War Tax Resister In Court

On Wednesday, September 11th, a courtroom full of officials, laypeople,
supporters and family members at the Broadmeadows Magistrates Court listened
attentively as Wendy Orams explained that she was refusing to pay a portion
of her taxes because of her deeply held objection to militarism and war.
Wendy went on to argue that she had already paid her taxes by redirecting the
$444.70 owed to the Taxation Office to the Relief Society of Tigray to assist
in a water development project.

Throughout the initial part of the case the Magistrate, Mr. Pat Street was
concerned with the legal technicalities of the taxation law, but eventually
he realized that Wendy was not interested in opposing the matter on these
grounds. As reasons for her tax redirection Wendy cited her objections to
violence at any level, but particularly violence at the level of war,
profiteering from weapons sales, nuclear weapons strategies, and disgust at
Australia's complicity in the Gulf War. In a silent and attentive courtroom,
Wendy outlined statistical evidence from the Red Cross that of the twenty
million people to die in wars since the second world war, over ninety per
cent have been civilians. She also outlined information from the Harvard
Medical School which detailed the massive numbers of civilian deaths in the
Gulf, and the number of children who will still die due to crippled
infrastructure and shortages of food and medical supplies.

In reply to Wendy's evidence, Pat Street stated that it was beyond his
position to do anything and he was unable to implement the changes required
which was a matter for Government. In answer to this, Wendy stated that her
aim was not to change Government, but to take personal action in withdrawing
her cooperation and financial support for war through redirecting her taxes
to things that improve peoples lives. "As a mother these things (civilian and
child deaths) are real to me. I strongly object to my taxes paying for war. I
know there are laws that will go against me today but people must start
taking personal responsibility for the ways they support militarism," she
said.

In other evidence presented to the court, the representative of the Taxation
Office, Paul Rankin, presented a bill for court costs of $608.75. When
queried by the magistrate, he explained that the figure included $350.75 for
preparation, $167.00 barristers fee, and a $91.50 summons fee. On top of
court costs, an additional $37.38 was added, representing accumulated
interest on the amount owed (being charged at a rate of 15% per year.)

In handing down his judgement, the Magistrate was clearly sympathetic to
Wendy's case. Apart from a number of sympathetic remarks made, one concrete
indicator of this was a reduction of the court costs to $500.00.  In his
decision he ordered Wendy to pay her outstanding taxes as well as costs, and
granted her a stay of one month to do so. He finished by wishing her good
luck and "it was nice to meet you here today."

In further discussions with Paul Rankin it became clear that the moral
dilemma of prosecuting conscientious tax resisters was generating a level of
communication and dialogue within the bureaucracy of the Government
Solicitors office. Further than this, he commented that we were approaching
the campaign "the right way through high profile actions such as the water
tank action." Further highlights of the day included a court official who was
an army reservist requesting a copy of the At Ease alternative newsletter for
the military.

Wendy has no intentions of paying the outstanding tax and preparations are
now underway for the next steps that the Taxation Office may take in
attempting to reclaim the money. She is expecting a visit from the Sherriff's
office to ascertain whether she has any assets to seize, and supporters of
the War Tax campaign are preparing for any action by the Tax Office which
will present a whole range of possible options to nonviolently resist
confiscation of goods.
Brendan Condon