Guy Gifford: Charitable works by religions should qualify for tax rebates, not religions themselves

Destiny Church's Bishop Brian and Hannah Tamaki. The church ticks all the boxes to qualify as a charity.

Any government review that requires a risk management plan to curtail public discussion deserves a second look. And when the reason for stifling discussion seems to be it might "lead to changes in tax exemption"... and when the 25-member advisory group requests a different approach but is denied, the question is bound to surface: What is the Minister afraid of?

The answer is clear and is stressed five times in the cabinet briefing paper: "There must be no debate on the definition of charitable purpose". The Minister knows that in a secular society he must eventually face the problem of tax exemption to religious organisations. He may believe he is instituting a "broad-scoped, substantive review" that will lead to "effective, fit-for-purpose" legislation, but the third pillar of the Charities Act looks decidedly shaky.

At present religious organisations are included on the register as of right because their charitable purpose is the advancement of religion.

Similar countries have questioned this, and NZ lags far behind. The three-man registration board will have to making decisions as to who makes the cut. At present in New Zealand a religion requires two things:

* A belief in a supernatural being. In the UK the Charities Act 2006 expanded the definition of religion to include a religion that "involves a belief in more than one God, and a religion that does not involve a belief in any god". The US Supreme Court has ruled belief in God or a supreme being is no longer essential to any legal definition of religion.

* Canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief (an "organisation that promoted belief in unicorns would not qualify" because there was no coherent body of beliefs).

We are comfortable with the solemnity and support of our own religious rituals at important times but look askance at the practices of other faiths.

Then there is a requirement to advance that religion. No resting on laurels; there must be an attempt to practise the religion and positive steps to sustain and increase. Should the Masons be accepted? There is a belief in God and a history of charitable works but no requirement to practise the forms of religion.

And the benefit must be public (closed orders such as monasteries, convents, are considered to provide only private benefit ... but an organisation "offering public prayers for the soul of a departed person advances sufficient public benefit and would be accepted").

Australia requires religious groups to prove the benefit, but secular groups would claim spiritual benefits cannot be proved. They say donations to a church often benefit a narrow group of adherents; repairs to a country church do not bring the charitable benefit that might come from money given to front-line charities like Salvation Army and Red Cross. Money for a campaign on social issues that runs contrary to current community standards is offensive to many. The right-to-die legislation is a case in point. Ninety per cent of submissions to the select committee were against, yet independent polling suggests 68 per cent of Kiwis support it. Why should taxpayers give concessions for groups pulling in the wrong direction?

No countries attempt to evaluate beliefs. There is no God-standard, no quality control, no boundaries to belief. We are familiar with the Judeo-Christian concept, but the moment gods become plural or are not required, anything is possible. Surely all beliefs are not created equal? The review notes mention a belief in unicorns would not be acceptable. But the reason is not that the central focus is beyond prospect or possibility. Rather, there is no adequate "canon of beliefs or practices on which adherents are to structure their lives". If someone devised a coherent canon and gathered sufficient followers, would that make the central belief acceptable? There are 30 spiritualist organisations on the register ... what on earth do they believe in? Is Scientology a religion? Theosophy? We are comfortable with the solemnity and support of our own religious rituals at important times but look askance at the practices of other faiths, some bizarre. Must we really support them through tax concessions? Should they be required to support ours? If we wish to exclude them, what are our grounds?

Bringing domestic donations in line with donations to overseas charities was a position favoured by a previous Minister, Peter Dunne.

Donations can be made to Israel Folau's church to support his campaign, but should they be tax-deductible? If not, why not?

Many of the problems are illustrated by the strange case of Destiny Church, which ticks all the boxes: belief in God, beliefs that are practised, social programmes. Yet it has been withdrawn from the Charitable Register, apparently for failing to provide the required reporting. Destiny has applied three times for integrated or "special character" status for its school and been turned down for reasons that appear weak. It is hard to escape the feeling that this has something to do with the Charities Board being uncomfortable that this is the sort of religion Kiwis want to support. If the taxpayer is required to rebate the tithing of Destiny members, will that bring all charitable gifting under the microscope?

Advancement of religion should be withdrawn as a gateway to the Charities Register. The social, cultural and economic benefits of religious organisations can then be assessed under other purposes beneficial to the community. Allowing tax-exempt donations for charitable works but not to a religious organisation itself would then be possible. That would bring domestic donations in line with donations to overseas charities, a position favoured by a previous Minister, Peter Dunne.

Guy Gifford is a retired school teacher who made a submission to the Charities Act review.