After a review of the citizenship test that was controversially introduced in the last months of the Howard government, it seems that it is to be retained but overhauled radically. Questions alluding to Australian sporting figures and popular culture will be dropped, in favour of testing applicants' knowledge of their civic duties as Australian citizens. Basic proficiency in English will remain mandatory in order to pass the test, and the pass mark will be increased from 60% to 75%.

In general, I think the proposed reforms are a good idea. If someone wishes to become an Australian citizen, it seems to me that they need to be able to communicate with other Australians and to know what is expected of them with respect to their civic duties.

Indeed, I think that the test should be extended to all Australians before they are permitted to vote in Local, State and Federal elections. This would necessarily involve the removal of compulsory voting in Australia, but its replacement with democratic participation as an earned privilege would probably be a good thing for our electoral systems, in my view.

What do others think?

Well yes sort of, I want new Aussies to at least try to understand who we are.
But in a suburban post office waiting to buy stamps, I saw it in action.
A bossy woman told a young girl answering questions she should know the answer to one.
I would not have known what was taking place, but the girl broke down and cried, so did her two companions.
A working class suburb of Newcastle the place nearly did too.
What hurt most was the gruff rudeness of the questioner.
She was Asian Chinese and was not affected by the crying.
I and others told the well presented young Lady's we welcomed them to Australia.
And I reminded the rude one she had not been asked such questions on entering this country.

1. I think you'll find there was never a question on Bradman (although there was mention of him in the sporting blurb).

2.IMO a commitment to universal principles such as sexual, racial and religious (incl non-religious) equality is more important than proficiency in English (although being able to communicate is obviously important).

3. Bring on voluntary voting. Compulsory voting is counterintuitive in a democracy. I would also like to see the politicians actually have to argue policy, rather than the lowest-common-denominator campaigns they get away with now. But maybe I'm naive in thinking that voluntary voting would lead to more intelligent policy formulation.

The question of compulsory vs voluntary voting is one of those things that's only interesting to the paying attention minority. And neither can guarantee informed decisions.

Requiring people to demonstrate that they have at least a vague idea of what's going on would go some way to preventing people from voting for the candidate with the nicest haircut and finding out later he's a fascist.

Australia's had compulsory voting for so long that it's not just a legal requirement but a social one as well. I'd be willing to bet that an awful lot of people who object to having to roll up to the polling booth would also object to having to sit a test before they could vote.

It's a good thing the Bradman type stuff has been removed. It breaks another link in the history wars, culture wars, immigration chain of incoherent self righteousness we've lived with for so long.

There was never a specific question about Bradman although it was part of the blurb and therefore could form part of an ad hoc question.

So we are all really pleased that Kevvie removed a question that was never there - and this passes for intelligent dialogue.

On the other hand, when it was first muted that the question that never was would be removed, there was such an outcry that Kevvie denied he'd do it - after all being popular is so important. So there are probably lots of people who are really upset that the question that never was is never gunna be.

Who's Bradman? Why has he been dropped? Did he lose the Test?