Crikey Awards

Dec 22, 2017

The 2017 Crikeys: Arsehat of the year and Person of the year

It's the most anticipated awards of the year -- who will be Crikey's annointed ones?

Charlie Lewis — Journalist

Charlie Lewis


In several ways, 2017 defiantly refused to improve upon the flaming rubbish pile template set by 2016. It’s been a time, and we’re all very tired. But our dear readers summoned one last burst of energy to crown our 2017 Arsehat of the Year and Person of the Year.

The Nominees

Arsehat of the year:

Tony Abbott, for demanding that his constituents be given a voice on the issue of marriage equality and then refusing to vote according to their wishes.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

16 thoughts on “The 2017 Crikeys: Arsehat of the year and Person of the year

  1. Six Across

    No, Peter Dutton should have gained the triple crown.

    1. Kevin_T

      Given that Dutton is one of the 91.8% of parliamentarians who support offshore detention, in a sense he does achieve a hat trick….

  2. PG

    Crikey readers get it right again!

  3. graybul

    Clearly, the electorate sees . . . .

  4. Peter Molloy

    Congratulations on your person of the year . As the father of 2 daughters I have not been able to comprehend how Chrissie & Anthony have been able to carry on their vigil , year after year , with calm resolve & purpose . I am truly humbled by their inspiration . As far as Arsehat goes both the Liberal & National ( Socialist ) Parties would be my nomination for outstanding year long attacks on the Australian people

  5. PeteH

    Lyle Shelton should def have been a serious contender for arsehat. He’s as objectionable as Obergruppenführer Dutton.

    Can’t argue with the choice for person of the year, though.

    1. craig

      Obergruppenführer. What a word.

      1. Itsarort

        And the parallelism is stunningly accurate!

    2. Don

      I don’t agree at all. I don’t see Shelton as anywhere near the same class as Dutton. Interested in your justification.

  6. Tom Goninon

    Lisa Singh has been a consistent speaker against the Labor Party’s support for off shore detention

  7. CML

    Yes…and of those 91.8% who voted against our parliamentarians who support off-shore detention…90% of them will be the first ones to blame said parliamentarians if/when there is a massive terrorist attack in this country. Only a matter of time, in my opinion.
    They appear to have ‘all care and no responsibility’…a bit like the Greens who advocate for an open door policy on refugees. It is only the major parties who form government who MUST take responsibility for the safety of Australians…although I agree that the ‘no care’ has room for massive improvement.
    The off-shore centres were originally set up for PROCESSING of refugees/asylum seekers…not DETENTION. The Labor party were not in power long enough to implement that policy…on the other hand, the Coalition have a lot to answer for!!

  8. kyle Hargraves

    Is it not just a little too easy to sit in judgment of others without looking to ourselves. An alternative to adjudicating Abbott and Joyce as “Arsehats” is to observe that such events may be expected when the political system rests upon universal suffrage : or “that is democracy for ya”.

    As to “David Leyonhjelm for welcoming Milo Yiannopoulos into Parliament House” the statement has possesses the same desire for censorship when the management of the ABC “admitted” [for the want of a superior verb] an error in asking Zaky Mallah to appear as guest (who happens to be a convicted criminal and an open terrorist sympathiser – for those unacquainted with the gentleman) on Q&A. Searching for a third instance of “cringe” one could identify the denial of entry to David Irving into Australia.

    I have only one criticism of my fellow Australians and it is their (astonishing large) capacity for moral cowardice. They will do very little if they have to put their name to it. It isn’t that much lower in NZ for that matter either. For the record I hold dual citizenship. The ABC acted entirely correctly in inviting Mr Mallah onto Q&A. An entire theatre could have put questions to him in a civilised matter. Ditto for Leyonhjelm. The content of the books of Irving are either correct in the main or erroneous in the main. Either way it is an empirical matter to assess the man’s creditably.

    As to presenting awards perhaps we might begin with Crikey. However, prior to proceeding, let’s reflect for a moment or two on Al Jazeera – by way of a comparison and of the perils of becoming “absorbed”.

    The publishers has high hopes for the service but it would seem to be little better, if at all, than (say) the BBC. Both publications engage in about the same degree of PC or the quantity of photograph of infants that have died in the various incidents or a similar number of acts of moralising or the inclusion of emotive adjectives in their respective articles. I read both publications (more from habit than from design) but reading either one would suffice.

    Let’s consider the recent incident in Melbourne (20 Dec/17) where a SUV struck a number of pedestrians. The initial reports were confused at best. An account containing (1) the collision itself (2) time, date, weather & and traffic conditions (3) condition of the driver [young, old, intoxicated, drugs, whatever – including a motive] (4) nature of injuries (serious or simple or fatalities) would have been preferred to lines of “eye-witness drivel”.

    We can do without, I think, the banal moralizing from a Premier (et al) – which serves only to diminish the tone of the publication. As to [From the ABC 18:30 ESST – same day] the assessment of the police (as reported) : “Police also say the incident, unprecedented in Australian history, is not a terrorist attack, but is related to a stabbing earlier today in the inner southern suburb of Windsor”. – is almost precisely the same (yes : read identical) remark that was made on 20 January this year in the same City when a near identical event occurred (but killing three people); better or worse : for the fatalities – does anyone think? As to “unprecedented” perhaps the word means, nowadays, less then three times per year.

    Returning to Crikey : can “it” not be done better? Should we become sentimental over (e.g.) single-sex/gender marriage or ought the matter be recorded as an adoption of ethos or possibly a triumph of tolerance.

    It seems to me that there is a pleasing range of talent within Crikey but may I be permitted to nominate Ms H. Razer as the Journalist of the Year at Crikey for perception, if not originality, over a range of subjects of historical, cultural and contemporary interest that included Assange, the Millennials (along with reflections on Gen. X) to the proclivities of politicians of advanced age.

  9. AR

    The usual suspects deserve all the contumely, abuse and loathing their actions engender but surely the ultimate Arsehat is the MT suit atop this steaming pile of ordure.
    Having shed every, alleged, principle in order to garner the support of bigots, zealots, troglodytes, knuckle-draggers and extremely unpleasant fukwits in the party room, he is like the dog who caught the car – no idea what to do with it.
    Go now, for you have sat too long, Talcum the Unforgiveable.

  10. Itsarort

    What is the collective noun for “Arsehat’s” ? (Given that most, if not all, of these ‘parliamentarians’ will be back next year).

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details