She recently passed the Seniors' First Aid course, not easy for someone from a non-English speaking background, because of the technical terms involved, and has a work contract as a home carer. She now has no problem communicating with English speaking Australian clients etc.

But what would have happened to her if she had not had the initiative to learn ballroom dancing? Stuck in the Asian restaurant trade, as a cook. Not meeting people outside her own culture and learning virtually no English. Could we have justifiably blamed her for this?

I mention these situations, because I feel sure that there must be many migrants who, with the best will in the world, would find it extremely difficult to pass a mandatory English language test. But this, in itself, would not necessarily mean that they could not be good Australians. And their adult children, like those of Tony and Serena, and of Emiko, could be proficient in both English and their original languages, a definite advantage in some forms of business or employment.

I am often somewhat surprised at some of the strange pronunciations of common English words which are used by many of our TV presenters and newsreaders etc. I suppose we have to accept that all languages are in a state of flux, but some of these strange pronunciations tend to grate on me. Maybe if I had to take an oral English exam with one of these presumed English speaking experts, then I would be judged as not qualified to be an Australian citizen.

CJ Morgan,

The fact that 80% of the people who "infest" this forum are like you doesn't mean that 80% of the Australian population is like you and your red mates.

This is evidenced by the fact that we have had a government you clearly hate for the last decade, and you don't like the alternative much, either.

All of your pathetic name calling (knuckle-draggers etc)doesn't seem to have had much effect in the past, and from Rudd's pre-election utterances, it will not have much influence in the future

As a postscript, in a prior professional incarnation I had occasion to teach undergraduate university students about such topics as culture, society and linguistics. One technique I used to use, to illustrate the relative linguistic poverty of our culture, consisted of a series of questions posed to a tutorial group:

Q: What do you call someone who speaks several languages?
A: Multilingual (or polyglot)

Q: What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
A: Bilingual

Q: What do you call someone who speaks one language?
A: Aussie

As NESB immigrants join our society, they almost invariably acquire enough functional English to participate in the community (certainly by the second generation). In the process, they also inevitably change both our culture and our language - in my view for the better.

Confused, Leigh? Not me.

But you carefully avoided my question, which might have been because it was too complicated for you. Let me try to simplify it a little.

At what point in history did the Australian population become suddenly Australian, as opposed to a bunch of immigrants from other countries?

Was it 1901 and Federation? 1945 and the end of WWII? 1965, with the end of the general assisted passage scheme?

Perhaps it was from the day the first Europeans stepped onto Australian soil? That would support your "Australia had people of different cultures right from settlement" position, but would not explain your subsequent change of heart.

Or was it some other date - perhaps when "the official policy of multiculturalism adopted by wacko politicians without reference to the people" - whatever that might be - came into force?

But if it hasn't happened yet, then the concept of a "standard Australian" is still a work-in-progress.

Does that make it a little clearer for you?

Pick a date, and let's discuss it.

The fact that a citizenship test is so far removed from any concept of a white Australian policy, simply shows that the author claims are attention seeking. He should be ignored

Banjo,
under the early Australian immigration law, new migrants were made to undergo English dictation tests designed to fail specific ethnic groups.
It was a policy frankly about race.
Today’s policy seems to take off in the same direction, although it’s more obscured and not as frank but it’s obviously going to affect cultures than the ‘white’ cultures since most, if not all, Western (European) people nowadays are being taught English at High School as a compulsory subject.

Rex makes a good point and gives a wonderful example; immigrants need to be given a chance and the vast majority will learn English as they go.
I simply do not understand why there is a need for a citizenship test or language test. What is this going to do for Australia or its citizens? These tests are useless!

Col Rouge,
I agree: I do think that learning English is a good thing and should be encouraged.
My point is that it should not be a requirement for immigration or be compulsory.

The vast majority of immigrants will want to learn English and as Rex said, the second generation will all speak English.

We are making a big drama about a few immigrants ending up not being able to speak English. So what? Big deal!

Immigrants will need to have something to offer Australia e.g. their skills, knowledge, or trades.

“Darn it Celivia, all your high brow opinions come down to the likelihood that “Learning English” is the most reasonable assertion, not only for new Australians but anyone else around the globe.”
Continued below