'Pub test' not well understood as a concept

And on the most popularly comprehended definition, it is of course a measure intended to assess the actions of such folk.

Any law student in the British-Australian tradition over the past century or more will have had instilled in them a need to understand the thoughts of "the man on the Clapham Omnibus". Later as Australia became a little more independent of the roots of its imported legal system this vital litmus test was locally assigned to "the man on the Bondi tram". Each was a legal construct designed through judge-made law, rather than statute, then adapted over time to assist in the assignment or apportionment of responsibility in negligence cases.

In essence, it related to whether a particular risk would, should or could have been reasonably apprehended in advance by an individual undertaking a particular activity.

For example, those going water skiing should have understood the dangers imposed by floating or submerged logs on the waterway but perhaps not a less foreseeable risk. These tests required the blokes on the Clapham Omnibus or the Bondi tram to be ordinary men capable of having reasonable expectations in each such situation that ended up before the courts. Whilst not exactly the same, there is much in common with the newer gauge - that of the pub test. The pub test - at least not yet - is not a concept making an impression on legal deliberations.

But more and more through analysis and commentary, it is being used, or perhaps as many might suggest manipulated, to assess the decisions and actions of public figures.

Most commonly but not exclusively this means politicians. But even if the pub test was not applied for example to the behaviour of the big banks and their executives in recent times it could and should have been.

Yes, there were many cases where straight-out good old-fashioned legal accountability was actioned to deal with their deeds, there were grey areas which were more appropriately gauged by the pub test.

And in such cases, if the law could not be applied to remedy the matter then perhaps the pub test might either shame the offenders into compensation or at the very least impact on future behaviours and codes of conduct. Focus groups have for some time been used for strategic and operational decision making in both commerce and politics. The concept is to bring a small but reasonably diverse group of folk together to react to suggested products, promotions, policies and advertising.

In theory whilst they were not on an omnibus or tram or in a pub, they might as ordinary people represent the reactions of a broad percentage of consumers or voters.

Whilst the odd media or snap polling organisation may have taken to the public bar of a licensed establishment to gauge opinion this is not the norm in determining such feelings. We probably chose the name pub best because that's where at least on not so long days-gone-by a good proportion of Australians might gather to chew the fat on any conceivable matter. There - only the most judicious would have followed the principle of not engaging on the subject of politics or religion - and perhaps many of those who wouldn't have been in a pub in any case. When Tony Abbott proceeded for that very short while to reintroduce Australian knights and dames and extend the honour to Prince Philip he discovered even at his own local that he hadn't passed the test. It might be said it was a trip Bronwyn Bishop ought to have taken to assess the wind before boarding her helicopter or that Bill Shorten might have considered before he proposed to take away our franking credits even if many did not even know what they were or if we had any.

For those in command of smaller community organisations or service bodies taking heed of the thoughts of the reasonable member or user is way more critical than for politicians. Managing the expectations of a small membership or client base is immediately fundamental to the survival of both the body and its leadership. Politicians, big business leaders and other public figures have perhaps more room to move but a reluctance to take heed of a considered determination by pub testers might be a folly too risky to pursue. It is way too easy to simply assert that a particular call does not fail the test - but it's not too hard to spend time assessing whether the punters out there might reckon it does.