AARON PATRICK: Anthony Albanese’s evening speech could have been historic. Viewers were underwhelmed

Marketer Lindsey McIntyre stopped cooking dinner to listen — a mistake he regretted.

Surgeon Samir Redzepagic tuned in expecting a speech of national importance and heard little or nothing new.

Corporate adviser Michael Webster wrote afterwards: “There is more substance in a fortune cookie than in what the prime minister said.”

The reaction to Anthony Albanese’s rare, televised speech to the nation Wednesday evening was a mixture of bewilderment, disappointment and in some cases relief the content-light address was only three minutes, 17 seconds long.

Colleen Harkin, a conservative political activist from Melbourne, accused the prime minister of “fluffy propaganda telling Australians to take the train if they can, and that the fuel crisis might well continue for some time”.

Although the speech may have appeared to be delivered live, it wasn’t. Mr Albanese recorded the message beforehand, allowing multiple takes if he misspoke.

Reactions may have been influenced by the expectations raised by the format. Mr Albanese gives several speeches every week, and appears at public or semi-public events almost daily.

Televised addresses are rare. In modern history, prime ministers have used them to explain why Australia would participate in war, in 2003; to reassure the public of the economy’s resilience, in 2008; and to explain why civil liberties would be limited on health grounds, in 2020.

None have ever been used to tell Australians to “enjoy your Easter” and “if you can switch to catching the train or bus or tram to work, do so” during what experts say may be the worst energy crisis in history.

The speech repeated policy changes announced by the government, including the well-known 26c-cut in petrol taxes.

“This comes across as more instructional than responsive,” Dr Redzepagic wrote on LinkedIn, “with limited evidence of concrete government action being taken to match the scale of the issue.

“Overall, it felt like a symbolic communication exercise rather than a substantive national update, and it’s hard to see what justified a full national address given the lack of new content.”

On X, the criticism was even harsher. Amid complaints the speech was about “nothing”, the prime minister was subjected to abuse, contempt and derision.

One of the milder posts said: “He stated the bleeding obvious and failed to address the many questions that we all have. A 5 year old could have scripted that 3 minute speech better”.

Back on LinkedIn, a site normally used for job hunting, security-industry manager David Saul blamed the Prime Minister’s staff.

“Can you imagine the rigmarole that his office went through in the lead up to this performance?” he wrote. “The focus group, the drafts and rehearsal? Surely they could have found the PM a comfortable chair — he looks like he is propped on a fence post.”

There are different views about Mr Albanese’s objective. By warning “the months ahead may not be easy,” he may be preparing Australians for fuel shortages so severe they require rationing.

Or he could be shifting blame for high petrol prices overseas with the sentence: “No government can promise to eliminate the pressures that this war is causing.”

A third option might be that the government believes there will be enough fuel, at least in the short to medium term, to get through the crisis. If that’s the case, it may expect the war to end soon and the Strait of Hormuz reopen.

Whichever is the case, Mr Albanese may have confused rather reassured Australians about the severity of the crisis.