institute of Technology, was trying to estimate the age of the solar system in the 1940s,he tried to measure the age…
-
New International Executive Directors take the helm at Greenpeace
Amsterdam, 4 April 2016 - Bunny McDiarmid and Jennifer Morgan have officially taken up their new roles today, sharing leadership of the global environmental organisation.
-
Russel Norman to lead Greenpeace New Zealand
This morning we emailed over a quarter of a million Greenpeace supporters to tell them that Russel Norman has been appointed to replace me as executive director of Greenpeace New Zealand when I step down later this year.Some will be surprised to hear that a guy more accustomed to sitting inside Parliament is joining an organisation that’s more used to climbing it - but I firmly believe Russel is the right man for the job.Russel has the leadership skills, optimism, energy, vision and commitment to the environment that we need. And he shares our belief that people power is the key to bringing about positive change, and that civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action are vital to a healthy, robust democracy.Here’s what Russel had to say this morning: "I’m very excited to be joining the Greenpeace team - the world’s leading environmental campaigning organisation.“The Earth is our only home and the only way to protect this precious world is if ordinary people come together to do extraordinary things. Greenpeace is a catalyst for those actions and it’s where I want to put my energy. Whether it is taking nonviolent direct action to halt risky oil drilling, bringing people to the streets to oppose mining in national parks, or promoting solar power solutions to the climate crisis, Greenpeace ignites people into action.“Greenpeace’s political and financial independence, non-violent direct action and creative confrontation are enormously attractive to me. It is these values that I believe form the basis of being able to bring about change, and create a better, cleaner, more peaceful world.“Before I start at Greenpeace in November, I’ll be standing down as a Member of Parliament.“Greenpeace’s staunch position on political independence is one I have always had huge respect for and it is for this reason that I will also be resigning from the Green Party.“I’d like to acknowledge the superb job that Bunny McDiarmid has done as head of Greenpeace over the last decade. And I’d like all of Greenpeace’s supporters to know that, as your new executive director, I’ll do everything I can to continue that tradition of great leadership.”So welcome aboard Russel - it’s going to be great to have you with us on the outside where the real power is!
-
Greenpeace’s Supreme Court win made New Zealand’s democracy a little stronger
Sometimes you just have to take a stand. Greenpeace’s win yesterday in the Supreme Court in a precedent setting case about an arcane charity law was one of those times. The story goes back years, when Greenpeace first started applying for charitable status. The Charities Commission (as it then was) said that although the bulk of Greenpeace’s purposes could be considered charitable, the purpose of promoting peace and disarmament was too political and was enough to block its application.Believe it or not, New Zealand’s charities law dates from a 14th century poem and a 17th century English statute. The so-called ‘political’ exception in contrast is comparatively recent: it stems from an English 1917 case called Bowman, about whether a charity promoting secular society could be charitable. The House of Lords held that it could not because it was ‘political’, stating that: “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 a charitable gift”.A 1948 case about vivisection came to the same conclusion: a purpose to change the law was political, and could not be charitable. In a 1981 New Zealand Court of Appeal case called Molloy, an anti abortion group, who was opposing rather than proposing a change in the abortion legislation, was considered to be political and therefore could not be charitable. Then in what in my view was the low-point in this legal debate, a 1981 UK court ruled in a case called McGovern, that Amnesty International could not be charitable, because they promoted changes in government policies. Even advocating change in another country’s laws was considered too ‘political’."Hard cases make bad law", said V. S. Lean in 1903 and at the time of Bowman, there was very little community interface with the legislative process. Half the population, being women, couldn’t even vote.In the 21st Century western democracies’ modern participatory democracy encourages freedom of speech and participation in the democratic processes. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) routinely make presentations to government Select Committees and are encouraged too. They also write editorials and speak to the media and their MPs about important but controversial issues. NGOs are seen as a necessary check and balance in our democratic process. By 2010, the tide had turned, at least in Australia. The Australian High Court, in a case about the organisation Aid/Watch, who monitored how aid was spent, said that there is intrinsic value in democratic participation and “that agitating for legislative and political change could be a purpose beneficial to the community”. The Court said that creating a public debate through lawful means about the efficiency of foreign aid on the relief of poverty, is itself a purpose beneficial to the community.So Greenpeace decided to push this issue. It did not accept that charities law in the 21st century meant banning controversial or ‘political’ organizations from charitable status. Our democracy is strong enough to allow controversy. Greenpeace took its case to the High Court which ruled, surprisingly perhaps, that promoting peace was not ‘political’ but that promoting disarmament was. So Greenpeace appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that yes, nuclear disarmament is not (too) political either. So Greenpeace did not, after all, fall into the ‘political’ exception. Having won that narrow point, Greenpeace could have left the case there. But the Court of Appeal decided not to follow Australia and Aid/Watch, and maintained that political purposes or activities should exclude an organisation from being a charity. So Greenpeace pressed on to the Supreme Court: it believed that an important principle of democracy was at stake.And it was. The Supreme Court rose to the challenge. It is worth quoting Chief Justice Sian Elias in paragraph 71:“[71] Just as promotion of the abolition of slavery has been regarded as charitable, today advocacy for such ends as human rights or protection of the environment and promotion of amenities that make communities pleasant may have come to be regarded as charitable purposes in themselves, depending on the nature of the advocacy, even if not ancillary to more tangible charity. That result was looked to as one that might well come about in relation to protection of the environment by Somers J in Molloy. In the present case the Board has accepted that Greenpeace’s object to “promote the protection and preservation of nature and the environment” is charitable. Protection of the environment may require broad-based support and effort, including through the participatory processes set up by legislation, to enable the public interest to be assessed. In the same way, the promotion of human rights (a purpose of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, as its long title indicates) may depend on similar broad-based support so that advocacy, including through participation in political and legal processes, may well be charitable.”From that high point of principle, the rest fell into place: “We agree with the view expressed by Kiefel J in Aid/Watch that charitable and political purposes are not mutually exclusive. As a result, we depart from the approach taken in the Court of Appeal” and “we are unable to agree with the Court of Appeal suggestion that views generally acceptable may be charitable, while those which are highly controversial are not.”Does this mean that controversial or ‘political’ organisations will now automatically gain charitable status? Definitely not. As the Supreme Court held, “assessment of whether advocacy or promotion of a cause or law reform is a charitable purpose depends on consideration of the end that is advocated, the means promoted to achieve that end and the manner in which the cause is promoted in order to assess whether the purpose can be said to be of public benefit within the spirit and intendment of the 1601 Statute.” In short, the NGO must show that its work is for the public benefit. But being controversial or ‘political’ no longer means automatic exclusion.It is a good day for civil society and democracy. As Greenpeace New Zealand’s executive director Bunny McDiarmid put it, the decision "makes New Zealand's democracy a little stronger.” And in an election year, that has to be a good thing.
-
Our charitable status legal marathon
This week the final leg of our charitable status legal marathon will be in the Supreme Court in Wellington. The outcome in the Supreme Court will not decide whether we get charitable status. It will simply clarify further the definition of what a charity can be. Then, based on that, we can decide to re-apply to the Charities Registration Board to reconsider our application.Here’s a bit of background. In 2005 the Government passed a new Charities Act, which meant all who considered themselves charities needed to apply to be registered. The Act is based on English law from the 1600s. We applied and were denied. We applied because we considered ourselves charitable under the public benefit heading. There are some financial benefits as a registered Charity. But more importantly it is the narrow application of the definition of a charity that motivated us to apply in 2009. And this has been what has kept us challenging that definition up through the courts in the hope that it could be expanded so that it is more in keeping with the role that charities actually play in a 21st Century democracy.The bones of contention that we will be arguing in the Supreme Court are whether political advocacy can be a charitable purpose. We have argued that engaging in policy debates on the issues charities work on is an essential part of what charities do today and is therefore in the public interest. If charities are threatened with losing their status simply because they advocate, this will have a chilling effect on any critical voices or debate from an important part of our society. And governments already seek the input of organisations working in the charitable sector on policy issues via Select Committees. In Australia political advocacy is recognised as a charitable purpose in its own right.Political advocacy in our charities definition is only allowed if it is a secondary and not the primary purpose of a charity. But just how much advocacy puts you over the line is unclear. And who ultimately decides whether what is being advocated is in the public interest, the Charities board, the Courts, the government or the public?The other issue we are appealing in the Supreme Court is whether illegal activities automatically disqualify you from charitable status. Of course breaking the law is not one of our purposes, but there are times when our activities have crossed the legal line and we have willingly taken the consequences. The current definition says it has to be ‘serious wrong doing’ and again it has to be secondary to our everyday activities. Finally it is important to note that there is a difference between charitable status and donee status, although there is a connection. Donee status is administered by the tax department and it is what allows people to make tax deductible donations. Charitable status is what the Charities Registration Board decides and is what all the huff is about. Greenpeace already has donee status.Having charitable status means that donee status is more assured although you still need to apply for it. However not having charitable status does not mean you lose donee status if you still fulfil the criteria for donee status. I want to acknowledge the public benefit work that our lawyers have done pro bono in trying to contribute to a broader and clearer understanding in the law of the role of charities today.
-
Greenpeace submission on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (environmental effects – permitted activities) regulations 2013
The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act it is contrary to New Zealand’s international obligations to protect the marine environment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, contrary to the precautionary principle which has been accepted by the International Court of Justice and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as customary international law, and contrary to international best practice. The proposed regulations would implement these reckless and unlawful amendments, but, in addition, may also be ultra vires.
-
New Rainbow Warrior to make first ever visit to New Zealand in January
Auckland, Friday 16 November 2012: Today Greenpeace announced that the state of the art new Rainbow Warrior will visit New Zealand for the first time in January and February 2013.
