Seeing that Pat Rafter is a “resident of Bermuda”, he is unable to help pay for “our schools, hospitals, police and roads” through taxes. This appeals to the reader’s sense of fairness and justice. Readers are inspired to feel let down and deceived by Rafter’s actions. This also questions whether Rafter deserves to be Australian of the year.
The creditibilty of the National Australia Day Council is also challenged by Bolt. Rafter would not have got the “gong” if NADC had “followed its own rules”. Bolts stresses that it is a “joke” that “three of the past five Australian of the Year” were sportsmen, and the fact that NADC had “bend its rules”. The besmirching of the NADC serves to create a sense of negativity around the council, and encourages the reader to believe the award is only given to sportsman. This further questions whether the council is reliable.
The argument advances in the article when Bolt sarcastically asks: “what are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ which force Rafter to live in Bermuda?” The rhetorical question is, again, questioning the motive of Rafter. Not only does Rafter live there, he has been declared a “resident” of the “tax haven”. Readers are convinced to feel that Rafter’s award is undeserved because he lacks support for his own country.
According to the NADC, Rafter resides in Bermuda because it is “impossible” to “compete” living in Australia. Bolt combats this conservative explanation through the use of an analogy. Bolt establishes that Lleyton Hewitt being a “top ranked” is still a “taxpaying resident of Adelaide”. This further questions what is Rafter’s motive for moving out of Australia. The feeling of disappointment will certainly become present in the reader and sense that Rafter is obviously unworthy of this award.
In a last attempt to diminish Rafter’s efforts, Bolt constructs a comparison between Rafter and the “millions of Australians (that) back green causes”. This sceptical comparison attempts to persuade the reader to feel that Rafter’s actions are basically not special and probably expected.
Overall, Bolt’s opinionative piece would comfortably appeal to the general public of Australia. The constant questioning and appealing to fairness will please the reader along with the logical arguments and discussion.