I kinda just did this, I suppose for the fun of it (Language Analysis... fun?!)
In response to the annual Federal Budget announcement of 2016, Bill Shorten, the leader of the Opposition Party, gave his scathing speech in response to the budget announcement a few days following. Shorten contends that the budget and the recommended tax cuts related to it will benefit those who “have more”, rather than those who “have less”. He intends his audience to be the working and domestic classes of Australia, such as mothers with jobs, and is able to demand their attention through the use of repetition, dichotomy and ethos based evidence.
Shorten’s excerpt opens with the potent use of repetition, reinforcing to the reader that the awaited budget is of utmost priority, giving the document a bold sense of importance to the audience. He is able to do this through the constant use of the word “after” (“After seven months of waiting”, “after apprehension and great expectation”), which carries with it its own connotation of disappointment, an implication that the lack of action from the Federal Government has left the reader unsatisfied and rejected by them. This repetition, due to its primary position in the speech, predispositions the audience and reader to feel resentment towards the Prime Minister and the intended course of action outlined from the budget.
Within the same opening paragraph, Shorten employs the use of dichotomy to contrast the “great expectation” of the people against an implicit sense of frustration at the budget “falling apart in less than 48 hours.” The anticipation Shorten builds using the repetition of similar phrases and words is discriminated against the short, concise displeasure that the final segment implies. This in effect, reinforces the proposed sentiment set up against Shorten’s own opposition, the Prime Minister, making said leader appear as a failure or an embarrassment to the audience.
Finally, Shorten relies on an ethos based evidence argument to gain the support of, and to outline, the audience. Arguments made in reference to the “working mum” being “$4,700 a year worse off” appeals directly to the audience’s ethics, which a mother working hard and laboriously should not be in a position where she is left “worse off”. The references made to the “three quarters of Australian workers [receiving] no tax relief”, yet will instead “suffer disproportionally from cuts to” the public sector also provokes the audience’s morality by highlighting the potential threat such a budget proposes. By doing this, Shorten undermines the credibility of the Prime Minister to a wider audience, and forces them to reconsider the legitimacy of the both the Budget and Minister.
In conclusion, Shorten’s Budget speech effectively persuades his intended audience by fathoming bias against his opposition, which destabilizes the Prime Minister’s awaited 2016 budget.