We are told that some of the key indicators of our supposedly renewed economic prosperity are increased house prices and "significant signs of improvement in the rental market".

Before readers get too excited, it seems that an "improvement" actually means that rents have increased. All that these figures really tell us is that (due to the artificial scarcity of land) the growth in the price of land has continued to outstrip the growth in wages.

Just like rising levels of personal debt, rising land prices, per se, do not add to the wealth of the community as a whole. Rising land prices are merely an indicator that a minority of people are accruing a larger slice of the economic pie at the expense of the earnings of the community generally.

The higher our land prices become relative to wages, the more difficult it is for workers to become self-employed. Therefore workers are placed even more at the mercy of the power of unjust privilege held by landlords, banks and big business.

For our economy to become truly healthy, our abundant land needs to be freed for workers to use for secure housing and secure employment through worker-owned co-operatives.

Ronald E. Johnson, Charnwood

I see that after 20 years Kate Carnell continues to miss the point of why so many remain concerned about the hospital implosion that resulted in the death of Katie Bender.

While Ms Carnell was cleared by the coroner's inquiry of any personal wrongdoing, it was the "can do" attitude that Ms Carnell brought to the ACT administration, and which permeated the senior levels of the ACT public service, that was the root cause of the tragedy.

That attitude is also reflected in the politicisations of the bureaucracy, at all levels of government, that continues even today.

Ms Carnell is a beneficiary of that policy with her appointment as the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman.

Until, and unless, we return to a situation whereby the senior levels of the bureaucracy are not, to some extent, the beneficiaries of political patronage for their appointment, then the next "Canberra hospital implosion" disaster will not be far away.

A. Brown, Fadden

I just received my electricity bill and was shocked to see how much Actew has increased their costs. Looking at the increases of 22 per cent for the service charge, 15 per cent for peak, 23 per cent for shoulder and 28 per cent for off-peak, I realised we have been taken for fools. If we are to believe that the higher price for gas is to blame for the electricity price rises, then please explain why the service charge has to rise by 22 per cent.

It is not affected by the gas price. Also Actew has been encouraging us to use off-peak electricity, yet the increase in that rate of 28 per cent outstrips all the other increases by a long way.

In my opinion Actew is price gouging. There is no justification for increases of this magnitude and it only reaffirms my opinion that Actew do not care about their customers.

It is about time the ACT government took control and sacked the Actew executives and put the customers first.

These increases should not be tolerated. I, for one will not be paying the increases.

Bill Meani, Lyneham

It is correct that Big Tobacco has been dishonest and deceitful in the past ("Big tobacco's push to legalise e-cigarettes," canberratimes.com.au, July14).

However, the solution is not to ban e-cigarettes.

Philip Morris has encouraged people with an interest in e-cigarettes to make honest, personal submissions to the parliamentary inquiry on e-cigarettes, as have other organisations with an interest in vaping. What is the problem?

Based on international experience and the available research, e-cigarettes could play a valuable role in reducing Australia's smoking rates, which have not declined in the past three years. Millions of smokers overseas who have been unable or unwilling to quit have switched to e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to smoking. Most are not made by Big Tobacco. Why should Australian smokers be denied this huge public health opportunity?

There is no evidence that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. In fact, they are a gateway out of smoking for most users. In countries where they are freely available, smoking rates are continuing to fall, in some cases, such as the United States, faster than ever.

The focus of public health should be on reducing death and illness. Up to two in three long-term smokers will die from a smoking-related disease. Does it matter who makes money from these safer products if they are saving lives?

Associate Professor Colin Mendelsohn, School of Public Health and Community Medicine University of New South Wales, Sydney

Christopher Pyne's recent announcement that the Australian government intends to establish an arms export industry is tragic and depressing.

How in all conscience can we profit out of the killing of innocent people, particularly in an area of the world where our government has created, or at least contributed to, creating the conditions for war?

Once we establish this industry, presumably in Pyne's state of SA, we will have employment, and the economy of a state, dependant on war.

We will have politicians sitting in our Parliament elected to keep the killing industry "profitable" and sustainable. This makes the incessant publishing of letters to the editor relating to local issues irrelevant in comparison.

Patrick O'Hara, Isaacs

The replacement of Dr Who by a woman (may) possibly lead to a retitling to Dr Why. One can only hope that she doesn't have a bad hair day or that her make-up doesn't run. Rumour has it that Daniel Craig wasn't cut out for the part ... oops.

James Grenfell, Spence

Re "Migrants rejuvenate us, while bringing valuable skills" (Jessica Irvine, July 17, p14).

All true, and it works both ways, as it did with the Colombo Plan of the 1950s; and from cross-pollination of intellectual and technological skills via people both coming to and leaving Australia.

Jessica seems to be arguing for continuing the present rate of net immigration. If the reasons she gives are accepted, it should continue. Currently our yearly net immigration is about 200,000 into our 24 million (0.83per cent). If ongoing, our total population (growing at 1.6per cent p.a. ABS Dec.) would double to 48 million by 2060 with net immigration of about 400,000 p.a.; and escalating.

Maybe Jessica Irvine, economist, is right if we take a housing magnate's advice: Harry Triguboff has advocated for 150 million, which would take another 45 years after the 48 million.

On the other hand the Academy of Science, and scientists elsewhere as well as independent economists and sociologists, urge caution.

The good data they have provided has been ignored in favour of dubious speculation.

I question why an economist might believe a population of a "mere" 15 million in 1974 was more disastrous for society than its having to adjust to the oil crisis of the time.

Colin Samundsett, Farrer

Jessica Irvine's article "Big is better Australia", July 17, p14) is a nice introduction to first-year economics on the benefits of immigration.

Very few would argue that Australia has not benefited from immigration in terms of enterprise, innovation and social diversity. The question not even vaguely addressed is: What is a suitable level of immigration for Australia? Should we continue to have an immigration level of 209,000 as we had in the year to December 2016?

Should our population continue to grow at the rate of 373,000 per annum, a number comparable to an extra Canberra stuffed principally into Melbourne and other capital cities each year.

Should we be panicked into feeling that Australia cannot support its ageing population without a giant Ponzi scheme of additional immigrants each year to support them.

Is it that Australia can afford to pay $5 billion for offshore detention, $80 billion for a submarine job support program for South Australia, and reduce tax receipts from big business amounting to $60 billion but cannot support its own people as they age, many of whom have saved for that purpose?

Geoff Rohan, Kambah

As a Muslim mother, I am appalled by the Queensland LNP's call for headscarves to be banned for children under 10.

Such a ban not only curbs religious freedom but also undermines a parent's ability to pass on their modesty and moral values to their children.

Parents know what is good or bad for their children. It is not the role of any party or government to dictate to individuals about their dress codes.

If a child has a freedom to dress up like her favourite movie character, or follow Western dress codes then why is there a problem if a child wants to cover his/her head to look like his/her parents?

It is ironic that those people who attack Islam by seeing a compulsion and hardship in headscarves are also guilty of interfering in our personal matters.

Why does it bother them if a woman wants to wear a scarf or aveil?

Attia-Tull-Karim Mahmood, South Bowenfels, NSW

It would be instructive to read the AGS advice on the constitutional basis for the government's announced legislation empowering the Commonwealth to intervene in a terrorist incident in Australia purely on the say-so of the Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Defence Minister.

Unless each state has referred power to the Commonwealth, I imagine the constitutional basis would have to rest either on some international treaty against terrorism or on the incident being sufficiently serious to constitute a threat to national security. But it's not obvious how the constitution could support a law allowing those ministers to determine by themselves that a sufficient constitutional basis existed for the Commonwealth to act.

If they had to wait to see if the Commonwealth's power was actually active, wouldn't most incidents be over before the Commonwealth could respond?

Greg Pinder, Charnwood

Simon Terry, "a former investment banker now running New Zealand's Sustainability Council advocacy group ... said the risks of genetically modified material entering the environment were more likely to be economic rather than linked to health or safety" ("GM seeds spilt, growth 'unlikely"', July 17, p3)

That sounds as though he is lobbying for the GMO producers who maintain that the almost universal (global) resistance to GM production is unsustainable. That's business for you.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

To judge by the TV coverage the number of players suspended for cowardly attacks on their opponents is increasing, and suspensions by the leagues seem to make no difference. And why should they?

For the clubs, whether they lose a player for a week or two due to injury or suspension makes no difference as long as they have others players to fill any gaps.

Clubs should be held responsible for violence in their sport, sowhy not penalise clubs by requiring them to start their next match with a team reduced by the same number of players they have under suspension?

Roger Dace, Reid

BATTING FOR THEM

I think this anecdote from The Wicked Wit of Queen Elizabeth II compiled by Karen Dolby amply illustrates why it is ridiculous for Elizabeth Windsor to be our Head of State:

"During a stay at Balmoral, staff were surprised to come across the Queen jumping up and down with glee exclaiming 'I've won, I've won!' England had just beaten Australia at the cricket."

Felicity Chivas, Scullin

EXPLOSIVE THOUGHT

Australia selling arms to the Middle East?

Frightening to think the man espousing this is a minister in government, when one of the world's greatest security risks is the international defence industry with its consequences of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists in the Middle East, not to mention North Korea, just up the proverbial road.

Laurelle Atkinson, St.Helens

PHOTO-OP IN BAD LIGHT

Malcolm Turnbull is certainly not the first leader to inappropriately use Defence Force personnel as props when making a policy announcement.

It is an abhorrent and menacing gesture that disrespects the soldiers who have to be part of the photo-op.

There was no need to make your statement surrounded by armed might.

Steve Ellis, Hackett

WHO'S NEXT?

We'll now have a female Doctor Who, hooray.

What about a next female Dalai Lama (but the current Dalai Lama has said "a female Dalai Lama must be attractive, "otherwise not much use" really? Why does a Dalai Lama have to be physically attractive? A female Pope? It won't happen!

Susan MacDougall, Scullin ACT

CLEAR AS MUD

William Hartnell (Dr Who #1) will be turning in his grave.

Doug Hodgson, Pearce

FOWL PLAY

PM Malcolm Turnbull's proposal to give Peter Dutton unprecedented power is like giving the wolf the keys to the hen house.

D. J. Fraser, Currumbin, Qld

RISKY GROUND

Making military call-out powers easier, on the grounds of terrorism, is probably a retrograde step, which under some conceivable circumstances could be abused.

Rod Matthews, Fairfield, Vic

TROUBLE IN THREES

US President Donald Trump is the oldest president to be elected. According to polls, America now thinks he is the worst. What will he do to make the Trump trifecta?

Roger Quarterman, Campbell

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).