Understandability and Transparency of the Financial Statements of ...

appeal against the decision to the High Court and will be supported by various advocacy
organisations, including Greenpeace, Oxfam, World Wildlife Fund and World Vision,
who have agreed to cover the potential legal costs of appeals to the High Court. St
Vincent de Paul Society‟s chief John Falzon reflected their views when he said “A vital
role for charities is to advocate on behalf of marginalised and oppressed people”
(Callick, 2010, p. 1).
This issue has been resolved in England and Wales with the recent Charities Act 2006
expanding the four heads of charity to twelve specific and one general head. Two of the
specific heads explicitly include advocacy organisations such as Amnesty International
with section 2(2)(h) Charities Act 2006 “the advancement of human rights …” and
Greenpeace with section 2(2)(i) Charities Act 2006 “the advancement of environmental
protection”.
It is worth noting that the 2002 New Zealand working party (Working Party on
Registration Reporting and Monitoring of Charities, 2002b, p. 12) specifically included
advocacy in their proposed definition as they considered that the advancement of the
natural environment and the promotion and protection of human rights “reflects current
New Zealand societal attitudes and values”. This was certainly reflected in the Charities
Commission survey (Charities Commission, 2008e). It is hoped that the Charities
Commission reflect on their survey‟s results and consider re-addressing broadening the
catchment of charitable purpose along the lines of those suggested by the 2002 Working
party and the England and Wales Charities Act 2006.
This potential broadening of charitable purpose is particularly important given a recent
court case in New Zealand. The case was the first case questioning the Charities
Commission‟s interpretation of charitable purpose under section 5 of the Charities Act
2005 - Travis Trust v. Charities Commission. The purpose of the Travis Trust was
three-fold: (1) the provision of a prize to owners of the winning horse in the Travis
Stakes; (2) support for the Cambridge Jockey Club; and (3) support for the racing
industry. It was held that the Travis Trust is neither charitable nor public, and supported
the Charities Commission decision to decline registration.
The potential impact of the Travis case on charitable organisations is large, as several
large fund raising bodies have amended their criteria to reflect whether the organisation
which is seeking funding is a registered charity. Several interviewees found this out
when applying for funding, with Interviewee 16 (BTM) being told:
156