Jon Faine

A couple of days ago, when I was driving from Melbourne to Brisbane and the only radio I could get was the Jon Faine Show on 774, I heard Jon on the subject of the Dan Andrews Victorian Government's intention to subsidise recladding of unsafely clad buildings in Victoria by the sum of $AUD200m, half of which was to come from taxes on the public and the other half sought from the federal government - but not from the perpetrators themselves. Jon put to a woman he was interviewing that she might give some acknowledgement to the Dan Andrews Government that this was a positive act. I was really impressed by the woman's response, which put Victoria's continuing building fraud and the government's facilitation of it in proportion and Jon Faine in his place at the same time. With interest I scribbled down the name of the organisation she represented and looked it up when I got to Brisbane. It is the Victorian Building Action Group Inc (https://www.vbag.org.au/) and it describes itself as "the only consumer organization in Australia representing the interests of all building consumers." Anne Paten is the President of the Victorian Building Action Group Inc.

Image from https://bostonreview.net/literature-culture-arts-society/john-crowley-inside-every-utopia-dystopia

"Consumers who attempt to build, extend, renovate or do repairs are totally unprotected and we can prove that this has been the case for the last 23 years. Many independent inquiries have confirmed this fact, but no government will listen or act to stop what is essentially 'legalized' building fraud. Just read some of the stories of those whose lives have been ruined, then come join us and be a part of bringing genuine change. The stories of those affected are heart-wrenching. It is virtually impossible to claim on the mandatory insurance and the various levels of the dispute system are utterly dysfunctional. The financial toll often mounts into hundred of thousands of dollars and the emotional toll is incalculable. No-one deserves to be bankrupt or suicidal because they try to build a home for their family." (The Victorian Building Action Group Inc (https://www.vbag.org.au/.))

VCAT process exposed

Here is an animated critique of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on the question of dealing with building fraud, described as follows at https://www.vbag.org.au/victorian-civil-administrative-appeals-tribunal/: Find out about VCAT: How it really works; Why building owners are bound to ‘LOSE’ and the role of solicitors in ensuring they do!’ In fact the video was created in 2012, but the process has become even worse since then.

Construction chaos and corruption Australia-wide

In reality, the situation is Australia-wide. Elsewhere, in the national corporate press, I read that the "Building Sector 'could collapse'. (Richard Ferguson, Brad Norington, "Building sector 'could collapse', The Australian, July 16, 2019, p.1.)

"Mr Massey [JMG Building Surveyors] said certifiers were concerned that state governments were responding to skyrocketing insurance premiums with legislation to allow policy exclusions in the mistaken belief 'this will somehow make the problem disappear'." [...] The JMG chief's warning comes as a proposal by Industry Minister Karen Andrews yesterday for a national taskforce to formulate a nationally consistent approach to building regulations was immeditely rejected by state governments ahead of a joint minister's meeting called to deal with the crisis on Thursday.

Jon Faine surprised many Victorians yesterday morning (4 September 2012) when he lambasted the abuse of 457 Visas in Victoria at a time of high local unemployment. He drew listeners' attention robustly to the folly of importing thousands of workers to industries where Australians could not even afford to train. Today, 5 September 2012, on ABC Radio 774, his guest was the Executive Director of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), but we heard not a word about how mass immigration is driving Australia's housing shortage nor how the property development growth lobby is driving mass immigration and the destruction of Victoria's green wedges and other greens spaces. Should we expect more of Jon Faine and the ABC or are ABC announcers constrained to toe the government line that supports the property development lobby?

Jon Faine and the abuse of 457 Visas

Jon Faine surprised many Victorians yesterday morning (4 September 2012) when he lambasted the abuse of 457 Visas in Victoria at a time of high local unemployment. Careful to underline his support of multiculturalism or refugee rights or simply the right to migrate (I cannot remember which exactly) he drew listeners' attention robustly to the folly of importing thousands of workers to industries where Australians could not even afford to train. A number of people rang in - and nurses were well represented - to say how foreign workers were taking over industries and supplanting them.

The Housing connection missed entirely with 457 visas

No-one said anything, however, about how this was driving up the cost of housing and thereby driving up the cost of wages - because people have to pay rent and mortgages in this inflationary situation. It's not like Jon Faine doesn't know about it though. He seems to be in a position where, overall, he consistently promotes 'experts' who are highly influential in the property development and population growth lobbies.

The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI)

What a contrast today (5 September 2012) when John had as his guest Dr Ian Winter, the Executive Director of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

AHURI flies under a touchy-feely banner of social welfare housing affordability independent research, so listeners may have been surprised by the relatively supine attitude it seems to hold towards Victorians' plummeting quality of life and narrowing choices. They might be less surprised if they realised that AHURI gets most of its funding from government and that some of its board members are highly placed in the property development industry inseparable from the population growth lobby. In contrast to the people who rang in yesterday deploring what was happening with the 457 visas, the callers today seemed suspiciously keen to celebrate our declining choices. Were they for real?

If AHURI is the best Australia can come up with to defend peoples' rights to housing, then it looks like we are sunk.

Not so touchy-feely really

The reality is that AHURI is in there with Australand, the Property Council of Australia, and various state land development corporations, which everyone should realise are just property development mills with inextricable links to private interests. While Dr Ian Winter has a benign history as a former Principal Research Fellow at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the Chairman of AHURI's Board is Rod Fehring who is a Foundation Member & Chairman of the Residential Development Council and Director of the Property Council of Australia. He was a Chief Executive of socially and environmentally destructive Delfin Lend Lease and Head of Lend Lease Communities, Asia Pacific. As well as several similar past positions, he was appointed in 2010 as Executive General Manager – Residential of Australand Ltd. (a company more than half-owned by the Singapore Government through CapitaLand, part of the Singapore-government owned Temasek).

Some alert Victorians many remember that it was to Australand that Mr Bracks (ex-Premier of Victoria) gave away 80million dollars and 20 hectares of Melbourne's dearly loved Royal Park. In addition, the Federation-style Heritage-listed buildings of the old Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital, restored at taxpayers’ expense and promised for community use, were then included in the deal, divided into units, and then sold for up to $800,000 a unit - often off the plan - providing a portal to people not even resident in Australia. There was a minute 'social housing' component in the whole deal, but the amount of land and money and taxpayer funding given to Australand could have been put to much greater and more direct use by Australians in need of housing, and we could have retained 20 ha of parkland. If the land had not been given away to this foreign company, the standing Victorian government invitation to overseas immigrants via www.liveinvictoria.com.au could not have done as much damage.

Michael Kerry is the Executive Director of the AHURI Board of Management. He is also the Managing Director, Planning, Design and Development – Australia New Zealand for AECOM [which is an international engineering and construction corporation]. Previously he was Regional Director (Queensland) for Parsons Brinckerhoff [construction and engineering corporation], a senior executive with Babcock & Brown Australia [Investment and Infrastructure, went belly-up in 2009], a Director with the Springfield Land Corporation

"Greater Springfield is the largest privately owned master planned city in Australia. Springfield Land Corporation is the master developer of the entire 2,860 hectare (7,067 acre) Greater Springfield land parcel which has become home to nearly 23,000 residents and 8,700 students since it was established in 1991."

.
(Isn't that where Bart Simpson lives?)
Michael also had extensive involvement in planning urban development in Queensland from 2004 [pity about those buildings on the flood plains]. From 1992-2004 he was Divisional Manager, Urban Management, with the Brisbane City Council, a Director of the South Bank Corporation for 12 years and an inaugural Director of Brisbane City Enterprises Pty Ltd. Before joining Brisbane City Council in 1992, he was Executive Director of the Western Australian Planning Commission and Chief Executive Officer of the Joondalup Development Corporation in Perth; Planning Manager for Metropolitan Adelaide in South Australia; Director of Planning in the Northern Territory and Senior Urban Planner with the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and National Capital Development Commission. International experience includes 3 years in the United Kingdom in environmental planning and urban renewal; local government capacity building in South Africa; and strategic planning advisor for Riyahd, Saudi Arabia. Michael is immediate Past-President of the Planning Institute Australia (Queensland Division) a Board Member of the Centre for Subtropical Design and the Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA) among other positions.

It is of course to the advantage of the growth lobby to be on boards of charitable organisations and organisations that sound high-minded. They can give advice on funding, whilst being associated with 'worthwhile causes'.

New twists and turns in the growthist philosophy of manufactured consent

The theme of the Jon Faine/AHURI show seemed to be to present as a kind of philosophy the following message: "We" have now been through the McMansion greed phase where everyone aspires to a big house. Now we are happily downsizing and looking at what we can salvage from those [enforced] decisions, because there are more on the way and resistance is futile."

The AHURI/Faine show was taking phone calls from suspiciously docile and mini-minded people. I say, "suspiciously" because the calls were in such massive contrast to those received the day before on the subject of 457 visas pushing Australians out of work.

For instance one woman rang in saying that her family had lots of money to buy a big block with a big house, but had purposefully elected to move into a small house with 'only' three bedrooms and one toilet - which she added tonily was "actually in the bathroom!" The stated reason was to avoid the division and isolation of family members that occurs when they are all distributed within a multi-lifestyle roomed dwelling.

Uncriticized was the fact that this purported lifestyle decision was really a lifestyle decision, i.e. the one-bathroom woman had a choice. For most Victorians, where they live is a Hobson's choice: it is what they can afford in an unaffordable market where 457 visas make the situation worse. It is also anti-social that our shelter, self-sufficiency and primary outgoings should be consigned to a 'market' where no-one has any political pull unless they have a lot of money. AHURI, with its government funded track record of cooperating with the big commercial developer boys can say and do nothing strong in this area.

Brave new world

Another female caller said how wonderful the retirement village was that she and her husband had chosen to move into, from a four bedroom house with a big garden in the country - which was much too big. [Such a common problem - not!]

"It's such a young place: we are only 60 and some of the people there moved there when they were in their mid-fifties!" Jon Faine asked the woman questions about what made the place so young. She gave a list of 'activities' that the residents all do there. It sounded like a holiday camp for children. Among the activities were bowls, exercises, crafts... No hint of political engagement. No hint of adult responsibility. It gave the impression that the people who go to retirement villages are totally given over to consumption and self, incidentally filling the pockets of developers, depleting their local communities of stability, and cashing in their children's inheritance. If that is really the 'lifestyle' aspiration fostered in such places, what an empty lifestyle and what an abrogation of duty when we need adults who are not too busy to go out and represent the rest of us (working too many hours to pay off huge mortgages and unreasonable rents to keep up with what is going on, let alone engage).

We need more Mary Drosts, Julianne Bells and Lady Hamers to balance out the commercial infantilisation of our elders. See "Anti-Growth Lobby: Women in politics: why don't more participate - or do they? (Melbourne, Australia)"

The truth is that those who can even afford to go into some kind of 'retirement village' are a distinct minority. "The number of households who own their home outright has fallen since 1995 from 42 per cent to 34 per cent" (AHURI "Home ownership".) A lot of us are destined for boarding houses and special accommodation homes, if not the street. The shameful fact that Australian mining billionaire Gina Rheinhart is getting a ton of media coverage as she recommends third world wages for Australians means that some of us may be picking over garbage heaps for food quite soon.

Rising cost of oil means more poverty for all

This listener also wondered what these retirement village birds have left for their children and other relatives, as they capitalise on the only family asset in a brutal land and housing market that is likely to leave a growing segment of Australians destitute. It is obvious that they have left nothing for other Australians as they sell up and allow developers to move in and bulldoze perfectly good housing stock and land that could save a future generation from starvation and feudal subjugation as petroleum gets more and more expensive.

Nuclear dreaming

And don't tell me about nuclear energy saving us all.

http://www.indaily.com.au/?iid=67480&sr=0#folio=1
"BHP Billiton CEO Marius Kloppers said in May this year that Olympic Dam mine expansion (to create the world’s largest copper and uranium mine) will not go ahead because general industry-wide cost increases, coupled with high energy costs, notably of diesel fuel, of which enormous volumes are required for mining, has made the project unviable. The project would have required something like five years and 2 billion litres of diesel fuel to remove a billion tonnes of overburden before ore mining could begin at more than 400m depth. Although BHP is still talking about finding another less energy intensive way of expanding, short of importing millions of low-waged immigrants with picks and shovels to dig up the uranium, ideas seem few and far between. South Australian Green,Mark Parnell, has pointed out that the costs of taxpayer subsidies for this fuel would have exceeded the royalties paid to the government by BHP to the tune of 60m per annum.

Where does that leave us?

Without power to maintain Australia's complex system of mechanised food production and transport, as well as overseas trades, Australians will need the productive backyards that many people had before the advent of cheap fuel and supermarkets. If we build over those yards they won't be productive. Food prices will skyrocket again. If you live in a high rise where will you get food if you are not one of a minority of very well paid people?

Somehow I don't think that AHURI will do anything to stop the growthist jugganaut that is bringing this situation closer every day.

Faine finished up the session by mentioning that he had recently heard of a couple who sold up and took off round Australia in a campervan to see how long they could go for.

If you sell your house for a campervan, you have liquidated most of your asset. If your campervan busts, what do you have left? Nonetheless, fewer and fewer Australians will own a house to choose to downsize or go out in a campervan.

The hold that the property development lobby has over the population and land-use planning system in this country has removed choice, and is causing continual reduction in living standards and quality of life. Even worse, this all comports concommitant reductions in democracy, as governments listen only to developers, Jon Faine and other public radio jocks massage the indigestible message by promoting the property lobby merchants as good-guys, and unregulated banks run the mortgage show. In a country subsumed to mass migration, what voice do most people really have?

What can we expect from the ABC?

I began this article with the question, "Should we expect more of Jon Faine and the ABC or are ABC announcers constrained to toe the government line that supports the property development lobby?"

I think we should be able to expect much more, but we don't actually know what the law and policy is for ABC employees. If they are allowed to express their views then we need more diverse representation of views and Australians are badly in need of better information than they are getting.

On Tuesday 24 of July I phoned Jon Faine's ABC local Melbourne Radio 774 program in an attempt to put a view about Syria to his listeners that was different to what had so far been put to them by Jon Faine and the corporate newsmedia. I was eventually told to ring back tomorrow. I intend to do so, but have decided to also put this letter to Jon Faine on the public record on the Internet. Updates: Jon Faine does not have a view on Syria!? does not consider Syria important!? - 8:40AM; My anti-war views censored by ABC 'talk-back' radio, 10:00AM See also: Who is fighting in Syria? of 24 July by Thierry Meyssan on voltairenet.com, US Prepares For Direct Intervention in Syria of 22 July by Tony Cartalucci on candobetter.

On Tuesday 24 of July I phoned Jon Faine's ABC local Melbourne Radio 774 program in an attempt to put a view about Syria to his listeners that was different to what had so far been put to them by Jon Faine and the corporate newsmedia. I had phoned once earlier in the morning and was told to ring back at 10:20AM. When I did I was put on hold for 20 minutes until the listeners' open line ended at 11:00AM . I was then told to ring back tomorrow. I intend to do so, but have decided to also put this letter to Jon Faine on the public record on the Internet.

Dear John Faine,

On your ABC Local Melbourne Radio 774 Morning program you have depicted the long-running conflict in Syria, as you did the Libyan conflict of last year, as a popular uprising against the supposedly brutal supposed dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.

For my part, I have extensively researched the Syrian conflict, for example on the site Global Research, the URL of which I texted you on Wednesday 18 July[1]. I have found all of the claims made against the Syrian government to have been fabrications conjured up on behalf of the US Government, NATO, Arab dictatorships, Israel and the corporate interests they serve.

The truth about Syria is that its government enjoys the support of most of its people. It seems more than likely to me that this is because, unlike the governments of its enemies including the US, Canada, and their European NATO allies, the Arab dictatorships and Israel, it has acted in past years to put the interests of its people ahead of international corporations.

Given that the leaders of the countries sponsoring the so-called "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) terrorists in Syria are known have lied repeatedly[2] through the past two decades in order to provide pretexts to wage illegal wars against Iraq and Afghanistan in which many hundreds of thousands have died, I fail to understand how you have come to so uncritically accept the latest collection of fabrications by these same proven liars.

Even if you are unable to see through the lies against the Syrian government at least you cannot be unaware that others, including me, hold views which are different to yours. So why not give others a chance to express a different view to your listeners and let them make up their own minds? Surely, if you are confident that your own point of view is backed up by evidence and logic then what have you to fear from free and open discussion on your program?

See also

Who is fighting in Syria?

of 24 July by Thierry Meyssan on voltairenet.com

Though the Western press portrays the Free Syrian Army as an armed revolutionary group, for more than a year Thierry Meyssan has affirmed that it is on the contrary a counter-revolutionary body. According to him, it would have progressively passed from the hands of reactionary monarchies in the Gulf to those of Turkey, acting for NATO. Such a non-mainstream affirmation needs demonstrative proof...

US Prepares For Direct Intervention in Syria of 22 July by Tony Cartalucci on candobetter.

Updates

Unsuccessful attempt to put my anti-war view to ABC listeners

8:40AM, 25 July 2012: I have posted this open letter to the ABC radio contact form. Then I phoned 1300 222 774 and spoke to Jon Faine's telephone receptionist. I was told again to ring the open line at 10.35AM unless Jon Faine chose the Syrian conflict as a topic of interest for discussion on his program before then. My name and the topic I wished to discuss would be listed on his computer screen and should Jon Fain decide that Syria was of interest I would be given an opportunity to speak. I pointed out that people who wanted to discuss topics that I consider far less pressing than the threatened breakout of war in Syria, which could easily cost tens of thousands of lives, had been selected by Jon Faine in preference to me yesterday.

If the Syrian Charge D'Affairs Jawdat Ali -- has been expelled from Australia as a consequence of the fabricated claim that the Syrian government had committed the massacre at Houla and if Australia has applied economic sanctions against Syria how could Faine consider the Syrian conflict not of concern to him and his audience?

She also claimed that Jon Faine had not expressed a personal view on Syria, an absurd claim in my view given that he has uncritically conveyed to his listeners misleading reports about Syria and has, so far, only allowed people who supported the mainstream media deception to speak on his program. A specific example is a Syrian Australian "Michael", who repeated the mainstream lies about Syria. Members of the Syrian Australian community who support their government have not been able to put their views on Jon Faine a far as I am aware. According to Blogger Syd Walker Syrian Australians who have expressed support for the Assad government have face death threats and drive by shootings.

Anti-war views censored by ABC 'talk-back' radio

10:00AM: As instructed, I phoned in at 10:38AM and was put on hold. As I feared, Jon Faine did not allow me to speak. Instead, during the ensuing 18 minutes until the 10:00AM news he spoke to: past Olympic gold medallist, Cathy Freeman, four people about the problem of foxes in urban Melbourne, one person about the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games.

Footnotes

[1] I texted to Jon Faine on the 18 July: Why not inform yourself & and your listeners of the facts about Syria @ globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=55 ?

[2] Two such lies include the incubator babies' lie of 1990, which was used to gain public acceptance of US plans to wage war against Iraq in 1991 and the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction lie used to provide a pretext to launch the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (Of course, it is beyond the pale, in the respectable circles in which Jon Faine mixes, to even dream of questioning the pretext used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.)

The 774 ABC Jon Faine show was doing a Melbourne By-Election special at the Victoria Markets today Friday 20 July 2012. I rang the show and said that I wanted to hear an interview of Joe Toscano. To give Jon Faine credit, Joe was then interviewed almost immediately and did very well on the subject of the ABC Sheltered workshop for the IPA. He then responded to questions about his platform as a Radical Independent candidate, which I have posted here.

Weak defense of regular IPA presence on ABC Radio

Later discussion on the program about the presence of the IPA, it seemed to me, was cleverly but unconvincingly defended by Jon Faine and someone who sounded like an IPA representative. The argument put forward was that it was very hard to get a free representation of conservative points of view and that the IPA did a good job and had therefore been given a regular position on Jon Faine's show. It was then put that there were many left-wing organisations available for comment on all manner of issues.

What would constitute democratic balance on the ABC

What was missing in this argument was that the IPA represents population growth, econonomic growth, overdevelopment and privatisation as a four horse plank. The ABC has failed to similarly anoint the opposing point of view, which is for a steady state economy with only replacement development and with state-owned and therefore publicly accountable services and assets. The IPA is also not the only pro-growth professional representative: the ABC is a frequent vehicle for a multitude of economic rationalists, but notably for property development organisations and representatives, including the ubiquitous Bernard Salt, who pushes a simplistic pro-growth message in the Murdoch press at State and Federal level.

One-off Faine Conversation Hour population forum 2010 expressed opposite opinion then buried

Having said this, as the counterweight to Steve Bracks, the ex-Premier of Victoria, on the Jon Faine Conversation hour in a Conversation Hour population forum on 19 April, 2010, I personally put this viewpoint strongly, as a population sociologist and as a spokesperson for SPA Victoria on the subject of Victoria's out of control population growth and its undemocratic nature. [Download or listen to the MP3 here.] After the show I was photographed with the ex-Premier and this Conversation Hour Population Forum recording became available for download and comment on its own ABC page. This however was a one-off, despite the huge success of that hour, when the phone lines were innundated with people supporting my point of view and virtually no support for Bracks's, which was pro-growth. Somewhat obviously, I thought, the photograph of me and the ex-Premier was never published on this page. Comments on the page were early disabled and never again effectively enabled, despite my making two written complaints about the matter. I know that many people tried and failed to add their comments to that page.

Government gelded ABC Sheltered Workshop for the Institute of Public Affairs

Joe Toscano wrote, just prior to the ABC Melbourne by-Election thang:

"Nothing highlights the moral bankruptcy of significant sections of the ABC more than Melbourne's 774 local radio’s decision to host a special Melbourne by-election program at the Queen Victoria Markets in Melbourne on Friday morning in which only the more “popular” candidates will be interviewed. Over the past two decades significant sections of ABC television and radio have been little more than commercial clones.

Afraid of its own shadow significant slabs of the government gelded ABC have been transformed into sheltered workshops for the Institute of Public Affairs. Week after week, month after month, year after year debate within the ABC is contained within strictly defined boundaries. While radical right wing opinions dominate ABC television and ABC radio, radical left wing opinions are shunned.

Just two weeks ago I was approached by an ABC television producer to appear on ABC News Breakfast on ABC1 and ABC News 24 to discuss the launch of Communitysavesfairfax.com. Three hours later the same producer, alerted to the fact I had a left wing radical pedigree, withdrew the invitation. Ironically, I had been involved in a debate that lasted over 20 minutes on Sky News Business Breakfast two days previously.

The stacking of the ABC Board with neo-conservative Board members, the appointment of neo-conservative senior bureaucrats to the ABC, the introduction of short term contracts and the outsourcing of production has created a climate of fear within the ABC. The ABC is publicly owned. We all pay our eight cents a day to watch and listen to Aunty. It’s time a thousand flowers were allowed to bloom among the stunted old perennials growing in much of the ABC wastelands."

Dr Toscano adds,

It’s ironic at the very moment Ken Williams, the CEO of News Limited, publicly indicated he would use News Limited’s considerable resources to derail the Gillard government’s legislative attempts to hold the corporate owned media to account, one arm of his far flung corporate empire is involved in crass, crude political censorship. I, like the other 15 candidates standing in the Victorian Melbourne By-election was approached by the Melbourne Leader (which claims it has a readership of 51,000) to provide a “profile” for the Melbourne Leader.

A picture and a fifty word opinion piece on “my plans” for Melbourne. I emailed back indicating I believed a “sullen, angry, disillusioned, disgruntled electorate wants ideas, not profiles”. I was surprised to receive an email that stated the Melbourne Leader would be publishing that I “did not submit the profile as requested”. Any normal reader looking at the article in the Melbourne Leader would think I didn’t respond to their request.

It is both disingenuous and dishonest for the Melbourne Leader to imply I didn’t respond to their request. I sent the newspaper three
emails outlining my position regarding their “profile”. At the very least they should have stated they declined to publish my comments.

What's happening highlights why we need laws to make the corporate owned media accountable. I could take my complaint to the Australian Press Council, a self-regulatory toothless tiger. Even if they found in my favour, it would be months before the matter would be resolved. Everyday hundreds of people across this country are misrepresented in the corporate owned media. They have no effective redress. Making the corporate owned media accountable would bring them into line with current community standards."

You can hear more from Joe Toscano on 3CR in the latest podcast, which is all about the above, and you can go and vote for him, if you wish, at the Melbourne By-Election tomorrow, 20 July 2012. Good luck Joe!

Whatever you think about 9 11, this story is so revealing of the contempt our public media and our Primeminister have for public opinion and free expression and for that reason needs to be promoted. (Ed.) The interview by Jon Faine of Kevin Bracken about 9/11 on 20 October 2010 was "possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the tax payer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This attack by Faine of Bracken's questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy."

Whatever you think about 9 11, this story is so revealing of the contempt our public media and our Primeminister have for public opinion and free expression and for that reason needs to be promoted. (Ed.).The interview by Jon Faine of Kevin Bracken about 9/11 on 20 October 2010 was "possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the tax payer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This attack by Faine of Bracken's questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy."

The particularly good report that follows on the Faine/Bracken interview is by John Bursill, of 9/11 Truth Australia, and was originally published as Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!

Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1785

To many the name Kevin Bracken is a new one in regards 9/11 Truth. The reality is that Kevin has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth cause since 2006 by disseminating information throughout the Victorian Union Movement and the Maritime Workers Union of Australia. He has distributed DVD's, shown films and shared information regularly with his associates and the people of Melbourne and he achieved motions calling for a new investigation from both the Victorian Trades Hall Council where he is the President and the Victorian branch of the Maritime Union of Australia of which he heads as Secretary. Kevin has also attended numerous conferences on 9/11 and has been the facilitator of such in Melbourne, Australia. Over the years Kevin and I have developed a close working relationship, both striving for the truth 9/11 to come out to bring end to the wars and to get our rights back that have been eroded since 9/11!

This is the motion passed on the 28th of March of 2008 at the VTHC;

"That this meeting of VTHC Executive Council calls for a thorough, independent enquiry into the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11.

The events of that day have been used to start pre-emptive wars "that will not end in our lifetime". They have been used to attack civil liberties and legal principles that have been the cornerstone of civilized communities.

There is an urgent need to reassess the way we view the world after September 11 and we call for proper investigation into the events around that day."

On the 20th of October 2010 Kevin was asked to ring into ABC 774 Mornings with John Faine although Faine disputes this. This was following an email that was sent to Faine by Kevin questioning 9/11 in the context of Australia's ongoing support of the Afghanistan occupation. After the recent Australian Election it was demanded by the Australian Greens in a "balance of power" deal that the Australian involvement in the Afghan War be debated in parliament in it's first sitting. This debate had been going on this week and it was the first time any such debate had happened since 9/11, which is simply outrageous.

This interview by Faine was possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the tax payer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This attack by Faine of Bracken's questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. A reasonable explanation of what happened and also with attached audio can be found here. This story titled "Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken Stands by his 9/11 Conspiracy" has been reported all around the world and included a poll which started off running at around 50/50 asking if Kevin's questions about 9/11 were "reasonable" but has continued to move in his favour ending up at the time of writing these notes at 75% in favour of Bracken.

Kevin has received literally thousands of thank you's from around the world for his brave stance for 9/11 Truth! Standing his ground even after being directly verbally bashed by the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard saying he was "stupid and wrong" and having his own leadership comrades buckle at the knees if the face of unfounded ridicule. Rather than running for cover Kevin with his chin in the air has reiterated his position defying any to debate him on the issue! As usual all media presstitutes have refused, as there is obviously "no debate to have". It seems that the vast majority of the public disagree and would like to see such a debate but none of the so called "journalists" dare to tread such a path.

Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy.

The battle for 9/11 Truth is far from over and as long as the fools in power maintain their policy of occupation of Afghanistan they will remain exposed and at risk of criminal prosecution due to the lies of 9/11. Lets hope it comes soon or they realize and stop the bloodshed.

Appendix: YouTube presentation of 'your' ABC's Jon Faine's persecution of of Kevin Bracken for speaking the truth

YouTube broadcast, originally created by A Lawson (alawson911) can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE3pMPObcGU). For your convenience, we have reprinted A Lawson's accompanying comments below.

Listen to an overbearing gatekeeper, Jon Faine, attempt to rubbish the genuine concerns of an Australian trades unionist, Kevin Bracken, in an attempt to stifle any debate about the many anomalies in the official 9/11 story.

Seldom have I heard anyone, who obviously wants the issue to go away, do more to attract attention to it. He did this during a phone-in on the publicly-owned Australian Broadcasting Commission's 774 ABC Melbourne radio station.

A small amount of sound editing was necessary, but the integrity of the conversation was retained. The unedited sound file of the conversation can be found on this Internet page.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2...

The following web page has more background.

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vict...

This article title is based on the title of a debate at the Municipal Association of Victoria AGM, which took place on Thursday, October 21 at Hotel Sofitel. The article itself is based on speech notes from SPA Victoria's president, Jill Quirk, for her part in the debate. Panel members were: Jill Quirk, President of Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch); Pru Sanderson, CEO, VicUrban; and Professor of Physiology, Roger Short, Melbourne University. The Chair was Jon Faine.

Sustainable population MUST BE THE DEAL since the alternative is societal and ecological collapse.

Sustainable means – able to be sustained/maintained without decay or degradation. Unless this is envisaged over a long period of time, it is meaningless in human terms. The previous custodians of this continent had staying power of over a period of 40,000 -60,000 years. Europeans have only made their mark- over about 230-50 years.

In other words if we are to be sustainable over any significant and meaningful time period, we’ve hardly begun.

Victoria at present does not have a sustainable population.

The State of the Environment (SOE) report 2008 reflects the simple fact that most areas of the state are highly stressed. Most natural vegetation, waterways, wetlands, coasts and rivers are reported in a parlous condition.

“Population growth, settlement and consumption patterns and climate change are the key drivers of environmental degradation in Victoria”

“Victoria’s population growth, increasing affluence and the expansion of our cities and towns, have contributed to unsustainable levels of resource consumption and waste production.”

It is clear that population growth combined with the broad practices of our society are leading us in the wrong direction. It is ultimately our environment which will dictate whether or not we are sustainable and it is therefore non negotiable. In order to achieve sustainability our environment must come before all the considerations including the economy.

To understand the seriousness of the SOE report and that with continuing population growth, if no changes are made, the situation will worsen must be also to understand that the end of our stay here is in sight.

Sustainable population must not be confused with "sustainable growth" in population which of course is an impossibility, even an oxymoron. Stabilization of our population as soon as we can should be our aim as it is necessary but not sufficient for long term sustainability

From localized to more pervasive environmental issues -

Greenhouse gases are an example of a waste product and in Australia rise in lock step with population growth.

Instead of striving to stabilize our population, which is necessary but not sufficient for sustainability, the push from those with the loudest voices is to grow as fast as we can.

Our leaders and planners need to incorporate resource depletion, including peak oil, in realistic rather than fanciful visions of our future.

In Victoria- what I hear is:

“Extension of UGB
High rise /Activity centers.”

But:

Post peak oil, Melbourne's outer suburbs and established areas will become less sustainable. Peak oil will highlight terrible problems of transport and self sufficiency.

Authorities, leaders and planners must bear this in mind.

Right now, as we cannot start any sooner –

Democracy crucial

The issue of democracy at a local level is crucial in shaping our future and needs to be protected.
We associate planning very much with local government. The role of councils ideally is as an intermediary between the rights of some and the assumed freedoms of others. At this level, the sustainability of local areas has the best chance of being protected.

As David Suzuki once said, referring to the protection of the environment, “Every victory is temporary, every defeat is permanent.”

We have no serious option but to be a sustainable population, so to me it is definitely a deal. The possibility of achieving it rests with all levels of government.

We need to acknowledge our impact, lessen our individual impact, stop seeking more, do less, and acknowledge that infrastructure is not the cure-all for runaway population growth.

We can stabilise our population. We cannot do it immediately but by mid century – yes.
We are not sustainable now.
We face oil depletion and declining environment

We owe it to ourselves and to our grandchildren and great grandchildren that a sustainable population must be THE DEAL.

Details of Event:

Audience of about 250 Councillors and Council officers from across Victoria, at MAV Annual Conference on Thursday, October 21, at Hotel Sofitel. Session title: "Sustainable Population – Deal or No Deal?"
Session Chair: Jon Faine
Panel members: Jill Quirk, President: Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch); Pru Sanderson, CEO, VicUrban; Professor Roger Short, Melbourne University.
Each Panel member spoke for approximately10 minutes , followed by questions and general discussion.

John Faine refused to debate Kevin Bracken, a caller to his Melbourne ABC 'talk back' show on the September 11 terrorist atrocity, after which Faine, in seeming league with Labor and Coalition politicians and the corporate newsmedia, whipped up what almost became a national witch-hunt against Bracken. However, they got more than they bargained for when public opinion swang behind Kevin Bracken. We have transcribed in full, with comments, one of Faine's videoed "defences" of his conduct, so that readers can judge for themselves.

See also comment Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken, Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11

9/11 conspiracy theorists swamping talkback: Faine

And welcome to the Friday wrap-up. It is a bit chaotic today. We've got Di Fingleton, Bill Mc Innes and a cast of thousands.

It's been an extraordinary week , too.

(Inaudible response to Jon Faine.)

I don't want to talk about 9/11 conspiracies theorists and the like. Well, I kind of do, but I don't. I don't want to start it up again.

Editorial comment: After refusing to debate Kevin Bracken and starting what came close to becoming a national witch-hunt against Bracken for his supposedly outrageous questioning of the official account 9/11, Faine tells his listeners that he, himself "kinda do[es]" "want to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the like." Perhaps he should explain to his listeners why he thinks he should judged any less harshly than he judged Kevin Bracken for raising the taboo topic of questioning 9/11 on his 'talk-back' show.

We are clearly being targeted now after what happened on Wednesday afternoon when Kevin Bracken from the Maritime Union and the President of the Trades Hall chose to call in₁. We didn't call him. He called us. ...

Editorial comment: It's a talk-back show, I would have thought. What is Jon Faine trying to say? That he thinks that a member of the public, such as Kevin Bracken, with a view about the principle justification for this country's, so far, nine year intervention in Afghanistan, is not entitled to ring up a talk-back show in order to put that view?

... He said you can't have a parliamentary debate about Afghanistan unless you are prepared to talk about what really happened and the truth of what happened at the World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September and off it went. ...

Editorial comment: So Jon Faine believes that the principle justification for the war in Afghanistan should not be discussed by the very same body which voted to send our soldiers to fight in that war?

...And now it's Friday and I have probably countless e-mails, text messages and phone calls. We are clearly being targetted now, by all the people who think there is more to it than we've ever been told and "the media" (with a gesture with both hands indicating quote marks) are part of the conspiracy. And having just got a little crack in the door open, we're getting phone calls from all around Australia. We're getting e-mails from around the world. People are saying "Uhh! Here is a point where we can have our claims fully explored. It's been a very intense week because of that. Ahh! On the other hand, I stuck my neck out. I've called them loonies. I've had a go.

I think this is corrosive of peoples' trust in the rule of law and democracy. I still believe that. I don't resile for a moment from anything I've said. , but in the background you can see that --- There's John Standish, one fo my producers -- dealing with all the complaints of people saying that we're arrogant, we're high-handed and we're dismissive and that's not our role here at the ABC and that will take weeks for us to deal with. Such is life!

Footnotes

1. [back] See also PM story "Vic union leader says September 11 attacks a conspiracy" for some of the dialogue and my comment. As with the dialogue show above the actual words of a person, baiting someone for having expressed an honestly held opinion about an important issues do that person making those remarks no credit.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3043700.htm

See also comment Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken, Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11

Jon Faine refuses to debate justification for continuing 9 year old Afghan war -another 10 years. As of 10:00AM this morning a Herald sun poll is showing that over 60% of respondents agree with Union leader Kevin Bracken's view that the official explanation of 9/11 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Republished from 911oz.com. See also: comments Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken and Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11, 'Anti-racists' silence on the most racist lie of all

Update, 31 October:

A more recent figure of support for Kevin Bracken on the abovementioned poll is 76.78%, or 8277 votes to 2501 votes) so those, who agree with Jon Faine that discussion of the controversy raging over 9/11 should be suppressed must be, as they should be in any free and educated society, a small minority .

Let us know your opinion! Please leave a comment

As of 10:00AM this morning a Herald sun poll is showing that over 60% of respondents agree with Union leader Kevin Bracken's view that the official explanation of 9/11 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. ₁

Radio host John Faine previously attacked Bracken's views on air over two days, describing him as a nutter and an extremist, and stating that his views were "offensive".

In Parliament on Wednesday Australian PM Julia Gillard stated that Bracken's views were "stupid and wrong".

Herald Sun poll clearly shows that Kevin Bracken's views on 9/11 are now mainstream

Republished from 911oz.com. See also: comments Jon Faine baits, refuses to debate, Kevin Bracken and Gillard, Faine, disdainful of reasonable doubt on 9/11, 'Anti-racists' silence on the most racist lie of all

Update, 31 October:

A more recent figure of support for Kevin Bracken on the abovementioned poll is 76.78%, or 8277 votes to 2501 votes) so those, who agree with Jon Faine that discussion of the controversy raging over 9/11 should be suppressed must be, as they should be in any free and educated society, a small minority .

Footnotes

1. [back] Editorial comment: In an earlier comment I reported that 46% of the respondents to that poll had agreed with Kevin Bracken and had disagreed with thought policeman Jon Faine. Since then, the proportion in agreement with Kevin Bracken has grown to 66.34% (to 33.6%). The numbers of votes were 4740 to 2405. The fact that the majority of the public oppose Faine's edicts on what they can think on the September 11 terorist attacks shows just how out of touch Jon Faine is. Even if the figure had remained at 46% opposed to Jon Faine with a majority in support, the listening public surely have every right to expect of hosts of 'talkback' shows to allow those views to be publicly expressed. If Jon Faine is right about the views of September 11 "conspiracy theorists" being so absurd, this would surely be demonstrated very quickly very in any fair debate on his program, and the harm that Faine claims that such discussion will cause will be limited and quickiy put behind us. In fact, there has not been one fair debate in the Australian newsmedia, least of all on Jon Faine's own program in the 9 years since the attack. Surely, those, like Faine, who have prevented debate should not be surprised that the raising of this issue, in Faine's own words, causes "corrosion of peoples' trust in the rule of law and democracy". Faine, no doubt, prefers his listeners to have unquestioning trust in a system of 'democracy' that allows bloody and destructive wars lasting decades to be waged without their claimed causes being scrutinised by our newsmedia.

Republished here to give background to Sheila Newman's remarks in her debate with Steve Bracks on the Jon Faine show 19-4-2010. You can comment on Jon Faine's "Population Forum" about the debate here and you can listen to the podcast here. The sector in Australia that has the most costly dependency ratio must be the property sector, since it costs all Australians an enormous and unreasonable amount just to cover the cost of land for housing, business and agriculture. Most of the very high costs involved are completely unnecessary, except in the eyes of greedy developers and their hangers-on

Mr Salt, wrong again

Yesterday (4 Feb, 2010) the Australian had Bernard Salt raising the alarm about the dependency ratio (again). But the man is hopelessly misinformed. Elderly people are not the big problem. And children (who are more dependent and for longer and who outnumber elderly people) are not the problem either.

The sector in Australia that has the most costly dependency ratio must be the property sector, since it costs all Australians an enormous and unreasonable amount just to cover the cost of land for housing, business and agriculture. Most of the very high costs involved are completely unnecessary, except in the eyes of greedy developers and their hangers-on. The only reason that the costs are so high is that the industry wants it that way and our state and federal governments are in cahoots with it.

The housing industry is making life in Australia miserable

Australians pay these monstrous costs first and must deduct them from their disposable income. These unnecessary costs affect the amount of hours we must work and how hard we must work and whether we can afford to take holidays. They affect our health and happiness. The high prices affect the cost of doing business, of manufacturing, of storage, garaging etc. When these costs are inflated they take away from other economic and social obligations, which are to provide education, hospitals, child support and retirement funding in the form of pensions and superannuation. Yes, even for self-funded retirees, the cost of doing business is inflated by the cost of land and is deducted as a variety of costs from any profits which devolve to shareholders.

Australia's inflated land-costs

Australia's inflated land-costs mean that small business has had increasing difficulty surviving and that for an increasing number of Australians, survival itself - in terms of accessing shelter and having enough money left over for food and clothing - has become difficult and sometimes impossible. For more Australians each year, transport to get to work or education to train for employment, are luxuries. Yet all this could be changed if property development and housing were no longer considered as private profits but as public expenses and the factors that contribute to their inflation were adjusted accordingly. These factors are those which drive up demand. Demand is affected by births, deaths and immigration and, to a lesser extent, by household size, location and position, which may all be to some extent discretionary.

What drives the high cost of land in Australia?

The most noticeable adjustable drivers of demand are overseas and interstate immigration. Interstate immigration can be dealt with by adjusting building permits at local levels. Overseas immigration can be dealt with by State Governments ceasing advertising for new immigrants and by National Government revising immigration quotas downwards. For maximum reduction of costs, land and housing availability should be exactly equal to demand.

In a steady state society, houses would become available as people died, with some overlap, at very little cost.

It is Australia's housing industry which is responsible for elderly people being scapegoated instead of honoured and supported to enjoy the long and happy lives that we should all be able to look forward to.

ABS data

"For most Australians, whether buying or renting their home, the provision of adequate housing for themselves and their families involves substantial ongoing expenditure throughout much of their lives. Housing costs are often the largest regular expenses to be met from a household's current income.

The housing costs measure compiled from the Survey of Income and Housing is defined as the sum of:

* rent payments,
* rates payments (general and water), and
* mortgage or unsecured loan payments, if the initial purpose was primarily to buy, add or alter the dwelling."
Source: 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008

It is always very difficult to get information from public sources on how the cost of land affects the cost of living in Australia because the Australian Bureau of Statistics refuses to treat land as a 'commodity' and our cost of living measure, the consumer price index, only factors in the cost of 'commodities' - other things you buy.

This kind of information is about the best we can get from the ABS (see below). It doesn't tell us very much. Most of the information is in the private sector and costs a lot to see.

It also doesn't tell us how much people who have businesses pay for rent and buildings on top of the money they pay for their own housing.

The ABS doesn't admit that land is like a commodity in Australia

Yet land is treated like a commodity in Australia, and we know for sure that for many of us it is our greatest burden:

“The development of stock mortgages and wool and crop liens in Australia represented legal ingenuity in that on traditional analysis, a property transfer was taking place with respect to something which would only come into existence in the future – the crop or wool to be grown.

In Australia land was not in itself a source of power but an asset capable of producing wealth. Improvements, particularly fencing, represented a high proportion of the value of real estate and borrowings on the land seem to have been greater than in England. It is thus argued that land in Australia was always viewed as a commodity, see Davidson and Wells, “The Land, the Law and The State: Colonial Australia 1788-1890” (1982) 2 Law in Context 89 AND Whalan, D., The Torrens System in Australia p.98.” Source: Adrian J Bradbrook, Susan V MacCallum, Anthony P Moore, Australian Property Law, LBC Information services, 1996, p.1.103:

Is the Property Development industry becoming an embarassment to its members?

Mr Salt recently argued that the property sector was being too timid. He implied that they had become somewhat embarrassed by bloggers highlighting the industry's reasons for promoting high immigration. He urged them to weigh into public debate and wondered why usually high profile growth lobbyists were acting like such wall-flowers.

"... I must say the “growth vs no growth” issue is ascendant and is likely to remain so during 2010. What disappointed me about this debate was the lack of supporting comment emanating from the property industry. No-one that I could see was out there putting the case for growth.

And I suspect the reason is that “big (property) business” doesn’t want to draw attention to itself on a contentious public issue. There seems to me to be almost a timidity in property individuals getting involved in public debate about growth. The logic seems to be don’t rock the boat."

Who would want to admit they are in this industry?

Well, maybe, the property industry is becoming a little more self-aware and less inclined to shoot from the mouth. Perhaps some of the younger people in the industry are becoming ashamed of the role the industry plays in creating and increasing poverty and inequality. Perhaps some of the young planners and builders aren't too keen on trashing the countryside. Maybe when young property developers, engineers, planners and developers you go to parties these days, their mouths go dry and they blush when some nice girl or bloke asks them what they do for a living.

I mean, what do you say? "I make my money out of unaffordable housing." "My boss is a land-speculator." "I serve the land-lords of the world." "We're in the business of overpopulation. It's good for our profits." "Oh, your mother protested on the steps of parliament last week?" "You hate people who bulldoze trees?" "Um, you think we cause most of the carbon gas increases in Australia?" "Well, I didn't choose to have small animals flee at my approach." "Gee, I might be responsible for people dying of thirst in a few decades, and I'm already responsible for animals dying of starvation, but hey, it's a job."

"The only way to offset the impact of the baby bust next decade is to grow the tax base through immigration. That’s why we need a big Australia, at least in the short term. And, make no mistake, this trajectory is good news for the property industry," writes Bernard Salt.

Well, no, Bernard. There is another way and it involves downsizing the property development industry so that we can afford what any normal functioning society can expect to provide for its children and elderly.

I look forward to some intelligent and responsible leadership from those young people who are currently embarrassed by their industry.

Anticipating the counter-argument

Basic economics requires profit to be made from land so that society can have publicly available infrastructure. Land commodifiers and speculators use the need for a profit margin to justify the buying and selling of land at unreasonable prices and for government and business conspiring to inflate those prices. But, when the costs of land are so high that they make business impossible, the time has come to say good-bye to the private housing and development industries.

NOTES

First published here 2/6/2010 but republished to give background to my remarks on Jon Faine Show - 19-4-2010