Q&A with Dr Juliet Chevalier-Watts
Ahead of the Charities & NFPs: Taxation and Employment Law, Reform, Regulation and Risk webinar taking place Wednesday, 10 September 2025, we spoke with Chair Dr Juliet Chevalier-Watts to explore the challenges facing the sector — from tax reform to governance, statutory duties, and the evolving definition of charitable purpose.
1. On sector-wide impact and reform
From your perspective, what do you see as the most significant risk or challenge currently facing the charities and not-for-profit sector as a result of ongoing reforms?
The New Zealand Government’s discussions around potential tax changes for charities are a key concern — especially where those changes may proceed without solid evidence of the negative consequences for the organisations affected. There’s a risk that decisions could be made without fully appreciating the operational and funding realities of the sector.
2. On the future of charities taxation
In your view, how might the proposed tax changes shift the traditional understanding of charitable purpose, especially around business income and donor control?
We’re seeing a shift where the Government, rather than established legal principles, is shaping the definition of charitable purpose. This introduces the potential for change based on political policy or short-term agendas, which can undermine long-standing legal clarity and introduce uncertainty for charities — particularly those engaging in business activities or managing donor expectations.
3. On governance and compliance
How do you interpret the new statutory duty under the Charities Amendment Act 2023 for reviewing governance procedures every three years? What practical impact will this have on boards?
While the duty appears straightforward, it could present practical difficulties. For organisations where officers rotate frequently or where governance knowledge is limited, carrying out these reviews may be challenging. There’s also ambiguity around how and where such reviews should be documented to ensure compliance.
My advice would be to formally record governance reviews and their outcomes during regular board meetings, or alternatively, convene a Special General Meeting (SGM) for that purpose. This ensures the process is transparent, traceable, and aligned with statutory requirements.
4. On court decisions and precedent
Several recent court decisions have reshaped how charitable purpose and advocacy are treated. Which cases do you believe have had the greatest influence, and why?
The most influential cases in New Zealand include the Supreme Court decisions in Greenpeace (2014) and Family First (2022), which have set strong precedents around advocacy and charitable status. The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Better Public Media Trust (2023) has also been significant in defining the boundaries of charitable purpose. Additionally, the High Court’s 2020 decision in Greenpeace provides important context for how courts are interpreting charitable activities that involve political engagement.
5. On board and leadership responsibilities
With growing pressure on boards to manage employment and reputational risks, how can NFP leaders practically prepare for increased scrutiny from both regulators and the public?
Transparency is critical. Boards should ensure their decision-making processes are objective, fully documented, and demonstrably compliant with legal obligations. This helps build internal accountability while reinforcing public trust. Ultimately, good governance — grounded in law and clear communication — is the best protection against reputational and regulatory risk.
if you want to explore this topic more, check out the Charities & NFPs: Taxation and Employment Law, Reform, Regulation and Risk webinar here.
Disclaimer: The statements, analyses, opinions and conclusions in Legalwise Insights are those of the respective authors and not of Legalwise Seminars Pty Ltd which acts only in the capacity as editorial co- ordinator of the content in Legalwise Insights. No part of any article can be regarded as legal or financial advice. Although all care has been taken in the preparation of all articles, readers must not alter their position or refrain from doing so in reliance on any information contained therein. Neither the respective authors nor Legalwise Seminars Pty Ltd accept or undertake any duty of care relating to any part of Legalwise Insights
Liability limited by a scheme approved under the Professional Standards Legislation.
