The subject of ‘Australian values’ has certainly brought out everybody with a view, and too many of them, like this fellow, go straight to their own political biases to deal with the matter. We all have our political biases of course, but surely we can drop them when it comes to our life-values.

Howard said this. Beazley said that. Some from the ‘Left’ have responded cynically.

Baloney! Politics has nothing to do with heart-felt, human values we should all be sharing without being political driven. Politics is the most unpleasant, mean and devious part of life. Unless we have the values to start with, it is more unpleasant, meaner and more devious, with danger thrown in.

The kind of political freedom, or lack of freedom, we enjoy is based on our values. If you don’t know what those values are (people seem to be for ever asking) then have a good, hard look at what we have in Australia, and work backwards to see how we got it – and there you will find Australian values.

Australian values are very similar to other Western countries; very different from non-Western countries where life is much grimmer, without the freedoms we have.

Australian values are not a science. We don’t need to scratch around trying to find them or even articulate them for those we think don’t understand them. They are here; all around us; in us.

All this chatter will encourage some drone of a politician to come up with the bright idea of having a Minister for Australian Values. We are a natural, spontaneous people. All we have to do is be ourselves, and stop trying to analyse everything just because some politician or academic wants to make a name for himself.

We can do without all this bilge.

‘What are our values’ asks someone who identifies with the ALP. Let’s take a look at the ‘values’ of those emblematic people in the ALP who become politicians.

One politician turned a sleepy village into a capital city to enable him to claim $43,000 in T/A; another shafted his missus on his office desk; another had the law changed retrospectively so as to avoid fraud charges; another had his wife beating charges heard summarily to avoid a prison term; an ex-PM who abused an old person in a shopping centre; another who gave his mate a boost when tendering for government work; another who sued the taxpayer because he couldn’t ride a bike; and, another who used a whiteboard to record the movement of $30 million of taxpayers’ money. OLO has a word limit so I’ll stop here but the list is endless and includes malfeasance on the part of the other mob.

When we try to articulate what our values are we should turn away from politicians because if they are the archetypes that shape our ‘values’ we are destined to become liars, thieves, cheats, inept, lascivious types with one eye on the cash register and the other eye on any lurk we can manipulate to our own advantage.

Good comments. One of the more prominent and enduring of Australian values is that we don't trust politicians of any brand. They are the last people we need to be defining our values for us.

The last thing we need is a society of people fashioned in the image of a politician.

The author wrote "It is .... those on the conservative side of politics, who have historically done much to undermine Australia’s social liberal settlement". Please feel free to dispute that was what you wrote - I have abbreviated it but believe it to be a fair summary.

OK. Let's just review things here. This is a boyo from the Left faction of the Victorian Labor Party.

Isn't this the Bracks Government that has set up laws that prevent people from criticisng or arguing about other religions - with a lawyer who argued in court on behalf of that government that the fact that what someone said was true and even reasonable didn't give them any permission from this "liberal" government to say it.

Isn't this the Bracks Government that has decided to foist a Bill of Rights on the Victorian people without benefit of any structured consultation such as a referendum, preferring instead to justify it on the basis of their pretend consultation process that refused to discuss questions of the need for this legislation in a "liberal" democracy.

I could quote several more examples of this Government and this party (including their own factional disputes where they like to totally destroy any opposing faction) that show that "conservatives" have got nothing on this party's dictatorial preferences and bent.

Go and peddle your nonsense somewhere else Tristan - perhaps at kindergarten level they might not have run across the Socialist Left and what their Treasurer did to screw up Victoria and usher in Jeff Kennett.

Chainsmoker,

I would go further and say that ingrained into Australian culture was a distrust of all authority - at least until that authority figure proved itself worthy of trust. Pollies have never proven themselves worthy.

This whole debate on culture and values is really another red-hearing thrown into the arena to distract us from other agendas.

Australia has never been a class-less society. We've had Overseers, Squatters and Pasturalist, company directors and then workers. The depression of the 1890's saw shoot to kill legislation, freedom of contract (think AWA) and this debate on culture and immigration. Western Australia had a resource boom and Eastern Australia almost a marxist revolution.

As a result, there has always been a hint of marxism in Australian culture. Tall poppy syndrome spring to mind, as well as the hatred of corporate excesses, but as a people we recognise the need for a capatilist market. We believe in giving a struggler a hand-up, but we hate a bludger with a hand-out mentality.

If most Australians, as Leigh articulated, cannot themselves identify Values and Culture in a few paragraphs, what hope of someone born to a non-European culture.

Narcissist, in your second last paragraph about the typical Aussie, reckon you are just about right. But also today on the ABC Media Invite, a person came on, undoubtly a government man a Mr Le - Strange, who though a good speaker who knew what he was talking about, especially about trade, greenhouse problems, Aussie foreign policy, etc, but during the short question time, he reminded one so much of a military officer with his well-rehearsed replies, that he also gave reminder of GWB's very curt command after 9/11 that if you are not with us you are against us. In fact, it made an old veteran like me throw a mock military salute at the TV screen.

Indeed, if we want to stay dinkum Aussies, reckon we should all stay that way.

I've been surprised at how much cynicism my article has evoked: I would have thought there were people out there who agreed that we neeeded a combination of social and liberal rights, and who felt, also, that there is no shame in progressives working within the Enlightment tradition. (instead of vacating this field for the Right to claim) Isn't there anyone out there who agrees we need a comprehensive array of social and liberal rights: but combined with a rigorous tradition of critical thought that enables us to relativise all dogmas and positions? Isn't there anyone who agrees we need to contest the false Conservative claim on Australian egalitarianism, and question the idea of the 'classless' Australian society?

What is more, I am a grassroots member of the ALP, and of the Socialist Left, but like most of the approximately 50,000 ALP members I am not a politician. I often feel cynical about the opportunism that goes for politics on both sides of the political field myself: but it is only through being involved that one makes a difference. I agree it ought not only be politicians who determine what 'our values' are. It is something that needs to be continuously contested and reconstructed in the public sphere: something we all need to take responsibility for and involve ourselves in. Being involved in the ALP is one of many ways of having input into this process.

BTW - I agree that there ought be widespread community debate about any 'Bill of Rights': but here the responsibility rests with the mass media and forums like this one. I don't think it is something that ought be done 'by the back door'. If you have an opinion about what ought or ought not be included in a 'Bill of Rights' then please take part in these forums or, even better, write an article for this, or some other publication.

Tristan said:

"we need a comprehensive array of social and liberal rights"

I want to propose a means of solving the 'What are Aussie Values' debate in a non partisan manner.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
is probably the only scientific way of actually coming up with a list of cultural values.
Its like our speech, we don't conciously think of Subject, Verb, Object, predicate,adverb, adjective and grammatical construction when we talk, we just DO it because its how we have been brought up.

The result of such a survey would undoubtedly be a number of cultural circles blending or overlapping as Venn diagrams, to differing degrees. But I think there would be ONE major large circle over which all the smaller ones tended to overlap.

The various cultural differences within our migrant communities is absolutely NOT a reason not to encourage, re-inforce, educate about and teach our predominant culture.

Cultural change, is quite a technical process, and 'osmosis' is the best method. When we rub shoulders with those who have different practices on say child rearing (my favorite example)...I noticed as an Aussie that Asians usually keep their newborns and young ones up to say 12 months at least, often longer with them or close at night.
Aussies tend to send them to "solitary" and then they cry their little hearts out we say "Let them cry... they will tire out and goto sleep, they just want attention" (because we have already fed and burped them.. and they are not 'soiled') Well duh :) yes..of COURSE the little tykes want attention.... and need it.

I never had a problem with crying children as we followed the much easier to work with Asian model. Thats 'osmosis'.

"Comprehensive array" ? Tristen.. the Jews have the 10 commandments, and then they listed 634 or so extra ones .. sub rules to show all circumstances where the 10 could be fulfilled.
The simple rule is 'DO UNTO OTHERS.....' Any list will become a mine/battle field.

Then.. any such list would be INFLUENCED by those with political agendas (gay rights etc)

Yes it is sad isn’t it Tristan when we turn a topic into a good old polly bashing exercise. Do you get the feeling that Australian politicians are beneath contempt? Considering that we are burdened with spivs, thieves, fraudsters, shysters, liars, carnalists and no-hopers masquerading as politicians why wouldn’t the average punter be cynical.

And why debate any Bill of Rights? Find out if such a Bill is unpopular and if it is force it upon the public; that’s how it’s usually done. That’s how both major parties operate within the Enlightenment tradition.

Tristan, as a non labor voter, I generally agree with the thrust of your missive.
What really turned me off were the dirisive comments about our pollies from Sage. I suggest you stand back and have a look at the rest of the population before you start throwing brickbats at the pollies. They are a fairly good reflection of what goes on in the general population.
One thing that I will say in support of the majority of our politicians (and business men as well) is that they are harder to bribe than those in some of our neighboring countries - or those with whom we conduct trade.
One of our characteristics was our tolerance of other peoples views on politics and religion, but this seems to have been eroded in more recent years. We have lost the ability or desire to conduct "reasoned argument" and we are the poorer for it. Many seem unable to concede a point and instead resort to ridicule. I suspect that one of the reasons for this is the increasing lack of English language skills of our younger generation. If, for no other reason than this, we must make sure that our migrant population has a good comprehension of the English language, so that we may engage them in a meaningful debate on matters such as our laws, the place of women in our society, our values and our history.

Enough of this values nonsense.

Let us simply divide Australia in to, for illustration, English/Irish/Scottish, Other European, East Asian, South Asian, WHATEVER. Then simply restrict migration to suit a panel of elected experts who judge each individual to suit the desires of their respective populations.

Why make life so complicated?

I am of Indianish descent by the way.

Nice article, Tristan - I particularly liked your distinction between integration and assimilation. I've noticed that in the current political articulation of Australian cultural xenophobia, these distinct policy orientations have tended to be glossed as being equivalent - particularly amongst the MSM commentariat.

Unfortunately, with the exception of VK3AUU, the comments thus far have been of the trollish kind that seem to proliferate in these forums when anybody writes something humane and sensible.

As for your ALP-SL affiliation - been there, done that. Join the Greens. We need more people like you.

Tristan

Good article.

The Howard government has no right to "hold the ring" in any national discussion on "Australian values". The Howard gang's only value is "whatever it takes". If we take part in some govt-initiated discussion on values, as we have to e.g .on the Robb citizenship discussion paper or in criticing the sedition laws, it should be with one main purpose - to expose that this criminal governmemt is wearing no clothes. (See my submission to the Robb enquiry, on my website tonykevin.com)

Good values grow out of good practice (deeds) by free Australians. They cannot be rammed down out throats by this gang of hypocrites and I reject absolutely their presumed right to try to do so. This has nothing to do with whether one is Right or Left or Green. It is about our freedom to choose who and what we are.

Don't feel too grim about some of the comments Tristan - some of the posters have previously said that the ultimate goal of left wing politics is to destabilise society.
As far as an attitudes go, I hardly think that kind of commentary reflects a willingess to consider alternative views.

Anyhow, while it's safe to say I identify with the left, I still can agree with some of the posts that indicate a dissatisfaction with the ALP. I can't help but feel that rather than being a true leftist party, the ALP has traditionally been more concerned with maintaining their union background. Whilst in simplistic terms this is reflective of their role as a semi-socialist alternative, there are subtle issues here, and 10 years of the Howard government has done much damage to the strength of union politics in Australia. Unless the ALP evolves to tackle this, they won't only lose the next election, but the following one as well. Selecting Gillard, or even the suspiciously liberal face of Rudd would reflect a willingness to move forward, though sticking with Beazley was symbolic of the Labor party's unwillingness to embrace change.

Ultimately, we now have an ALP that is mimicking the liberals on leftist issues, and only being leftist when it suits the union base. This isn't going to work for much longer, and it's becoming pretty obvious.

Tristan,

You seem to have misunderstood the comments. I don't think anybody is saying we shouldn't have some legally defined social rights, just that the values we base them on shouldn't be dictated by politicians.

BD's suggestion about an anthropological approach raises a case in point that you'd agree with. Mateship has been a cultural value for a lot longer than Gallipoli. We have plenty of stuff like the Eureka Stockade to demonstrate that the Australian version of individualism includes a collectivist thing we call mateship, but you won't find a politician defining it that way because it questions authority including that of political leaders.

Therein lies the problem I think. It is an Australian cultural value that politicians can't be trusted with Australian values and therefore can't be trusted to legislate social rights based on those values.

re: Rudd and Gillard - well, I think Julia has done a pretty good job as Opposition spokesperson on Health - but as to whether or not she'd make a good leader - I think I'd like to know a little more about her policy preferences first. I know there is enormous pressure on politicians - especially prospective leaders - to conform to the ideological norm - and the ambitious go to great lengths in compromising to fit the picture. I know Julia's on the Left, but I cannot help remembership a speech she made to the Fabian Society praising Blair's 'Third Way'. Julia's is stridently anti-factional - and while I think the way factions operate is authoritarian and exclusive - I don't think Julia's solution of vesting all power in the leader is the answer either. At least, as is, we can be certain that the Shadow Cabinet will be broadly representative of the Parliamentary Party. Apart from this, though, I certainly don't write Julia off. She's a top parliamentary performer, has done well in her portfolio, and I'd like to think her progressive background would come to the fore if she was ever in a position to lead on policy. Re: Rudd - I think he's also a top Parliamentary performer, and he'd obviously come into consideration should Labor lose the next election, but I'd like to think that Julia wouldn't be considered behind Rudd just because she happens to come from the wrong faction. (continued in next post)

re: Politicians in general - I know there are an awful lot of selfish, careerist and opportunist politicians out there - but there are still those who want to 'make a difference'. The problem with arriving at a Human Rights Act by any other means than Parliament (eg: a Referendum) is that we have a very conservative Federal political system where constitutional change is almost impossible to secure. Yes - there should be widespread and robust debate - and the politicians should be held accountable - but if the politicians don't actually pass a Human Rights Act, no-one will.

re: The Greens - I think the Greens have a lot of potential, and I'd love to see the Greens hold the balance of power and force the pace and nature of change on a Labor government. I believe in the principle of a 'Red-Green alliance' - but I must admit I wouldn't like to see Anthony Albanese go - and his seat is the closest the Greens have to securing a Lower House seat. I still think, though, that the ALP is just too important strategic terrain to vacate - and that maintaining a sense of labour's traditions, and socialist traditions in the ALP, is a very important task. Nevertheless, I wish the Greens the best - and hope for them to make up significant ground in the upcoming Federal election.

Tristan

Tristan,

This discussion sparked by your essay is getting more interesting ! Your mature approach to the potential for ALP-Greens cooperation mirrors my thinking closely, which is interesting as I am a committed Green. Actually the ALP opened the way to a major expansion of the Greens when it chose to be a Howard-lite us-too party on so many important national security, civil liberties and human rights issues. This is not to say the two parties could not work together in govt - as in Germany with its Red-Green coalitions, we could in Australia - but that the values frames of the two parties are now quite different. That is not to say there are not very good people in the Labor parliamentary party - my personal favorites at this time are Lawrence, Faulkner, Gillard, Kelvin Thompson, Plibersek, Roxon, Tanner, Emerson - but that while it is Big Kim’s party, it will go on taking positions in the above areas that I find deeply disturbing. We need a strong Greens party in parliament, to help broaden the agenda and seriousness of Australian politics, and also to create room for people like you to come through in Labor.

BTW, it is Howard strategy to encourage a majority public view that all politicians are corrupt and out for themselves. That is not true of any party – all have some good people in them (and of course all the Greens are good!) . But if that view is believed, it cuts the ground from under the feet of ethical politicians and allows the less ethical ones to flourish. Because the voters expect no better of any of them. That is the world Howard wants

Tristan

You've managed to turn a discussion on Australian values onto a discussiuon about the internal politics of the ALP.

That mate says it all about your priorities.

yes the Greens, the Australian Democrats and the ALp are all of the Left. the ALP being least left these days.

I don't think they would consider sharing power with the Greens, or anyone else.

The major parties like the status quo. They even vote for each other to achieve that. They don't really care which major party is in Government as long as one of them is.

Putting ON last helped destroy ON. Putting the Dems last has them on the road to political oblivion. What's the bet the Greens will be next?

CHAINSMOKER said...

"Therein lies the problem I think. It is an Australian cultural value that politicians can't be trusted with Australian values and therefore can't be trusted to legislate social rights based on those values"

Seldom have truer words been spoken !

ANY 'Bill of Rights' would be formulated and debated from specific interest viewpoints. For example, I would like the 'right' to publically criticize and condemn 'homosexual behavior'.. well I already HAVE that right, but gay lobby groups would want the right

"NOT TO BE CRITICIZED" on the grounds of 'social alienation' etc...

I want the right to say "Mohammed, founder of Islam was a ruthless, cruel lustful man who used his religion for his own megalomaniacal purposes."

Actually, I have that right, as long as it is in the context of 'robust debate and in good faith'...but .. Muslim groups would lobby for a 'Bill of Rights' which include the right 'NOT TO BE REMINDED OF THESE TRUTHS'on the grounds of 'social alienation'

So, ANY 'bill of rights' which includes such things as 'No-one can speak in such a way as to 'marginalize' or socially alienate' any group in society on the grounds of their 'sexuality, religon, values is in fact one of the worst forms of Fascism/Nazi'sm/Communism/State control I can imagine.

The only 'right' I agree to in this vein is 'Not to be alienated on the grounds of RACE'

and that includes the 'Anglo/Celtic/Scottish/Irish "races".

it includes ALL races.

Culture is a different matter. There is a prevailing culture, and those coming from outside (Savior68 ?) or of non Anglo heritage, have to make a decision. "Feel alienated" or.."Embrace the Culture" and simply call themselves "Australians"

This is one of the few debates where the best way to constructively engage in it is to walk away.

Now is not the time to discuss our vales.

If the nation insists on trying to define our values - and I reject anything we might come up with in this climate sight unseen - look at what we do not to what we think we stand for.

We fail to develop an approach to indigenous affairs lifts thier health status above that of a third wirld country - we incarcerate people until they are mad - we send or troops away under the guise of a lie - we vilify a minority in order to bolster nascent patriotism - we create straw man debates on values in order to keep the level of national anxiety and paranoia at a level where we are easier to manipulate - we smack down dissenting voices like Keelty when he strays from the coorporate line - these are all war time strategies to control a population - sept we aint at war - accept in the head of a few -

Dont weary me with debates on " a fair go" or are we a classless society or not - Chips Rafferty is dead along with the Chesty Bond lifesaver. Get used to the new australian.

If we can have a "welfare industry" we can also have a terrorist industry - and the beneficiaries are not a few jihadists with fertiliser in the cuffs of their trousers - they are the security consultants, the politicians and the arms sellers.

re: free speech - I think David goes too far in his criticism of Islam - but I defend his right to say it. I think, also, that anti-vilification laws can go too far: beyond the point of deterring baseless hate, and instead deterring any criticism of religion: even if it is based on the scripture of that religion itself. With a regime of free speech, there is always the risk that someone will find offense, or that criticism will be baseless or arbitrary. Putting restrictions on freedom of speech, however, sets a dangerous precedent - and who know where it will end?

re: the idea of Australian egalitarianism - I think that the old Australian culture is waning, and that the social liberal settlement which used to be our country's hallmark never did really solve the question of class conflict and division in this country anyway. That said, however, this country did develop a culture: based on the ideal of mateship - that was and is still worth celebrating. That's not to say it ought not - like anything else - be open to criticism. The narrative of Australian mateship is, for instance, historically a predominantly male narrative. But Australia is not just a 'blank slate' with no culture of its own. Migration has changed his narrative - overwhelmingly for the better - but that does not mean the old culture should just 'wither away and die'. Because, for many Australians, a sense of indentity stemming from this narrative is still important - this terrain is worth contesting for the Left, as well as for the Conservatives that are trying to claim the field as their own. We need, though, as I think I argue in the article, to go beyond the myth of 'classlessness': to celebrate traditions of working class solidarity - and make these narratives the nation's own. Extending the egalitarian principle beyond the traditional social liberal settlement: to embrace social democratic and democratic socialist principles - is part of this struggle.

You had to include Sir Joh didn't you?

Australia needs another Joh. A Joh for each state government and another in Canberra to get this nation back on track for when all the pollies and others set up to pull everything apart, destroying everything in their path, Sir Joh, love him or hate him, was a politician who actually built.

While southern states made racial jokes about Queensland being owned by the Japanese for attracting their business, it is the southerner's who accuse him of being racist and pro-white.

No matter which party has been in government in Queensland, only Sir Joh governed for ALL of Queensland and not just Sth East Queensland. He allowed regional towns and cities to become self sufficient instead of having to tow coal(etc) up from just above the border.

Hospitals, schools, roads, electrification, train lines, etc came to Queensland and without him, the state has become a pile of dust.

As for the protestor's. These people were those who protest as a profession, shipped up to Queensland for a bit of political tug of war. The locals didn't want the showerless lot causing strife so the man in charge stopped them. Imagine that, a pollie who actually did what the people wanted and did what he said he would do. He even refused to take any pension when his career left. Hmm, I wonder if Bob Green Brown and Oakover will do that?

Overall, Australia became a less free nation once the PC Brigade got their hands on the short n curlies of our spineless pollies. Ban this and ban that...don't let them think that, send em for prison for even thinking it.

John Howard is a dictator and ruining Australia but the mindless drug induced left will only make us worse off.

I am frankly a little disturbed at how many people view our political leaders.
I seriously suggest that if anyone believes the majority of Politians in this country are corrupt, then it is your duty to respond to this in an engaging fashion. What I mean by this is, to go to your local council, or Political Represenative of your choice, and ask them for yourself.
Perhaps it is time most people stopped assuming our Politians are corrupt, and started talking with them.
Do not be afraid to go to your local council, and engage with some Political discussion with them.
They do not bite. They are good people, and hard working people too.