Ruddock: ‘I was never knowingly an indiscriminate tosser’

After a short break to work on his understanding of the Australian accent, Dr Sigmund Freud resumed his project of interviewing prominent locals. Fittingly, his first guest was Hon Philip Ruddock, MP, the nation’s new SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CONVINCING OTHERS WE HAVE A HEART DESPITE ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

SF:        I wonder if you could explain–

PR:       Dr Freud, it goes without saying that I am always happy to explain any aspect of my long and extraordinarily distinguished career.

SF:        The question I wanted to ask is why your title is all in the upper case? Some people might see that as a bit shouty.

PR:       I do not think that is a judgment that fair-minded people would draw. The capitalisation is intended to highlight the fact that Australia, or at least the Government of which I have been a proud member for more years than I care to remember, has a great deal, a very great deal, to be proud of. It also acknowledges the reality that in our globalised world we are dealing with many individuals whose first language is not English. You will know from your own experience that those in that category respond well to capitalisation, whether it be written or spoken. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

SF:       (Shakes his head and mutters, I’m not a fucking idiot, mate.) Let me ask you about boat people.

PR:       Here we go again! Why this obsession with foreigners? Why not ask about decent hard-working Australians like Pauline Hanson or Bronwyn Bishop or Joe Hockey or me perhaps? People who’ve contributed unstintingly to the life of the nation without always having their hand out or expecting some cushy appointment.

SF:        (Determined.) Why did you chop off large chunks of Australia?

PR:       Well I would strongly reject that characterisation of the action we took to make Australia a tidier, more compact country and thereby facilitate the processing of those who want to call Australia home but will never ever do so and who, after the requisite number of years have passed, will have the opportunity to go somewhere else like Cambodia or perhaps New Zealand.

SF:        Aren’t you at all ashamed at the way you’ve behaved? Look at your own words from October 2001, and I quote: a number of children have been thrown overboard. It was clearly planned and premeditated. I imagine the children would be those who could be readily lifted and tossed.

It was all a lie wasn’t it?

PR:       Well the important point I was trying to make was that in tossing children into the air it is incumbent upon the tosser to carefully calculate the arc of the toss, the likely descent rate and the landing zone. As a general principle I, and the government of which I was a proud member, did not consider that water was a fit substance into which to toss children.

SF:        Unlike gaol?

PR:       Exactly.

SF:        Finally, how do you rate Australia’s chances of getting elected to the UN Human Rights Council?

PR:       To use a term I hear occasionally in my electorate from those who are educationally challenged, it’s a no brainer. We in this country understand human rights abuses like no other. Why, we even make the Saudis blush.