An Australian politician called Trump’s tariffs a ‘dog act’ – but what does it mean and how offensive is it?

Caitlin, this week Australia’s industry minister, Ed Husic, called US president Donald Trump’s tariffs on aluminium and steel a “dog act”. I grew up in New Zealand, a country so close to Australia and yet so free from the phrase “dog act”. Please tell me – what does it mean, and does it have anything to do with dogs?

Your nation has missed out on a truly scathing critique.

Although the phrase features the word “dog”, it has nothing to do with the humble canine. Where dogs are loyal, kind and submissive (yes, I’m a proud labrador owner, what of it), a “dog act” is treacherous, cowardly and unacceptable.

That’s according to Oxford University Press, which named “dog act” its word of the month for September back in 2018.

Although the phrase is now a common insult in Australian vernacular, it doesn’t have a long history, with OUP finding the first evidence of the term being used in a Daily Telegraph article in 2003.

Fascinating. So, if someone told me I’d committed a “dog act”, how offended should I be?

You should be utterly appalled. A “dog act” isn’t simply ruffling someone’s feathers or snatching a sandwich from an unsuspecting stranger’s hands and eating it in one fast gulp (I refer, here, to said labrador). A “dog act” questions someone’s integrity. It’s an act of betrayal.

This is probably why it’s often used in sporting or political contexts, where loyalty is akin to godliness. Every other week, AFL or NRL players are accused of “dog acts”, “dog shots” or “dog tackles” on the field.

In the words of one Reddit user: “When I call you a dog, I’m not calling you an animal that walks on all fours and barks. I’m calling you the lowest scum on the Earth.”

Noted. I’ve heard of “raw-dogging” and “dogging”. Does this have anything to do with those?

Thankfully, there is no sexual innuendo to a “dog act”, unless, perhaps, you’re betraying your partner.

You aren’t being a peeping tom or a voyeur. You aren’t having unprotected sex or, in the more modern interpretation of the term “raw-dogging”, drinking caffeine without milk or finishing a nine-hour flight with no entertainment but the flight map.

In Australian vernacular, calling someone a “dog” can be highly offensive on its own. Turn it into “dogging”, and it becomes a noun – the act of being a dog by betraying or letting someone down. It all comes down to the delivery.

OK, I think I’m following. In this turgid climate, what other Australianisms do I need to be across?

Strap in. This isn’t the first time an Australian politician has whipped out Australian slang to offend their international counterparts.

In 2014, then prime minister Tony Abbott caused chaos (and confusion) when he threatened to “shirtfront” Vladimir Putin when the Russian president visited Down Under – meaning to perform a front-on chest bump or similar rough handling. The phrase was described as “quite unusual” by a Russian diplomat.

But there are many more Aussie digs that can be applied, depending on the setting. You’ve got “drongo”, “dingbat” or “dipstick” if someone is being stupid, “flog” to be really offensive, or “OK champ” for the belittling factor.

Then there’s my personal favourite, delivered deadpan and looking someone square in the eye: “Yeah, righto, mate.” I look forward to hearing that deployed by an Australian politician in the near future.