The Beginning Of The End? An Update On Robert Burrowes' War Tax Resistance Campaign Background In the 1989 October/November issue of Nonviolence Today (no.11, p.21) I reported on Robert Burrowes' trial in the Melbourne Magistrates Court for his refusal to pay, in legal tender, the amount in taxes that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation claimed he owed the Commonwealth of Australia. About 10% of the Government's budget is allocated to military spending. Since the 1982-1983 tax year Robert has redirected all or part of his taxes to nonviolent and other development causes as both a matter of conscience and as a protest against this expenditure. Unsurprisingly Robert's defence that he had attempted to pay his taxes in a constructive, rather than destructive, way by presenting the Tax Office with trees and shovels was not viewed with great sympathy. Nor was his argument that he should be released from liability on the accepted grounds of "serious hardship" when he insisted that the violation of the dictates of his conscience would cause hardship of the most serious kind. Robert was ordered to pay the amounts deemed owing plus a further hefty amount in court costs. The story, however, did not end there. Robert ignored the court's directive and the following year, with Koori solidarity activist Brendan Condon, "paid" his taxes in Aboriginal land (see NVT no.16, pp.6-7). The Proposed High Court Challenge As the refusal to pay "military taxes" became more popular (see for example NVT no.14, p.5; no.16, p.7; no.17, p.9), Robert and a group of sympathetic lawyers set about investigating the constitutional validity of the Income Tax Assessment Act. They were working towards a possible High Court challenge on the grounds that s.51 of the Constitution requires taxes to be collected for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. It was envisaged that a constitutional challenge would be based on two key principles: 1. Nuclear weapons and strategy are illegal. Under neither Australian nor international law does the government have the power to require taxpayers to finance illegal acts such as the Australian government's complicity in the nuclear strategy of the U.S. 2. Legal duty. There is no law, national or international, which grants the government the "right" to deny taxpayers the right to refuse to obey orders which conflict with their consciences, and this includes orders to financially support the nuclear arms race. As research started clarifying the issues, it became clear that the Australian High Court does not look behind the motives of legislation; that is how taxes are spent. This, in effect, means that even if the Court was convinced that nuclear strategy was illegal, it does not alter the validity of tax legislation. By challenging the tax legislation, it appeared, that the argument would not get heard. This left the argument that tax money was being spent on an illegal activity: the issue being one of appropriation rather than taxation. But with each clarification of the legal position new problems were revealed: as a general rule only States and the State Attorneys-General, not individuals, have standing to bring a legal action on the question of appropriation. It became increasingly obvious that even if nuclear weapons and strategy were held to be contrary to customary international law it would be very difficult to link this with Australian domestic law in the absence of direct incorporation through some form of legal or political ratification. Further, even if customary international law was found to be part of the law of the land it would almost certainly be considered to be superseded by domestic statutes. In addition to the above consideration, at the final meeting of the High Court challenge group, held on 25 March 1991, legal counsel presented the conclusion that Robert would only have standing by way of his conscientious objection to tax payment and that there is no legal connection between this and the appropriation for military spending, which is a separate executive act. Finally, a recent High Court decision established that the words "peace, order and good government" were not words of limitation and so could not be used to strike down legislation on the ground that it did not promote "peace, order and good government". Given the above, after nineteen months of meetings, research and preparation of the legal brief, the group decided to abandon the High Court challenge. To tax resistance activists it became clear that the legal system is structured in a way as to preclude such challenges to state authority. Further Developments This, of course, was not the end of matters. There was still Robert's outstanding tax liability, and a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation determined to recover it. Over the years the amount in question had grown to now total over $8,000: $ Resisted war taxes 3,723.95 Resisted interest 3,173.32 Resisted court costs 1,113.00 Resisted late fee 20.00 Total 8,030.27 The Taxation Office was busy from the start. Robert had received several letters requesting payment and been interviewed before, on 6 March 1984, his bank accounts had been emptied. The Deputy Commissioner recouped $36.19. On 11 February 1986 a Default Summons was issued but withdrawn because Robert was overseas. Another, three and a half years later, led to the case in the Magistrates' Court on 7 August 1989. At about the same time unsuccessful attempts were made to garnishee Robert's wages from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. By way of remarkable coincidence, on his arrival home from the last High Court challenge meeting, Robert received a 'Bankruptcy Notice' from the Australian Taxation Office. The notice made it clear that if the claimed sum of $7,729.55 was not paid within fourteen days, bankruptcy proceedings may be taken against him. Although two weeks have elapsed, at the time of writing, bankruptcy proceedings had not yet commenced. Conclusion Although it is clear that legal cases will not succeed in court (or even get there, in the case of our highest court, if initiated by individuals rather than being brought against them), they are a useful tactic in the nonviolent revolution. Further, for the more constitutionally minded, the publicity generated by tax refusal and the ensuing legal proceedings, can help to keep efforts such as Jo Vallentine's Private Member's Bill to allow for a percentage of the income tax of those who conscientiously object to war and preparations for war, to be paid into a Peace Trust Fund (for more information contact Lobby for Peace, PO Box 137, West Perth, 6005). In order to ensure that publicity helps rather than hinders the cause, even before judicial proceedings commence, the philosophy behind the refusal to pay military taxes needs to be clearly thought through for press and defence statements. How do you answer those who want to withhold the part of their taxes that goes to unemployment benefits, to assist the poor in the Third World or to fund conservation groups? (read J.Dignan A Right to Tax Diversion? The State and the Citizen in J.Dewar, A.Paliwala, S.Picciotto and M.Ruete eds. Nuclear Weapons, The Peace Movement and the Law Macmillan, London 1986, pp.89-111). The Burrowes' tax resistance saga can serve as a useful guide to what can be expected by those contemplating military tax refusal. The ultimate lesson seems to be that the Taxation Office will not (cannot) just ignore you and so tax refusal should not be undertaken lightly. Perhaps in addition to nonviolence, a commitment to non-possession could prove useful! (For general information on how to go about military tax resistance read E.Hedemann ed. Guide to War Tax Resistance War Resisters League, London, 1986,1988; and R.Burrowes "Peace Tax" Chain Reaction, Spring 1988, p.32). Thomas Weber