On Brandis

Richard Cobden writes: Re. “Why is Brandis in hot water this time?” (yesterday). It is a bit catty of Josh Taylor to say that “although Brandis claimed the primary issue in the case was section 109 of the constitution (around taxation laws), the submission [ie the Commonwealth’s submissions] curiously devotes very little time to [section] 109, instead focusing on other matters of the case”.

The ATO had no standing to raise and no interest in raising the Corporations Act matters, and it did not do so.  The submissions of the Commonwealth in the Attorney-General’s name were filed expressly to raise the Corporations Act matters. They in terms adopted the ATO submissions on the tax question, which is exactly the same as setting them out in full.  That is all you are supposed to do, and the High Court would get quite irritated if instead you pointlessly repeated them.  Nothing “curious” about it.

Sugar sugar

Jock Webb writes: Re. “Getting a sugar rush from controlling the poor” (November 25). The recent pronouncements of Bernard Keane seem to be completely absurd. The people who drive the furthest in this country have the worst roads, the dearest fuel, the greatest need to drive, the complete absence of public transport, yet he and a number of others of your illogical contributors, think we should also pay extra for the privilege. I thought Crikey and more balance than that. The same goes for the sugar tax. The corrupt crony capitalists, especially including the Nationals conspire to ensure we cannot find the sugar in our food without a chemistry degree. We have millions of dollars worth of advertising to sell sugar packed garbage and nothing to counter it. I watch 6 year olds with black teeth in my school playground while Bernard blathers about choice. I thought Crikey worked on science. It seems to be turning into a giant neoCON. Most disappointed.