Another puzzle piece: Richard Lead 'international tax expert' as Footnote in High Court case

Seems Richard was a phantom director for one of Vanda Gould's fraudulent off-shore Tax shelters.

Lead stuffed up in 2001, with unsigned Tax Returns naming Gould as the beneficial owner of the company (HWBB). Gould is claimed in newspaper pieces to be rather unforgiving of perceived slights - making sense of Lead's sudden disappearance from Aust. Skeptic magazine, but not the ASIC registered Foundation. [High Court Document, 2016, Lead's affidavit, 2012, and Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation  [2014] FCA 1392]

There was also a 2004 tax case in the Admin Appeals Tribunal Australia (AATA) where Lead had to give testimony. The Judge deliberately mentioned his reluctance in giving evidence. Most names were disguised, including the beneficial owner, Gould. Which newspaper reports later unpicked.

This was the year Lead dropped from view. The judgement refers to him as 'independent accountant and tax consultant'. We might infer from that, that Lead was no longer in Gould's employ.

I once contacted the firm, CCS Partners, 154 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, Lead had used to audit the ASIC Foundation returns until 2004/5. They knew of Lead, years later, but referred me to him if I wanted a comment on his employment there.

In a webpage on Bougainville Copper Project, Lead's wife is noted as returning to her maiden name.
His address on formal documents changed as well.

Riverbend
http://www.riverbendnelligen.com/bougainvillelocation.html

Lead and others, ASIC Company Director Info for ACN-088-875-772.
ASIC search purchased for ACN-088-875-772.

In Their Own Words: What the magazine says.

There are 81 full issues of the Skeptic on-line, from 1990 #1 until 2011 #1.
The remaining 2011/2012 issues are only published in-part on-line following a website policy of only publishing in-full after 12 months.

These 81 issues comprise 5294 pages total [~65pp/issue average] with 5230 text pages in total and around 3.5M words of text.

I've carefully searched this public record for answers to the questions underpinning "Who are the Australian Skeptics? On the Public Record, what is the phrase "Australian Skeptics" intended to mean?":

In Their Own Words: What the website says.

Subscribers are still not Members after 15 years.

Short form:

• The three webpages, "How to Join", "Contacts" and "Who we Are" pages need to be read together to ascertain their meaning.

• The "Who we are" page is internally inconsistent:
• the term "Australian Skeptics" is used in contradictory and exclusionary ways, without being clarified, to mean both "the collective of Sceptics in Australia" and only the members of Y0133609.

• There are 1000-1500 potential members in NSW who have been denied membership, which prime face suggests an investigation is warranted, or must be treated as the General Public purchasing the magazine, which might constitute carrying on a Commercial Activity, contrary to the Objects of the Act.

• The confusion can be quickly and trivially fixed in multiple ways, but after ~15 years the confusion remains.

• The Office Bearers, Committee and Editors/Executive Officers of Y0133609 have collectively and knowingly allowed this confusion to remain for ~15 years. I can't see any any legitimate purpose this might serve. Claiming they were ignorant of the confusion or they've been indolent, negligent, careless or worse is to claim they were derelict in their duties.

By Sate percentages subscribers to The Skeptic, 1996.

This 1996 article appears to indicate the then relative number of subscribers per State to the Skeptic.

Vol 16, No 4 the skeptic p 63 [1996]

Questions for Y0133609, Australian Skeptics Inc.

Arising from their Financial Reports, there are a number of serious questions the Office Bearers and 16 members of NSW Association Y0133609,  "Australian Skeptics Inc" need to answer:

• The Primary Activity of Y0133609 has been to publish the magazine, The Skeptic.
• The Primary Purpose of Y0133609 has been the activities and finances related to the magazine.
• Y0133609 has been carrying on a significant Commercial activity in selling the magazine to the Public.
• The Office Bearers of Y0133609 have been seriously remiss and derelict in their duties:
• The failure to lodge returns from 1996-1999. Once is an accident, more is not.
• The minimalist account data provided in the 1996-1999 returns, if presented to members, would not allow them to create a full and informed view of the Association activities or operations as can be shown by earlier and later accounts. If fuller accounts were presented to members, why would they not be filed?
• The failure to lodge returns for the following 10 years. This is negligence, incompetence or deliberate - any and all of which should be enough to dismiss the Committee and appoint an Administrator.
• The failure to lodge returns for the years GST was paid, 2001, 2002 and accounts must have been prepared for ATO filings.
• Failure to notify a change of Public Officer for 5 years.
• Trading using the Association name, bank accounts and credit card for the ~10mths De-Registered period, 25-May-2009 to 06-Apr-2010.
• The structure and name do not reflect the Association Activities.

Financial Reports as filed for NSW Assoc Y0133609: Australian Skeptics Inc, aka NSW Skeptics

These are data extract from the Financial Reports as formally filed by the Association, with subscriber numbers as reported in the magazine, The Skeptic.

Editor of "The Skeptic": summary response to AR Editor questions.

This email conversation was supplied on condition it be published with this preamble:

At the end of 1999, the Australian Rationalist received a draft of an article by Victorian Skeptic Adam Joseph, raising some issues regarding the operations of the national body, the Australian Skeptics. Around about the same time former AS committee member Steve Roberts posted a set of criticisms of the Skeptics on the internet. The AR Editor, Ian Robinson, worked with Joseph to produce a final version of the article in April, 2000. Before publishing the article, Robinson emailed Skeptics CEO Barry Williams itemizing the criticisms and invited his response. Williams provided a detailed response to the criticisms. Subsequently, the Australian Rationalist Editorial Board decided not to publish the Adam Joseph article in the journal.  Williams’ reply to Robinson’s email is reproduced below, together with the points in Robinson's email that he was replying to, without which his comments are meaningless .  The green-coloured text is Robinson’s email, quoted in full and the blue text is Williams reply or a synopsis of it, interspersed at the appropriate points.

Editor of "The Skeptic": Didn't take the piece well... Full-text

This email conversation was supplied on condition it be published with this preamble:

At the end of 1999, the Australian Rationalist received a draft of an article by Victorian Skeptic Adam Joseph, raising some issues regarding the operations of the national body, the Australian Skeptics. Around about the same time former AS committee member Steve Roberts posted a set of criticisms of the Skeptics on the internet. The AR Editor, Ian Robinson, worked with Joseph to produce a final version of the article in April, 2000. Before publishing the article, Robinson emailed Skeptics CEO Barry Williams itemizing the criticisms and invited his response. Williams provided a detailed response to the criticisms. Subsequently, the Australian Rationalist Editorial Board decided not to publish the Adam Joseph article in the journal.  Williams’ reply to Robinson’s email is reproduced below, together with the points in Robinson's email that he was replying to, without which his comments are meaningless .  The green-coloured text is Robinson’s email, quoted in full and the blue text is Williams reply or a synopsis of it, interspersed at the appropriate points.

Pitch to ABC's Background Briefing: There's Trouble at Mill.

Sent to ABC Radio National's Background Briefing, Mon 07-may-2012 via their contact page.
Some editing [and comments].

---

It isn't on the breath taking scale of the HSU drama, but here's a documented tale of 20 years of rorting the system.
You absolutely know that if there's one, then there's more... [But how can we find those?]

You'd think a largish organisation who's Patrons were Dick Smith and Phillip Adams would have a high degree of integrity, but the opposite is the case...

Australian Skeptics Inc: 2012 Update

This is an update on the Association and players. [I expect feedback to correct and expand this.]

Reasons to be Skeptical: Joe Needham response to Adam Joseph in Forum comments

[Prev]

Table of Contents

---

Re: [Skeptics Forum] A Liar or a fool? Maybe both.

At 02:29 AM 04/05/2002, Adam Joseph wrote:

Barry Williams now belongs to this group and responds to mail. What a turnaround!! That means Needham doesn't have to be the go-between any longer. Sorry about that Joe. And may I commend you on your language this time round. You do recall the filth that streamed out of your keyboard before don't you? Had some therapy recommended by Carlson or the others? Good boy.

Sorry to disappoint you but the Cox News Service has been cross posting and that is how Barry Williams message ended up here. Barry Williams is not a member of the Skeptics-Forum.

In Barry Williams post, (at the end of this) he mentioned I walked out of the Australian Skeptics because I wanted his job. Most people around that time were very aware that I believed in a good rotation of committee people and so on. So that's lie number one.

Doesn't Barry Williams hold a paid position with the Australian Skeptics? His job is not one that normally rotates but he serves at the pleasure of those who rotate on and off of administrative posts.

He also said I put out a multi-page screed to the media and others. True.

AH-HA Guilty as charged!

And this had no effect, eliciting only "Who is this idiot?" Given that what I released to the media was a background briefing on the Australian Skeptics and most things people should know, it most certainly did the trick. The media rarely goes near the Skeptics these days. And that was the purpose of the exercise. Simply, they are seen as having little credibility left. Years back, a fortnight would not go by when some publicity involving skeptics would surface. On the rare occasion close to Christmas they would put Santa look-alike Barry Williams on for a minute to say one shouldn't believe in psychics. Wow! I somehow think people got that message years back.

You must be a sorry piece of crap to try to discredit a whole organization because you don't like one person.

I see he is now denying he related information in his biography to the Rationalists International claiming 'an engineering background', which to my mind suggests he could be an engineer. I believe that to be another untruth.

Do you know what Barry Williams background has been?

So why should I even bother mentioning any of this on this particular forum?  Because it promotes itself as a sceptical forum that's why. And if people like Williams turn up,or are mentioned, then you have a right to know that even some Skeptics groups around the world have very odd and somewhat dishonest people involved. I have merely exposed people within the Australian Skeptics who have lost the whole group credibility galore.

You are the only one who has mentioned Barry Williams. It's not like his name just keeps turning up. You were surprised to learn that some of us Yanks actually know Barry. Our knowledge of Barry Williams rained on your little parade.

There was the case of Harry Edwards a couple of years back. Stalwart and secretary with the Australian Skeptics for 17 years. He had a falling out with Barry Williams and suddenly found himself thrown out on allegations of so-called corruption. When the trumped-up matter came to court, it was thrown out. Williams and a couple of his cronies then threatened to go to the supreme court. People within the freethought movement in Australia are still waiting.

Totally unfamiliar with the case. Got any on-line news stories about it?

Anyone who dared ask for evidence of Harry Edwards guilt,including state committees, were told and shown nothing. May be Williams would like to post the 'evidence' on this forum. 'Evidence' that is supportable of course, not Williams renowned bullshit.

Australia must be a strange place. In the US an individual cannot refuse to turn over evidence in a crime or,if they do, they have time to think about that decision in jail.

So for those who need more on the trials and tribs of the somewhat discredited Australian Skeptics, what Australian skeptics regard as a small but definitive history really, 'cept Williams of course, the continue reading below.

I'm surprised the entire continent hasn't sunk into the ocean in disgrace.

{Short attention span caused me to delete the rest of your message in my reply.}

Regards,

Joe Needham AIM: JoeNeedham | YM: jneedham | ICQ: 1674329
http://forums.delphiforums.com/skepticsclub/ | www.internet-skeptics.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skeptics-forum/
Do NOT let them deceive you with the legitimization of their myth!™

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

Reasons to be Skeptical: Barry Williams response e-mail

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

From: "Barry Williams" <skeptics@...>

Reluctant as I am to give any credence to astrologers and other necromancers, can it be simply a coincidence that in the very month that five planets will line up in the sky, Adam Joseph should once again emerge from his self-pitying swamp to tell the world just how much he dislikes me?

For those readers lucky enough not hitherto to have been the recipient of one of Joseph's turgid diatribes, here is an encapsulated history. In the early 1990s, Mr Joseph was president of one of the
state bodies that makes up Australian Skeptics. In about 1995, he decided that I had too much power, and further decided that he should have that power. In the event, no one else agreed with him, so he
departed in a huff (he might have departed in a Toyota, but I believe it was a Huff). In Oz parlance, this is known as "spitting the dummy".

Ever since then, every couple of years or so, he has assaulted everyone he can think of with barely coherent rants, in which he enumerates all my faults -- most of which are simply figments of his
febrile imagination (he has also misssed out on quite a few -- so much for his research). Just before the 2000 World Skeptics Convention in Sydney, he targetted all manner of prominent Skeptics and the media with a multi-page screed (17 or 18 pages from memory), which had precisely no effect on the success of the Convention, eliciting from the recipients only the question "Who is this idiot?"

As for his specific (insofar as anything he says is specific) rant this time, I cannot imagine just how I would "[go] around inferring in many quarters" that I am an engineer. I suppose that, had I suffered from a serious bout of amnesia, and then discovered that my house was full of engineering texts, I might possibly "infer" that I was an engineer, but that hasn't happened, so I don't know what he is drivelling about this time. Furthermore, I haven't even "implied" that I am an engineer in any quarters, far less claimed it.

His bile directed against Joe Needham is even less rational, as he has never met Joe, and clearly knows nothing about him. It seems to stem from the fact that Joe once read one of his peurile raves, and pointed out to him that he was talking through his fundament. Still, Joe can now be satisfied that he belongs to a longish list of distinguished Skeptics against whom Adam Joseph has vented his spleen. It's doesn't quite have the cachet of being described as a "tool of Satan" by a creationist, but it has never done anyone's reputation any harm.

For the past year or so, Joseph has been quiescent, which is what causes me to wonder about manifestations of his outbreaks of bile and planetary alignments. There's definitely a research project in there for someone who is looking for a topic.

Barry Williams -- Editor -- the Skeptic

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: Appendix: Dr Steve Roberts list of questions.

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

'He's a man you must believe ‘ Dr Robert[s]'
John Lennon & Paul McCartney

In 1995 Victorian committee member Dr Steve Roberts communicated the following (edited) criticisms of the 'national' committee to Adam Joseph.
He subsequently withdrew them and was later appointed as the only interstate member of the 'national' committee in Sydney. He has since been dumped but remains active within the Victorian Skeptics branch.

1. Competence of the National Treasurer

Anyone can see that the national committee's accounts are a farce - as bad as its minutes - and it is obvious that the treasurer is not able to make the simplest statements about how much money we have, or the simplest forecasts of future obligations such as magazine printing. [S]omeone else should take over the Treasurer's job ASAP. If Sydney start to bleat that nobody else wants the job, Victoria can offer one of the several people here that could do it, and do it better. It is supposed to be a national committee, after all.

2a. National committee has lost its sense of identity and direction

Effectively the national committee is two people, who sometimes can't even talk to one another on important topics such as where conventions ought to be held. There is no guidance or leadership as to where the Skeptics are supposed to be heading. Tasks often get put off for long periods, resulting in increased costs. When I volunteered to be a member of the national committee last year this was accepted, but I have heard nothing since. It is quite possible to run a committee across several cities, using only the postal system with perhaps the occasional fax.

2b. National committee is confused with NSW committee

These are one and the same body, which has led to national funds being squandered on local NSW projects. In the past this has not mattered much, but these days more is happening in Melbourne than anywhere else and I believe that we should have the use of some of the lavish Skeptics equipment that is lying relatively idle in Sydney.

3. Use for funds, including the inheritance

We (Australian Skeptics) have no idea what to do with sums of money that come our way. It does not matter if a gift is $500 or $500,000 - we ought to have ambitions and draw up plans which could be executed if money came in. The CSF, for example, do exactly this. When I put this to Barry [Williams], he seemed to refuse to think about it. Projects attract funding - look at the US$2M centre that CSICOP/CODESH put up in 1993 (already being extended, with further appeals for money being sent out). The point is that there is money out there just waiting for a use to be offered for it.

4. Work load falling on too few individuals

A common gripe in all amateur societies. Blame me too - with increasing family and work commitments I keep finding I have to back away from doing things. The situation seems to be much worse in Sydney where I would estimate 80% of the load falls on Barry, 19% on Harry [Edwards] and 1% on anyone else. A body like the Skeptics needs a diverse set of enthusiastic people as well as being to get a crowd together.

5. Skeptics have drifted away from "investigation" towards "critical thinking"

However the general public knows what we are all about. I am not sure if we should change our charter, since to do so would be interpreted by our enemies as "Ha! They don't dare investigate because they know they will come across the REAL TRUTH about (ufo's, creation, crystals, etc.)". Also the common meaning of the word "critical" is now something like "abusive". Strictly "to criticise" means more like "to discuss the good and bad aspects of", but only pedants like myself care about that. Maybe the Skeptics should "encourage a questioning attitude" ??

6. Two big jobs (National President and Editor) held by same person

Maybe because of a lack of volunteers. I doubt if many people can afford he time that either of these posts must require. I don't think that we need a National President at all, Barry can be NSW President with equal effect in NSW, thus freeing you and others to hold more independent-sounding posts in Victoria. The Press in Melbourne doesn't like to quote Sydney people, and I'm sure vice versa.

7. Barry is acting autocratically

Stories of what Barry [Williams] has said continue to shock me, especially as he holds two powerful posts. Barry can be identified with Australian Skeptics, but not to the extent that Mark Plummer (and Paul Kurtz in CSICOP) wanted to be. We should NOT have a personality cult around the President, cuddly though he may be. The sort of arrogance I object to includes:

• insisting on a disastrous venue for the 1994 convention;
• mismanaging the assignment of the 1995 convention;
• refusing to debate Harry [Edwards]' motion about magazine size;
• refusing control over editorial content of the magazine, and my favourite perennial one
• declining to send me the full membership list (which had at least two Victorian members with wrong postcodes) on the grounds that I hold another post in another Society.

Well, so does Harry Edwards.

8. Presentation of the magazine

This is low on my list of concerns because I am aware that the presentation has improved since Barry took it over. Also, the magazine is (or should be) renowned for its content, not its cover. I can easily believe that hard-paper, coloured covers are within reach, as are alternative ways of wrapping it for mailing. But overall I like the format and layout generally. It is unrealistic to try to sell it through newsagents (we would need to print many more copies for that to be worthwhile; Dick Smith would advise, or better still, I can ask my mate Lyle Rumble of Southern Sky astronomy magazine, who has recently done this).

9. Content of the magazine

Again low on my list because I think its not too bad. There are a lot of good articles but there have been some shonky ones, which ought to have been weeded out by an editorial committee, had one existed.

There are still too many typos and misprints (although nowhere near as bad as when Tim Mendham was editor) to allow me to show off articles with pride as something the Skeptics are doing.

ENDs

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

When a group chooses to call itself Australian Skeptics Inc and purports to promote critical thinking via a journal and public literature to schools and libraries and the media, to expose charlatans who feed society misinformation and to scientifically investigate the paranormal, its own affairs and operations need not only to be seen to be beyond reproach, but actually need to be so.

There is an urgent need for the following steps to be taken:

1. An independent auditor needs to be called in to audit the books of the Australian Skeptics Inc and the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation, at least since 1996 when the Whalley bequest was made, and the results of this audit should be made public. There is no evidence we can find that the accounts of either group were ever independently audited.
2. Steps must be taken to set up a truly national organisation which any interested sceptical Australian can join, and via which they can exercise influence on Skeptics policy and activity. Responsibility for running this national body could rotate every three to five years between state organisations, so that no one group can retain control.
3. The necessity for the appointment of a full-time officer needs to be reviewed, and if it is found to be viable and an effective use of available funds, then the position should be declared vacant and widely advertised in free thought circles, with the best person for the job as selected by an independent panel being appointed.
4. The membership of the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation needs to be revised so that it includes one or more members nominated by each state organisation, perhaps for a set term (five-ten years?) instead of for life.
5. An effective editorial committee needs to be established for The Skeptic, which could provide a pool of peer reviewers and upgrade the reputation of the journal.

Leading Australian potential supporters of the organisation need to be drawn into some kind of formal association with the movement, perhaps through becoming 'fellows', as the parent organisation CSICOP provides. Fellows of CSICOP in the US include four Nobel prize winners, at least 15 professors, many high-profile public intellectuals (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould, Douglas Hofstadter, Susan Blackmore, W. V. Quine, Martin Gardner, Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick), prominent media personalities (e.g. Steve Allen, L. Sprague de Camp, Marilyn vos Savant) and many other leading thinkers from the US and around the world. In Australia, while a few people of this stature have given talks for the Skeptics, none are formally aligned, and it is unlikely any will commit themselves until the organisation gets its act together.

Even the Skeptics' founders, Dick Smith, Phillip Adams and Richard Carleton, are not formally connected to the group, although Dick Smith is a fellow of CSICOP.

* Mark Plummer, the Australian Skeptics founding first president, has since been de-listed as a ‘fellow’ of CSICOP, according to chief executive Barry Karr.

The small group of individuals who now control the Australian Skeptics Inc. no doubt began with honest intentions, and always believed they were acting in the best interests of the Skeptics movement, but it must be clear even to them that their actions have exposed the group to accusations of dubious practices and handicapped its ability to perform its functions as effectively as it might. At the same time they have disenfranchised many hundreds of genuine sceptics Australia wide who would be only too willing to contribute time, expertise, energy and money to the cause of scepticism but who feel unable to find a valid and respected place in the movement.

If Stanley Whalley knew of the goings-on that his last will and testament would play a part in, he probably would have used as much caution writing his will as he spent on carefully studying stock trends.

Anyone with nominations for the new millennium's first 'Bent Spoon Award'?

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: LIFE MEMBER EXPELLED

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

LIFE MEMBER EXPELLED

The latest bombshell to hit the Skeptics is the expulsion of life member Harry Edwards, long-time secretary and investigator of the NSW Skeptics and original chairman of the group's $1.2 million trust fund, the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation, on allegations of 'corruption' and 'misappropriation' of funds. Edwards was served a writ in September 1999, outlining the charges and demanding restoration of almost $50,000.

When the matter came before the courts on December 3, it was permanently stayed as it had been lodged in the wrong court. Costs were awarded against the Skeptics and have been set by the Supreme Court at over $6000. Edwards had prepared a defense, which claimed, among other things, that any monies advanced to him were approved by all trustees, and if he is guilty of breaching the trust, so are the other trustees. He has never been officially charged with either corruption nor breaching the trust in any way. The NSW Fraud Squad has not been notified, nor has the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). In correspondence to Edwards, Skeptics treasurer Richard Lead stated that 'Australian Skeptics Inc will seek the penalties prescribed under Part 1VA of the Crimes Act 1900. And don’t expect any mercy'.

Edwards claims the matter is just a personal vendetta undertaken by a disgruntled committee member after a personality clash. Embarrassingly, the group sought a legal opinion from John Garnsey QC, only to be told that in addition to Edwards, all trust members were culpable in a number of breaches. Edwards believes this could be the reason no further action has been taken.

It is believed Garnsey also found that the original Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation set up with Harry Edwards as chairperson was incorrectly constituted. In 1999 a new Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation was registered with the ASIC, with Richard Lead, Richard Gordon, Trevor Case and Alynda Brown listed as Directors, all current members of the NSW committee. Victorian Steve Roberts was dumped as the interstate representative. No other members are listed in documents submitted to ASIC in January this year (2000) so it is assumed that these are the only members. (Former chairman Harry Edwards' name is conspicuous by its absence.) According to the Foundation's constitution, the only way membership of the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation lapses is "upon the member's death" (Clause 2.3.(a)). Readers may be amused by the name of the law firm which prepared this constitution - "Church and Grace".

As the story unfolded, the ‘national committee’ and its supporters dismissed Edwards as ‘a sad case of mental decline’, ‘a liar’, and more desperately, ‘a piece of shit which the English language is manifestly incapable of describing properly’, amongst panic-stricken comments. Clearly the executive was appearing a little unnerved, and concerned at obvious leaks from some of their own state committees, which, surprisingly, still continue.

When news leaked that this article was initially being prepared at the request of the editor of another free-thought group, the Australian Rationalists, calls came in from Skeptics Inc committee executives threatening to sue, even though most of the information has already appeared in various forums on the internet. Following initial threats of legal action came accusations of 'disloyalty to mates', and finally more name-calling, 'who would believe someone bitter and twisted?'

The Australian Rationalist magazine was described by Williams as 'a boring political polemic and is even less interesting to read than jam tin labels'.

After some concerned discussions within the Australian Rationalists committee, the article is still being considered for a future issue, according to editor Ian Robinson, obviously feeling pressured by colleagues.

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL POLICY

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL POLICY

In 1998 the chairman of the Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation Harry Edwards in a memo to Barry Williams raised concerns over the financial status of Foundation. According to Edwards, the total amount invested on behalf of the Foundation, principally in first mortgage security over real estate, as of 1 March 1998 was $966,987. This was generating an income of about $79,000 p.a. or about 8.2%, but subsequent falls in interest rates probably reduced this amount, at least in the short term. Ongoing commitments listed by Edwards, including honoraria, scholarships, prizes, convention subsidies and a grant of $100,000 to the Mt Stromlo Observatory ($10,000 p.a. over ten years) amounted to over $25,000 p.a., leaving the Foundation's disposable income at little more than $50,000 p.a., which was available to state groups and individuals applying for grants. (In 1995/6, the first year of the bequest, $35,000 was shown as distributed to state groups, but it is not clear whether this largesse continued because later financial statements are not available.). The policy of the Foundation under Edwards' chairmanship was "to ensure the financial viability of all Australian Skeptics groups in perpetuity. It was agreed that "the capital would be maintained at a predetermined level" and that the expenses and disbursements should be "limited to an amount not exceeding income".

Edwards was concerned at pressures on the trustees to eat into capital in order to fund the increasing Skeptics salary bill and the activities of the committee. Figures submitted to the NSW Department of Fair Trading by treasurer Richard Lead show that in 1996/7 and 1997/8 the Australian Skeptics Inc made losses of $27,214.25 and $42,526.87 respectively.

However, it seemed to be the policy of at least some members of the Skeptics to simply keep spending the money until it ran out. Treasurer Richard Lead, who joined the group after Whalley’s money was received, explained to the author: 'Personally, I hope we do run out of money, but in about 10 years.

What is the point of not using it for the purposes for which it was donated?

We are not a religious organisation'. Dr Steve Roberts, the only Victorian on the 'national' body has expressed similar sentiments to the Australian Rationalists magazine editor, Ian Robinson.

Edwards proposed sending a letter to all members of the Australian Skeptics Inc committee outlining his concerns. In the draft letter Edwards explains that the Australian Skeptics Inc income for 1998/9 would only be approximately $48,000, and as projected expenditure (mainly journal printing costs and the Editor/CEO's salary and expenses) was nearly $110, 000, there would be a $60,000 shortfall. According to Edwards, Williams refused to allow him to send this letter to the Committee on the grounds that it may panic the members.

In the event, according to figures submitted to the NSW Department of Fair Trading by treasurer Richard Lead, the 1998/9 expenditure turned out to be $126,243, only $16,000 more than Edwards' estimate, but the income is listed as $143, 859, nearly $100,000 more. It is not clear whether this extra
income came substantially from the Foundation or not, as Barry Williams denied a request from the Australian Rationalist magazine to provide current information about the Skeptics' finances, nor if so whether this was at the expense of reducing the Foundation's capital, as Lead has argued for.

Edwards is no longer in a position to answer this question, as the result of the events described below.

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: FROM CRITICISM TO COMPLIANCE

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

FROM CRITICISM TO COMPLIANCE

While a number of members have left the scene disillusioned, others have turned a blind eye to these developments for the sake of harmony. Victorian Committee member Dr Steve Roberts wrote a lengthy statement about the NSW committee [See Addional supplement at end of article). Roberts later withdrew the four closely-typed pages of scathing criticisms and was appointed the only non-NSW member of the Trust fund. Harry Edwards claims this was to appease the Victorian committee - NSW reasoned that one interstate member with four NSW members was not going to make any difference.

After further bickering between pro and anti Ian Plimer supporters throughout state branches, and letters and public statements on radio about his treatment, the Skeptics Foundation finally gave way and granted Plimer $177,000. The cashed-up Victorian committee contributed a further $19,000.

With a total legal bill in excess of $400,000, Plimer was forced to sell most of his property and still verges on bankruptcy after the out-of-court settlement recently concluded the defamation suit against him. Many believed that, considering the Whalley bequest came about on the understanding that its main purpose was to fight Creationism, there was a moral obligation to support Plimer to the fullest extent. That one skeptic should suffer so much while other skeptics enjoy subsidised overseas and interstate trips must be a bitter pill to swallow.

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: INTERSTATE ANGER

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

INTERSTATE ANGER

The Victorian committee expressed anger in 1995 when minutes from the 'national' committee showed they were to purchase new computer equipment and fax machines only 2 years after previously buying such equipment. A motion was also passed to pay for airfares for any of the 'national committee' who wished to attend the forthcoming 1995 Melbourne convention, unheard of previously. All queries regarding expenditure were met with disdain and a closed door from Sydney.

The South Australian Skeptics put in for a grant to purchase a computer and were met with refusal. Victoria was allowed a fax machine and some small items to appease their anger. Professor Ian Plimer, growing in concern about his legal expenses, was encouraged to apply for a grant on the basis that his legal battles related directly to fighting creationism and flying the Skeptics banner. A lengthy letter outlining his costs and a plea to the Skeptics Trust to assist met with a refusal that his application did not meet the criteria set down.

Amidst mounting criticism of Williams’s autocratic editorial style and allegations of abusing his position, accusations of lack of accountability of subscribers funds and of the bequest, cries of mismanagement, the 'national committee' suspended itself and immediately reinstated themselves as the 'NSW committee', but with no changes to matters relating to finances, policy, or the magazine. They advised that the organisational structure of the Skeptics is such that only the members of the NSW committee can vote themselves, or the editor, out, contrary to what was declared in the 1986 issue of the group's journal regarding national interests.

Victoria complained that as the Whalley bequest was left to a national body called "The Australian Sceptics [sic] Incorporated", and not the NSW committee, the trust should include interstate representation. While NSW sought legal opinion, the Victorians considered a variety of options, including a suggestion of contesting the will, which led to some splitting of ranks and fears of a wider national split.

Eventually and begrudgingly the states backed off, realising that NSW now had the money and any further disharmony would aggravate future hand-outs. Barry Williams successfully put in his application to become the full-time paid editor and CEO, and others began receiving honorariums of varying amounts for previously voluntary positions, for example to Harry Edwards $5000 p.a. as chairman of the Foundation and a further $3000 p.a. as secretary of the NSW committee, and $3000 p.a. to Peter Rodgers who was the treasurer at the time. Two loans of $8000 each were also approved for Edwards to publish two books promoting scepticism. This money was being progressively paid back through book sales by the Skeptics up to the time of Edwards' departure (see below).

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: PRESIDENT BECOMES FULL-TIME PAID EXECUTIVE OFFICER

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

PRESIDENT BECOMES FULL-TIME PAID EXECUTIVE OFFICER

At the committee meeting on November 18, 1996, the then honorary president Barry Williams proposed the appointment of a full-time Editor/Executive Office, with a remuneration of $45,000 per annum (plus expenses), which was accepted unanimously by the committee. Williams' friend Harry Edwards immediately moved that he, Williams, should be appointed to this position.

This was also accepted unanimously by the committee. Williams then resigned as president and nominated Richard Gordon to the position. Gordon was elected unopposed. In 1997 Williams took up his new appointment.

Despite the fact that other sceptics had previously expressed interest in such a position should the opportunity ever arise, the position was never advertised, even within the various Skeptics organisations, and as far as we can ascertain, no other candidates for the position were considered.

Williams has little if any formal scientific or philosophical training. His previous job seems to have been organising trade promotions and exhibitions by American companies for the US High Commission in Sydney. His main qualification for the Skeptics job seems to have been that he happened to be the President of the small NSW committee when national responsibility for the Skeptics was transferred for the time being to that state in 1986 and, due in the main to the undemocratic structure of the sceptical movement, he managed to hold on to that position for ten years. Although during that time he had performed his presidential role and that of magazine editor to the best of his ability, his performance in both was not without critics, and no-one could claim that Williams did such an outstanding job that he stood out as the only possible person in Australia who could fill the position. Williams may or may not have been the best person for the job, but this was never tested by wide advertisement for the position and competitive application by possible alternative candidates.

By his own criteria, Williams' tenure in the job has not wholly met expectations. In a proposal submitted to his NSW committee in late 1996, Williams clearly stated how he would justify the job and associated salary and expenses. Many of his undertakings do not seem to have been achieved.

Williams undertook to:

1. 'upgrade appearance, quality and format of magazine'. A close investigation of recent issues shows only the print size and font style have changed.
2. 'produce within three years (i.e. by 1999) a bi-monthly magazine that is sold through newsagents'. Subscribers and the public at large would be aware this has not eventuated.
3. 'Compile and publish second volume (1986-88) of composite issues', and
4. 'Compile and publish third volume (1989-1991)' These tasks refer to compilations of 'Best of' journal stories in published form (one was released in 1992). Williams has been unable to achieve this, even though the contents were provided to him on disk some five years ago.
5. 'Produce and publish position papers on various topics (Astrology, numerology etc)'. The content for these are currently being compiled by individuals of the Queensland, Victorian and NSW committees, based on a series of brochures released by the Victorian Skeptics in 1993.
6. 'To double (at least) the subscriber base by the end of 1997'. When Williams commenced as a full-time employee at the beginning of 1997, there were approximately 2000 subscribers. In the ensuing three years, $150,000 was spent on the CEO/editor’s salary and expenses, and another $20,000 on advertising and new computers. By 2000, the membership figures were still much the same, but exact figures were hard to ascertain due to the inclusion in reported figures of non-financial members and 'give-aways' to media and others. Former Skeptics trust chairman, Harry Edwards, claims he has documentation from a 1997 meeting revealing nearly 450 non-financial subscribers were included in overall subscriber numbers.
7. 'To organise regular public meetings'. An area sadly neglected and a concern to many on the NSW committee. It is well known that Williams had a stand-up row in 1998 with current NSW president Dr. Richard Gordon over the matter, witnessed by most committee members.
8. 'To write articles'. Williams has certainly achieved this promise. As a full-time employee, he is the only writer in the journal who gets paid. Articles sent in by other contributors as 'opinion pieces' are unpaid.

Williams aside, others on the committee have benefited from honoraria amounts ranging from $1,000 to $8,000, for attending to basically the same tasks as they did as volunteers. Interstate and overseas trips by committee members are funded on the basis of 'Skeptics business', and have increased in frequency recently and have included visits to such places as the US, Germany, and Britain. Williams himself has only recently returned from a 2-month 'Skeptics business' trip, mainly to Britain. Treasurer Richard Lead has verified this was subsidised by the Foundation but would not say by how much.

Many subscribers are now asking why many thousands of dollars are now being spent by the NSW-based organisation without any commensurate increase in Skeptics activities and with membership, still around 2000 nationally, approximately the same as in 1996. Some people have also questioned whether journal subscribers are getting value for money. The subscription price of The Skeptic has risen from $25 to $45 (an 80% increase) in three years, much greater than the inflation rate. While there has been a marginal increase in printing and paper costs, the bulk of the increased income has effectively gone towards paying the Editor/Executive Officer's salary and expenses.

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

Reasons to be Skeptical: SUBSCRIBERS ARE NOT MEMBERS

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]

---

SUBSCRIBERS ARE NOT MEMBERS

It is important to note that, unlike most non-profit associations, the Australian Skeptics Inc does not have a general membership as such, apart from the small self-appointed group in Sydney that took control in 1986 - all that other interested members of the public can do is subscribe to a magazine called The Skeptic. This is not spelt out clearly and new subscribers are encouraged to gain the touchy-feely impression that they are members of an elite group.

In actual fact the only other people that could be truly called members are those on the various state committees, and even they have no say what occurs at the so called 'national' committee' which is incorporated in NSW, with specific names listed. Williams and the self-appointed NSW group are therefore in effect the owners of "Australian Skeptics Inc" (Y0133609). In turn, the self appointed Foundation controlling the Whalley money, although legally a separate entity, effectively belongs to this NSW committee, because of the duplication of members. Therefore, only the NSW committee can decide on each others' fate. State committee members and subscribers can only protest by ceasing their subscription to the journal.

---

[Prev]

Table of Contents

[Next]