Reports show that sellers of solar panels claim that the carbon tax would result into hundreds of percent increase in electricity costs. 

Some builders allegedly also told potential buyers that they should buy now to avoid being affected by the carbon tax. 

ACCC Commissioner Rod Sims about four to five businesses have made close to 100 false claims against the carbon tax. He added the commission would issue ‘formal substantiation notices.’ 

Some of the misleading claims made include how the carbon tax would significantly increase electricity cost by as much as 40 percent annually. The increase is said to be cumulative and would result to a hike of a couple of hundred percent. 

This has been debunked by the Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal, saying the carbon tax’s impact on the first year is just nine percent. This translates to about $315 annually for a household that consumes 7mWh. 

Another deceptive claim was made by some builders who warned buyers to make their purchases as soon as possible to avoid getting affected by the carbon tax. 

Building groups said buyers may have to shell out as much as $6,000 for a new home because of the carbon tax. 

The commission may also get the commitment of businesses never to make misleading and unsubstantiated claims again. If it takes court action, these businesses may be fined as much as $1.1 million. 

Sims reiterated the commission will take legal action of these businesses don’t stop from making false claims.

Husic cited the example of Microsoft Windows 7 Professional. He said that the software can be purchased from a US online store for $199.99. If one, however, buys it from an Australian website, the same product would cost $449 or a mark-up of 125 percent.

Another example Husic cited was Adobe CS5 Photoshop. It is sold on a US website for $2,599 but it costs close to $4,000 in an Australian website.

Because of the huge discrepancy, Husic is encouraging the government to investigate the situation.

IT vendors blamed the law of supply and demand, saying the Australian market is much smaller compared to the US. A Productivity Commission report, however, said the delivery cost is practically zero and the same all over the world.

A spokesperson from Microsoft was also quick to shift blame, saying the mark-up is because of several factors including local market conditions, taxes and duties, among others.

Sam Hendry, the head of AVG Australia, also said the mark-up is because of margin and cost structures. AVG Australia markets anti-virus software programs.

Adobe and AutoCAD, two of the biggest software providers, refused to make a comment on the issue.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it doesn’t have authority over software prices sold in Australia. Spokeswoman Erin Polmear said there are no current provisions that govern and prohibit this kind of conduct.

Albanese’s call came after an independent report showed that congestion in Sydney airport is growing. The congestion results to delays and poor service. The 3,200-page report was a result of a two-year study on Sydney’s aviation industry. 

The report also recommended that the second airport be built in Badgerys Creek. Albanese, on the other hand, proposed that it should be built in Wilton near Campbelltown. 

Transport Minister Albanese also criticized NSW Premier Barry O’ Farrell for rejecting calls for a second airport. Farrell said a second airport would add to aircraft noise and would greatly disturb the community. He opposed the proposal of building the second airport in Badgerys Creek. 

Albanese, however, said that the issue should not be decided on a personal bias. He reiterated that the country needs another Sydney airport as soon as possible. 

Foreign Minister Bob Carr said that building a second airport in Sydney is inevitable. NSW opposition leader John Robertson and Qantas chief executive official Alan Joyce are in also in favor of another airport. 

The issue on building a second airport is timely. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced that Sydney has been judged the worst airport in Australia. It ranks lowest in terms of service quality. 

Respondents to the study also rated Australian airports in terms of availability of facilities and are size.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released a statement stating which airports in Australia are the best and the worst.

Sydney is judged the worst airport in Australia. It scored the lowest for service quality even though it improved almost six percent. Brisbane is judged the best airport, followed by Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth.

Passengers, border agencies and airlines were asked to rate the different airports. Size and availability of facilities were also taken into consideration.

It is also worthy to note that car parking prices have increased. Sydney and Melbourne charge the most at $15 an hour. For a 24-hour parking, the two airports charge as much as $52.

Brisbane, meanwhile, has the most expensive charge for seven-day parking at $140. Sydney costs $122 followed by Pert at $88, Melbourne at $77 and Adelaide at $70.

The report showed that airports continue to earn a profit from their operations. The industry remains resilient despite global financial challenges and calamities.

Statistics also indicated that passenger numbers are up in all airports. Sydney posted the highest passenger rate with more than 36 million. Melbourne follows with more than 28 million passengers. Brisbane posted 20 million, Perth at 11.5 million and Adelaide at 7 million.

Perth is showing promise as it continues to enjoy increasing passenger growth. Last year, it posted more than 9-percent growth.

The report of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was commission to monitor the performance of Australia airports. It also monitors cost, profits, prices, and service quality.

In the ongoing supermarket war, Coles and Woolworths have both tried to slash the cost of staple groceries such as toilet paper, milk and fresh bread. Central to this strategy is the apparent squeezing of suppliers on price.

It has been alleged that both chains have been asking suppliers to increase output in order to influence their commitment of capital. Once capital has been committed, the grocery powerhouses who control more than 70% of spending on groceries in Australia, have allegedly put the price squeeze on.

Central to the price squeezing allegations are the increased promotion of the super market chains’ own branded groceries. Woolworths announced in 2011 that it intended to double sales of its Home Brand label over the next five years. This would effectively mean another $4.5 billion in sales which would shift away from other Australian brands already struggling in an ultra-competitive environment.

In their continual expansion into all areas of household consumption, both Woolworths and Coles have been continuing their foray into the liquor industries.

No longer content with just owning the outlets, Woolworths has increased production of its own branded liquor. House alcohol sales for Woolworths of $3.6 billion equalled its second largest supplier after a 13% increase in the December half-year. The company launched 100 new alcohol brands and continued its acquisition of hotels through its hospitality arm.

As the duopoly continues to dominate and extend its reach into all areas of household consumption, the ACCC will continue to monitor its behaviour, particularly when allegations of unconscionable conduct are made.