JOHN HOWARD CANBERRA PRESS CONFERENCE 13:02 AM 12/8/04
HOWARD: I’d to thank you for all coming. I would like to discuss the spirit of the FTA which the leader of the opposition has so heinously ridiculed showing his anti-American and anti-religious fervour. Now we had quite detailed discussions with the US about the spirit of the FTA, dialogues about the metaphysics of the interaction. For example we spent a lengthy period of time considering the master-slave dialectic. And I can just see some of you Herald journalists scorning with your stereotypes of trade lawyers, unaware of our discussions on the connotations of Rilke’s Orpheus. I’m not Lazarus with a double by-pass for nothing.
But onto the spirit of the FTA which of course Labor is endangering with their dangerous amendments and overblown rhetoric. Now the spirit of the FTA, which I’ve performed a CSI on to use the Australian vernacular, which highlights the failings and lack of spirit in the opposition. Our legal advice has been comprehensive in its metaphysical examination of the spirit of the FTA. And we have found that the FTA “thinks therefore it is” or something along those lines. So now that it is alive, we consider the idea that we can abort morally apprehensible. Except in the circumstances I am about to outline, we are concerned that the FTA could couple with a similar FTA of the same gender and consider matronomy, now that would be totally unappropriate. Now this is one of our grounds of concern that the trade could be contrary to the spirit in its tradely untradeliness which we think the Americans would want to reserve their judgment as if the patent application is altered and transformed (which is really code in ALP terms for transgendered) then we have this ambiguous situation where the trade agreement has a different sexual connotation, and this could be interpreted differently and this is just my concern, that this could be interpreted by the Americans as an unnecessary change. in which an unncessary alteration in certain regions of the agreement has resulted in a vise-like arrangement as my friend the Senator Bill so aptly put it.
Now considering we are a tolerant people, we think we also needed to consider at greater length the human spirit of the FTA and consider its will. Now Labor’s transformation will harm this will, as it will be a spiritual disincentive for the will to dream and to speak. And we know the FTA speaks, it speaks when it is awake and when it dreams. The FTA is always speaking, and having such a narrow patent process would inhibit this speaking. Now the naming of the FTA calls. Calling brings closer what is called, the calling her calls into a nearness, George where are thee, please back me up. But even so the call does not wrest what it calls away from the remotness. Now the FTA, the thing, the thinging thing, gestures, to the worldhood of the world and we are concerned that this worldliness could be compromised in the thinging the thing. Now I think this has resolved the issue, as pain is dif-ference itself and we know the pain the FTA must be enduring because of these amendments.
But when discussing the spirit, I’d like to remind the viewer that there is nothing outside the text of the FTA, and that the spirit is in a state of being unbecoming which will guarantee that the FTA will not affect the PBS. This I believe explains a position much more than Mark Latham’s window-dressings, for the window-dressings windowness produces an essence of the thing that in being will be in a place of absence. I think I have exclaimed the agreement in plain words and without abstract details. Any questions.