Who is funding anti-fluoridation High Court action?

I strongly suspect a number of organisations listed in the register of New Zealand charities just shouldn’t be there.  The Department of Internal Affairs provides facilities to search the charities register – it is worth doing if you have your suspicions.

Why is this important? Well, registration as a charity provides tax-free status to an organisation. In effect this means all taxpayers are subsidising their activities. While most of us are probably happy to subsidise genuine charities it goes against the grain when they are not genuine.

Here I will look at just one suspicious organisation – the New Zealand Health Trust.

The New Zealand Health Trust

This trust is in the news lately because last November it took a High Court case against  the South Taranaki District Council aiming for a judicial review over a decision to fluoridate water supplies in Patea and Waverley (see Chch group tests fluoridation push and Taranaki fluoride ruling ends up in court). [See Update below.] Such legal action is not cheap yet the New Zealand Health Trust is a registered charity so tax exempt. We are affectively subsidising the legal action – like it or not.

Fortunately, registration means that some information about the organisation and its finances must be provided and documents are available on the register. The New Zealand Health Trust registration details claim its purpose is education, training and research. It provides advice, information and advocacy with the main beneficiaries being the “general public.”

The trust deed (available on the register – rules.pdf) gives more detail – but still expressed in a very general way (I guess organisations like this want to keep their options open). Besides talk of promoting education and well-being, research, relief of poverty and the promotion of “other charitable objectives” the document declares some more relevant goals:

“5(e): encourage and provide opportunities for persons and corporate bodies within New Zealand to take an active interest in complementary health care products, devices, practices and services and general health research for prevention, diagnosis and treatment;”

And

“5(j): lobby decision making bodies on issues affecting the charitable purposes with a view to furthering the charitable purposes, and use such media campaigns and promotions as may assist;”

If you want to put 2 + 2 together, have a look at their web page. It soon becomes obvious the trust is a political lobbying organisation working to promote the interests of the industry selling “natural health products” and “health care products, devices, practices and services within New Zealand.”

So, New Zealand taxpayers are subsiding an industry lobby group, with commercial interests and aims. Inclusion of words like “health,” “natural” and “alternative” does not make it any different to any industry lobby group with commercial interests.

Have another look at the website and you will see this group has political as well as commercial aims. As well as working hard on fighting parliamentary consideration of  treating  natural health products as drugs (the ANZTPA Debate) it is also active in the following issues:

Yes – as taxpayers we are subsidising political activity on chemtrials, way-out medical procedures and a lot else. We are subsiding opposition to vaccines, genetic modification and aspartine.

We are also subsidising their expensive legal action to fight fluoridation.

Some finances

Registration as a charity requires annual financial returns and these are available on the register – from 2008 – 2013 for the New Zealand Health Trust. I  don’t have the financial literacy to understand these returns completely but details of their main sources of income and main expenses for each year are interesting. Here is a page from their 2013 return.

NZHT

Their main income was not from donations (sort of expect that with a charity) but from undefined “grants.” And their main expense was not the education, research or relief of poverty talked about in their deed document but “consultancy and legal expenses.” Nowhere in any of the returns could I see any expenses related to research, education or relief of poverty.

The plot below shows a lot of variability year to year in the size of the “grants” received and in their “consultancy and legal expenses” – completely consistent with their main purpose of lobbying on specific political issues and, for 2013 (and presumably 2014) the High Court case in South Taranaki.

NZHT-2

Where’s the money coming from

Unfortunately the financial returns don’t show that detail but the round numbers of 2011 and 2013 suggest single sources – and wealthy ones. (There was also a grant in 2010 of $534,521 which appeared to largely wipe out loans from a single person, P. D. Sloan, in earlier years.) Call me cynical but these “grants” look very much like payments from corporate companies for supporting their own commercial interests.

The Charities Register lists the sole officer of the trust as “New Zealand Health Limited” and the  Charitable Deed Trust lists the parties as:

“1. PATRICK DAVID SLOAN of Christchurch, Company Director (“the Settlor”)
2. NEW ZEALAND HEALTH LIMITED, a duly incorporated company having its Registered Office at Christchurch (“the Trustee”).”

Patrick David Sloan is listed as a director of several companies, including My Health Limited and NZ Essential Limited. A brief internet search showed Mr Sloan is director of a number of natural or alternative health companies. He has also been active in the anti-fluoridation movement – making a submission (all the way from Christchurch) to the Hamilton City Council fluoridation hearings (see Submission No: 1650 – Hamilton City Council).

My conclusion is that the trust is being financed by levys or contributions from the industry as a whole or individual companies in the alternative health industry. From the complex web of links between the directors and companies that I looked at briefly it could be that grants are made from just one or a few larger companies in behalf of the industry.

Incidentally, my interaction with anti-fluoridation activists and spokespersons also suggests a high proportion of people who work in this industry. Especially alternative health practitioners.

The NZ charities register

In recent years the Charities Commission and the Department of Internal Affairs have taken steps to clean up the register. A number of “charities” have been removed because they do not satisfy the criteria. I suggest that the New Zealand Health Trust should also be considered for removal.

I am sure that this Trust is not the only organisation getting tax exemption unfairly. Any organisation doing this should be exposed. This is not a judgment on an organisations aims – just that they should not have their work subsidised by the taxpayer if their aims are not genuinely charitable.

Perhaps more seriously, the presence of such commercial and political organisations on the New Zealand Charities Register brings the area of charities into disrepute.


Update: These articles refer to  “New Health New Zealand” as taking the legal action. To clarify – New Health New Zealand was created by the New Zealand Health Trust. See their note:

“New Health NZ Incorporated has been formed by the NZ Health Trust because our supporters can’t become members of a Trust.  New Health allows you to join up and show your support for the work of the NZ Health Trust in a way that costs you nothing, and imposes no obligation on you.

New Health acts alongside the NZ Health Trust as the voice for all NZ Consumers and the more members it has the more influence it will have.”

You can find details of this body on the Register of Incorporated Societies at the Companies Office. Their recent financial returns show no income and a net debt – they will obviously not be financing any legal action.

Similar articles

27 responses to “Who is funding anti-fluoridation High Court action?

  1. That is an excellent piece of detective work, Ken!

    Like

  2. Huge change in travel expenses 2012-2013, eleven grand one year to zero the next.
    Very odd.

    Like

  3. Certainly looks real dodgy, I wonder how much comes from FANNZ

    Like

  4. I can’t see anything coming from FANNZ – more going to them. Although probably not in a way that shows up in the finances. The fact that FANNZ has many people from the alternative health industry and certainly has that ideological orientation probably means that they are a useful propaganda wing but not a source of funds. As an incorporated society one can actually get a look at the FANNZ finances and I think they are pretty small bikkies.

    >

    Like

  5. In the US, the society of Science in Medicine is being formed and there is a membership fee involved. I wonder if something similar could be set up here in New Zealand or Australia.

    Like

  6. There’s already Friends of Science in Medicine in Australia (http://www.scienceinmedicine.org.au/), and we had the founder, Loretta Marron, talk at the Skeptics Conference last year. Maybe an NZ branch of FSM (an unfortunate acronym!) could be setup?

    Like

  7. Now that would be an organisation genuinely deserving of Charitable status…

    Like

  8. Do Friends of Science in Medicine lobby on behalf of corporate pharma companies? Just a thought

    Like

  9. Speaking of scumbags hiding behind front organisations, my fears regarding the integrity of climate cranks who took NIWA to court appear to have been accurate.

    Gareth at Hot Topic reports

    The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET), the body established three years ago to bring a legal case against the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), has been put into liquidation without paying the costs awarded against it after its case failed — confirming my suspicion when the trust was formed that it had been created purely to protect the litigants from the consequences of a failed action. The NZCSET owes NIWA at least $89,238.90, but Steve Kilgallon at the Sunday Star Times reports that no monies have been paid:

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-climate-cranks-trust-folded-brill-et-al-try-to-escape-justice/

    Like

  10. Pack of cynical bastards. Just what many people expected but still surprising to see it happen.

    Look forward to the liquidator’s report this week. Hope it get plenty of press coverage.

    >

    Like

  11. Andy,

    You sound like you want to help out…if your worried about your links to BigPharma, they may not want you though…

    “Please include a declaration of any vested interests eg links with the pharmaceutical or alternative medicine industries, alternative medicine societies, associations etc, integrative medicine groups, financial interests in alternative medicine diagnostic or therapeutic equipment, medicines or interventions, including their wholesale or retail marketing or their application”

    http://www.scienceinmedicine.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140&Itemid=140

    Like

  12. If NIWA decides not to pursue Dunleavy, Leyland and Brill for restitution of its legal costs, then the NZ taxpayer will have to pick up the bill.

    Yep.

    Like

  13. Why don’t you do some REAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATIVE research into how much TAX PAYERS MONEY is been SQUANDERED by the MINISTRY of HEALTH & each of it’s DHB’s?

    & who of it’s EMPLOYEES & PARLIAMENTARIANS both past & present have a financial interest in the services & products that are supplied to & SUBSIDISED by US the TAXPAYERS?!

    Like

  14. Pingback: Are taxpayers funding political and commercial campaigns? | Homepaddock

  15. Sue, let me put that back on you – why don’t you do some unbiased investigation into this fiel?. I am sure there is plenty of scope to find cases of exploitation of the public sector by private companies and practioners. And the research results will be useful.

    In this case I have concentrated on just one example of an organisation which is ripping off taxpayers by getting tax exemption it should not be. A particular interest of mine.

    I take it that you actually have no disagreement with either my analysis or conclusions as you made no specific criticisms.

    Like

  16. I think NZ is the only country that allows TV commercials for prescription drugs.

    These drugs are funded by the taxpayer. They actually say “fully funded” on the ads.

    Like

  17. Why don’t you do some…

    Sadly, Sue, your allcaps button seems to be partly broken. For real legitimacy on the internet, it’s got to be all in allcaps.
    For example:

    “Why don’t you do some REAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATIVE…”

    See? Less that 50% was in allcaps. let’s correct that.

    “WHY DON’T YOU DO SOME REAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATIVE…”

    Yet by adding more allcaps, now your missive looks far more sane and rational. It virtually reeks of seriousiness and truthy.
    Of course, for that extra dash of gravitas, one more thing could be added.
    That’s right.
    Bold cap.

    “WHY DON’T YOU DO SOME REAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATIVE…”

    Hope that helps.
    Kthxbai.

    Like

  18. Speaking of “Alternative Medicine” underwriting the anti-fluoride campaign, I noticed in yesterday’s South Taranaki Star, a guy called Bill Hazeldine wrote a krazy Krazy letter comparing fluoride to a “war crime” and suggesting that the local body is lacing drinking water with a banned chemical weapon.
    http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/bill-hazeldine/28/879/aaa

    A search of linkedin reveals a “Bill Hazeldine” is an “Owner” of an alternative medicine business, Neways International, located in the Bay of Plenty…the same person…??
    I doubt the “owner” but maybe a distributor…?
    http://www.neways.co.nz/home.aspx

    Like

  19. Mark, I am a member of the Australian friends of science in medicine. But unfortunately, fluoride isn’t on their books right now. They are too busy hunting down the anti vaccers etc. although I think we all know that the anti F brigade are generally a sub species of the crystal gazing, alt health mvt.

    Like

  20. Actually, the more educated group is the anti=fluoride group because they at least know the difference between SODIUM fluoride and the acid fluoride that is put into the water (which is fertilizer waste) – 2 completely different animals that the PRO – lobby can’t seem to figure out.

    Like

  21. Ian, care to explain what the “acid fluoride” you refer to is? And what the relevance of your unwarranted claim is to the subject of this article – the industry funding of the anti-fluoride high court action?

    I personally have found an appalling ignorance of the chemistry involved in fluoridation amongst the anti-fluoride activists.

    Like

  22. seems someone is running through the anti,s websites looking for your answer

    Like

  23. We are dealing with morons here.

    Like

  24. Pingback: Corporate backers of anti-fluoride movement lose in NZ High Court. | Open Parachute

  25. Pingback: Prime-time Dishonesty from Anti-Fluoride Group | Zeitung für Katzen

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s