February 22, 2025 • 11 mins
More calls for Destiny Church to be struck off the charities list and lose their tax deductibility status; but as the conversation around charity status goes on, questions are being raised on whether other organisations should lose their status.
Sanitarium is just one of the giants that are tax exempt in New Zealand, and with more than 28,000 registered charities with an annual income of over $21 billion, a change would bring the country an influx of cash.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News talks'd
be well.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
There have been more calls for the Destiny Church we
strike off the charity's list and lose its tax deductibility status.
But of course the conversation around charity status goes On's
questions are being raised on whether other organizations should lose
their status, and Sanitarium being one of those giants. I've
banged on about Sanitarium in the Seventh Adventist Church for ages.
(00:30):
Because there are more than twenty eight thousand registered charities
with an annual income of over twenty one billion, a
change would bring there could be an influx of cash.
We made a few changes and with us now is
the executive director of New Zealand Taxpayers Union, Jordan William's Good.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Good afternoon, get a tim Happy Sunday.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Happy Sunday. Indeed, so are we. This Destiny Church has
brought the conversation into the picture. But is that a
danger that we're focused on the fact we have a
many of us have a loathing for Bryan Tummocky. Should
we sort of push them out of the or do
you think that it's a legitimate sort of motivation to
(01:08):
review charities law.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Well, it's no different to the arguments around both Greenpeace
and Family First. Unfortunately, in New Zealand, where we have
got to with our charities law is inherently uncertain. There
was a very unhelpful Supreme Court judgment in relation to
Greenpeace that, rather than clarifying the law, has really muddied it.
(01:29):
They basically said, unlike historically where you couldn't lobby, you
couldn't be a charity to lobby green Peace. Actually that's okay,
but only on things we consider inherently God. So for
example Greenpeace, for sorry, Family First, or just like Destiny.
You could argue your reasonable minds can differ on whether
the net value, but I think that most New Zealander
(01:52):
would agree it's pretty unsatisfactory where it's sort of the
whim of the elite or the judiciary can decide whether
your charity or not. There's really two questions of going
back to your sanitarium. Point first is the question is
what should be charitable? So I mean obviously the historic
reason was where a lot of these good groups they
(02:15):
do work that the government would otherwise do, and you
would for religion, for the for the church, it was
to save ourselves, as well as of course the the
you know you look at the like of the.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Selly's or Saint John's.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Yes, Saint John's, you've got a really good example. Presbyterian
support would be another one. Yep, they are all doing
work the government would otherwise do. Then the separate question
first is what should be charitable. The second question, which
I think there's most would agree on, is what about
companies that are totally unrelated to the charitable activity? A
(02:50):
lah sanitarium or the other one i'd hold up would
be shot over jet owned by Nahou totally doesn't pay
any tax at all? Is it right that they shouldn't
pay tax even on income is not returned back to
the charitable parent or the charitable.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Even added to that, there is just the basics of
an unleveled playing field when it comes to other For instance,
I don't know what the other jet boat.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Caladeal River jjjen in Queenstown.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yeah, yeah, that one. And so there is the question
even just is it fair, even though it's a charity,
that there's a different uneven playing service, isn't there?
Speaker 4 (03:27):
So back in the day, the year was a limit
on what companies could donate to charity and get the
taxbill down deduction that limit is now gone, and so
I would the Taxpayers Union would argue that actually the
tax advantage should only apply. So again the Sanitarium's case,
(03:48):
the money that actually goes back to the church or
goes back to the community.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
It's also the question not about what a charitable purpose is,
but also charitable services, because I noticed that they talk
that I think Nitahu talk about returning the money which
for charity, charity services for Alfaro. But equally I was thinking, well,
you're get to get a company would equally say well,
actually we think it's rather charitable to our shareholders to
be giving them a dividend as well. And it looks
(04:15):
all of it samey, it's just a different label applied
to money going back.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
New New Zealand's really unusual there and this is why
it's a bit of a mess. The rest of the
world take the a ready guarded approach to avoid charities
based on bloodline, you know, basically to avoid rich people
setting up family foundations tax free and it's going to
their kids or grandkids. Because of the carve outs around Mara,
(04:45):
around Ewe and Notahu's case. It was negotiated as part
of a settlement that's really difficult to tackle. Nevertheless, hold up,
as I say the shotover Jet example, is that surely
that tax free income should only apply to the money
actually going back to the community.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Twenty eight thousand kit charities, twenty eight thousand charities. How
many of those do you think legit I don't know
how much week you can do on this, because if
you spend a minute just investigating each charity, that's still
probably a lot of your time.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
I think.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
The establishment doesn't like to acknowledgement, but it's also inherently political.
Now you look at the look as I say, reason
minds can differ on Bob m Crossgrey's Family First, but
the people donating to Family First are donating for the
same reasons as you might donate.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
To forest and bird. One is charitable, one is not.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
I think that the American approach, which is basically, if
you lobby, if you're here to change the law, you're
not charitable. Political yeah, but otherwise, if you're philanthropic you
get the deduction.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
I think that's a far better way.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
And if you're an enterprise and related to the charitable purpose,
then you pay tax except for what you actually donate
or distribute back to the charity or charitable like to.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
How much more you were missing out on here? Do
you think.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Conservative estimates for just the sort of trading activity. We're
talking about four billion a year in tradable income, So
it's big numbers.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
That's the tax on four billion and income we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
Or no, that was a back when the Charities Act
was last sort of the tires were last kicked. Justed
for inflation, it was about three billion at about twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Does that mean you mentioned Naho. The part of the
settlement was some sort of tax free status on that.
But does that mean ewe, you're going to be exempt
from any changes because Knight Tahoo's they've got a.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Little bit of power.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Massive yeah, and question you're going to be like, oh,
this is an attack on Mari and things like that,
Whereas I mean, I hate that sort of rhetoric. Let's
just talk about Fenix.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, that's why I'm.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Slightly reluctant to to go sort of go th I
do think that it is worrying the government is talking
this up as a budget measure when inherently this should
be actually you know, it is quite complex. You've also
got the the Mari trust rate, which is a lower
tax rate than the company rate and the general trust rate.
(07:14):
The stuff is pretty difficult. I'm worried that it's going
to be used as an unprincipled tax grab as part
of the budget rather than fixing some of these inherent
problems because of where we've got to. Another one example
is amateur sport. As a result of really the rugby Union,
the All Blacks don't play tax because New Zealand's charities law,
(07:36):
again unusual in the world, specifically states that if your
purpose is to promote amateur sport, you're charitable.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah, so would we say, let's look at the case
of the rugby union. Would we have to have a
situation where we would insist that they split off their
professional activities with the All Blacks and the sponsorship they
raise versus Or I'll simply say, look, if your money whatever,
you pull back into the amateur game, that's instruction. It's
the same like with naitahu or anything. It's like, Okay,
(08:04):
you've got your money coming in here. If you're just
pouring it back and the shot over jet, then then
maybe that's taxable. Versus if it's if you are spending
it on a genuinely charitable purpose, then then everything's fright.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
The other elephant in the room is the huge number
I call them sock puppet charities that are simply there
now too because the Supreme Court has opened it up.
They're really there just a lobby. It's boondoggers. Even example,
you might recall a few weeks ago tax baser and
you broke the.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Story about the whale song to Cardi trees.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
You know that was that was that four million dollars
went to a I know it's forgot not to laugh.
If not the you know, the plumbers and builders whose
tax went on for this nonsense, the so called services
were provided by a charity for which purposes is lobbying.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
How real is the government? Do you think about addressing
the charitable law? Because you know, as I say, it
goes back to the headlines again, because we don't like
Destiny Church and their antics. But how what feeling do
you get about the government it's willingness to address this
and the unfairness. So for instance, as you say, let's
lose another example seventh Adventus sat Sanitarium. If they're spending
that on feeding the poor, great, But if it's just
(09:15):
going back into the coffers tax it, yeah, I.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
Really worry that the government's motivation is actually because they
need the money, rather than taking a principled look at this.
And I'm inherently uncomfortable with a yet more politicization of
what who gets charitable status and who doesn't. And I
just point to if you lobby, if you're a left
wing pressure group and say, you know, the Child Poverty
(09:41):
Action Group for example, which just lobby, they're not doing
soup kitchens, are you charitable? But in the case of
Bob mcross Grey or any sort of conservative dare I
even say at the tax piller, you're not that we've
applied for charitable status. But in terms of the motivation
for the donor is inherently philanthropic. Why should it be different?
And I think that the Yanks have it much better.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
What do they do well?
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Basically, if you philanthropic, yeah, charitable you're not, you don't
get the deduction. If you are political, you lobby on legislation.
That's a far better way of doing it.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
So you're not applying to make it The Church of
the tax Basilia and the referend Jordan Williams.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Joins us, Now, well, don't don't give us ideas.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Do you have you guys lobbied the government on the
or you in the process.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
We did.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
We actually did some reports some years ago. We commissioned
a charities expert to do it under the Key government,
but didn't get a lot of a lot of air time.
And actually it's got worse rather than better. I hope
that the government could. I suspect what the government will do,
We'll just tackle the the the companies making enormous profits
(10:49):
but owned by charity and it just being going back
and being reinvested, and the competitive the the unequalness that
applies in those markets, you know, the shotover Jet k
jet example. What I hope they do though, is actually
iron out what is a hugely unequal playing field in
terms of the groups that automatically get charitable status if
(11:11):
you're fashionable versus if you are in any way conservative
cause you don't get charitable status.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Yeah, what look this government just one final question. The
government's been accused of passing laws which sort of look
good but don't do much. So I mean, how optimistic
are you about them? Addressing this in the next year
or two.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
No, they want the money. I think it will be
part of Good on you.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Jord. Hey, look we're going to talk back on this.
That was Jordan Williams, the executive the referend Jordan Williams,
I say that satirically. Just don't quote me on that,
the executive director of the New Zealand pat Taxpayers Unit.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
talks'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News talks'd
be well.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
There have been more calls for the Destiny Church we
strike off the charity's list and lose its tax deductibility status.
But of course the conversation around charity status goes On's
questions are being raised on whether other organizations should lose
their status, and Sanitarium being one of those giants. I've
banged on about Sanitarium in the Seventh Adventist Church for ages.
(00:30):
Because there are more than twenty eight thousand registered charities
with an annual income of over twenty one billion, a
change would bring there could be an influx of cash.
We made a few changes and with us now is
the executive director of New Zealand Taxpayers Union, Jordan William's Good.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Good afternoon, get a tim Happy Sunday.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Happy Sunday. Indeed, so are we. This Destiny Church has
brought the conversation into the picture. But is that a
danger that we're focused on the fact we have a
many of us have a loathing for Bryan Tummocky. Should
we sort of push them out of the or do
you think that it's a legitimate sort of motivation to
(01:08):
review charities law.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Well, it's no different to the arguments around both Greenpeace
and Family First. Unfortunately, in New Zealand, where we have
got to with our charities law is inherently uncertain. There
was a very unhelpful Supreme Court judgment in relation to
Greenpeace that, rather than clarifying the law, has really muddied it.
(01:29):
They basically said, unlike historically where you couldn't lobby, you
couldn't be a charity to lobby green Peace. Actually that's okay,
but only on things we consider inherently God. So for
example Greenpeace, for sorry, Family First, or just like Destiny.
You could argue your reasonable minds can differ on whether
the net value, but I think that most New Zealander
(01:52):
would agree it's pretty unsatisfactory where it's sort of the
whim of the elite or the judiciary can decide whether
your charity or not. There's really two questions of going
back to your sanitarium. Point first is the question is
what should be charitable? So I mean obviously the historic
reason was where a lot of these good groups they
(02:15):
do work that the government would otherwise do, and you
would for religion, for the for the church, it was
to save ourselves, as well as of course the the
you know you look at the like of the.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Selly's or Saint John's.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
Yes, Saint John's, you've got a really good example. Presbyterian
support would be another one. Yep, they are all doing
work the government would otherwise do. Then the separate question
first is what should be charitable. The second question, which
I think there's most would agree on, is what about
companies that are totally unrelated to the charitable activity? A
(02:50):
lah sanitarium or the other one i'd hold up would
be shot over jet owned by Nahou totally doesn't pay
any tax at all? Is it right that they shouldn't
pay tax even on income is not returned back to
the charitable parent or the charitable.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Even added to that, there is just the basics of
an unleveled playing field when it comes to other For instance,
I don't know what the other jet boat.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Caladeal River jjjen in Queenstown.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yeah, yeah, that one. And so there is the question
even just is it fair, even though it's a charity,
that there's a different uneven playing service, isn't there?
Speaker 4 (03:27):
So back in the day, the year was a limit
on what companies could donate to charity and get the
taxbill down deduction that limit is now gone, and so
I would the Taxpayers Union would argue that actually the
tax advantage should only apply. So again the Sanitarium's case,
(03:48):
the money that actually goes back to the church or
goes back to the community.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
It's also the question not about what a charitable purpose is,
but also charitable services, because I noticed that they talk
that I think Nitahu talk about returning the money which
for charity, charity services for Alfaro. But equally I was thinking, well,
you're get to get a company would equally say well,
actually we think it's rather charitable to our shareholders to
be giving them a dividend as well. And it looks
(04:15):
all of it samey, it's just a different label applied
to money going back.
Speaker 4 (04:21):
New New Zealand's really unusual there and this is why
it's a bit of a mess. The rest of the
world take the a ready guarded approach to avoid charities
based on bloodline, you know, basically to avoid rich people
setting up family foundations tax free and it's going to
their kids or grandkids. Because of the carve outs around Mara,
(04:45):
around Ewe and Notahu's case. It was negotiated as part
of a settlement that's really difficult to tackle. Nevertheless, hold up,
as I say the shotover Jet example, is that surely
that tax free income should only apply to the money
actually going back to the community.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Twenty eight thousand kit charities, twenty eight thousand charities. How
many of those do you think legit I don't know
how much week you can do on this, because if
you spend a minute just investigating each charity, that's still
probably a lot of your time.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
I think.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
The establishment doesn't like to acknowledgement, but it's also inherently political.
Now you look at the look as I say, reason
minds can differ on Bob m Crossgrey's Family First, but
the people donating to Family First are donating for the
same reasons as you might donate.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
To forest and bird. One is charitable, one is not.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
I think that the American approach, which is basically, if
you lobby, if you're here to change the law, you're
not charitable. Political yeah, but otherwise, if you're philanthropic you
get the deduction.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
I think that's a far better way.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
And if you're an enterprise and related to the charitable purpose,
then you pay tax except for what you actually donate
or distribute back to the charity or charitable like to.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
How much more you were missing out on here? Do
you think.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Conservative estimates for just the sort of trading activity. We're
talking about four billion a year in tradable income, So
it's big numbers.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
That's the tax on four billion and income we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
Or no, that was a back when the Charities Act
was last sort of the tires were last kicked. Justed
for inflation, it was about three billion at about twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Does that mean you mentioned Naho. The part of the
settlement was some sort of tax free status on that.
But does that mean ewe, you're going to be exempt
from any changes because Knight Tahoo's they've got a.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Little bit of power.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Massive yeah, and question you're going to be like, oh,
this is an attack on Mari and things like that,
Whereas I mean, I hate that sort of rhetoric. Let's
just talk about Fenix.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, that's why I'm.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Slightly reluctant to to go sort of go th I
do think that it is worrying the government is talking
this up as a budget measure when inherently this should
be actually you know, it is quite complex. You've also
got the the Mari trust rate, which is a lower
tax rate than the company rate and the general trust rate.
(07:14):
The stuff is pretty difficult. I'm worried that it's going
to be used as an unprincipled tax grab as part
of the budget rather than fixing some of these inherent
problems because of where we've got to. Another one example
is amateur sport. As a result of really the rugby Union,
the All Blacks don't play tax because New Zealand's charities law,
(07:36):
again unusual in the world, specifically states that if your
purpose is to promote amateur sport, you're charitable.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah, so would we say, let's look at the case
of the rugby union. Would we have to have a
situation where we would insist that they split off their
professional activities with the All Blacks and the sponsorship they
raise versus Or I'll simply say, look, if your money whatever,
you pull back into the amateur game, that's instruction. It's
the same like with naitahu or anything. It's like, Okay,
(08:04):
you've got your money coming in here. If you're just
pouring it back and the shot over jet, then then
maybe that's taxable. Versus if it's if you are spending
it on a genuinely charitable purpose, then then everything's fright.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
The other elephant in the room is the huge number
I call them sock puppet charities that are simply there
now too because the Supreme Court has opened it up.
They're really there just a lobby. It's boondoggers. Even example,
you might recall a few weeks ago tax baser and
you broke the.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Story about the whale song to Cardi trees.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
You know that was that was that four million dollars
went to a I know it's forgot not to laugh.
If not the you know, the plumbers and builders whose
tax went on for this nonsense, the so called services
were provided by a charity for which purposes is lobbying.
Speaker 2 (08:54):
How real is the government? Do you think about addressing
the charitable law? Because you know, as I say, it
goes back to the headlines again, because we don't like
Destiny Church and their antics. But how what feeling do
you get about the government it's willingness to address this
and the unfairness. So for instance, as you say, let's
lose another example seventh Adventus sat Sanitarium. If they're spending
that on feeding the poor, great, But if it's just
(09:15):
going back into the coffers tax it, yeah, I.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
Really worry that the government's motivation is actually because they
need the money, rather than taking a principled look at this.
And I'm inherently uncomfortable with a yet more politicization of
what who gets charitable status and who doesn't. And I
just point to if you lobby, if you're a left
wing pressure group and say, you know, the Child Poverty
(09:41):
Action Group for example, which just lobby, they're not doing
soup kitchens, are you charitable? But in the case of
Bob mcross Grey or any sort of conservative dare I
even say at the tax piller, you're not that we've
applied for charitable status. But in terms of the motivation
for the donor is inherently philanthropic. Why should it be different?
And I think that the Yanks have it much better.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
What do they do well?
Speaker 4 (10:03):
Basically, if you philanthropic, yeah, charitable you're not, you don't
get the deduction. If you are political, you lobby on legislation.
That's a far better way of doing it.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
So you're not applying to make it The Church of
the tax Basilia and the referend Jordan Williams.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Joins us, Now, well, don't don't give us ideas.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Do you have you guys lobbied the government on the
or you in the process.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
We did.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
We actually did some reports some years ago. We commissioned
a charities expert to do it under the Key government,
but didn't get a lot of a lot of air time.
And actually it's got worse rather than better. I hope
that the government could. I suspect what the government will do,
We'll just tackle the the the companies making enormous profits
(10:49):
but owned by charity and it just being going back
and being reinvested, and the competitive the the unequalness that
applies in those markets, you know, the shotover Jet k
jet example. What I hope they do though, is actually
iron out what is a hugely unequal playing field in
terms of the groups that automatically get charitable status if
(11:11):
you're fashionable versus if you are in any way conservative
cause you don't get charitable status.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Yeah, what look this government just one final question. The
government's been accused of passing laws which sort of look
good but don't do much. So I mean, how optimistic
are you about them? Addressing this in the next year
or two.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
No, they want the money. I think it will be
part of Good on you.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Jord. Hey, look we're going to talk back on this.
That was Jordan Williams, the executive the referend Jordan Williams,
I say that satirically. Just don't quote me on that,
the executive director of the New Zealand pat Taxpayers Unit.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
talks'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.