The "she'll Be Right Mate" Attitude

[sandgrubber]

I've been reading through the tire-jump incident thread in the training forum . ..

I've lived in Australia for 12 years now. I have a gut feeling that something goes wrong in management of risk. Having trouble figuring out whether this is a universal problem, or something peculiar to Australia.

On one hand there's the "she'll be right mate" attitude that ignores, particularly, but not only, when competition is involved. On the other hand, there's a "nanna" attitude in legislation that, in a spotty fashion, puts in severe measures to try to manage risk. For example, in many places in WA, it is illegal to have a kennel -- even whelping facilities -- within 10 m of a dwelling, and in most of WA it is illegal to have more than two dogs on a property.

I hit the "she'll be right" attitude in unwillingness to contemplate the possibility of a major, severe fire coming hitting kennel zones in WA. "We've had fires before, we coped" . . . although the fires encountered were piffling little blazes of 10 or fewer ha

I'm not objective enough to know whether this tension between obliviousness to risk and legislative overreaction is worse in Australia than elsewhere . . . or whether it's an inevitable dilemma . . . found everywhere. I'd love to hear other's opinions . . . or is this too philosophical for DOL?

[Erny]

Sandgrubber .... I can't say or speak for what it is like in other Countries, but I have often expressed that society and its governments tend to be extremists. It's either all of this and none of that, or vice versa. And it is in that I believe that things go wrong. "Balance" usually is what works best in many factors of life. But laws are created when a minority abuse something and the law seeks to stop that, usually by banning the method or tool (for example). That sends the pendulum swing waaaay to the other extreme, and by the absence of balance, other problems/issues abound.

But that's slightly OT to your comment regarding the Aussie "she'll be right" attitude. IMO, the true blue "she'll be right" attitude isn't one of complacency, it is one of "don't panic, stay clear headed and move to something akin to being pro-active or suitable compromise". Maybe it has been a little bit lost with some who have misunderstood the concept of it. "She'll be right" can help calm those who otherwise might panic (which doesn't help) and doesn't necessarily mean there is no forward thinking plans in mind, or lack of concern.

Just as a small and minor example ..... in my younger years I travelled to the USA with a friend. We stayed on a horse ranch and helped the owners with some of the work needed to be done there. On a particular day, they'd arranged for a seminar (horse related) to which quite a number of horse enthusiasts were attending. When setting up, they realised the equipment which was to be used for the powerpoint presentation (or video or some such, can't remember) wasn't working.

They went into a bit of a spin about it. My friend and I did try to work out why the equipment wasn't working, but to no avail. I think we might have even said the words "she'll be right" and made some suggestions as to how to get around the fact that the electrical equipment had let them down. Long story short, they got through the seminar and it was well received. Later, the Americans marvelled at our calm collected attitude and were very grateful for it.

As I said - the above example is only a small and insignificant one, but might help to make some sense of what I mean and how the attitude can be helpful in times of greater stress and where calm and clear thinking is needed.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Erny

[Vickie]

I think most of it is human nature, not specific to Australia. There will always be people who don't care, just as there will be those who overreact... to anything. Hopefully most of us are somewhere in the middle, but it tends to be the extremists that you hear from most.

Here is my version of risk analysis

How likely does history say the risk is?

How likely do the experts say the future risk is?

If the event happens, what is the worst case scenario?

Using the first 2 questions, how likely is it that the worst case scenario will happen?

Can I cope with the worst case scenario if the event happens?

Can I cope with the best case scenario if the event happens?

Can the risk of the event be minimised?

How much effort is it to minimise the risk?

and the big one...is the event more likely to impact me more than others because of certain variables.

If I were to apply the above to the tire incident:

History says it happens, the experts say it will continue to happen, worst case scenario is death of a dog, this is possible but rare, I cannot cope with the worst cast, I cope with the best case scenario regularly, the tire can be changed, I believe with some but not unmanageable effort. I feel my dogs are more at risk of serious injury than others b/c of the comparative speeds they are travelling at.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Vickie

[poodlefan]

In relation to the tire jumping thread, I'm not sure if you're reading "she'll be right" as the message when what was being said by some posters, including me was "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Risk management isn't usually just about eliminating risk. It's about identifying, analysing and making judgements about how to alleviate unacceptable risk.

Taking the example of dog agility, the only way to remove all risk from equipment is to have none (as I suggested). If that option is eliminated, then you can look at the equipment and find ways to make it safer.

The fact is that the accident at the Nationals that precipitated one discussion on the tyre was caused by the failure to take what most agility people consider to be a standard precaution with it. Pegging is mandatory at my club. Break away tyres is another method of reducing risk. "No tyre" is not the option I'd like to see adopted and that is what some people want.

"She'll be right" generally means something other than "do nothing" or "stick your head in the sand" to me. I think, as has been suggested, that it means "don't panic, we can get through this".

If you want an expression for inaction or ignoring risk "fiddling while Rome burns" pretty much sums it up. That's not a saying that's Australian in origin.

Edited February 13, 2009 by poodlefan

[sandgrubber]

Thanks, guys, for the correction of my understanding . . . I guess I've come to associate "she'll be right" with certain people's attitudes to safety gear in the building industry . . . glad to know that "don't panic" is the normal meaning.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Thanks, guys, for the correction of my understanding . . . I guess I've come to associate "she'll be right" with certain people's attitudes to safety gear in the building industry . . . glad to know that "don't panic" is the normal meaning.

Actually, context matters a lot to that phrase and I don't think there is a normal meaning any more.

Many people who are being slack use it to make the person querying what they are doing go away - as you have discovered in the building industry. Yes, Australia has a culture of getting on with it and not making a fuss but people also use that culture to shut people down if it suits them.

[pointernuts]

When I was a younger man ( now 46 ), she'll be right, most of time meant, a person who was doing it tough, and instead of whinging, just got on with the job or life, and did the best they could, now I find that most people who say, she'll be right, because they are to lazy to do it the right way,

[corvus]

I think that downplaying things in general is a pretty Australian thing, although we certainly don't have exclusive rights on it. We are laid back and don't want things to get out of hand when they don't need to. I spent about 4 months in LA and a further 2 months stuck in the Mexican wilderness with some of the most low key and sensible Americans I have ever met personally or online. It seemed to me during that time that everything was a Big Deal to them and to them I appeared to be extremely calm and level-headed. Other Americans I met came across hysterical to me a lot of the time. It seemed to me that Australia is much more concerned about safety than they were in California at least, in that here they make laws to stop people doing stupid things and actually enforce them.

I think that in recent times Australian law is getting out of hand and the government is basically trying to make everyone behave in a safe manner. Perhaps if people sued at the same rate as Californian citizens they wouldn't need to be so restrictive! At some point, though, you have to stand back and say people have to look after themselves and make their own decisions. On this very forum I've seen arguments for more legislation, so I am thinking it is the community that is driving this change as much as or more than the governement. People in Australia often seem to forget that we live in a democracy and you can achieve a lot by making a song and dance about something. Everyone who matters gets where they are by being voted in by us. They are there to represent us. It's up to us to make it clear to them what will get them votes and what will lose them votes. To ignore us is polictical suicide.

[Erny]

Everyone who matters gets where they are by being voted in by us. They are there to represent us. It's up to us to make it clear to them what will get them votes and what will lose them votes. To ignore us is polictical suicide.

That depends on whether you're in a minority 'group' or a majority.

I think that democracy is sometimes lost when it comes to politics and politicians.

[corvus]

True Erny, democracies can and do fail the little people. But if you make a lot of noise you can often seem a lot bigger than you are, and attract people to your cause in the process. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but you have to play the game and embrace the system to have a shot. It's hard to make a very effective democracy.