Charities and the Law: Are you up to date with the 2024 Changes
10 February 2025

Charities play a crucial role in making a positive impact in our communities, and the laws that govern them shape how effectively they can operate. If you are involved with a charity, it's important to stay informed about recent changes in the law. The ‘rulebook’ has been updated. 


The Charities Act 2005 (the Act) is the primary legislation that regulates how charities function in New Zealand. To maintain charitable status, officers of a charity must ensure compliance with the Act not only at the time of registration but continuously, including adhering to any changes in the law. 


The Act has been amended by the Charities Amendment Act 2023, which came into force in July last year, with further changes which took effect in July 2024. Here are some key updates: 


Expanded definition of officer 

Officers of a charity are responsible for ensuring the charity's purpose is fulfilled and its obligations are met. The definition of who qualifies as an officer has been broadened to include: 

  • Anyone (including a corporate body) in a position within the charity who can significantly influence major decisions. 
  • This applies regardless of the type of entity (e.g., trust, company, society) and the individual's title. The focus is on their influence, not their title. 
  • Officers now include trustees, members of the governing body, and roles like CEO, CFO, and general manager if they have substantial influence. 
  • Additional disqualification criteria now include convictions related to financing terrorism. 
  • The minimum age for officers has been lowered to 16, provided at least one officer is 18 or older. 


Governance review requirement 

Charities must now review their governance procedures at least every three years. This review should assess whether the deed, constitution, or rules are fit for purpose, help achieve the charity's goals, and comply with the Act. Key questions to consider include: 

  • Is the charitable purpose clear and still relevant? 
  • Are the current activities aligned with the purpose? 
  • Do the rules need updating to meet changing needs? 
  • Are conflicts of interest being managed appropriately? 

The review process is self-driven and can vary for each charity, but it must be documented. 



Consequences of serious wrongdoing 

Previously, serious wrongdoing by a charity or its officers led to deregistration. Now, the Charities Registration Board can disqualify the relevant officer without deregistering the charity. The definition of serious wrongdoing has been narrowed to include only offences punishable by imprisonment for two years or more, but still covers unlawful or corrupt use of funds and grossly negligent actions. 


Reporting and accounting standards 

Reporting requirements have been streamlined for very small charities, while larger charities face more rigorous obligations. All charities must file an annual return with Charities Services, including financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practice. The External Reporting Board (XRB) sets these standards. 

  • Tier 4 charities (annual expenses under $140,000) can use cash-based accounting. 
  • Tier 3 charities (annual expenses between $140,000 and $2,000,000) use accrual-based accounting. 
  • Larger charities (expenses over $2 million) continue to follow existing standards. 

 

Changes effective from 5 July 2024 

Further amendments came into effect on 5 July 2024, which aimed to streamline the appeals process, making it more accessible and less costly for charities to challenge decisions by the Charities Registration Board: 

  • Charities can appeal to the Taxation Review Authority before the High Court and can self-represent to save on legal costs. 
  • The scope of appealable decisions will expand to include significant decisions by Charities Services. 
  • The timeframe for lodging an appeal will extend to two months. 
  • Representatives of a charity can appear in person to speak to the Board on appeals. 

 

Staying informed about these changes is essential for ensuring your charity remains compliant and continues to make a positive impact in the community. If you have any questions or need assistance, consider seeking professional advice to navigate these updates effectively. 


Join our Newsletter

Stay tuned

Contact Us

"Custody" isn't actually a legal word in NZ anymore - here's what we say instead

20 September 2026
He taonga to mokopuna, kia whāngaia, kia tipu, kia rea - a child is a treasure, to be nurtured, to grow, to flourish. A common thing we hear from clients is "I want custody of my children." While most people understand what "custody" means, the reality is that custody is no longer a legal term used in New Zealand family law. In fact, the term was removed from our legislation more than 20 years ago. So, what changed? The Care of Children Act 2004 replaced the old concepts of "custody" and "access" with language that focuses more directly on children's needs and parental responsibilities. Instead of talking about custody, the Family Court now talks about: Day-to-day care (who the child lives with and who looks after them on a daily basis); and Contact (the time a child spends with a parent or other important person when they are not in that person's care). The change was intentional. The law moved away from language that can sound like a child is something to be "owned" or "won" by one parent. What does "day-to-day care" mean? Day-to-day care refers to the practical care of a child, including: Where the child lives; Their daily routine; School attendance; Meals, bedtime, and general supervision; and The everyday decisions involved in raising them. A parent can have: Sole day-to-day care; or Shared day-to-day care arrangements. There is no legal presumption that one parent should have day-to-day care over the other. The Court's focus is always on what is in the child's welfare and best interests. What about "contact"? What many people previously called "access" is now referred to as contact . Contact can take many forms, including: Weekend visits; School holiday time; Telephone calls; Video calls; Supervised contact; or Other arrangements that allow a child to maintain a relationship with an important person. The Court recognises that children generally benefit from having ongoing relationships with both parents, provided doing so is safe and in their best interests. Does this mean I can't say "custody"? Not at all. Many people still use terms like "custody," "shared custody," and "access" in everyday conversation, and most lawyers will understand exactly what you mean. However, if you're involved in Family Court proceedings, you'll hear terms such as: Day-to-day care Contact Guardianship Parenting orders These are the legal concepts that will appear in Court documents and orders. Why does the language matter? The shift away from "custody" reflects a broader change in how New Zealand family law views parenting after separation. Rather than focusing on which parent "gets" the child, the law focuses on: The child's welfare and best interests; Maintaining important relationships; Encouraging parents to work together where possible; and Ensuring children are protected from harm. Ultimately, Family Court decisions are not about determining a "winner" and a "loser." They are about creating arrangements that best support the child's wellbeing. As family lawyers , we offer advice, guidance and representation in family law matters, if you would like assistance or to talk to someone, contact us today. Written by: Eva Leutele
A designed graphic with a photo of Casey Hucker, and her name on a black background with red and white text

Spotlight on Casey Hucker | Property Lawyer

14 September 2026
Meet Casey Hucker, Property Law Partner at Willis Legal, dedicated to guiding clients through property law. Contact us for expert legal assistance today!
Close-up of a man's hands typing on a laptop

Risks of DIY legal documents drafted by AI

8 September 2026
The age of AI is rapidly changing many aspects of our lives, however, AI has perils for lay people using it to draft legal documents or obtain legal advice.
Show More