Virgin Australia CEO Jayne Hrdlicka (Image: AAP/Julian Smith)

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.