dc.contributor.author |
Norton, Jane |
en |
dc.date.accessioned |
2018-10-11T02:52:51Z |
en |
dc.date.issued |
2018-03 |
en |
dc.identifier.issn |
0028-8373 |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/40802 |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
This article discusses the difficulty – both practically and constitutionally – of assessing public benefit in relation to controversial organisations. It argues that this difficulty has been exacerbated by the New Zealand Supreme Court’s rejection of the political purpose doctrine in its Greenpeace decision. It argues that the recent deregistration of Family First exposes the weaknesses in that judgment. Without recourse to the bright-line rule of the political purpose doctrine, decision-makers must assess the public benefit of controversial organisations engaged in law reform advocacy. This poses challenges for institutional competence and constitutional legitimacy. |
en |
dc.description.uri |
http://www.lexisnexis.com/nz/legal/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T27334363798&random=0.267148673476318 |
en |
dc.publisher |
Elsevier |
en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
New Zealand Law Journal |
en |
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. |
en |
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
en |
dc.title |
Controversial charities and public benefit |
en |
dc.type |
Journal Article |
en |
pubs.issue |
2 |
en |
pubs.begin-page |
64 |
en |
dc.rights.holder |
Copyright: The author |
en |
pubs.end-page |
68 |
en |
pubs.publication-status |
Published |
en |
dc.rights.accessrights |
http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Article |
en |
pubs.elements-id |
733310 |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Law |
en |
pubs.org-id |
Faculty Administration Law |
en |
pubs.record-created-at-source-date |
2018-03-27 |
en |