Reasons Porter cannot be compared to Hawke do not stand up to scrutiny

In reference to Niki Savva’s comment piece “Sorry, but Christian Porter is no Bob Hawke” (12/11), there are certainly many reasons to be critical of Porter’s behaviour but Savva takes it to a different level.

None of the reasons Savva gives as to why the comparison between the two is fallacious stand up to scrutiny. The times were different; wives were unfortunately accepting of their partners’ behaviour to keep marriages together; the matey relationship between journalists and ministers is long gone and today dirt is mined even if events in question occurred many years ago.

Savva states that no one called Hawke deeply sexist or misogynist; again, this may be true but I suspect no one would have dared.

I have no idea whether Kathleen Foley is one of the most respected lawyers of her generation, but what was the point of recalling how obnoxiously Porter behaved at university? Foley has just been voted off the ruling body of Victorian barristers — a body of her peers.

There is no doubt Hawke was a great prime minister and was genuinely liked; Porter is unlikely to achieve such heights, Four Corners program or not.

However, the most telling element of Savva’s piece was the complete absence of any mention of Malcolm Turnbull’s sanctimonious and bilious behaviour on the program toward his former colleagues, which was disgusting.

George Hamor, Potts Point, NSW

I have just watched the episode of Four Corners Inside the Canberra Bubble. It’s an interesting topic but I found the episode a discredit to the usually high journalistic standards of Four Corners.

Louise Milligan did not present any credible evidence of an inappropriate culture within Parliament House or in Canberra more generally. She had before her as her main interview subject Rachelle Miller, who openly admits to having an affair with minister Alan Tudge, yet asked her no questions about the circumstances of the affair or the context of the workplace that led to the affair taking place. This would appear relevant to the subject matter of the episode.

Her focus on the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, was really just a series of unsubstantiated aspersions. She never asked Miller what she specifically observed at the public bar with respect to Porter and the young woman in question. She never asked Malcolm Turnbull what had given rise to his concerns with respect to Porter. She never asked Sarah Hanson-Young how she came to learn that the “young Liberal staffer” was having an affair with Porter. Did she just assume it was with him?

I am also left wondering what the relevance was of barrister Kathleen Foley’s personal opinions about what Porter was like as a university student 25 years ago. Overall, a very poorly investigated episode.

Karina Shpigel, Melbourne, Vic

Folly of insulting China

I was one of the 650 business people who attended the then prime minister Tony Abbott’s trade mission to China just six years ago. It was a resounding success, and although some academics and journalists were pessimistic, we broke down previous trade barriers and achieved a free trade agreement.

Our current government’s position of irritating China makes no sense, particularly to the small and medium business sector. This is a position that is not sustainable if we wish to continue trading with this important partner. Our ministers (Trade and Foreign) should be more conciliatory in their public stances rather than making excuses that the Chinese won’t speak to them. To be told by the government that business should find other markets is naive at best. Significant investments are made to establish markets and to lose them because we think we can stand up to China is unrealistic and comes at a high price.

David J. Gray, Peppermint Grove, WA