Tory “charity”

Written By: - Date published: 3:30 pm, February 18th, 2015 - 42 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags: , , , , ,

One of the core differences between the right and the left, it seems, is that the left actually understand that not everything’s about money and not everything can be decided by the market.

There are core services which must be run for the public good. And some of them cost money, and don’t make profit. But the state provides them to ensure some basic needs are met and some basic rights are protected.

But even I wouldn’t have thought the government would stoop so low as to demand that charitable organisations – groups often doing things which should be funded by the state but aren’t – foot the bill for getting police background checks for their workers and volunteers.

Yet that’s what they’re doing. Organisations like the Cancer Society and the Blind Foundation have calculated the additional costs for them at $10,500 and $2,500 respectively. And that’s simply money they don’t have spare.

This is going to lead to cuts in vital services. All for a paltry $2.2 million saving – or less than 2% of the bailout they were pushing for SkyCity. And Anne Tolley expects charities to be grateful it’s not as expensive as it is in other countries!

It’s the ultimate in ideological policy-making: pushing the user-pays model at all costs, to save peanuts and cause who knows how much harm further down the line when charities have to decide if they can keep their doors open.

Labour is organising with charitable organisations to oppose this petty penny-pinching. You can add your signature to Labour’s petition here.

42 comments on “Tory “charity” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    18 February 2015 at 3:49 pm

    The National Party is the equivalent of a long low-intensity civil war.

  2. McFlock 2
    18 February 2015 at 3:56 pm

    pfft. Why should scout masters or religious youth group supervisors need a police check anyway /sarc

    • Murray Rawshark 2.1
      18 February 2015 at 3:59 pm

      Or NAct MPs? Or ex-Army rapists hired by the Ministry of Primary Industries?

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11286401

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1
        18 February 2015 at 5:07 pm

        Or the National Party fellow travellers who protected and encouraged Michael Lewis Sabin since 2011?

      • McFlock 2.1.2
        18 February 2015 at 5:10 pm

        The national party don’t care, and the MPI probably would get theirs for free, if they cared to.

        Edit: the thought just occurred that a tory would assume that their moral legal cover would come from the worker/volunteer signing a disclaimer where they really really truly pinky-promise that they won’t do anything wrong and haven’t done anything wrong in the past. And if the applicant subsequently does something wrong, then the tory plays the “victim”, too.

  3. Murray Rawshark 3
    18 February 2015 at 3:56 pm

    They should run police checks on themselves. They obviously want to cripple all but a few selected charities, ones that only help the right people. Auckland Grammar Old Boys’ Association for example.

  4. Bill 4
    18 February 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Somewhat related to this in an international context is the police in England and Wales…maybe it was just London?… no longer being willing to close down/monitor roads for street marches/protests and insisting that organisers pay private firms to carry out the function.

    And who becomes liable should that ambulance be held up?

    Seems to me that internationally, Tories are dropping those people and organisations it doesn’t like in the dirt.

  5. esoteric pineapples 5
    18 February 2015 at 5:05 pm

    I’ve signed the petition but wins like stopping taxpayers paying for the casino are, really, insignificant victories in the end. I’m sure there are a lot of supporters of the Cancer Society who will vote for National at the next election even if charities are charged for police checks. There are a lot of New Zealanders who feel John Key and National are the only legitimate government and like faithful citizens of a monarchy they prefer to petition their one true ruler rather than overthrow him.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1
      18 February 2015 at 9:41 pm

      I think every little bit helps, ep. People often focus on one issue that’s really important to them when they vote: maybe support for charities, or opposing increased pokies, will be strong factors for some voters in 2017.

  6. gsays 6
    18 February 2015 at 5:18 pm

    here is my take,
    if the police check has a commerce reason behind it, then pay.
    if it is for charity, community groups,eg victim support then no pay.

  7. weka 7
    18 February 2015 at 5:46 pm

    “One of the core differences between the right and the left, it seems, is that the left actually understand that not everything’s about money and not everything can be decided by the market.”

    As an aside, because some of my family were old school conservatives, I think the difference is between neoliberal and left. In the past we had people who were economically conservative but still valued the community and social services (ie it’s not all about money and the market). What’s happened to them?

    • Once was Tim 7.1
      18 February 2015 at 7:18 pm

      What happened to them?
      They discovered the benefits of the American Express Gold and Platinum Card (often paid for through ‘fringe benefits’), and the greed is good mantra.
      … What’s more, it seems they weren’t limited to the traditional ‘Tory’ either. Labour’s managed to gather up a few of them as well.

      • weka 7.1.1
        18 February 2015 at 7:42 pm

        Not really. The main one I am thinking of in my family had plenty of wealth and power early on. And in the context of my point, we don’t have traditional Tories in NZ. That’s an imported name that always seems a bad fit for here.

        • Once was Tim 7.1.1.1
          18 February 2015 at 9:36 pm

          Well we’ll have to agree to disagree. Not only was the name imported, but certain of the characteristics of the trad Tory were imported as well by many. I’m thinking of certain Wairarapa families amongst others – anxious to even speak with a plum in their mouths. There’s even an Eastern Suburbs Nat Minister of the “Crown” who aspires to it all. I once thought he was a reasonable sort of bloke but his fundamental dishonesty now astounds me.
          I agree with your distinction above between ‘the left’ and the ‘neo-liberal’, and I only wish I could be around to be able to look back on it all in its stupidity.

        • felix 7.1.1.2
          19 February 2015 at 8:04 pm

          “That’s an imported name that always seems a bad fit for here.”

          I thought so too, until I looked up the origins of the word. Seems a pretty good fit for the current crop of crooked cronyist cretins…

          http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Tory

    • yabby 7.2
      18 February 2015 at 7:52 pm

      Weka, they (old school conservatives) are still there in their tens of thousands working tirelessly within these charities, driving Cancer patients, standing on street corners collecting and in hundreds of unpaid areas as are those on the left. To suggest in any way that they don’t do charity is bizarre. Anyone who works within this area can tell you that society at large is represented in all it’s glorious, wonderfully generous, multi political and socially diverse glory.

      • weka 7.2.1
        18 February 2015 at 8:17 pm

        “To suggest in any way that they don’t do charity is bizarre.”

        Who has suggested that and how is it related to my comment?

        • yabby 7.2.1.1
          18 February 2015 at 9:53 pm

          You said:

          ” In the past we had people who were economically conservative but still valued the community and social services (ie it’s not all about money and the market). What’s happened to them?”

          My point is those people are still (like all members of our community) very much giving their time, have their hands in pockets and on hearts and work tirelessly . I don’t think one can say that people of any political meinung are less inclined to the concept of or working within charity organisations.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 7.3
      18 February 2015 at 9:43 pm

      That’s a very good question! There’s not really a party for the people who are generally in favour of a free market but with important social services protected.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.4
      18 February 2015 at 10:12 pm

      They’ve been dying off.

  8. Tracey 8
    18 February 2015 at 5:50 pm

    Remember when National increase the rebate for donations to 33%?

    Each time a person, rich or poor made a donation, the other taxpayers effectively get to refund a third.

    Key said this would make more people donate (and more money). I wonder if the donation figures reflect that or if the people who always donated still donated and some BIG donors got more back from the rest of us while not getting to choose which charities get supported.

    I don’t see how this will get passed… even this government can see how much it will upset their constituency

    • adam 8.1
      18 February 2015 at 7:37 pm

      If the rich can give to charity – Why can’t they just pay their bloody taxes…

      • Tracey 8.1.1
        18 February 2015 at 7:43 pm

        A friend of mine sits on a Trust which relies on donations. She observed that in times of economic downturn, the top earners close their wallets the fastest, faster by far than those who give $20

      • Murray Simmonds 8.1.2
        19 February 2015 at 7:29 am

        ‘If the rich can give to charity – Why can’t they just pay their bloody taxes…”?

        I guess, Adam, because the rich hand over far far less in donations than they would have to pay in tax if the damned tax system applied fairly and evenly on ALL citizens.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.2
      18 February 2015 at 10:16 pm

      It’s been my opinion for quite some time that giving to charity should not be tax deductible. As an individual you get to chose how to spend your money, not how to spend the countries money.

  9. The Murphey 9
    18 February 2015 at 5:59 pm

    Graham Capill worked for the police

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      18 February 2015 at 6:14 pm

      He was protected and encouraged by the authoritarian sadist faction in the National Party, just like Sabin.

  10. Adrian 10
    18 February 2015 at 7:21 pm

    Will this apply to that charity that Key donates all his salary to?

    • Tracey 10.1
      18 February 2015 at 7:44 pm

      which charity is that? Or is it still a secret?

      From 2008

      “ational Party leader John Key has vowed to donate “a good part” of his government pay to charity should he be New Zealand’s next Prime Minister.

      Key, named in this year’s Rich List as worth $50 million, said he was planning to give away a chunk of the $361,000 PM’s salary if his party won the upcoming election.

      The self-made multi-millionaire said he already donated money from the $224,500 a year he earned as opposition leader.

      “I already donate a good part of the pay I receive as Leader of the Opposition to charities and other good causes. I will continue that practice should I become Prime Minister,” Key, above, told Sunday News.

      Key wouldn’t elaborate on what charities he supported, nor how large a portion of his salary he donated. He said his “personal decision” was not something he wanted publicised. ”

      So “trust me” I guess is what it comes down to…

      • idlegus 10.1.1
        18 February 2015 at 7:50 pm

        This charity maybe? “We have of course always known about the golf game – John Key has previously said it came from Shi getting the winning bid at a “charity” auction.

        It turns out the “charity” was the National Party.” ”

        Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/opinion/patrick-gower/opinion-oravidas-56600-golf-photo-with-john-key-2014032009#ixzz3S4pKr84H

      • felix 10.1.2
        18 February 2015 at 10:44 pm

        Yeah it’s utter bullshit. What’s a “good part”? No one knows. What’s a “good cause”? No one knows.

        The only known fact of the matter is, as idlegus notes, that John Key considers the National Party a charity.

        Ps others have noted that given Key’s propensity for very very precise language that at first seems casual, he probably really did mean exactly what he said – that when he’s pm he’ll donate part of the pay he receives as Leader of the Opposition.

  11. disturbed 11
    18 February 2015 at 8:06 pm

    More FJK double speak Crosby Textor style eh!

  12. greywarshark 12
    18 February 2015 at 9:50 pm

    A local rowing club in Auckland has been told it isn’t to have charity status any more.

  13. TheContrarian 13
    18 February 2015 at 10:19 pm

    There are core services which must be run for the public good. And some of them cost money, and don’t make profit. But the state provides them to ensure some basic needs are met and some basic rights are protected.

    ^This

    • greywarshark 13.1
      19 February 2015 at 12:29 pm

      There are core services which must be run for the public good. And some of them cost money, and don’t make profit

      This is what we used to call governmento providing what we used to call services.

  14. Kriss X 14
    19 February 2015 at 8:11 pm

    If they want charity from the National Party, why don’t they put in a bunch of pokies.

    That seems to work pretty well.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.