Rod Sawford (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although I was not in total agreement with the content of the speech given by Tony Blair in the House on Monday, it was nevertheless a very impressive speech indeed. The coverage of the speech in the Australian newspaper the next day quite rightly praised Tony Blair’s cleverly crafted exposition of contemporary global challenges. Greg Sheridan called the speech ‘magnificent’ and ‘articulate’, Matt Price said the speech was a ‘cracker’, Patrick Walters described the speech as ‘passionate’ and Paul Kelly said the speech ‘offered eloquence, vision and guts’ that had no match in Australian politics.

In my opinion, not one of those commentators came even close to explaining just why that speech was so well received. The speech by Tony Blair was based on identifiable beliefs. The speech explained those beliefs with coherent processes and outcomes. The language was explicit; no-one who listened was in any doubt whatsoever as to what Tony Blair meant. That is why Tony Blair connected with his audience. Unlike the commentary, his language was explicit rather than implicit. Certainly the style of delivery and presentation of the speech were excellent, but that speech could have been sustained by the substance alone.

Something is very wrong with the contemporary orthodoxy of how language is used in Australia today. I believe that over the last 30 years language has changed quite dramatically, and for the worst. This is particularly true when referenced to the practices of politicians and the political commentariat. If we face the raw facts, much of what is said and written about politics these days is eminently forgettable—the pun intended. However, it should not be like that. Australians once prided themselves on calling a spade a bloody spade or at least a bloody little shovel. That is no longer true. Explicit language is noted for its rarity rather than its common use. Too much political commentary reinforces power, ambition, ego, celebrity status and spear throwing for the mediocre, the undeserving and the overrated, and is crafted on synthesis alone.

Too much political commentary in this country confuses, constrains and conforms to nothing more than manipulation and spin. All of the Australian journalists I referred to earlier have superior writing skills—there is no doubt about that. Matt Price can write—pity about the lack of insight. Paul Kelly can identify political attributes—pity he explains them so superficially. Patrick Walters and Greg Sheridan rely on description in synthesis mode alone—pity about the lack of analysis. It is therefore no wonder that Tony Blair, by stating beliefs, processes and outcomes so coherently, comes across as a breath of fresh air and presented such a striking difference to the contemporary Australian political orthodoxy. The real pity is that no journalist had the wit to explain why, and I wonder whether very many of us will learn the lesson too. (Time expired)