A few days ago I listened to Barnaby Joyce move a Private Member’s Bill to abolish net zero. He was exceptionally eloquent in his speech and made me think of Joh Bjelke-Petersen at his best. Apparently net zero has been having a shocking effect on the economy and Joyce told us that GDP per person was going down while prices were going up and it’s all because of that nasty net zero thing which isn’t going to do anything anyway…
Now I’m a little confused here because I’m sure that Peter Dutton was quoted in every news bulletin explaining how it was Labor’s spending that was causing inflation, but apparently not. It was that net zero thing which, I seem to remember, was something that Scott Morrison used to cite as one of his achievements. He managed to get the Coalition to agree to that they’d make commitment to net zero by 2050, as long as they didn’t have to actually do anything about achieving it until then.
Ah well, it’s good to know that we can fix everything by simply abandoning it. There was no suggestion about embracing nuclear power… which is not as dangerous as it sounds… my understanding from listening to the Coalition is that it’s ok to put your arms around a reactor but don’t get too passionate or you’ll end up making the sort of commitment you regret in the morning.
Anyway, the Honourable Mr Joyce was supported by the Member for Flynn, Colin Boyce, who confused me when he told us: “We’ve got people living in cars and people living in tents because they cannot afford their electricity bills, and it’s time this stopped.”
No, it wasn’t the fact that it sounded like he was suggesting that we ban people from living in cars or tents that confused me; it was the idea that people were living in cars and tents because they couldn’t afford their electricity bill. I mean did they say: “Hey let’s move into the car and save on electricity?” Or did they pay their electricity bill because they’d have had it cut off otherwise, only to discover that when one doesn’t pay the rent or mortgage, one finds oneself without access to electricity anyway?
This wasn’t the only thing that I found confusing from the first couple of weeks of the new Parliament.
I have heard some people complain that there are too many “Welcome To Country” s. (Is that how to make a plural of “Welcome To Country”? Or should it be “Welcome To Countries”?) The Welcome should only be used on special occasions and not be popping up at sporting events or anywhere that people are impatiently waiting for something else. Of course, when people say things like this, they’re often confusing the Welcome with the “Acknowledgment” statements but whatever, I would have thought that the opening of Parliament was one of those occasions where it would be appropriate. After all, it is an occasion full of ceremony and tradition and adding one more is hardly going to have people complaining because they wish that we could just cut to the moment when the Usher of The Black Rod carries the Rod and places it in the spot where it goes and there’s all that door knocking and the Speaker gets dragged to the chair and the Governor makes a speech and…
Whatever, I couldn’t understand why the One Notion senators felt it appropriate to turn their backs. Apart from the fact that it made it look like children who put their fingers in their ears and chant that they can’t hear you, it was also the sort of protest that they were critical of when people kneeled during the national anthem. People should show respect!
We also had Pauline complaining that people were getting their HECS debt cut by 20%. She wanted to know why ordinary taxpayers should have to pay for it when these people who’d done useless degrees were earning so much money. I did note a certain similarity to complaints about immigrants coming over and adding to the welfare budget while simultaneously stealing jobs… Pauline bemoaned poor tradies having to pay for these educated types, so I wonder if she knows that it applies to TAFE and other things that recently qualified tradies would also get.
Then we had the social media ban for anyone under sixteen. YouTube was added because there are things on YouTube that are unsuitable for young eyes. This is one of those strange contradictions where we can accept that the age of criminal responsibility is as low as ten in some states and territories but apparently we can find them guilty of crimes and send them to jail but that’s ok because nothing there will be as dangerous as social media.
And then we had Michaelia Cash telling us that we shouldn’t dismiss Senator Nampijinpa Price because Bess Price: “a woman walking through the desert was her mother who had her baby between her legs under a tree. She picked up that baby, she cut the umbilical cord and she kept walking…” For some reason, this means that we shouldn’t dismiss Senator Nampijinpa Price’s opinion on anything because “every single day she has lived and breathed reconciliation in this country because her father is white; her mother is black”!
>sigh<
Also by Rossleigh:
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
B Joyce makes an Aeroplane jelly look solid and substantial. Herr Drinkemrootempissoff has nothing spinal, intellectual, believable to him. “Net Zero” is a calculated comment on his I Q. Do Not Swallow…and, Cash is actually debt…
I heard on the news that they want to do away with Cash – she does have a grating voice that is both annoying and unpleasant but why not just vote her out of office, doing away with her is a bit extreme.
By the way, I had a tree-lopper of Indian heritage around here the other day – he said he could do a welcome to country for half the price and throw in a smoking ceremony – can’t say better than that.
PS: I note that Barnaby has had his teeth capped and got a new suit, tie and hat….could he be planning a coup, just to break the monotony of opposition or did Vikki tell him he needs to shape up ?
When I listen to Question Time (at the zoo?) I constantly wonder at the apparent lack of intelligence that seems to be a pre-requisite for parliamentary representation. Really Australian electors, is this the best that we can do? Are there no other potential candidates available to manage this nation? I’m amazed that people like Barnaby and Morrison (in particular) can make decisions (eg; AUKUS and net zero) on our behalf that will not bear useful fruit for decades after they are long gone – yet we allow them to do it after every election. Oh, and in case you are wondering, the mob on the other side of the dispatch boxes are not much better!
That was exceptional, Rossleigh. Brilliant.
they are selected and elected All the voters knew what the beet rooter stood for and unbelievable but 67% of New England approved of him.
Surely decisions are made by a majority of the politicians elected??????
To twist and old adage, Barnaby Rubble is the irrelevance in the room. How many more seats are they going to lose come the next election?
Welcomes to Country???
How can a defective, underwhelming dud accountant NZedder pisshead looserooter liar get into a rural seat and just go on lying, lying? Why? Is this an age of utter stupidity, entrenched lying, gouging greed, sickening superstition, faith fornication, uncivilised outbursts, the death of trust, the triumph of exploiting profiteers, utter futility?
How many has the purple-veined dipsomaniacal New Englander ensnared in his tissue of lies? Does his mistress cum missus welcome him onto the hearth and congratulate him on his confabulated misconstruals? And the newest kiddies, bless their possibly still innocent hearts, do they rush to their daddy and ask earnestly how was his day, what did he do, was it important work, can they be proud of him, and receive his blessing?
Too late, one suspects, for the first brood… deceived, rejected, now young adults saddled with the awful knowledge of just who their adulterous lying father actually is, a piss-head publicly shamed after face-planting on the footpath, an alcoholic wreck, the shame of it all to breach such sacred trusts for the sake of illicit fornication and the breaking of four female hearts.
What a rotten piece of work is this character Barnyard Joist. And what a travesty that the burghers of New England keep reelecting him.
And here I’ll resort to LNP laziness – seems appropriate, and repeat a comment I just made on AIMN ‘A Day in the Life of a LNP Shadow Minister’:
“And every now and then they arrive at a tipping point, and with the aid of the Wagina, Barnyard Beetrooter comes out to screech, blather and stammer his way into the headlines with Pawlean for a day or two. This by far exceeds the interminable screech of Michaelia and the somnambulant jibber-jabber of anxious Angus or the waggle-wringing dib dib dibs & dob dob dobs of James Pee.”
Oh dear ….. Being a voter in New England where the Beetrooter represents himself & the unelected political hacks in the metro city office(s), I am equally amazed that the agricultural community has not yet determined that the NOtional$ have long abandoned them for any other pressure group that will make sufficient ”political donations” to keep the unelected political hacks in the manner to which they wish to remain accustomed.
.
Naturally With Auntie Gina believing Beetrooter is the smartest politician in Canberra does not bode well for thinking voters in New England. Why she even flew him in her private jet to the Adani wedding and poor Beetrooter had to claim the return trip by commercial service as an illegal cost. But no matter, politicians do THAT all the time with impunity …..
.
The detail of Beetrooter’s return to his New England home electorate makes sad reading. Tony Windsor INDEPENDENT was withdrawn from politics by his family who were concerned about this health. Toxic RAbbott laughed and struck off the essential Tenterfield CBD By Pass from the 2013 feral Budget expenditure which Beetrooter has been unwilling to replace in his 12 years at the public cash nipple.
.
Then his 2017 Kiwi Bye-election campaign managed by a former NOtional$ leader savagely defamed Windsor (knowingly in error) and seriously harassed his elderly frail mother. Such is the way politics are played by the NOtional$.
.
So now both state & feral NOtional$ continue to ignore the needs of the voters by failing to renovate & reopen the Main North Line north of Armidale. Could the Interstate Trucking Association have some financial ”political donations” interest here to insure that any future competition from a reopened railway line to Brisbane could not happen??
.
Meanwhile the local Dad & Dave’s are happy being treated as third rate citizens by fourth rate politicians ensuring that their personal pecuniary interests receive the best possible care.
I know you don’t really care, Rossleigh, but the grammatically correct option is Welcomes to Country. “Welcome” is the noun and the subject, and thus what needs to be pluralised; the rest of the phrase is merely a qualifier.
One might doubt that Leefe is correct. (A) welcome to Country suggests a noun, but as implied here, (To) welcome (someone) to country implies a verb.
Phil: “Welcome” is one of those words that can be both noun and verb; in the debated context it refers to the ceremony (noun) of granting free access (verb); it is still the primary part of the phrase and the part that should be pluralised. It’s the same principle as “Attorney General” being pluralised to “Attorneys General”
My previous post could have been worded better, but the basic point remains correct.
It’s not that I don’t care, leefe, it’s that I always find plurals divisive and I don’t think that they should be allowed because in Australia we all should be one and we should only have one flag, one nation and one viewpoint. That’s what freedom means.
But “we” is a collective pronoun and that means more than one …
We accept that and we also believe that “Welcomes to Country” is the least cumbersome…. However I have come to regret not simply writing “Welcome to Country” ceremonies…
Is there a whiff of nit-picking pedantry here ?
Or is that two things ?
I resent that, Terry.
When I nit-pick, it is not a mere whiff – the stench can be sensed from the remotest parts of the solar system.
Theiyr’re
Fortunately, Michael, I have just returned from a week-long bushwalk (and had the requisite long, hot shower), so my mind is calm and my soul at peace. Thus, your attempts at provocation are doomed to failure.
Nitpicking directly implies pedantry. Conjoined meaning, the Chang & Eng of fussiness over minor faults.
For goodness sake, leefe, I wasn’t trying to provoke you. What made you think it was about you?
Isn’t everything?
*sigh
Can’t even have a quiet little stir without upsetting anyone. I should have stayed out bush; at least the wombats appreciate me.
Bananababy wants that leadership job because of all that extra wonderful public funded pig trough money and maybe Gina will bestow even more of her munificence upon him.
“ Can’t even have a quiet little stir without upsetting anyone.”
That’s what I was doing. And if it makes you feel better, I wasn’t upset. Rather, a wee bit confused for being heckled by a heckler.
“We” is not a collective pronoun. It is a personal pronoun, nominative case, plural number. Good luck with the walk followup.
But that’s my job, Michael!
Thanks for the correction, Phil. Now, how about explaining the grammatical difference between collective and plural?
A collective joins in concept to make a singular, so a “team” is singular though it may have 5, 11, or 18 members. But singularity and plurality are primary and binarity in grammar. Much confusion may exist, e g., in agreement. Cf. Bryson, Gowers, etc.