Why the huge rush to push the IR reforms through parliament?

Anthony Albanese’s headlong rush to get his industrial relations agenda through parliament doesn’t bode well (“PM vows no retreat on IR overhaul”, 21/11).

His intention to get wages moving at all costs seems at odds with the Coalition, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and major employers, which are more concerned with the multi-employer bargaining ramifications.

Add to this his government’s ill-conceived rush to increase taxes, and emissions and environmental restrictions on mining companies, as well as his Energy Minister’s belligerent attitude to any option other than his own on how we should transition to renewables – let alone question them – is concerning. Prime Minister, please slow down. If you rush without the serious consideration of other opinions, you could quite easily be responsible for the ruin of Australia.

Ross McDonald, Gordon, NSW

I do not know where Anthony Albanese is getting his advice on the industrial relations bill to come before parliament prior to Christmas. I was an AWU worksite rep for a few years before I retired and I can tell the PM we achieved far more for members and non-members by working at the enterprise level than we ever could have hoped for if we had been operating at a sector level.

Bob Reid, Fig Tree Pocket, Qld

I was initially surprised at how well the new PM seemed to be leading the country. His latest nonsense on how workers are being denied a pay rise over opposition to the proposed IR changes is disappointing. Capitulation to union demands is not good for Australia and I’m glad to see we’ve still got politicians with backbone like David Pocock.

Bill Clare, Subiaco, WA

It is an opportune time to remind Labor MPs of the adage by the practical and courageous Whitlam government treasurer Frank Crean, when he stated that “one man’s pay rise is another man’s job”.

Case Smit, Noosaville, Qld

Between projects

Lisa Wilkinson is accusing others of exactly what she has engaged in, citing the toll on herself and those close to her (“ ‘Toxic scrutiny’: Lisa Wilkinson quits The Project”, 21/11). As host of The Project the journalist has never been shy in criticising others, particularly conservatives. I doubt she ever considered the effect her public criticism had on her targets and their families. The public response to Wilkinson’s behaviour reached a crescendo following her Logies acceptance speech, which led to the delay in a high-profile criminal trial. From where I sit, the media criticism of Wilkinson is justified.

Riley Brown, Bondi Beach, NSW

Lisa Wilkinson’s departure from The Project will not have many informed Australians shedding a tear. She claimed that the “targeted toxicity of the media scrutiny” had affected not only her, but those “close to her”.

The speech she gave at the Logies, it must be pointed out, had a detrimental effect on Bruce Lehrmann’s chance of a fair trial. So much so that ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Lucy McCallum was forced to delay Lehrmann’s trial. What goes around, comes around.

Peter Fuhrmann, Watermans Bay, WA

Doctor’s orders

Chris Mitchell (“Swan ruffles feathers with Covid mistakes”, 21/11) is right to highlight the shortcomings of ABC health editor Norman Swan’s on-air work. With his trademark exuberance, Swan had broadcast what were later described as inaccurate remarks linking the deaths of two prominent people – Kimberley Kitching and Shane Warne – with Covid. Some doctors even described Swan’s conduct as “unethical”.

An ABC statement appeared in the aftermath of the controversy making the rare admission that Swan’s remarks did not meet ABC editorial standards. Swan’s own apology was eventually forthcoming. Being a qualified doctor does not bestow on Swan the imprimatur to say what he likes about whatever or whomever. He has a higher standard to hold to but this episode has done little to instil confidence in this prominent ABC broadcaster.

John Simpson, Melbourne, Vic

Tackling the problem

Julian Linden makes a good point in writing about “rugby’s laws which are ruining the flow of the game and turning matches into yawnfests” (“Woeful Wallabies are now serial offenders”, 21/11). Far too many infringements are punished with the awarding of a penalty. A free kick into touch would suffice by putting the side that made the infringement on the defensive. I also believe backlines should be no closer than 5m to a scrum, ruck or maul to give the side winning the ball room to attack. Perhaps we could start a movement to bring back the style of running rugby that was so exciting to watch all those years ago.

Mick Bailey, Ngunnawal, ACT