To this end he is reminded of a story some years ago where the teacher was welcoming to the mid week sport class a new refugee youngster from the Middle East and an eight month refugee Vietnamese youngster, called out: "Sir, us Aussies will teach him to play cricket".
Therefore, to M V Tronson the changes that were approved at a New South Wales State Cabinet meeting to redefine the term 'multiculturalism' was very interesting.
For the first time, legislation will also talk about "shared values". Until now the Community Relations and Principles of Multiculturalism Act stated all institutions and people had to "respect and make provision for the culture, language and religion of others".
NSW Community Relations Commission chairman, Stepan Kerkyasharian, said the law change would create a new definition of multiculturalism and the laws of Australia would now be recognised above people's cultural backgrounds.
What therefore does this mean? asks M V Tronson, "the laws of Australia would now be recognised above people's cultural backgrounds."
The multi-cultural phenomenon of the past frightened many Australians as there appeared to be so many seemingly conspiring laws associated with anti-discrimination, that ordinary Australians found themselves at the mercy of the politically active.
Australia is a pretty laid back country says M V Tronson, but multiculturalism, in its previous incarnation rubbed a good many Australians up the wrong way, especially when enforced upon the community in ways never envisioned by the ordinary person in the suburbs.
In a nation that is clearly of Christian heritage there was never a clear explanation as to why a community Carols of Candlelight Christmas function had to have the imprimatur of multi-cultural consensus when there was never an issue if an immigrant community wanted a festival.
No one can fully comprehend why Christian nativity scenes were banned in shopping centres or at schools.
Now, possibly, some of those issues might be revisited.
But there is still uncertainty as to what exactly this change might mean. How will it bring 'positives' to the majority of the population?
What we do know is that, legislators make the laws. Lawyers, as is their habit, challenge those laws (often to the extreme), and the judiciary (who don't face public elections) make determinations on those laws on behalf of the community.
This might well be one of those, "wait and see?"