They can be singular as well.

As in “Look at that person over there, they seem to be coming this way”

It’s unclear if the demand for documents was bona fide, or if the decision was made by the Minister, or a Departmental delegate and is it appealable? Too easy to embarrass the government; question is were they in the loop or was it a booby trap?

No surprise, elements of Home Affairs, AFP etc. and related policies have been infected over past generation, with far right white Christian nationalist ideology; was this administrative or approvedby the Minister?

The same ideology shared by many Anglo and European ‘ultra conservatives’ with Putin’s Russia, but unstated, hence antipathy towards Ukraine, EU etc.; see Trump-Vance, Fox News evenings, Tones mate PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban, though Tones claims to pro-Ukraine?

I agree wholeheartedly. Yet another reform this government squibbed. The recent cabinet reshuffle gives hope that it might occur if Labor is re-elected (no way Tony Burke is there for the long haul), but probably wishful thinking.

Deliberate misgendering? Tick
False equivalence? Tick
Perjorative mis-use of ‘woke’? Tick
Labeling anything more progressive than centre-right orthodoxy as ‘extreme’? Tick

Congratulations, you have successfully passed the test and clearly identified yourself as someone whose every contribution can henceforth be safely and wisely ignored. Thank you.

I advocate the Chinese ‘ta’ for a gender neutral singular pronoun, (‘tade’ for the possessive). It’s simple pronounceable, and already in use by hundreds of millions of people. But I doubt it’ll ever catch on.

Yep, 10 years under Dutton will do that to any Department.

I’d say you’re most likely right.