I am devastated that Coles are to take over most of the Supabarn stores ("ACT supermarket swoop", June20, p1). Supabarn at Wanniassa is our preferred place to shop, though we do have to resort to Woolworths as well. The quality of the fruit, vegetables and meat sold at Supabarn is far superior to those items sold by our local Woolworths or Coles stores.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
How can this duopoly be allowed to get bigger and bigger? Aldi and IGA seem to be all that's now left for those of us who object to purchasing from "the big two", who are greedy and continually force our fresh food producers to lower their prices, working harder for less.
Meanwhile, the Coles and Woolworths shareholders laugh all the way to the bank – many of those banks being outside Australia. The ACCC is a toothless tiger, which seems to offer no protection against these greed-filled companies. Where will it all end?
Maureen Blackmore, Pearce
Here we go again, as Canberra sees even more erosion of competitive trade. Perhaps the highest petrol prices in the land and no one cares; major supermarket prices that are regularly $80 to $140 above the lowest; rates and taxes through the roof; parking rip-offs; and the spectre of over a decade of light-rail debt.
So a competitive smaller supermarket now being sucked up by a greedy Melbourne monolith – the same monolith currently building a hardware store next to a good independent store in Gungahlin – is just par for the course. Who gives a damn about Canberra consumers? Not this government.
Alan McNeil, Weetangera
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is going to hold a public inquiry into Coles' takeover of some Supabarn supermarkets to see whether it thinks that would "substantially lessen competition"(which would be illegal), not only between supermarket chains as a whole, but also in any of the "individual local markets in which Supabarn stores operate" (ie, in particular Canberra suburbs).
With respect, as a former deputy chairman of that body, I think the inquiry should confine itself to the effect on competition in the Canberra market as a whole, not in "local markets" – because, in Canberra, there is no such thing as a "local market" . Canberra's excellent road network means that, if someone is dissatisfied with their "local" supermarket, it's no problem to go somewhere else to another supermarket – which means the only market is Canberra as a whole.
And in that market, the elimination of Supabarn's 7per cent of the market (or probably only about, say, 4per cent for the five out of nine stores involved), could hardly be called "substantial" – particularly given the intense remaining competition between Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and IGA (and some Supabarn stores). So, do we really need a taxpayer-funded public inquiry into the matter? Is this another example of excessive government regulation?
R. S. Gilbert, Braddon
Landlords left to pay
R.I.Boxall (Letters, June17) thinks increased land tax will just be passed on to tenants. However, the evidence is clearly that this won't happen. For instance, he claims that land tax has increased 61per cent in the past year, yet in the past year rents have been very soft in Canberra, and often are actually lower than a few years ago, so clearly the effect he claims just hasn't happened. Land tax increases have been borne by landlords.
More generally, rents aren't set by landlord costs; they are set by overall market supply and demand. If rents were set by landlord costs, then very similar apartments would be let for very different rents, but this doesn't happen. For instance, a flat bought years ago for $50,000 would be much cheaper to rent than an identical flat that had just been bought for $400,000, a very unlikely proposition. If you go to a real estate agent to ask advice on what rent to charge, they don't say "well, what are your costs?" They say "well, the going rate for a flat like that is such and such".
It's true that total costs of renting could, theoretically, be so great at some point as to dissuade people from investing in new developments, or from letting a property they already owned, just leaving it vacant. But that would only have a widespread market effect, by restricting supply and thus raising rent levels, in the long-term, and clearly hasn't happened yet.
Paul Pollard, O'Connor
June 22 shortest day
For years now, I have heard people banging on about how June21 is the shortest day of the year. Correct, June 21 IS the shortest day of the year – but guess what? That is a northern hemisphere shortest day of the year. This means that the shortest day of the year in the southern hemisphere (due to the date line, GMT and all that) is June22 in Australia.
I should know; it's my birthday and I always complained as a youngster that it wasn't fair I had less time to have a birthday than everyone else. Now it just irks me that Australia is becoming so Americanised that people are accepting June21.
Simon Hruza, Conder
Norfolk Island
Self-government on Norfolk Island is over. It ended on June17. The loss of their democratic rights and the annulment of their parliament is understandably causing great distress to residents of Norfolk Island.
Residents have still not received from the minister, the administrator or, indeed, from any of their three federal representatives, Gai Brotman, Zed Seselja or Katy Gallagher (all of whom voted to end democracy on Norfolk Island) a cogent explanation why demands for normalisation of taxation and other policies and services, which had already been agreed to by Norfolk Island, required the abolition of self-government and the removal of their basic democratic rights.
Compounding the distress is the removal, without any consultation or notice, of the preamble to the Norfolk Island Act. The preamble recognised the special relationship of the descendants of Pitcairn Island settlers with Norfolk Island and their desire to preserve their traditions and culture.
The preamble was, in intent, the same as that which has been proposed for inclusion in the Australian constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.
The stealthy removal of the preamble to the Norfolk Island Act, recognising as it does the special relationship of Pitcairn Island descendants with Norfolk Island, is viciously gratuitous bastardy of the first order.
Jon Stanhope, Bruce
Free trade does not always prove a boon
Free Trade Agreements, with the lure of cheaper prices, employment opportunities and increased trade are a bit like the "emperor's new clothes". But, some of us don't want "cheaper". We prefer well made and reasonable quality products, made in industrial settings which have decent workplace conditions and remuneration as well as occupational health and safety regulations.
These products would outlast their guarantee, and do not pose choking, electrical shock and other risks cited in the ubiquitous "recall notices" which now are increasing in seriousness: homes being burnt down (faulty washing machines, powerboards and wall cladding).
I would pay more to help ensure that all my food was pure and did not make me seriously ill – that it was free from dangerous additives, such as melamine. Food which is from Australian farmers, who, in turn, were adequately remunerated for their efforts. This to me is food security. I would willingly pay extra for quality clothing which did not immediately
end up in landfill and which was not a product of "sweated" labour.
Rosemary White, Queanbeyan, NSW
Slippery when wet
The new bus stops along Bugden Avenue, Fadden, have yellow "safety" ground surface indicators on the footpaths where the buses pull up. Unfortunately, I found today in light rain that they are extremely slippery when wet. Unwilling to believe that such a hazard could have been installed, after slipping and nearly falling over on the first one I encountered whilst walked along the footpath (wearing walking boots), I tested the yellow surfaces at the next three bus stops, more cautiously. Result: highly slippery, under controlled conditions. Conclusion: these surfaces are a hazard when wet. Can TAMS please investigate?
K. Macpherson, Fadden
Independence of commission's president goes without saying
Professor John Wanna advances some dubious propositions in his article "Triggs in uncharted waters" (Times2, June19, p1). For example, he notes that the Human Rights Commission Act contains "no statutory provision of independence" for an officer such as president Triggs. That's because it goes without saying.
Where the legislature wants to limit the independence of one of its statutory corporations, the legislation says so by, for example, subjecting its officers to ministerial direction. Wanna also observes that an officer such as president Triggs needs to retain the respect of the Parliament, including the executive. Provisions for security of tenure are included in the Human Rights Commission Act for the very purpose of ensuring that a government cannot get rid of an officer whom it no longer "respects", except for cause.
In the case of president Triggs, section 41 of the act is the relevant provision. Under that provision, if the government believes she has engaged in "misbehaviour" or she suffers from "physical or mental incapacity", the governor-general can terminate her appointment. So far, the Abbott government has not pursued that option.
Frank Marris, Forrest
I take the point of John Wanna's somewhat waffly article and note that neither he, nor anyone else, has contradicted what she actually said: that, vis-a-vis our general efforts to get the death penalty abolished in our region, it's best to be friendly and co-operative if you want friendship and co-operation.
Recruiting the indignation and grieving associated with the two executions to the anti-Triggs polemic is cynical manipulation of a low kind.
I'd like a mature review of the things we can do to be more worthy of special favours from our neighbours, but that won't happen now.
S. W. Davey, Torrens
John Wanna's claim that Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs "has arguably overstepped her statutory powers" would have more credibility had he more specifically examined the Australian Human Rights Commission's statutory functions, instead of embarking on a theoretical analysis of the position of statutory office holders.
The functions of the commission, set out in section 16 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, go well beyond the functions conferred on some of the other statutory bodies to which Wanna refers. They include: (f) to inquire into any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, and: (ii) where the Commission is of the opinion that the act or practice is inconsistent with or contrary to any human right ... to report to the Minister in relation to the inquiry; and (g) to promote an understanding and acceptance, and the public discussion, of human rights in Australia; and (h) to undertake ... educational programs ... for the purpose of promoting human rights, and (j) on its own initiative ... to report to the Minister as to the laws that should be made by the Parliament, or action that should be taken by the Commonwealth, on matters relating to human rights; and (k) on its own initiative ... to report to the Minister as to the action (if any) that, in the opinion of the Commission, needs to be taken by Australia in order to comply with the provisions of the Covenant, of the Declarations or of any relevant international instrument.
Far from "overstepping her statutory powers", in promoting human rights and reporting on action that should be taken on matters relating to human rights and on action that needs to be taken to comply with international instruments to which Australia is a party, Professor Triggs is faithfully performing her statutory functions.
Ernst Willheim, Forrest
Deter immigration
Ross Gittins ("Politicians betraying young", Times2, June17, p4) correctly wrote "Both sides of politics believe in high levels of immigration, but haven't bothered to ensure sufficient additional homes are being built to accommodate the growing population". However, he then made a serious mistake by writing, "reducing impediments to the building of additional homes ... is the fundamental solution to the problem of housing affordability". It is not. The fundamental solution is reducing housing demand by reducing immigration.
Gittins's misconception is widespread. The article "RBA shifts focus to lack of supply as driver of housing gains" (BusinessDay, June 17, p9) said the Reserve Bank was shifting its concern about house price inflation "from low interest rates" and "pointed a finger at imbalances between supply and demand in the Sydney market", but the wording of the headline itself was misleading at it also placed the blame on shortage of supply, rather than excessive demand.
The housing price problem will not be resolved until the cause of it is properly understood. Perhaps the Canberra Times could contribute to better understanding by providing statistics comparing the number of new dwellings built each year per million of population, and the net immigration per million, in Australia, the US, and Britain. This might indicate that Australia has a satisfactory supply of housing, but an excessive demand for housing caused by immigration.
Bob Salmond, Melba
Negative gearing
Ross Gittins has joined the chorus pushing the repeal of negative gearing. The primary justification of removing a distortion from the real estate market would similarly require that property trusts could not deduct investor dividends from their taxable income. To not do so would favour the corporate investor against the sole trader.
Dumping negative gearing would generate government income initially but, as others have noted, foreign investment and inordinate migration also affect housing affordability. The proposed Band-Aid is an unfair solution to half of the problem.
Whilst it appeals to the egalitarian principle of redistribution of income and solves an immediate shortfall in taxation receipts, it would have little or no effect on housing affordability considering the other causative factors, and could well impact the building industry and the rental market quite severely.
Gary J. Wilson, MacGregor
TO THE POINT
AUSTRALIA ADRIFT
Now that the "Captain" has thrown the moral compass overboard, who will save us from drowning in the stormy sea of despair?
Peter Snowdon, Aranda
INNOCENT-ISH
How can Tony Abbott say that Australian law, which he has sworn to uphold, can't be trusted to find terrorists guilty? If the law can't find them guilty then they are innocent, aren't they? Isn't that what the law is all about? Or is this the 'thin end of the wedge'?
David Hicks, Holt
NO DETERRENT
Tony Abbott has failed to demonstrate why additional powers of any kind are needed to strip alleged supporters of terrorism of their Australian citizenship. Why would this be a deterrent for someone with access to (but no guarantee of!) another citizenship? Why would this "reserve power" make any resident of Australia one bit safer today?
Trevor Wilson, Holder
MORALLY OBSCURE
Judy Bamberger (Letters, June 19), questions whether the PM can be a moral Catholic. If his daily devotions lead him to support the Pope's request for positive climate change policy, he may possibly be.
In the meantime, he is a Delphic oracle-in-training. My dictionary states "Delphic, (As) of the oracle of Delphi; obscure, ambiguous".
Peter Baskett, Murrumbateman, NSW
TOO MANY BLOWHARDS
The farther away one is from a windfarm, the better they appear to be. Anyone minded to voice an opinion on them should state the distance that they themselves live from wind turbines so that we can all see how qualified they are to comment.
Phil Tubman, Tarago, NSW (1.5km from a proposed windfarm)
THE REF WAS WRONG
The National Rugby League can't fine me, so I will say it on Ricky Stuart's behalf.
Why wasn't the Cowboys' Johnathan Thurston sin-binned for his hit on Jodan Rapana?
The NRL needs to send all its referees back to school. Saturday's exhibition of refereeing was disgraceful, as usual.
Alan Booth, Latham
AMPHIBOLOGICAL
I'm pleased Stephen Hurren (Letters, June 20) has heeded my advice over keeping his dictionary close by. Maybe it won't be too long before his companion thesaurus might contain a new synonym for "maladroitness". "Burchism" perhaps?
Eric Hunter, Cook
Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.
Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).