In 2010, the High Court of Australia changed the landscape of Australian charity law forever, by handing down its decision inAid/Watch Inc v Federal Commissioner of Taxation. The broad rule against political purposes that had characterised Australian charity law since federation was repealed, and in its place, the High Court endorsed a much narrower rule against political purposes, opening the door for Australian charities to engage in advocacy and other political purposes in ways that had never been thought possible before.  In the federal Charities Act of 2013, this more accommodating approach to political purposes has been confirmed; and the new approach looks set to be a standing feature of Australian charity law, whether or not the Charities Act survives the coming months and years.

In New Zealand, the Supreme Court is set to hand down its decision in another landmark case about political purposes, In re Greenpeace. Emboldened by the Aid/Watch decision, Greenpeace has sought registration as a charity for the purposes of New Zealand law even though it has purposes that, according to the traditional rule against political purposes, are thought to be too political to be charitable.  In the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Greenpeace's arguments were refused, the Court stating that it was for the legislature to effect significant change to the rule against political purposes and that the constitutional basis of the reasoning in Aid/Watch - the High Court appealed to the implied constitutional freedom of political expression in reaching its decision - might not be relevant to New Zealand.  The Supreme Court heard argument in the Greenpeace case last August, but still has not handed down a decision.  When the decision comes, it is sure to be a landmark, whichever way it goes.  Either the Court will follow the path of the Australian High Court in Aid/Watch, in which case there will be a fundamental change to the charity law of New Zealand, or the Court will refuse to follow the Australian lead, in which case we may expect to see some reasoning challenging the High Court's approach in Aid/Watch. Hopefully, whatever the New Zealand Supreme Court decides, we in Australia will be left with a better understanding of the position taken in our own law on one of the most controversial aspects of modern charity law in both countries.