INVERELL FORUM 2005
Friday 11 March
2.00 to 6.00 pm: Malcolm McClure and Eve
Hilary; Common Law Workshop
7.30 to 9.30 pm: Senator Len Harris
Saturday 12 March
7.45 to 8.50 am Registration
8.50 am Welcome, Notices
9.10
John Rivett
10.10 Open Session
10.30 Morning Tea
11.00 Tony
Pitt
12.00 pm Peter Taubert
12.35
Bevan O'Regan
1.00 Lunch
2.10
Brett Dawson
3.10
Dennis Stevenson
3.40
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
4.00 Afternoon Tea
4.30
Viv Stott
5.35 Open Session
6.00 Close
7.00 Assembly for
those booked in for the dinner for a 7.30 pm start.
Sunday 13 March
7.45 to 8.50 am Registration
8.50 am Opening
9.00
Eve Hillary
10.00 Open Session
10.30 Morning Tea
11.00 Malcolm McClure
12.05 pm Jeremy Lee
1.00 Lunch
2.10 Tony
Pitt
2.45 Sandy
Thorne
3.55 Sandy
Stevenson
4.40 Close
Afternoon Tea
Monday 14 March
GET TOGETHER / SOCIAL DAY / BARBECUE LUNCH from 9 am to 6 pm
Speaker information Top Home Contents
By
Peter Wilkinson. Editor of The
Independent Australian
An
unusual forum in an unexpected place, run by people of talents
not widely recognized, where you can hear information ignored by
the mainstream media. Not easy to get to except by car, but well
worth a visit. Some impressions of the 2005 forum from your
Editor.
WHERE? WHAT? HOW? WHEN?
Inverell
is in
Inverell is an important service centre for surrounding
agriculture and, as usual, the power brokers centre around the
National Party and Rotary (the voters prefer Independent MP, Tony
Windsor, interviewed in Winter 2004, Issue 3).
The Inverell Forum is where unorthodox opinions, rarely
given a mention in the mainstream media, can be expressed and
receive an audience. The Forum receives no recognition or mention
from the town power brokers, despite the economic spin-off from
up to 200 people attending over the weekend. The organizers are
local which highlights that in the country one finds an
independent strand of thinking.
Initially
the key organizers were Betty Moore, a local councillor of
independent views, now less prominent in the organization, and
Robert Balgarnie who has assumed the chief organizer position,
and has continued to record the meetings. In the early years they
found it difficult to cope with the number of attendees, having
two meetings one year. There was a great upwelling of feeling
about the constitution and other issues. Many proposals were put
forward, but it was difficult to get people to cooperate. The
organizers decided to ban motions as they caused too much
friction. The forum does not have a `line' that it is trying to
promote, or any link with any political party, and that has kept
it alive for 17 years, despite changing concerns. The only
consistent issue is championing freedom of expression. The
mainstream media will not mention the forum, so publicity is by
word of mouth and mention in the freedom papers and magazines.
The forum was held in the comfortable RSL Club Function
Centre. The format included both scheduled speakers and five
minute contributions from attendees; I was given a spot to make a
pitch for The Independent
Australian. A bookshop, which covers anything from printed
and tape material to herbal medicines, was open for participants
to sell or give away their wares. You could pick up a list of pro
freedom groups with over 300 contacts, some admittedly state
branches of on organization. The chairman, Dennis Stevenson, was
professional, with plenty of jokes to keep people awake (maybe
too many at times) and kept the program rolling along on time,
[These notes
reflect my interests, rather than a record of events.]
Senator
Len Harris, (One Nation), keynote Speaker gave
a valedictory address covering his interests and career during
his term of office.
He
was particularly harsh on the Australian Electoral Commission,
accusing it of usurping legislative powers, trampling on rights
of individuals. He cited deregistration of PHON based on
correspondence with the ex-secretary, who had not been a member
for two years. He was disillusioned about politics as played out
by parties. His solution was that since there were no provisions
for political parties in the Constitution, none should be
recognized, because they were too easy to infiltrate. Each
electorate should be represented by an independent.
He
was equally hard on the judiciary, described the separation of
powers as a myth.
Harris is a strong supporter of property rights, regarding
them as basic in human nature. He spent some time on a case in
After politics, he will be promoting extensive saltbush
planting as an alternative to trees as a carbon sink in areas
where salinity is a threat. The foliage can be grazed, while
the extensive root system can be a basis for carbon trading.
The concluding joke
was about what a surgeon found on opening three cadavers:
Japanese - all bits colour coded
German - all bits numbered, unique connections between
them.
Politician - no spine, no guts, no heart, no brain!
[Len
Harris was treated as a hayseed by the metropolitan press, but
at Inverell he came across as well read as well as speaking well.
Reputation of being a bit naive/genuine for politics. A bit eccentric;
regrettably there is no room for that today..]
Health
issues had a
common theme - we should be free to choose what goes into our
bodies.
Peter Taubert started
as a trade teacher and then became an occupational health and
safety officer at the SA Trades & Labour Council for many
years. He has written three books around the subjects of food
additives, household chemicals and reading the labels, knowing
the risks.
Taubert
built up a case against unnecessary additives used to enhance
colour or flavour in food products, and unnecessary fragrances in
many household products. There is not a great deal of direct
evidence to pinpoint harm for individual additives, but there
is a well substantiated rise in asthma, hyperactivity, kidney
disease and dermatitis among children, who are more at risk than
adults in these matters. Medical advice is to avoid additives and
fragrances in such cases. Taubert linked a rise in cancer to
additives as well. Some food additives that are permitted in
Taubert
was strongly against fragrances used unnecessarily in toilet
paper, “blu loo”, fly spray, deodorants, air fresheners, hair
spray. All contain chemicals which have been shown individually
to have damaging effects. A good fan is the best way of removing
smells. Some deodorants work by paralysing the olfactory
nerves, temporarily, but with unknown consequences over the long
term. Also there is a well accepted view that children should be
building up immunity instead of being over protected by
antibacterial agents. [A good case against
voluntary intake of unnecessary chemicals as a precautionary
principle.]
Dennis Stevenson spoke
against fluoridation. When he served in the ACT Government he was
on a committee inquiring into fluoridation. As a result he became
a committed anti-fluoridation advocate, indeed, wrote the 176
page minority report against by compiling the evidence presented
against .
The presentation covered a wide range of arguments
against fluoride. Certainly toxic in small doses and has been
suggested as causing cancer. Standard dose for everybody,
regardless of age, sex or general health is wrong. Undoubtedly
fluoride can cause mottling in children's teeth if intake is high
enough.
A
persuasive presentation. He quoted a newspaper report of a
debate he had with the Australian Dental Association in
Kim Cullen's theme
was the rising number of mental disorders being diagnosed and
treated with a pill, instead of thoroughly searching for physical
and dietary problems, which are often hard to detect. Eve
Hillary spoke against the assault on natural medicines by the
legislators.
John Rivett wants
a simpler taxation system. He went through the ills of the
current system. He proposed a debit tax or a spending tax to
replace all other taxes for simplification.
Tony Pitt agreed
with Len Harris on parties being white-anted. He made a pitch
for a loose federation of independents, Save Australia
Alliance. A CD of helpful hints and lists of possible supporters
was available for prospective candidates.
Jeremy Lee, an
accomplished speaker, gave wide ranging address on the ills of
the world and a well reasoned case for saving Telstra. Most were
familiar with his line of argument.
Malcolm McClure is
the founder of UPMART (an acronym which changes according to
issue under consideration), which uses the Common Law to
maintain people's rights UPMART runs seminars to train people in
common law, He claimed that UPMART number plates are legal and
there is no need to pay road tolls. They run car rallies with No
Toll plates. He advocated self representation in court, despite
the judiciary demanding legal representation. A number of cases
of citizens standing up for their rights were detailed; but be
careful in sticking closely to the script and be prepared for
possible imprisonment while awaiting court appearance.
Brett
Dawson's title
was analysing the Pauline Hanson Electoral Fraud Case. This
analysis was only to support his main thesis - in the law look
for self interest. Only a lawyer could make the case against the
legal profession as he did.
The
law is anything you want if you are a judge, there is a law to
back up whatever you want. This was the sequence of events.
May 02 & 03
(criminal). Magistrates at committal hearing find enough evidence
for trial.
August
03 (criminal). Chief District Court Judge Patsy de Wolfe 'jury
can find you guilty of fraud on this evidence' at trial of
Pauline Hanson for fraud.
November 2003
(criminal). Three Court of Appeal Judges upheld the appeal.
They delivered a nine page judgment the very next day. Did
they sit up all night?
And two judges, Chief Justice deJersey and Justice
McMurdo ruled in different directions in the civil and criminal
appeals! What happened?
Look
for self interest.
But
Howard then came out with `like many other people I find the
previous sentence certainly very long and severe'. NSW Premier
Bob Carr said she should have been sentenced to community service.
The politicians were beginning to get a message from the public.
Howard was dog whistling the One Nation supporters.
What
could deJersey do? In
Having
decided Hanson was innocent he had to reach into civil law. He
pulled the contract rabbit out of the hat. The members were
members, in civil law intent doesn't matter, so the fraudulent
claims didn't matter.
The
Hanson case was covered in Independent Australian, Issue 2. There
we took the view that the political and judicial system had taken
the politically correct view that Hanson must be punished up to
the final Court of Appeal. Now