I dont think 'Australia' is homogenous enough to say that there is anything like a single set of values that could reasonably represent this mix of cultures and belief systems.

Even implying that there could be such a 'single desk' reflects the kind of misinformation about 'our' cultural integrity which certain sections of the community seek to purvey.

There is a great deal of attention currently paid to differences in values between groups like Islamic cultures and Christian ones but curiously very little paid to differing value systems between the ruling classes and those ruled.

This country was founded by the English aristocracy largely to get rid of their troublesome Irish and Scottish dissidents. We are largely the descendents of those 2 antagonistic groups with their wildly differing allegiances.

To think that the conquerors and the conquered share the same set of values might be a fairy story the conquerors like to tell but it doesnt really seem likely does it?

Interesting that truthfulness, compassion and tolerance have been named- these three values form the backbone of Falun Gong’s philosophy.
We must realise that many of the values that we would like Australia to cultivate are global values that many cultures in the world would like to aspire to.

Ideally, there would be one global value that would stand out: peace.
The value that comes closest to peace is the one RObert mentioned: live and let live. This has much to do with tolerance.

Well said, Braindrain, that tolerance is not the same thing as conversion.

It’s just such a shame that the Australian government itself aren’t able to show respect for the values they expect of and even plan to impose onto new immigrants.
The Australian Government’s behaviour make their own values look like hypocritical, nationalistic gobbledygook.

I agree, Braindrain, that being able to speak English in an English speaking country is an advantage for the individual, and should be encouraged but NOT forced!
Why reject immigrants who do not pass a test at a standard that many Australians today would not pass?
I can think of worse things that happen in Australia than inclusion of some people who can not speak English.
The government demand respect for Australian values?
What are THEY showing potential immigrants about:

Honesty, responsibility and integrity:
What about the AWB scandal?
Remember the Children Overboard headlines?

Compassion, responsibility, fairness, equality, tolerance:
Live exports of our Australian animals?
The way our Aboriginals have been treated?

Respect and compassion:
The way our environment is treated?
Euthanasia?

Equality and fairness:
Same sex marriage?
Women’s superannuation and equal salaries?

I say no more.

Rob51...,

I agree with you. To a point. Australia is not homogenous in some respects. There are undeniably diferences of opinion/background/religion etc.

I do not believe that it is quite as divisive as you seem to be implying. Australia needs to have One national government, One justice system upon which all states' are based, One national language (although Canada,Switzerland, etc. does seem to be existing quite well with two and 15% of the US comes from Spanish speaking backgrounds. Less successfully than Canada, granted).

Given those monosystems I find it reasonable to have a common set of Values that excludes no-one (to as great a degree as possible in any one country).

I challenge you to identify one Value that does not actually, as opposed to potentially could be misused to, represent any existing Australian or cultural group.

The dichotomy between the ruled and the rulers is Universal and is something i personally despise. Holding up these values so that the Great and the Small can universally compare our actions to them to determine when injustice is being perpetrated is part of the reason I initiated this post.

I'm hard-pressed to identify today any significant conflict in our society overall between the Irish and Scot. What do you see that I don't in this regard?

Take another look at 'Australian Values' defined here and tell me who will disagree with them if we enshrine them in our Justice System?

Aspirations can help Unify Action for all by being a yardstick for all action to be measured against.

Celivia,

It's impossible to find the point where our thought diverges.

'We must realise that many of the values that we would like Australia to cultivate are global values that many cultures in the world would like to aspire to. '

One more majorly important Australian Value: Respect!

How-in-heck I can hold Respect for some drongo's I am having difficulty with but that won't stop me from Aspiring to it.

Who-know's? One day i may just figure out why i hate some people so badly and why that does me no credit.

BrainDrain asks:

>>Take another look at 'Australian Values' defined here and tell me who will disagree with them if we enshrine them in our Justice System?<<

But which of those "Australian Values" put forward in a recent post is presently NOT enshrined in our legal system?

>>Courage, Strength, Honesty, Integrity, Responsibility, Fairness, Compassion, Equality, Mateship of the Anzac type, Allegiance to the sustenance and improvement of the Australian Nation.<<

And if you consider it necessary to reinforce them with laws, how would you phrase legislation for "Strength", or "Compassion" - or any of the others for that matter - that is any improvement over what we already have?

Therein lies the utter nonsense behind all this claptrap about "Austrayan vayyews". We have a society that is held together by laws, which are passed in response to the cultural norms and express wishes of the populace. Thus, we do not cut off the hands of thieves, nor do we execute rapists. If the mood of the Australian people shifts sufficiently for it to be noticed by politicians as an issue that might be prerequisite to their re-election, hey presto, it becomes law.

We can argue 'til the cows come home whether "mateship" is an Austrayan vayyew, or whether it is a reassuring but mythical social construct designed to fill a cultural void. But the fact remains that it is an absolutely pointless exercise unless you are prepared to translate it into something that is both unmistakeably recognizable and utterly consistent.

I dont think there would be any difficulty getting people to profess a similar set of values - it is practicing them that seems to be the problem, take for example 'honesty'.

Anybody recall John Howard as Treasurer concealing a $7bn 'black-hole' in the economy until after Fraser's re-election. Or, something about 'throwing children overboard' and then wasnt there something about 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Sure, Howard can profess 'honesty' as an Australian Value but it actually means nothing to him. To quote John Hewson, 'John Howard will say anything to get elected' where is the honesty in that. (Rhetorical question signified by lack of question mark.)

I didnt infer that there was a discrepancy between the values of the Scots and the Irish transports - they hated the English overlords with equal fervour.

I've seen dozens of people pass exams in a language they barely understand, so I don't believe that any test is going to prove much of an obstacle to most literate people, especially considering the effort they've already made to move themselves here. The questions won't matter (unless the test is arbitrarily administered a la White Oz Policy). A citizenship test is, though, a terrific political tool to placate those who quote "we were here first" as a fundamental Australian value (hey, it worked for the Aborigines).

As for what's uniquely Australian, that's both in flux and, in many ways, untested. Life has never been that difficult here. Any cultural test will become an anachronism, like a driver's licence test I did o/s that demanded mechanical knowledge of a 1966 Morris Minor. If we'd set the test 50 years ago what would we have asked about the status of women? Another example is "barracking for the underdog" - since we became competitive in world sport we don't do that any more. The notion of a "fair go" has become politically inconvenient (especially to immigration policy) and is on the way out. We are still growing out of colonialism and constantly challenged by a rest of the world that is now a lot closer than it used to be. Right now we're finding out which identity we value greater - a diverse "nation of immigrants" (as if we would ever borrow an idea from the US) or a homogeneous backwater determined to deny that the the rest of the world exists. But whichever we choose, many of us won't subscribe to it, and it will always be subject to change.

Howard encapsulated the value that spawned the test in the first place when he used the words "conform to the mainstream". That one's been around for a while and in the current political environment it'll be around for a while yet.

A test for civic values? Well, that's different.