Why do politicians persist with invoking the “pub test” as the basis for an opinion or policy? Most often it’s simply a lazy substitute for reasoned argument, but the news media generally goes along instead of calling it out for what it is.
The most recent high-profile case involved Christine Holgate, former CEO of Australia Post, who lost her job when the prime minister and his supporters decided the performance reward of luxury watches for four senior executives “didn’t pass the pub test”.
It was also claimed her action was “inconsistent with community expectations”, even though it was self-evident that cash bonuses of a similar value would likely have raised no such concerns.
The same claim to be reflecting vague community standards was also invoked when Virgin Australia CEO Jayne Hrdlicka suggested the nation’s borders should reopen even if it meant “some people may die”.
PM Scott Morrison said: “I regret that those comments were somewhat insensitive,” and added: “I find it very difficult to have any truck with what was said there.” However, he didn’t elaborate what he didn’t have any truck with — whether it was what she said or who was saying it.
Labor’s health spokesman Mark Butler went even further. “I’m not sure, with the greatest respect, that those sorts of contributions are going to do much to bend the will of the Australian public to what she wants to do and what other businesses, I guess, who want international travel to resume, might want to see in this public debate,” he said.
Here again, no actual reply to the Virgin boss but instead a vague appeal to “the will of the Australian public” — and apparently a warning about voicing a different opinion in public debate.
The reality is, what Hrdlicka said was unremarkable. That even after widespread vaccination people would still die from a variety of viruses. It might have been unwise given her role, and “put very, very starkly” (as Nationals Senator Matt Canavan commented), but unremarkable all the same.
In a statement clarifying the chief executive’s comments, Virgin Australia said the airline agreed with state and federal leaders that eradication of COVID cannot be the goal for the country and “we must learn to live with COVID-19 in the community in a way that protects the health and safety of our people but also opens Australia up to the rest of the world”.
This is no different from the view of Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton, who says Australia needs to accept there will be cases of coronavirus after borders reopen. Or that of Australia’s former deputy chief medical officer Nick Coatsworth, who has said the idea of eradicating COVID indefinitely is a “false idol” and that we need to help the public come to terms with the reality of the virus circulating in the community.
Which brings us back to the “pub test” and claims of “community expectation”. For an airline CEO to urge border reopening in a business context was ill-advised, poorly timed and maybe “somewhat insensitive”. And mentioning COVID and the flu in the same breath was certainly most unfortunate. Yet it was equally unfortunate for politicians to dismiss her remarks as being out of line with public thinking.
Politicians love to talk about the “pub test” and they claim to reflect what the public really think. But the “pub test” and “community expectation” have no objective meaning and have become little more than a rubric for whatever suits the political or media agenda. Which in turn has become a lazy and convenient substitute for reasoned argument.
The future for COVID as described by Sutton and Coatsworth (and rather clumsily restated by Hrdlicka) is based on the facts, and the public deserves to be told the truth.
The social media outrage on both sides following the Hrdlicka’s speech — including calls for her to be sacked, and for a boycott of Virgin — reflects that “public opinion” about this issue is largely misinformed and highly politicised.
When politicians claim to speak for the “will of the Australian public” and invoke the “pub test”, it is — at best — a data-free view of what some selected part of the public might think. At worst, it’s no more valid than saying “this is what some of my friends think” or “this is what I read on Twitter” or “this is what is politically smart”. Or as the late New Zealand prime minister Rob Muldoon used to say: “This is what my mailbox tells me.”
How refreshing it would be if a politician — instead of hiding behind the shield of supposed public opinion — was honest and said: “This is my personal view based on what I believe should be acceptable to the community.” While such candour might be a long time coming, it’s time to retire the conveniently imprecise idea of the “pub test” as any basis for managing critical public policy.
What did you think of Hrdlicka’s comments? Was the controversy overblown, or fair enough? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
Tony Jaques is an expert on issue and crisis management and risk communication. He is CEO of Melbourne-based consultancy Issue Outcomes and his latest book is Crisis Counsel: Navigating Legal and Communication Conflict.
The pub test!! Yes, whenever I have an important decision to make, the outcome of which may affect me and my loved ones, I always pop into the local to ask some guy at the front bar nursing his fifth schooner.
The pub test is populist governance aussie style, designed to stomp on any meaningful debate with a big Monty Python foot , making it clear that if it takes too long to explain something, then you’re a bit of a w@nka and not welcome in this here town.
In regards to Hrdlicka’s comments, they are pretty predictable and no doubt shared by Gerry Harvey, Alan Joyce etc, ie anyone whose job it is to get the money rolling in again.
It is also a great reason not to let social health decisions be made by people whose interests are in profits rather than in caring for our society at large.
I think Hrdlicka and co. think you can “choose” an acceptable level of Covid, like, fifty cases or something. “Fifty doesn’t sound too bad…come on aussies, get out from under the doona, you plonkers!”
But of course the virus doesn’t work like that. You have 50 one day, you have a hundred a few days later, you have thousands before you know it. So while some poo-poo the idea of an extinction strategy as being unrealistic, it is in fact the only way you can do it. Although to be accurate, it’s actually a management strategy that incorporates extinction….catch outbreaks early, and make them extinct. Otherwise you have a runaway virus.
Risk management strategies accept that there will inevitably be cases, I get that, but not having a very effective means to extinguish the cases when they occur is just asking for disaster.
The sensible order of things to do, as far as I can see, is 1) vaccination 2) robust quarantine and testing 3) a rock solid management plan with a dedicated team of Covid exterminators. A gradual opening of borders based on the health of the other country would be a good way to monitor how it all goes. This will all take time, especially considering the messy roll-out Morrison has served up, and this seems to be the source of Hrdlicka’s angst.
But wanting to skip all those pesky safety things, so Virgin can get back to making money, is just a tiresome reminder of how little these highly paid captains of business care about people.
I still want my money back from Virgin. Travel bank my arse.
Jetstar still have money of mine also.
This should be an opportunity to clean up their act as paying $80 to change a $45 flight ticket is outrageous. Always has been and still is.
Thieves.
Flight Centre, no resurrected, was on the verge of refunding me several hundred bucks for a flight it had booked but the airline cancelled.
Then came C19 and not a word from them since.
The old email addresses now come back as ERROR.
In some ways more scary than the pub test is the Herald-Sun test. Used routinely to kill good ideas by imagining how the Herald-Sun would report and distort them.
on a serious note – community expectations the best poll has been elections
the population feels safe when protected individuals – not when segments of the economy are protected.
The Premiers who hav protected their populations Are Queensland and WA – look at the results
and look at the Tasmanian result – So – if Morrison opens the borders at the Federal level – he’s a goner
with the rest of the Libs – the budget will be quickly forgotten and won’t be a calculation when the electors caste their vote
Especially in Queensland that is where and how Morrison got elected.
Until Australia achieves 80% immunity thereby creating herd protection the government would be nuts to open the borders
so business should stop whinging and use their energy to promote vaccination.
I am not dying to fly Virgin –
making of a good ad