Are taxpayers funding political and commercial campaigns?

January 13, 2014

The Charities Commission and Department of Internal Affairs have been cleaning up the register of charities and have removed organisations which don’t qualify for charitable status.

One of those which was removed was Greenpeace because it was deemed to be mostly a political group.

It is appealing that decision.

Ken Perrott has found another group which might not qualify for continued registration:

It’s the New Zealand Health Trust.

. . .  It soon becomes obvious the trust is a political lobbying organisation working to promote the interests of the industry selling “natural health products” and “health care products, devices, practices and services within New Zealand.”

So, New Zealand taxpayers are subsiding an industry lobby group, with commercial interests and aims. Inclusion of words like “health,” “natural” and “alternative” does not make it any different to any industry lobby group with commercial interests.

Have another look at the website and you will see this group has political as well as commercial aims. . .

Yes – as taxpayers we are subsidising political activity on chemtrials, way-out medical procedures and a lot else. We are subsiding opposition to vaccines, genetic modification and aspartine.

We are also subsidising their expensive legal action to fight fluoridation. . . .

The questions aren’t being raised over the merits or otherwise of the Trust’s campaigns.

They’re being raised because organisations which qualify for charitable status aren’t supposed to spend most of their time and money on commercial or political campaigns and court cases.


%d bloggers like this: