The current laws require:

"English Language Requirement
You should be able to speak and understand basic English

You may be exempt from this requirement if:

you are a person aged 50 years or over

a person whose ability is affected by a physical or intellectual impairment

if you provide evidence of having completed the English language tuition with the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) and you can respond in simple English on aspects of the application."

So John Howard was stating nothing new. My question is why it was raised at all. Devisive Johnny being mean and tricky yet again.

I think we should go one further. I think everyone should also be required to get a working knowledge of the local indigenous language. And citizens who can't speak English intelligibly should be deported immediately to Nauru.

Lol Steve...The real question would be, why are the moonbats coming out of the woodwork and gettin all riled up if it was nothing new?

“If a person wishing to live in this country is not willing to learn the language (and four years should be plenty of time for that) and understand a bit about what Australia stands for and believes in, including some of our history, then a good case can be made that that person is not fit for citizenship.”

Hear hear!

“While there certainly can be diversity, there also needs to be a core of unified values and convictions that all can agree too. Assimilation and integration, in other words, is vital to any nation seeking to survive and thrive. No country will succeed for long if it allows a million competing values, beliefs and languages to run unchecked, with no social and cultural glue to hold it all together.”

Hear hear, again. This is only common sense.

“To expect unchecked diversity without some unity is a recipe for disaster. Yet many on the left seem to want just that.”

Many on the left want ‘just that’ because it is the aim of the left to destabilize society. Comments from the left on OLO confirm that this is the case. The ‘ethnic industry’ doesn’t want to lose its influence and well paid jobs for people with unpronounceable names and poor English, so they are, of course, going to whine about ‘draconian’ measures. They know that they are unnecessary troublemakers and a drain on the public purse. The Greens, of course, are a bunch of freaks, and the Australian Democrats are fast becoming so.

If people don’t like the long-overdue changes to citizenship, they know what to do

But Leigh, I have yet to see anyone elucidate what these values are, apart from the legal requirements that everyone is automatically required to observe. Someone mentioned 'a fair go' as being quintessentially Australian... which would require the disqualification of half of the Australian Government.

It's easy to say, "It's common sense!" but what appears common sense is often simply instinctive knee jerk reactions to things that on further investigation, appear quite nonsensical and very far from clear.

Gotta watch those "unpronouncable names" hey Leigh? By the way, do I pronounce that as "Leeee" or "Lay"? ;-)

Interesting to note that studies into adults learning a second language in-country conclude all converge on time period of about 5-7 years it takes on average of daily usage of the new language, talking with native speakers, to attain a level of proficiency rated as "advanced" or "near-native".

5-7 years.

And we're gonna sit 'em down for an English test after 4 years.

Hmmm.....

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for English language learning and English language testing. Heck, that's the industry I'm training in.

The Adult Migrant Education Service funds up to 510 free hours of English language training, usually delivered over about 18 months, for certain eligible new adult migrants. Again, note the studies which conclude you need nearly double that number of hours' tuition to attain good proficiency.

So the gummint will demand proficiency, and then enforace a test that is at leasy one year too early, and with about half the training required.

Double hmmm.....

Simple principle of liberalism: If the government (that's you, dear taxpayer) wants to infringe on personal liberties, such as demanding what language you should speak, then the gummint (that's you, dear taxpayer) can pay for it.