大象传媒

Earlier this year an Australian woman travelling in America inadvertently sparked a security scare when, in exasperation at a flight attendant鈥檚 inability to supply her with pretzels rather than crackers, she used the expression 鈥渇air dinkum鈥�. Whilst still on board, a flight attendant demanded to see her passport. On the ground, she was met at the gate by three police officers. 鈥淔air dinkum鈥� had been misinterpreted as a statement of aggression, a term of abuse.

If the same treatment was meted out to Australian politicians, the police in Canberra would have a bulging casebook. 鈥淔air dinkum鈥� - meaning true or genuine - is one of the most oft-heard phrases in the political lexicon. Just as a recent study found that 鈥淚鈥檒l be back鈥� from The Terminator is the most in everyday conversation, 鈥淔air dinkum鈥� would surely occupy a similar spot in a survey of Australian political speeches.

Up until the deputy Labor leader Julia Gillard mounted her 鈥渨orking families-athon鈥�, the main rivals to 鈥渇air dinkum鈥� would probably have been 鈥渇air go鈥� and 鈥渇air play鈥�. A sense of fairness is something which Australians clearly hold dear, which is why the word 鈥渇air鈥� so frequently finds political expression.

When human rights groups started to agitate about the plight of , the Australian detained without trial at Guantanamo Bay, they didn鈥檛 mount a 鈥淔ree David Hicks鈥� campaign. Instead, they called it 鈥淔air Go for David鈥�. Whatever people thought of Hicks personally, polls consistently showed that a majority of Australians thought he deserved his day in a proper court - legal and judicial fairness.

Much of the disquiet over the introduction of the has stemmed from a feeling that it discriminates unfairly against new arrivals from non-English-speaking countries, because the questions are weighted in favour of those with an Anglo background. Similarly, the decision by the Howard government to cancel the working visa of Mohamed Haneef within hours of a magistrate granting him bail aroused similar feelings. Many people did not feel he had been given a 鈥渇air go鈥�.

, the controversial labour reforms introduced in 2005, seem to have caused such great offence because they violate Australia鈥檚 unspoken fairness doctrine.

First, there鈥檚 the detail of the laws themselves, which, among other things, exempt companies employing under 101 workers from unfair dismissal laws and make it harder to mount industrial action. Critics complain that the laws grant too much power to employers and withdraw to many rights from employees. That鈥檚 not 鈥渇air鈥�, so the argument goes.

Second, there鈥檚 the manner in which the reforms were introduced - without prior warning from John Howard at the last election. That鈥檚 not 鈥渇air dinkum鈥�, holler the critics.

Sure enough, when the Howard government sought to mitigate the political damage caused by WorkChoices it introduced a 鈥渇airness test鈥�. The word 鈥渇airness鈥� was deployed to make the measures more palatable (and the test has also proved effective, with statistics just published by the Workplace Authority showing that over 26,000 workplace agreements had been rejected since its introduction in May).

Does Australia鈥檚 fairness doctrine partly explain the mood for change? After 11 years of the Liberal-led government, is Labor about to get a 鈥渇air go鈥�?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?