1. don’t kill or otherwise violate the physical integrity of others;
2. don’t steal;
3. don’t lie (this includes keeping promises); and
4. assist others in serious trouble when assistance would immensely help them at no or little inconvenience to oneself.

Good one Mirko - totally agree.

Good article Mirko. This is a similar to the situation a while ago where a plan was mooted to force potential voters to pass an IQ test before being eligible to vote where the same criticism emerges – what constitutes a high IQ?

The simple fact that every individual is motivated by different incentives means that they will place different emphasis on different values. While the list above is general enough to incorporate common values across many cultures it does not account for the different emphasis placed by each individual on the above values.

The recent attempt by the government and opposition to blend diverse cultures into one is absurd and gives me the same sick feeling anytime someone discourages behaviour for it being un-Australian. Why the constant need to identify traits common between Australians? Inferiority complex I suspect... I relish Australia for its freedom of expression, religion and the existence of an un-definable culture.

Buggga! - I find myself in agreement with this

What a load of rubbish.
Accept Mirko's values and reject Beazleyy's?

Some convergence to moral principles? Please. This is a load of dishonest propaganda.

Defending multicultural nonsense with utilitarian nonsense is the summation of this article.

For instance... "moral principles that apply to all cultures"
1) "don’t kill or otherwise violate the physical integrity of others;"

Except for all those cultures, like the Aboriginal culture, who think it is okay for a tribal leader to kidnap, assault and rape a 14 or 15 year old girl.

Don't hide behind weasal words Mirko. It's unAustralian

This is a very bad article and it surprises me that someone in the authors position should be so naive. The problem with liberalism is that it makes no attempt to form character. It assumes that we are all good and pure lovelies and that all we need is freedom to produce the perfect society. Several thousand years of Christian theology shows that this is not the case. We are not clean slates upon which may be written good things but we are filled with greed and envy and fear that distorts our moral compass. The projected freedom becomes a wasteland in which characterless souls pursue their desire, whatever that may be. This is a recipe for cultural collapse. There is no community of character in this there is only the isolated individual who must “make up his own mind” in a vacuum. The only thing we get is people of mind numbing superficiality who are prey to any advertising push or any ideology that promises to make them feel good.

Knowing what is good is not enough! We may know what is good, that is as simple as the authors list, but we cannot for the life of us do it. We need to be taught how to live non-violently in violent world. The author has an unrealistic view of the powers that are abroad.

Kim Beazley’s whacky idea of having tourists sign up to Australian values is just too ridiculous to mention in the same breath as the Government’s entirely reasonable and much needed changes to obtaining citizenship rights.

Mirko sometimes goes off the rails, and I find his suggestion that some Australian values might be morally offensive … well, offensive; and I don’t accept that there is any evidence that there is a cultural ‘convergence’ as per his four commandments.

While individuals can be as individualistic in their personal lives as they please, why the hell should Australia not insist on certain basic values that this country was built on and, which provide all the people who came here much later – after the hard yards were done – with a good, safe life. Why should the Bagaric’s be able to say, ‘Hey, lets go to live in the country the Smiths built. We’ll have to change their rules a bit, though’.

‘When in Rome..’ still holds good, in my view.