There are a number of factual errors in the article ''Push to ease book costs to aid 'revolution''' (June 1, p1) which require a response.
The biggest threat to the Federal Government's education revolution is not Australia's territorial copyright law, rather it is the predicted contraction to the education publishing industry if the current laws are dismantled.
The Productivity Commission admits its own recommendations will lead to a drop in local investment by publishers, a contraction in the market, fewer Australian authors being published, more independent bookshops closing, and the export of skilled printing and publishing jobs. But it can't guarantee any drop in prices. Why?
The commission's own report shows that when the exchange rate between the Australian dollar and the US dollar is 69c, and between the Australian dollar and the British pound is 41p, then the price differences between US, Britain and Australian editions of a book disappear. When you realise the 10-year averages for those exchanges are 69c and 40p, respectively, then it's clear that Australian book prices are already competitive with the two largest book markets in the English-speaking world.
Despite Andrew Barr's protestations, the current laws allow any library to import two copies of any book from anywhere in the world. And any consumer can likewise bring in one copy by ordering through a bookshop or online. There are no restrictions at this level. And the Productivity Commission itself has dismissed the argument that book prices affect literary rates. The best way to maintain and improve Australian literary rates is by encouraging Australian authors to tell us their/our stories and by encouraging Australia's high-quality education publishers to invest more in new books by Australians, for Australian conditions.
Kicking Australian authors, printers and publishers during a global financial crisis is the wrong option.
M. McCaskill, chief executive officer, Australian Publishers Association
I object to the gutting of the Australian publishing industry now being considered. This is a ploy by big business (Coles, Woolworths, Dymocks) to make themselves more money. It is not about selling books at lower prices to the public.
As Richard Flanagan says, ''Why on earth was the Australian Government contemplating such an insane idea that would destroy an industry and damage a vibrant literary culture?'' Why indeed?
The suggested change in copyright law would mean the Australian publishing industry would be hard pressed to survive. So it is very difficult to understand why the politicians are even listening to those who wish to destroy a vibrant industry that employs thousands and is a thriving export industry. One can only guess why our politicians buckle at the knees when major industries lobby for change in their own interests. This change is not in Australia's best interests.
Jo McRae, Lenah Valley, Tas
Medicare gaps
Standard doctor's consultation: charge $71, (scheduled fee $33.55), Medicare refund $33.55, ''gap'' $37.45. Chest X-ray: charge $120.10, (scheduled fee $47.15), Medicare refund $40.10, ''gap'' $80. Just two examples of medical charges upward of 100 per cent over scheduled fees that appear to have become commonplace.
At present government ''theory'' works on there being 85 per cent reimbursement of the scheduled fee and intends to increase that to 95 per cent at the end of the year. What good is it if the charges imposed are out of whack with the scheduled fees?
Obviously the Government needs to rein in the medicos or reschedule the fees to ensure lesser ''gaps''. In these times of economic crisis and swine flu, the medical profession appears oblivious to the impact of their excessive charges. Surely it's time they exercised some restraint, or is it just another case of ''all snouts to the trough''!
P.M. Button, Cook
Not impressed
As an NIB fund member facing cost increases every year, I object to that company's chief executive spending money on his brother Joel Fitzgibbon's first-class accommodation to see a football match. Fitzgibbon's admission that he had tried to pay the bill with parliamentary funds leaves me similarly unimpressed. Why do some favoured members of our society enjoy impunity for seemingly anything they choose to do or fail to do?
Mike Mackay, Kingston
Email a friend