It’s not Porter’s fault that taxpayer dollars were spent by the ABC

It was gratifying to read that ABC managing director David Anderson had the courage, integrity and intestinal fortitude to apologise to Christian Porter on behalf of Sally Neighbour and Louise Milligan. However, he goes on to say that “he had done his best to manage his staff”. Had these two journalists been employed other than at the ABC, they might not have been treated so favourably. It was they who decided to dig up the 33-year-old unsubstantiated allegations of rape against Christian Porter, seemingly based on unreliable material. In reality and despite “standing by their journalism” the apology to Porter should have been issued by them.

Nick Bailey, Ngunnawal, ACT

David Salter (Letters, 3/6) writes that it was Christian Porter’s decision to sue and his actions, not the ABC’s, that have cost taxpayer funds. But what came first? The legal jousting or the TV program?

Regardless, I suggest that taxpayers owe a debt to Porter for having sued our national broadcaster. The emotional and financial cost for him and his family must have been enormous. The ABC just might learn from the debacle, return to abiding by its charter, and provide us with quality programs. If so, the legal funds will have been well spent.

Michael Doyle, Ashburton, Vic

In response to David Salter’s letter, let us pose the simple question to Louise Milligan, et al: Would you have written what you did if paying your own legal expenses?” There is no second prize regarding the answer.

Mike Mitchell, Ascot, Qld

It is unreasonable to propose that Christian Porter is responsible for the ABC having to waste taxpayer funds on lawyers. The causation of the stoush between Porter and the ABC starts with the ABC’s decision to run the program. I hold the ABC’s sloppy editorial processes responsible for this waste of taxpayer funds. Why should Porter have copped it sweet?

John Allsop, Mont Albert, Vic

Is David Salter seriously suggesting that someone who has had their reputation and career destroyed by an ABC story should not seek redress for any libel that may have been contained in that story because it would cost the taxpayers money?

Andrew Lake, Edwardstown, SA

Ungrateful nation

Is it any wonder that Ben Roberts-Smith would turn to a drink or two, considering the disgraceful way he is being treated (“Roberts-Smith ‘extremely paranoid and obsessive’ over inquiry, court hears”, 3/6)? After putting his life on the line for us in the heat, dust, flies and filth of Afghanistan, he comes home not to thanks, but to accusations of “war crimes’’, mainly it seems, by sanctimonious journalists in their cosy airconditioned offices, who wouldn’t have the faintest understanding of what he had gone through. This was war — against an enemy who would have no knowledge or understanding of the “rules of war”. I, too, would be somewhat anxious and depressed if I had received such a homecoming and I am extremely grateful to him for all that he has done for us and wish him well in his court case.

Susan Watson, Claremont, WA

Super justice

Industry super fund members have drawn the short straw on regulatory oversight. The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority recently admitted that in the last 30 years only one super fund had faced action over breaches to the sole purpose test. While Judith Sloan identifies the shameful waste of money by trustees of industry super funds (“Super sneaky way to boost a poor investment", 3/6), the odds of APRA dutifully applying the sole purpose test, to ensure that all activities of super funds must be for the single purpose of providing retirement benefits to members, look remote.

APRA is quite clearly not up to the job, so why not give responsibility to the ATO, the body responsible for administering the sole purpose test to self-managed super funds? Industry super fund members deserve a regulatory body with a fear factor.

Bob Miller, financial planner, Wembley, WA

PM too smug

The Coalition would seem to be cruising to a win at the next election. Given that the popularity of the leader influences which party electors vote for, the Coalition should not be complacent. Scott Morrison leads Anthony Albanese in the “preferred prime minister” stakes but anyone can do that. Morrison has numerous weaknesses that do not play well with the quiet Australians he needs to win the election. He has no presence as a statesman, he acquiesces rather than stands up to the ABC, he bows to wokeness, is prone to outbursts, refuses to apologise to Christine Holgate, and has an irritating smirk that makes him look perpetually smug. He is certainly not home and hosed for the next election.

Paul Clancy, Tanunda, SA