The point that David and so many others are trying to make is that Australians are completely marginalised when it comes to national policy on something so momentous and idealistic as 'multiculturalism'. They are pointing out that we the people have never been asked if we wanted to become a multicultural society in the first place. We were were never asked if we wanted to see waves of immigrants being told they do not have to ' . . . give up anything of their own culture up by moving to Australia'.

Really, is that just not too impractical to be true to be even considered sensible in the 21 st Century? What do other Australians think or about this? How is democracy served when we are marginalised on a subject that a) is ideologically driven and b) effects every one of us? Also, from the perspective of Australians already here, if migrants want to remain, say, Chinese then it would seem the most sensible solution would be to have never left there in the first place! How beneficial is multiculturalism to Australians? Could anyone actually point out a solid 'plus' other than the ready availability of fine ethnic food? If national policy is aimed at putting a Chinese takeaway in every Australian suburb then I think we the taxpayer are getting something decidedly less than value for money!

The very words used by the Howard Government to sum up its own 'successful' 'multiculuralism' are empty; 'Unity through Diversity' and 'Tolerance - Our New Tradition'. What do they mean? As far as I know a car arriving at an intersection can not turn both right and left - can it? No one - and no group of people - can move both up and down simultaneously, can they? As for tolerance being a 'new tradion', (what is this - oxymoron week?) what then were we before this? Hopelessly intolerant? Of what? Of who? How and why did this change? Where did the 'intolerance' disappear to? Where and when does 'tolerance of other cultures' become doormat, and then toilet seat?