An investigation into allegations is overdue

Christian Porter may indeed be innocent of the rape allegation as he claims (The Age, 4/3). But his public statement contains some alarming misdirection. In no reasonably governed organisation in Australia would the accused’s denial alone be considered satisfactory. Well may he decry losing his position over ‘‘nothing more than an accusation’’ – neither should a predator escape accountability for want of a serious investigation of evidence.

Resigning or stepping down for the duration of an internal investigation does not ‘‘set a new standard’’, nor will it result in ‘‘no rule of law left in this country’’. Due to technical factors it appears Mr Porter cannot ever face criminal investigation or trial, but an independent investigation commissioned by the Office of the Prime Minister will generate a substantial (if incomplete) body of fact from which the Prime Minister can make a reasonable determination as to Mr Porter’s suitability to the office of attorney-general.

It need not be public and likely will not be entirely conclusive, but the circumstances demand it nonetheless. The commencement of this investigation is already conspicuously overdue.

Scott Cantrill, Maribyrnong

An inquiry would be a chance to clear Porter’s name

The biggest mistake Christian Porter made was to assert that should a formal, properly constituted inquiry be established (independent of government) to investigate the allegations of the deceased woman, he would be required to ‘‘disprove’’ the allegations against him. This is nonsense, and the first law officer would know that.

The aim of any inquiry would be to collect all the available evidence, weigh it up, and then determine if, on the balance of probabilities, the allegations are proven. Under no circumstances would the onus of proof be reversed. Given the gravity of the allegations hanging over his head, perhaps for the rest of his life, I cannot understand why the Attorney-General would not welcome the opportunity to clear his name. Lyn Hudson, Kew

Just keep investigating until he’s found ‘guilty’

OK, so NSW Police said it did not have enough admissible evidence to proceed with an investigation against Christian Porter. Well then, let’s set up a kangaroo court to investigate him anyway. And if the kangaroo court finds the same thing, let’s set up an independent inquiry to investigate their independence. Jim Barber, Parkville

The hounds of the media are baying for blood

One could be forgiven for believing one had emerged from a church into a place of public execution after contrasting the reverential treatment given to Australian of the Year Grace Tame (The Age, 4/3) with the media frenzy of hounds baying for Christian Porter’s blood. My own bewilderment matched his as this show of barbarity, without relief, and without intelligence, became frighteningly real.

Patricia Wiltshire, Montmorency

The only option is for the Attorney-General to resign

The Attorney-General is the first law officer of Australia. Therefore he must be seen to be beyond reproach. The current rape allegation and past allegations of inappropriate conduct with women means there is a perception that he has breached his obligations as attorney-general. He has no choice but to resign.

Geoff McDonald, Newtown

A double standard on presumption of innocence

Christian Porter was Social Services Minister when the robo-debt scheme was introduced. Its key feature was that people accused of owing money to Centrelink had to prove their innocence. This was very distressing for many people, some of whom ended their own lives. Now when Porter is faced with serious allegations, he insists on the presumption of innocence that he denied thousands of others and suggests that having to prove his innocence would undermine our justice system. Does anyone else smell hypocrisy here?

Denny Meadows, Hawthorn