Davo, you say: In fact, speaking fluent english is essential in breaking down the barriers towards a more cohesive society...' and I couldn't agree more (who would disagree - see further comments below)?

But why wrap that sensible idea in the emotional blanket: 'Considering that a lot of us never wanted 'multiculturalism' in the first place...? and the cliched 'taxpayers money'?

westernred, you ask: 'Is questioning multiculturalism wrong ?' Clearly the answer has to be 'No, it's a very good thing'. The trouble is that the questions you then go on to ask are not about multiculturalism, but about immigration: 'Why shouldn't we have a population debate, what is the ideal number of us ? what is an ideal socio-cultural mix ?'

The distinction is important. Immigration is about who should come here and in what numbers and so on. Multiculturalism is about how we generate social cohesion and the good life within a culturally diverse society while avoiding the creation of inequalities, disenfranched minorities, racial tension and so on.

National symbols may be important for social cohesion; but access to economic opportunities, minimisation of discrimination and equality before the law are infinitely more important indicators a nation's social well-being.

Although English is our national language, there should continue to be a public obligation to provide information in other languages, for a whole range of reasons such as occupational safety in workplaces, access to medical and legal information and services, helping parents understand their children's schooling, access to media, not to mention helping families to stay cohesive (kids tend to learn English much faster than adults and the differential can cause problems in families).

FrankGol posted somewhere something about doing a thesis at Oxford. Which is interesting. From this I can assume you are highly intelligent. But because you are so well educated does not gives your views on multiculturalism any validity since the prospect that you act only out of self-interest is frighteningly real.

Australian universities for example are reliant on overseas students upfront fees for funding. Coincidently, many academics are strong supporters of the ‘global village’ multicultural philosophy. The fact that many overseas students are from Asian countries with a poor grasp of the English language is irrelevant, since they are cash cows paying the Lecturer’s wages. In fact many academics pass international students who should really have failed. A lack of proficiency in the English language renders a lot of them unsuitable for university study at Australian Universities, but they ‘pay the bills’.

So, it is understandable why academics will fight for multiculturalism at any cost, even if it means that newcomers can’t speak the English language. Infrastructure to assist those who can’t speak English is an added drain on the public purse, since they should have been prepared for the Australian way of life before they came here.

Migrants may be ‘good’ for the economy, but the economy is not good to Australians, particularly the low skilled. And those hit with unsustainable mortgages because of unaffordable housing. People on the receiving end of the economic system will no doubt make a simple demand; that newcomers at least speak fluent English.

This article is just one of many to be expected from the MC industry as its demise comes closer.

The author wrongly blames fear of terrorism as the cause for changes.
But he would be better advised to look at the ideology of MC and the conduct of some of the ethnic groups.

For far too long, the citizenship criteria has needed tightening up. The residential requirement is now reasonable, or could do with an extra year and a probationry period as well. Critics are jumping the gun on the English test. Time enough when we know its compasition.

Most of what the author has to say is just rubbish and should be viewed from the fact that he has his job to protect.

We now need to move on and discuss if some people should not be allowed to become immigrants on non compatibility grounds, and just what should our population be, that we should aim for.

Frank....

The main problem with "multiculturalism" is the clear message that the prevailing culture that emerged with the growth of Australia up to lets say the end of WW2 and which was very much a unified, relatively homogenous culture, is now just 'one of many'.

This is the wrong message to be sending to people with any sense of national identity.

This is probably at the root of the rather fervent anti 'migrant' outbursts which greeted the first shiploads of non British stock.

It is also quite reasonable for those who have emerged as part of that prevailing national culture to expect those from different backrounds to embrace that existing culture as far as possible, and it is they who should bend over backwards, go the extra mile, do the hard yards to adapt to the new country, rather than the other way around.
It is inconceivable that an Australian in Greece would expect the Greek government to specifically cater to his Australian culture.
To suggest such would be understood as an outright insult to Greek Identity and culture.

So, the removal of the word 'multi' culturalism and its replacement with 'citizenship' is a great leap forward at the most fundamental level.

You 'state' that demographically Australia is a Multi Cultural society. How did it become that way ? Were the early protesters at the warves 'right' in 1948 ?
You then suggest that the obvious solution is 'ethnic cleansing' (to we rednecks) No so at all mate.

How about a reasonable response, such as "assist migrants in studied adjustment to Australian culture" ? How hard is that ? and its all I am asking.

You mention how the 'anti MC hysteria will be connected to Muslims. Ok.. did you know there is a seminar over easter at Melbourne Exhibition buildings, and one of the guest speakers advocates marriage to pre-pubescent children 'because the prophet did it' ?

Do you not see such guest speakers as a threat to Australian values ?
I sure do and quite likely will be at the seminar (outside) making a point or 2.

BD I share your concerns, Australia mostly shares your concerns the fact you are a Christian sees some decry your views but still facts remain.
However , remember the extremes will insult not debate, the Australian migrants question sheet is no answer to terrorism.
Some of our very best Australians would never have got in the door using this test.
Both sides of politics use this to keep our concerns at SOME migrants from within SOME groups.
It is a weak and gutless refusal to handle the real issue.
Sometimes multiculturalism has dangerous faults in it.
Is it worth while at any cost?
Clearly sometimes it is not.

I agree: Australia should not retreat into a world of fear and diversity.

With a policy like this; it is no wonder we are growing smaller minds, confused, if not entirely disconnected.

Cross-wired, is this worth arguing?

This is not problem solving, it reflects a war on our difference. It shrinks us all below the heart of our nationhood and leads us nowhere near the task of overcoming our cultural cringe.

We need a no wrong door approach yesterday.

We need to evlove, not go backwards - please!

.