NZ already has a constitution, albeit an unwritten one...

i.e. Not worth the paper it's written on.

The Republic of NZ you say. Would you prefer Cavendish, Plantain or Manzano?

The Republic of NZ you say. Would you prefer Cavendish, Plantain or Manzano?

Why go with the crowd - lets blaze our own path: Pernambuco.

As an atheist I am very uncomfortable with the idea of tax-exempt organisations claiming the right "to seek to influence public opinion and political decision making".

The important principle at stake is that a society should not effectively subsidise organisations that obviously work in their own self-interest, and possibly against the rest of society's interests. It's about setting a level playing field when it comes to political influence.

A tax exempt organisation should, in principle, be politically neutral. Or to put an old slogan another way, "No representation without taxation". See here for a U.S. perspective: http://blogcritics.or... . As Chief Justice William Rehnquist makes clear, “Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income."

If churches seek to wade into public debate, they should contribute to the public coffers like the rest of us and abandon their tax-exempt status. Otherwise their members should act purely as private individuals.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is only registered charities, including churches, that are tax exempt. Clubs and societies are not.

So I disagree with Grant and James's earlier comments that churches have as much right as anyone else to influence public policy. The issue is not whether NZ is secular or not, but whether select groups should be effectively subsidised to influence "political decision making".

You could just as well put question this way - "Should political lobby groups be subsidised by the NZ taxpayer if they call themselves a religion?". I think most people would say "No" to that.

What do the rest of you think about the validity of this principle as it applies to churches and other tax-exempt organisations in NZ?

(Edit - Various tweaks and additions.)

Stephen,

Philosphically I somewhat agree with your viewpoint, but on a practical level I can't agree.

As an atheist I am very uncomfortable with the idea of tax-exempt organisations claiming the right "to seek to influence public opinion and political decision making".

Simply saying that any entity that is tax exempt should have their freedom of speech curtailed does not really wash with me. I don't see any fundamental link between paying whatever arbitrary taxes the government of the day imposes and your right to freedom of speech. If Mr. Roger Douglas was to somehow get his way and the first $30,000 of personal income was tax-free, would that mean all those earning under $30,000 no longer have the right to speak out, or to vote? Tax-exempt vs. 0% tax rate: same thing. Should large corporates be free to influence government, but not environmental groups? You may not like the message, but the messenger still has a right to speak.

The important principle at stake is that a society should not effectively subsidise organisations that obviously work in their own self-interest, and possibly against the rest of society's interests. It's about setting a level playing field when it comes to political influence.

Yes, but who decides what is and is not in society's interest? You and I may be atheists, but many people are not, and they believe that their religious organisations perform a vital community service. Putting aside the actual charitable work done by many religious organisations, many people find great comfort and peace in their religion: they would argue that these institutions perform a beneficial function for society.

As far as a level playing field is concerned should, for example, the Salvation Army be denied the right to speak out on matters of social policy, but Telecom can wade in wherever it likes, simply because it pays tax?

If churches seek to wade into public debate, they should contribute to the public coffers like the rest of us and abandon their tax-exempt status. Otherwise their members should act purely as private individuals.

And how do you differentiate between a priest of the Catholic Church speaking out on a public policy matter versus the church itself? Him simply saying that he is speaking as a private individual is meaningless - his views are still those of his church.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is only registered charities, including churches, that are tax exempt. Clubs and societies are not.

You may be wrong - one of my staff just told me that his golf club is now a registered charity. Better deny them the right to influence local council on the setting of property rates?

So I disagree with Grant and James's earlier comments that churches have as much right as anyone else to influence public policy. The issue is not whether NZ is secular or not, but whether select groups should be effectively subsidised to influence "political decision making".

I do not like the idea of churches being given tax breaks. I have no problem with the charities they operate being given tax breaks. The requirements for charitable status as they stand mean that a not-for-profit organisation that provides cultural services to the community can qualify e.g. a community theater, a dance troupe, an historical society, etc. Much as I may disagree, as per my previous comments plenty of people see religious organisations providing a valuable cultural service, therefore they qualify. I don't like it, but I'm not going to deny them freedom of speech because of it.

I feel like the devils advocate.