Ian Henke has been a pilot, script writer, documentary producer and undertaken various academic pursuits but the most significant activity for the purposes of this paper is of having worked for the Victorian Parliament as a researcher for the Minister for Minerals and Energy. His research skills were honed by examining legislation, and in one case effecting 149 amendments to a single Bill. About 15 years ago Mr Henke, with brother-in-law Dr Frank Coningham noted physicist and mathematician, conducted extensive research into the status of the Australian Constitution finding that it remains but a clause within a current Act of Domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and that, contrary to common belief, ultimate control over it does not lie with the Australian people. Rather it remains with the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Being most thorough these men collected confirmations of their discoveries from sources as varied as Australian archives, copies of Hansard, both UK and Australian, Vic-regal documents from within Australia, original records of the Versailles Peace Conference, correspondence with various organs of the UN, with the UK Lord Chancellor, and academics around the world. On their findings Mr Henke spoke publicly emphasising the need for change, for the creation of a constitution owned by the Australian people and a taxation system that those same people had agreed to be part of. And, all in all, that by continuing to use a British law requiring politicians to swear an oath of allegiance to the United Kingdom that they may rule the Commonwealth of Australia, politicians were denying the Australian People the most fundamental of human rights, the right of self determination. Ian Henke is far from being a radical. While he is fully aware that no government in Australia represents in international law terms, the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, he has always respected the need to use and abide the laws and the courts that are in place. Indeed he and others have used these in attempts to have the nation’s governmental, judicial and taxation system brought into line with internationally recognised human rights principles. He has demonstrated that the current system has contributed to the demise of our manufacturing industry forcing big business offshore and that those multinational firms who chose to function in Australia do so largely without making a proportional contribution to the running of the nation leaving the burden to be carried by wage earners. Through his advocacy, he became a hero to people badly treated by bureaucracy for it is popularly understood that Australia is a lucky country for those who ride in the centre lane – woe betide anyone who ends up in the gravel. He was encouraged by two Queensland financial advisers to set up a business using his knowledge and research skills to assist people whose lives had been imploded by excessive taxation assessments and offensive treatment by certain ATO officers. His reluctance to agree changed when a fellow who conducted a reconditioned office furniture business around the corner from the knitwear factory where Ian was a director, came in to sell a reception desk. This man complained that the ATO had assessed him as receiving $150,000 in cash turnover – from repainting old filing cabinets? The Institute of Taxation Research (ITR) was established, in Victoria, to focus on the ATO’s often irregular interpretation of, and administration of, existing laws and regulations. At all times during the operation of the Institute of Taxation Research, Ian insisted that clients operate through the courts and file proper tax returns That was his mantra. Among the successes of ITR was on behalf of a group of pilots who had entered into a tax minimization scheme initially approved by the ATO but on changing and backdating the decision tax assessment bills of $700,000 and more were received by some pilots. This decision reversal caused, for many commercial pilots, severe stress. Several pilots were stood down having failed regular flight simulator tests several suicides resulted and marriage break-ups occurred. Research has produced an understanding relating to the question of why some ATO officers, and others, seemed to pursue individuals with untoward tenacity, personal aggressiveness and even vindictiveness. An examination of Agreement 98 section B ie: “ATO (Executive Level 2) Agreement 1998 Section B. Classification and Remuneration seems to offer an answer. This agreement dated 1998, spells out that Executive Level 2 officers are entitled to performance bonuses of 5%, 10% or 15% of their base salary payable solely on recommendation of the senior executive responsible for the office of their employment. Such an arrangement clearly creates an avenue for personal involvement for personal gain which, in turn, paves the way for irregular practices to occur. Such as the sharing of these bonuses with others both junior and senior to the recipient and even with others who might assist in the raising of more revenue than was anticipated. Those who know Ian Henke and his work well, have a powerful belief that he has been and is now is a victim of vindictive actions. The pilots case involved many hundreds of millions of dollars. ATOs defeat in these cases cost its officers their anticipated bonuses. And so some 10 years ago, a witch hunt began. The ATO used the Federal Police to try to link the ITR operation with ‘bottom of the harbour schemes aiming to shut it down fearing risk to the revenue Hardly making a dint in the gross injustice of the system, there was no risk. The ATO could not conceive that ITR was based on idealism. As a consequence of this a˜witch hunt ITR business premises and ITR directors homes were raided. Even the flat of a 20-year-old secretary was raided by an all male squad at 6am! The girl was held for 12 hours for questioning incommunicado and severely traumatized. She was not even permitted to shower and dress privately. This brutish behaviour was most clearly totally unwarranted. This was raised during the trial pre-hearing but suppressed for the jury at the trial. So 10 years later Ian Henke found himself in a Queensland court being tried along with two defendants neither of whom he had previously met or had business dealings. So it is clear to even the casual observer that something farcical has occurred in the Queensland Supreme Court. During this trial before Mullins J. for ‘conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth evidence was given that the ATO received $23million more than it claimed was owed. When proceedings began there were claims Ian Henke had ˜missing millions. The figure started out at $100m, then $20m, then $2.5m. The only figure finally produced was $145,000 The amount he and his wife loaned the company to move offices plus a company credit card debt. The Federal police officer giving evidence produced their bank accounts showing the money coming in, but not those for the previous six months, showing the money going out. The Henkes live simply in a modest fibro house. There are no missing millions – as the regular examinations of their bank accounts show. Defending himself, Ian Henke was not permitted by the judge to cross-question the officer about this. Neither was he permitted to question another co-accused on his claim that there was an ‘ITR group of companies which there never was, resulting in Ian Henke being misidentified with misdeeds in Vanuatu. Ian Henke was not permitted by the judge to cross-question the officer This trial was conducted as an E-trial, meaning that all documented evidence was presented electronically. This meant that Ian Henke, staying with friends near Ipswich, had no access to the 10s of thousands of pages presented between the rising of the court in the afternoon and its reconvening at 10.30am the following day. The Ipswich area had been affected by floods and was unable to access the internet. And of course in a criminal case such as this all aspects of presented documents need to be able to be authenticated, ie. for accuracy of wordings and for originality of signatures and seals. Further more this was a trial involving Commonwealth law and no Commonwealth law exists to permit e-trials for criminal matters. This fact alone should be enough to declare this a mis-trial. Then, following the judges summary telling the jury, amongst other things, to look overseas for misdoing not in Australia – the prosecutor shook hands with one of the defence barristers, congratulating him on running a good case, assuming he had won. When the jury came back with all three guilty, the bailiff looking after the jury came to Huston, one of the accused, in tears, saying; Im terribly sorry, this shouldnt have happened, something untoward happened in the jury room. When Ian Henke suggested Huston write down everything the bailiff said to give to his barrister for the judge, the barrister apparently replied I cant do that, its not the Queensland way! What kind of show is being run up there? Did the bailiff report what she heard to the judge? If not why not! It is understood that there has been an issue in Queensland relating to juries being made up of people who are unemployed and who dont understand complex financial issues such as this case has been. There has been serious miscarriage of justice here! Ian Henkes sole role in a scheme run by a long since deceased business partner (with business connections overseas of which Henke was unaware) was to acquire a distinguished Sydney QCâC s opinion on its legitimacy. Instead he has been cast as the architect of the scheme and given the longest sentence of the three. That is four years with one year to be served non parole and, out of his home State. youtube/watch?v=krx1ZAssbWY
Posted on: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:45:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015