I once had a boss who told me, “What gets measured gets done.” We measured, and things got done. The important part was not the volume of measurement – it was that we knew exactly what we were measuring. The bottom line was simple: you can’t measure what you can’t define.
So, when it comes to values, migration, and individual compliance, the question becomes: how can values first be defined?
Currently Australia has an Australian Values Statement that sets out principles applicants are required to acknowledge as part of the migration process. Angus Taylor, Leader of the Opposition, has announced the Coalition will pursue “a values-based migration scheme that puts Australian values first, and shuts the door to those who hate our country or abuse our legal system to stay here without a right to do so.” He has also said those values are “up to debate”, meaning the definition of what is being assessed remains unsettled.
This signals a move towards requiring compliance with a set of Australian values that are not defined in behavioural terms. “Values” here are being used as shorthand for behavioural predictability under uncertainty. This instinct is understandable: migration systems are, by design, attempting to assess future behaviour. But that only works if the behaviours being inferred are clearly defined in advance. The deeper question is now more practical: if values are to be used as a compliance tool, how can they be translated into defined behavioural criteria to allow consistent and fair assessment?