In recent years there have been various attempts, mostly unsuccessful, to censor our language. A couple of years ago Bristol council tried to outlaw "love" and "dear", and Lancashire paramedics were asked not to use "love", "duck" or even "mate".
It is the outlawing of the term "mate" that has caused an outcry in Canberra's corridors of power this week. After less than a day a ban on the use of "mate" in Australia's federal parliament has been reversed and staff have been told they can once again use the term "when appropriate".
As news of the ban emerged, the opposition Labor party was quick to label the move "un-Australian", although it might also be considered "un-Labor".
Former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke was outraged by the move to ban a word that had been significant in both his career and in the history of the Australian Labor party.
In fact, the importance of mateship for the ALP has already been highlighted this week by leader Kim Beazley's call for Islamic faith schools to be required to teach it as part of their syllabus.
Interestingly, the country's Liberal prime minister, John Howard, was just as anxious to condemn the move, pointing out it was instigated by bureaucrats and not by his party.
This represents a significant shift in the Australian political landscape. Where once the values of mateship were firmly aligned with those of the Labor party and trade union movement, in recent years the Liberal party has recognised the political advantage of appropriating the ideals of fair play for themselves.
Still, whether real or imagined, most Australians still believe that the right to call each other "mate", whether security guard or cabinet minister, is a crucial part of the egalitarianism ineffably rooted in what it means to be Australian.
