The E10 price remained at around $1.20 a litre and diesel at $1.34 a litre while, over the same period, Canberra E10 prices were between $1.40 and $1.50 a litre and diesel was between $1.45 and $1.55 a litre.

All the service stations (including Woolworths, Coles and Shell) within a 30km radius of Mogo charged within around 5 cents of the Mogo Prices.

And don't forget the Costco servo at the airport which is serving E10 at around $1.20 this week.

The rip-off of Canberra and Queanbeyan motorists is costing each us around $10 per week for each 50-litre refill.

So what can be done about this nationwide problem, particularly since neither of the major federal political parties are even talking about this?

I would suggest the ACT government immediately select and build three new petrol stations at strategic locations in the south, north and west of Canberra (remember the 30km sphere of price influence).

It should also call for public tenders from independent petrol retailers to operate them with a guarantee of lower prices over a minimum period of say five years with an option to renew.

Ensure that these service stations also serve gas and electric charging at suitable prices.

This would not be the first foray into cheaper government fuel retailing in Canberra. Older motorists may recall the government-owned station in Wentworth Avenue, Kingston, adjacent to the Old Government Printing Office selling cheaper fuel in the late 1960s.

Roger Clement, Queanbeyan, NSW

The fact that some outlets are able to sell cheaper petrol is proof that it is indeed possible to get petrol into the ACT and sell it more cheaply than we are accustomed to. We are left with the conclusion that many outlets choose, while keeping a very close eye on nearby outlets, to set high prices. The industry well knows that Canberra's commuting distances are smaller than any other major population centres, so we buy less petrol, a factor possibly compounded by our later model, more fuel-efficient cars.

It all points the finger of suspicion at a "Canberra tax" in which most outlets are complicit.

Costco was also mentioned. It is member-driven so has a different model, but it is noteworthy that a very nearby outlet is often next cheapest in town.

I'm left to think we are paying right up to what we can afford, compounded by a willing lack of competition.

All this points to government setting the price as a solution.

Terry Werner, Wright

The article which quoted ACCC chief Rod Sims as directly blaming Coles for Canberra's high petrol prices ("Coles the culprit in country's highest petrol prices: ACCC chief", canberratimes.com.au, February 12) unfairly singles out one operator for a problem that is endemic across all.

Counting Queanbeyan, Coles runs 16 outlets. Woolworths runs 12 in an agreement with Caltex.

Until recently many of the 11 Caltex-branded outlets were also run by Woolworths.

Many Woolworths and Caltex outlets honour promotions from each other, making them effectively one group with 23 outlets, dwarfing Coles, often with very similar prices.

Add nine BPs and 10 7-Elevens and it seems unlikely that a single player is wielding too much power.

Rather, in any location with more than one of these outlets, they generally have similar high prices indicating a collective choice to not compete. Standalone and independent outlets tend to be the cheaper options.

While government price capping is part of the possible solution, consumers have the ability to influence prices by choosing cheaper outlets.

Consumers can also influence the big outlets by purchasing non-fuel items from them and going elsewhere for fuel, which would show them a downturn in their fuel sales is a deliberate choice rather than a downturn in the market.

Samuel Gordon-Stewart, Reid

I recently visited our nation's capital to view what I believed to be a modern, innovative and progressive centre for all Australians.

While enjoying the sights my son decided to join us for lunch on Lonsdale Street.

I was also there to pick up some old pianola reels, which were in two very large boxes. Due to my picking up of these items, and that I drive a commercially registered vehicle, a VW Touraeg (not four-wheel-drive), I thought it was quite all right on a Saturday afternoon to use the loading zone.

The officer who booked me said: "It is only for commercial vehicles." I replied "It is a commercial vehicle." His response was "no it isn't".

I didn't argue but I will have my day in court.

I also asked him about the motor scooter booked four weeks earlier in a normal parking area, within the proper time zone.

My son sent me the parking ticket he received for not having a ticket on the scooter. Where does one put a ticket on a bike?

The officer said it had to be on the bike. How you would prove this? "You take a photo of it," he said.

I said "what if you use the bike 10 times a day over, say, 30 days, that's 300 photos, and dare I say 300 court cases to fight 300 tickets because you can only produce the evidence after the event!"

"That's the law," he said.

"What law in Australia says that you are guilty until you can prove you are innocent?" I said.

Well, in Canberra it appears to be just that.

Carlo Rossi, NSW

The decision of the French government to examine the provenience of all the ethnographic items held in French museums' collections has implications for Australia and Britain.

Britain should respond to the Egyptian government's requests for the repatriation of Egyptian artefacts looted during the British occupation of Egypt from 1882.

The British should also begin the examination of the provenience of all items held in its galleries and museums looted during the age of empire.

The NSW government should have the Australian Museum in Sydney examine the provenience of any ethnographic items held in its collection acquired when Australia was the colonial power in New Guinea and Papua.

With the federal election due by May 15 it would interesting to understand the respective policy positions of the Liberal and Labor parties on such matters.

Rohan Goyne, Evatt

What have we come to in the public school system when a primary school becomes a scene of continued violence and fear for teachers and students? ("Families 'trapped' at violent ACT school", February 11, p1).

Clearly the actions taken at Theodore Primary by the School Administration and the ACT Education Directorate are ineffective and inadequate.

Any number of revised and amended policy statements are pointless if civilised behaviour is not the norm in the classroom, playground and making your way to and from school.

Why aren't the police called in as they would be if this occurred in any other context? Surely this is at least as serious as the fining for speeding near schools.

I have some form in this area. When my son was threatened with a knife by a fellow pupil at his local public high school in the early 1990s I contacted the principal who made an entirely inadequate response in terms of counselling and discussions.

I then called Belconnen Police Station who contacted the principal, organised an assembly to discuss the issue of violence in general, and spoke with and monitored the behaviour of the offender.

The officer in charge was only too pleased to become involved and work on these issues and thanked my wife and I for contacting the station.

As a retired primary and high school teacher I found this article very disturbing.

John Gordon, Aranda

Australia is the only country in the world with a system of refundable franking credits. Yet Tony Dillon (Letters, February 13) claims that reforming it would be regressive. He is dead wrong. Eighty per cent of the benefits accrue to the wealthiest 20 per cent of retirees.

Pensioners – including part pensioners – will be exempt from Labor's changes.

The dividend imputation system existed for almost 15 years before refundability was introduced. Dividend imputation is important to avoid double taxation, but the refundability of franking credits introduced by John Howard results in zero taxation of corporate profits.

The cost of franking credit refundability will soon reach $8 billion, more than Australia spends on public schools.

Labor would prefer to invest in better hospitals and schools, not bigger tax loopholes.

Labor's change only impacts people who are receiving cash tax refunds from the government after paying no income tax.

It affects four per cent (less than one in 20) of Australians. It has been costed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office.

Under Labor's plan no one will pay more tax. It is not retrospective and will apply from 1 July 2019.

Everyone who gets share dividends can still use the system to reduce their tax bill. But they won't be able to get a tax refund if they've paid no income tax.

If every shareholder was eligible for refundable franking credits every dollar of tax raised through the corporate tax system would be refunded through the personal tax system.

The effective tax rate on all Australian companies – NAB, Woolworths, Rio Tinto and so on – would be zero.

Maybe that's a clue as to why no other nation in the world has refundable franking credits.

Andrew Leigh, Canberra, Shadow Assistant Treasurer

Dr Andrew Leigh's letter in The Canberra Times (Letters, February 13) reminds us all that some rich people will find lots of loopholes – some more complicated and time-costly than others – in order to not pay tax.

They move their money about to find low tax or no tax outlets for it. When one loophole closes, they find another.

The outcry I see from the people against Labor's negative gearing and franking credit reforms seems predicated on the assumption that people using those mechanisms to lower their tax or get a refund from the Government simply cannot move their money elsewhere.

They can. Some will find ethical things to invest in. Others will find unethical ways of avoiding paying their fair share of the tax that keeps our country and its governments running.

It's entirely up to them.

To pretend that that money won't simply go elsewhere and find a new loophole to exploit is just rhetorical blather. It creates victims where none exist.

We all choose where our money is invested and how we spend it.

Paul Wayper, Cook

Andrew Leigh's letter (Letters, February 13) was one big saccharin call for more government spending and higher taxes for the welfare state. It pandered to welfare state voters and public sector workers. If that is what it takes to win government in Australia, then things are hopeless nationally.

The welfare state needs to be funded. This means more taxes, inflation and debt.

If the welfare state continues to expand, economic growth is not going to exist because too much money is being funnelled into government spending.

As far as the welfare state is concerned things are not going to work out well at the end. The system is going belly up.

There is not enough wealth in the world to placate welfare state progressives. The welfare state works until other peoples' money runs out.

Victor Diskordia, McKellar

In his comment piece "Morrison suffers great loss on his greatest achievement" (February 13, p1 & p9), Peter Hartcher writes that Prime Minister Morrison has reacted to the passage of the refugee medical transfer bill on February 12 by claiming that under a Labor government the asylum seeker boats will start again, unchecked.

If this is true, it implies that either Labor will cease the marine patrols and boat turnbacks – unlikely – or that existing border security measures are not working very well, if at all.

The passage of the medivac bill has highlighted the fact that there is some common sense and compassion in federal parliament.

This is a very welcome change from the Coalition's at times cruel treatment of asylum seekers which has always seemed to be mainly, if not entirely, for political rather than practical purposes.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

THE HYPOCRISY

What a hide! The Labor Party accusing the Coalition of using scare tactics in its election campaign, when it pioneered the mother of all scare tactics with "Mediscare", by spreading blatant lies about how the Coalition would dismantle Medicare if returned to power.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mario Stivala, Spence

NOT HERE YET

Re the PM's promised boat people: "Where the bloody hell are you?"

Jeff Bradley, Isaacs

DESPERATE FOR A REASON

If every refugee and his dog is trying to get to Australia to seek proper medical treatment what does that tell us about the state of the medical service on Nauru and Manus where the refugees have been dumped and left in limbo by the Australian government?

Rajend Naidu, Glenfield, NSW

GONE MISSING

Hey ScoMo! "Where the bloody hell are they?"

Tijmen Klootwijk, Bathurst, NSW

TACTICS PROBLEMATIC

Winning elections by frightening voters may have worked some years and prime ministers back. It would be encouraging to think this is no longer the case, time will tell. Lucky we don't have an individual in a senior political position who was ever in advertising.

Linus Cole, Palmerston

PM RINGS CHANGES

First it was ScoMo, then SloMo, then CoalMo and now ScareMo.

T. Puckett, Ashgrove

SERIOUS QUESTION

It's hard to take our Prime Minister seriously. Is putting up the "Accommodation Vacant" sign (by re-opening the Christmas Island detention centre) more or less likely to encourage people to come and seek asylum?

Gordon Fyfe, Kambah

ULTERIOR MOTIVE?

What's to be that the government's next move on border protection will be to give Border Force boats a holiday until May.

Glenys and Tony Eggleton, Belconnen

PUZZLING PRIORITIES

With much fanfare the government announces a National Sports Integrity Commission, while continuing to block proposals for any body to examine claims of improper conduct by federal politicians or senior public servants. What's more important? A rigged football game or a gamed government contract?

Roger Dace, Reid

BOATS NOT THE PROBLEM

Why all the fuss about "stopping the boats"? Any would-be asylum seeker can hop on a plane, disembark at an an Australian airport and then just disappear.

Judith Erskine, Belconnen

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 or fewer words. 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).