Formal Request For Review and Deregistration of the Ethos Alliance - Urgent Concerns Regarding Charitable Purpose

Paul Thistoll
CEO
Rights Aotearoa

Tuesday, 10 June 2025

Charlotte Stanley
General Manager
Charity Services | Ngā Ratonga Kaupapa Atawhai
Department of Internal Affairs | Te Tari Taiwhenua
Via email

Tēnā koe Ms Stanley,

RE: FORMAL REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND DEREGISTRATION OF THE ETHOS ALLIANCE CHARITABLE TRUST (CC61832) – URGENT CONCERNS REGARDING CHARITABLE PURPOSE

Summary of Request

We respectfully request that Charity Services:

• Initiate a formal investigation into The Ethos Alliance Charitable Trust (CC61832)
• Assess its activities in light of the Supreme Court decision in Attorney-General v Family First New Zealand and the 2006 Crown Law Opinion concerning the status of gender in s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993
• Conclude that its purposes are non-charitable
• Proceed with deregistration

1. Introduction

This letter formally requests that Charity Services | Ngā Ratonga Kaupapa Atawhai conduct an immediate and comprehensive review of The Ethos Alliance Charitable Trust (Charity Registration No. CC61832) ("Ethos Alliance" or "the Trust"). Based on the evidence and legal analysis presented herein, we submit that Ethos Alliance should be deregistered under the Charities Act 2005 ("the Act") on the grounds that its actual activities and advocacy are inconsistent with a charitable purpose under section 5 of the Act.

We acknowledge that deregistration is a serious action, undertaken only in clear cases of non-compliance. However, the evidence regarding Ethos Alliance's operations presents such a clear case. This request is not predicated on mere disagreement with Ethos Alliance's views, but on established legal principles recently affirmed by New Zealand's highest court, matters of regulatory consistency, and the protection of public benefit.

The two principal grounds for this request are:

1.        Ethos Alliance exhibits the same legal and operational defects that led the Supreme Court of New Zealand to uphold deregistration of Family First New Zealand in Attorney-General v Family First New Zealand [2022] NZSC 80.

2.        Ethos Alliance's advocacy, particularly targeting transgender people, is discriminatory and seeks to undermine existing human rights protections, most notably those affirmed in the 2006 Crown Law Opinion regarding section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA). The Chief Legal Officer of the Human Rights Commission confirmed to me as recently as two months ago that the Commission's current position remains that gender identity is included under the 'sex' ground in the HRA.

2. The Ethos Alliance: Stated Objects Versus Actual Operational Focus

2.1 Mission and Framing

Ethos Alliance describes its mission as promoting "rights of conscience, religion and belief". It purports to support "Kiwis of all faiths" whilst acknowledging a "Christian starting point which motivates all that we do." This inherent tension between a purported universalist mission and a specific religious motivation warrants careful scrutiny, as the latter appears to be the dominant driver of its public policy advocacy.

2.2 Public Statements and Leadership

The Trust's CEO, Mr Alex Penk, is a former CEO of the conservative think tank Maxim Institute. He openly affirms a conservative Christian worldview, referencing thinkers like Roger Scruton and appearing regularly on conservative media platforms. In a Free Speech Union podcast discussing the Law Commission's paper on amending the Human Rights Act, Mr Penk referred to gender identity advocacy as a "weaponisation of a subjective definition of identity," whilst also making false claims about gender-questioning youth. His commentary is directly relevant to discerning the Trust's ideological alignment.

2.3 Core Activities and Outputs

·       "Students and Social Transition: A gender identity policy guide for New Zealand schools" (April 2024): Distributed to all New Zealand schools, this guide promotes a "watchful waiting" approach, dismisses the affirmative model, and omits or distorts supporting evidence. Rights Aotearoa maintains that this approach qualifies as a conversion practice under the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.

·       Submission on Ia Tangata (Human Rights Act Review): Opposed inclusion of gender identity in the HRA and called for broad exceptions to protections against misgendering and deadnaming. This amounts to advocating for legalised discrimination.

·       Commentary on Puberty Blockers: Relies on the discredited Cass Review and detransition narratives, with no presentation of balanced medical evidence.

·       Advocacy for Conscientious Objection: Seeks expansive rights for objectors, with minimal concern for patient access to abortion or other lawful services.

·       Defence of Religious Charitable Status: Promotes a model linking public good to Christianity, reinforcing its theological framework.

·       Legal Alliance: Operates a network providing advice and referrals for cases aligning with conservative Christian perspectives on "conscience, religion and belief".

The cumulative pattern reveals a strategic campaign to protect conservative Christian conscience claims by undermining rights of others, particularly transgender people and women. Despite its use of "human rights" language, its work consistently favours a narrow constituency.

3. Failure to Meet Charitable Purpose: Legal Analysis Based on Family First

The Supreme Court's decision in Family First provides the definitive legal framework for assessing Ethos Alliance's charitable status. The judgment clarified that:

• Purpose Ascertainment: An entity's true purposes are determined by examining its actual activities, not merely its stated objects.
• Advancement of Education: This purpose requires activities to be genuinely educational, characterised by balance, objectivity, and not serving as a "disguise for advocacy".
• Other Matter Beneficial to the Community: Discriminatory purposes are incompatible with charity; advocacy that disadvantages specific groups is not for the public benefit.
• Advocacy Standards: Justice Williams emphasised that advocacy must be "fair, balanced and respectful".
• Non-Charitable Political Purposes: An entity with independent political purposes that are not merely ancillary to a charitable purpose will not qualify.

3.1 Deficient Educational Purpose

Ethos Alliance's materials, particularly its school guide, fail to meet the standard of charitable education. The Supreme Court found that Family First's "purpose (exhibited by its trust deed and activities) crossed the line between education and advocacy. Its research reports lacked the balance that is required to further an educative purpose."

Similarly, the "Students and Social Transition" guide presents a one-sided argument for "watchful waiting," selectively citing evidence that supports its predetermined position whilst omitting robust evidence supporting affirming models of care. The guide contains deliberate misinformation, particularly regarding "social contagion" - a concept with no scientific validity in the context of gender dysphoria. This precisely mirrors the defects in Family First's materials.

3.2 Discriminatory Purpose

The Supreme Court held that Family First's "purposes are discriminatory - it advocates for measures to prefer the traditional family to the disadvantage of others. Any benefits of securing those outcomes would likely be outweighed by resulting detrimental effects. Even more fundamentally, purposes involving discriminatory elements are not compatible with charity."

Ethos Alliance's advocacy disadvantages transgender individuals by:

• Opposing explicit protections for gender identity
• Seeking exceptions for harmful behaviours like misgendering and deadnaming
• Promoting school policies that would deny transgender students equal treatment
• Framing transgender rights as threats to religious freedom

3.3 Political Advocacy on Contentious Issues

The Court found that Family First's "engagement with issues such as abortion, assisted dying, prostitution and censorship were not subsets of its wider purpose... They are free-standing political objects about which there are differing views in society. For such issues, it is not possible for the Court to determine whether the views promoted are publicly beneficial or otherwise charitable."

Ethos Alliance's core activities involve similarly contentious political issues:

• Gender identity in schools
• Human rights law reform concerning transgender people
• Policies around puberty blockers
• Conscientious objection in abortion contexts

These are not ancillary to a charitable purpose but free-standing ideological goals.

3.4 Legal Facilitation and Strategic Litigation

The Trust's operation of a "legal alliance" that supports litigation consistent with its worldview presents another concern. This network provides "expert advice and assistance on cases" specifically aligned with conservative Christian perspectives. Published case notes selectively highlight judgments (For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, Butcher v NZ Transport Authority, Hardie and Brant v NZLS) in ways that reinforce their ideological viewpoints.

This facilitation of legal action, focused on advancing a particular viewpoint in contentious socio-legal debates, struggles to meet the definition of a charitable purpose. It serves a partisan rather than a public benefit.

3.5 Advocacy Lacking Fairness, Balance, and Respect

Justice Williams stated in his concurring judgment that "Family First's advocacy is not fair, balanced or respectful, so its advocacy is not charitable."

Mr Penk's public statements referring to the "weaponisation of identity" and the tone of key documents fail this test. The guide misrepresents research, promotes discredited theories, and frames trans rights as threatening. The language in the Ia Tangata submission describing gender identity as "unstable" and not an "objective category" can reasonably be characterised as disrespectful and dismissive of transgender people's identities and lived experiences.

3.6 Comparison Table: Parallels Between Ethos Alliance and Family First

4. Public Detriment and the Erosion of Existing Rights

A particularly grave concern is that Ethos Alliance's advocacy actively seeks to undermine human rights protections understood to be extant for transgender New Zealanders. The 2006 Crown Law Opinion concluded that "discrimination on the ground of gender identity is covered by the prohibition against sex discrimination" in section 21(1)(a) of the HRA.

Against this legal backdrop, Ethos Alliance's advocacy appears as a direct assault on these existing rights:

·       Its Ia Tangata submission arguing against codification of protections and calling for exceptions that would legitimise misgendering and deadnaming attempts to prevent the strengthening of these rights and create legally sanctioned avenues for discrimination.

·       The school guide advocates for practices that would constitute unlawful discrimination by denying transgender students equal treatment regarding names, pronouns, and facilities access.

·       Public commentary questioning the validity of gender identity contributes to an environment where erosion of fundamental rights becomes more conceivable.

Advocating for the removal or weakening of existing human rights protections constitutes significant public detriment, not benefit. Such advocacy fosters discrimination, undermines social cohesion, and can lead to tangible harm. This is fundamentally incompatible with charitable purpose.

The strategic deployment of "conscience" by Ethos Alliance serves not merely as a shield for individual belief, but as a primary mechanism to challenge and curtail the established rights of specific groups. This instrumentalisation of "conscience" for broader political aims parallels how Family First utilised "family values" to promote a discriminatory agenda.

Whilst we cannot provide definitive evidence, Ethos Alliance's ideological positions and tactics appear to reflect transnational political movements rather than grassroots New Zealand needs. If its agenda is significantly influenced by international ideological goals, its claim to serve genuine local public benefit becomes substantially weaker.

5. Conclusion and Formal Request

The evidence demonstrates that:

• Ethos Alliance's actual activities are ideological advocacy, not charitable education or advancement of religion in the legal sense.
• Its work is one-sided, discriminatory, and focused on eroding others' rights.
• It fails the tests of balance, objectivity, fairness, respect, and public benefit.
• The parallels with Family First are too stark to ignore.

Charity Services should not permit an entity with these characteristics to retain charitable status. Doing so would undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Charities Register and cause serious public detriment by harming vulnerable communities.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that Charity Services:

1. Immediately initiate a full and thorough investigation into The Ethos Alliance Charitable Trust (CC61832);
2. Give due consideration to the evidence and legal arguments presented, particularly in light of the Family First judgment and the 2006 Crown Law Opinion;
3. Conclude that the Trust does not meet the legal standard for charitable status;
4. Proceed with deregistration.

We remain available to provide further evidence or clarification. We trust that Charity Services will give this request its fullest attention.

Ngā mihi nui,

Paul Thistoll
CEO
Rights Aotearoa