A “values test” sounds neat on paper. It sounds like something you could pass with a confident smile and a crisp definition of “Australian.” But as Misryoum readers argue in the latest wave of letters, the whole thing starts to stink the moment you ask who gets to decide what counts as values, and who gets treated like they’re failing before they’ve even stepped through the door.
The sharpest criticism lands on Angus Taylor’s proposed immigration policy—framed, by Misryoum readers, as essentially a ban on one kind of migrant. One reader points directly to the assumption behind it: that people from certain countries won’t “subscribe” to Australian values, as if values are a membership card stamped at the border. Another says the phrase “Australian values” is especially ephemeral, almost slippery, and that when you’re teaching immigrants English you don’t really get to explain how those values differ from what they learned where they came from. Actually, the argument goes further than semantics: it’s not just vague, it’s discriminatory in practice.
There’s a recurring theme in these letters—racist bigotry dressed up as policy. Misryoum readers use words like Hanson-like populism and “time-wasting, complex to implement,” and they’re not shy about the political consequences either. One letter writer predicts an even bigger fall in Liberal support at the next federal election, tying the plan to the broader drift of politics to the right. Another, more personal, says they seriously doubt they’d pass such a test if it ever came about under an Angus Taylor-led government—mostly because of their social media, which (in their view) would make them a “goner.” It’s the kind of detail that feels small until you realise it’s the point: a test like this would chase people with their past beliefs, their posts, their choices. Not just their intent.
Then again, not everyone stays in the same lane for long—because politics rarely does. Another set of Misryoum letters shifts to Premier Chris Minns and anti-protest laws after the Bondi terrorist attack, noting that the NSW Court of Appeal has struck down the restrictions. But, Misryoum readers argue, Minns “shows little sign of changing his attitude.” The tone here is cautionary: don’t let your opinions override a statesmanlike approach. It’s an odd pivot from immigration to protest law, but it’s also the same frustration—how quickly the state reaches for controls, and how slow it is to back down.
From there, Misryoum readers zoom out into other flashpoints: the Paragon in Katoomba, glamping projects in the Gardens of Stone National Park, Reserve Bank rate rises during a war-driven cost-of-living squeeze, and the strain on general practitioners as pharmacists are asked to take on more roles. In the middle of all that, there’s one small sensory moment that sticks: someone recalls their mother and her sister singing on the little stage at the back of The Paragon during war years, raising money for the Red Cross. That memory sits right next to the complaint that the iconic cafe has been slowly disappearing into disrepair. It’s not just nostalgia, either—Misryoum readers are using it to argue for action, including raising money to buy the building back and restore it.
And the letters don’t let go of the tension between ideals and execution. One reader questions why interest rates should be raised to curb excessive spending and “cool” the economy when a war is already pushing up the price of nearly everything—food, fuel, and fares. Another argues there’s a better response than rate hikes: reducing government spending and temporarily increasing GST. Meanwhile, on energy and fuel, the debate veers into refineries, fossil fuel subsidies, and renewables—complete with arguments about economics, domestic supply, and where the money should go instead.
What ties it all together, at least in the Misryoum mailbag mood, is a distrust of vague labels and heavy-handed fixes. Whether it’s “Australian values” as a supposed litmus test, anti-protest laws that get struck down yet still feel politically stubborn, or promises about reshaping the economy during crisis—readers keep pointing at the same problem: someone is making decisions that land on ordinary people. And they want those decisions to make sense, to be fair, and to be accountable. The “values test” debate isn’t really about values at all—more about power, and who gets to define belonging.
Courteeners celebrate 20 years with ‘God Bless The Band’ and a comeback at Night & Day
Widow sues Riviera Beach over canal rescue death
AFL Round 6 buzz: Cats vs Bulldogs, Swans vs Giants — live updates