I agree with George. Our education system does not teach anywhere near enough Austrakian history or geography.

For part of the hols, we have a granddaughter staying with us. she is bright as a button, is 11 years old and completed year 5. Lives in Melbourne.

She can name the states, knows who Cook was,but not much of his discoveries. She thinks she knows what the Vic flag looks like but could not describe it. Does not know what the floral emblem of Vic is. Does not know who the Vic Governor is or when Melbourne was settled. Could not give the year of the first fleet or the year of Federation. Did not know who Lawson or Paterson were, or Bass and Flinders and could not name any other explorer.
She said they were only taught a little bit about Australia at school

She asked me to spell Dimethylmitrosamine, which is a bad chemical in cigarettes, she informed me. I failed,of course as never heard of it.

I seem to remember all the above, except the chemical, from primary school. I think Australia is not given much time at schools these days. This is not the first occasion I have had reason to think this.

I can't comment on how much kids get taught about these things today. However I can tell you I was taught this when I was at school. I like history and politics so I remember these things, most of my class mates don't and would fail the questions asked by the Author. I would not blame the education system. Rather our media and government for this. To many Americans and not enough Aussie shops on telly and the movies.

Silly Mr Williams, Mr Howards citizenship test is only for wogs and darkies - he and i qualify automatically, as we're anglo's.
Two questions tho, will my citizenship be revoked if i admit to thinking that Warnie is a moron, and to which US Consular office do i apply to get my serf-dom formally recognised?

Thank you to Frank for presenting us with Mr Williams’ CV. What an impressive legal pedigree he has. However, I am somewhat disturbed by the professor’s myopia. If he has written 11 books as you say why have none of those books touched on the matter of a high court judge who, despite offending the NSW Crimes Act for 13 years, continues to sit in judgment of others. And will Mr Williams as an MP answerable to the voters unseal Lionel Murphy’s file? Surely someone as impeccant as Mr Williams is concerned with the appearance of the law. Let’s test his alleged knowledge of the law because it is little understood by the current Canberra camorra.

Sage, my point in touching on George Williams' c.v. was to challenge The Skeptic's illogical thinking that, because Williams was allegedly a member of the ALP, he was somehow disqualified from making comments on the citizenship debate - or that his comments are less worthy of readers' proper consideration. (I love Richard Wagner's music, but his politics were putrid.)

Now you perpetuate this sloppiness by taking us on an irrelevant excursion to the High Court and old allegations about Lionel Murphy, another ALP member (long dead, so unable to defend himself). What has the Lionel Murphy issue got to do with William's paper on citizenship? Why belittle Williams for what Murphy may or may not have done?

Sage, you say you are "somewhat disturbed" by Williams' "myopia". You clearly haven't read any of his 11 books (nor the other 8 he has editied) yet you are able to say absolutely that none of those books touched on the matter. You clearly can't suffer from myopia. Your far-sightedness enables you to know the contents of that number of books without even rustling their pages.

A disclaimer: I am not a member of the ALP so I'm not defending that political party. Neither do I have a strong interest in the citizenship debate. I think it's a red herring and we've many bigger fish to fry. But it does concern me that some posters on this site think they are adding something meaningful by trying to blacken the name of a contributor while failing to get to grips with the substance of their article.

Free advice: if you're going to show off your dazzling vocabulary, please provide a glossary. I'll give you 'myopia'; but 'impeccant' and 'camorra' are a bit self-conscious. Big words don't make small ideas any better, even for a Sage.

To play the ball and not the man ie, to take the article for what it says, I find the argument succinct and to the point. Well written.
Thankyou.