Strewth: Best foot forward

This week Scott Morrison found himself explaining why he’d wound up in an official family portrait with two left feet.

Shod happens

So it came to pass on the ninth day of 2019, Scott Morrison had to explain why he had wound up in an official family portrait with two left feet. Somewhere in the bowels of the PM’s Armoured Photoshop Division, someone evidently had taken a look at Morrison’s insufficiently bright sneakers and, adopting an it’s-all-right-to-be-white approach, digitally reshod him in footwear as bright as fresh snow. Putting aside small niggling questions — chiefly: Why? — the effect is striking: a left foot at the end of his right leg, and sneakers that eerily don’t belong, like a shoe that has washed up on a beach with its resident extremity still inside. While not as funny as the Photoshop failures that afflict regional Chinese politicians — placing them in spots they clearly aren’t, their feet hovering above the ground — it’s still droll. A lesser person might be tempted to call it a shod-dy job, but not the PM, who tweeted: “Message to my Department (PM&C): I didn’t ask for the shoeshine, but if you must Photoshop, please focus on the hair (lack thereof), not the feet!” (A smiley face emoji makes its jolly presence felt, as does a photo.) “Here they are in all their glory — my footwear of choice whenever I can get out of a suit.”

Deal with it

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton held a press conference yesterday that ended on this note.

Journo: “Is Neil Prakash a Fijian citizen?”

Dutton: “I dealt with that a second ago. Thanks very much. Thank you.”

Let’s wind back the clock — more than a second, as it transpires, but numbers aren’t everybody’s strong suit — to the moment in the press conference when he “dealt with that”.

Journo: “Has Australia determined whether Prakash is a Fijian citizen or not, yet?”

Dutton: “Well, I dealt with that issue the other day, so I don’t have any further comment in relation to that.”

As tersely enjoyable as Scott Morrison’s “on-water matters” was back in the day, this is much more fun: part verbal Escher puzzle, part get stuffed. Five stars.

Over the fin

The main topic of Dutton’s presser was the advent of the public pedophile register, which elicited from senator Derryn Hinch a release that opened: “Now I can die a happy man.” It also included the memorable phrase, “It is why I jumped the shark from journalism and got into politics.” Which is a rather daring reframing of the expression “jumping the shark”.

Cash for croakers

Pauline Hanson’s plan for welfare recipients to collect cane toads in return for a slender bounty has not been universally well received. Ecologist and evolutionary biologist Rick Shine (both a snake god and toad guru) is not sold on this cash-for-croakers scheme, though he did at least use a fun turn of phrase when he shared his misgivings with the ABC: “There’s tens of thousands of them being hatched on the next rainy night that the toads decide to start fooling around with each other.” (For some reason, an image of lava lamps and Barry White springs to mind at this point, but that’s probably just us.) The phrase “terrible idea” also got a run. A cheerier if more boutique toad extermination outcome was the time Australia included among its wedding gifts for Prince Charles and Princess Diana a book bound in toad leather. It’s hard not to be moved by the poignancy time has added to Charles’s note of gratitude: “Thank you for taking all the trouble to find something which … will bring so much pleasure to us both throughout our married life.”

Riot of reply

It was in the context of the band Cosmic Psychos expressing displeasure at someone wearing one of their T-shirts at the St Kilda swastika jamboree that we mentioned the standard letter Private Eye used to send to complainers. We’ve since been reminded of another bit of correspondence starring the British satirical magazine in the very early 1970s. The specifics don’t matter so much now, other than to say someone was deeply put out by something written about them, resulting in a letter to Private Eye that concluded, “Mr Arkell’s first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.” Without further ado, here is the reply: “Dear Sirs, We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: f..k off.” Mark Colvin used to bellow with mirth at that.

[e-mail]