Thanks to everyone for their viewpoints on this
issue. They are appreciated. And I do understand
all of your concerns.

I've got an older brother who was born in Germany and came
out to Australia with our parents who were refugees
after WWII. He was just a youngster and he was part of
my parents naturalisation process.

I wonder if he
has dual citizenship? He's lived in this country all
of his life and regards himself as an Aussie through
and through. I doubt if it would even occur to him
to check on his citizenship. My younger brother and
I were born here.

I suspect there would be quite a
few people who came out here with their parents as
refugees after WWII fleeing the Soviet Regime at that
time who would be in the same boat - part of the
Naturalisation process of their parents. I imagine that
very few would have renounced their earlier citizenships
thinking that being part of the Australian Naturalisation
process of their parents was enough.

Where parliamentarians say they were 'unaware', the public ('punters' as they are insultingly referred to) would be asking that they pay the same attention to their responsibilities as they obviously do to researching and claiming their entitlements.

As has already been mentioned, the requirements regarding citizenship are spelled out in detail, in plain English, in documents and briefings they cannot say they did not receive.

Anyone who have ever had anything to do with federal parliamentarians, their staffs too, could confirm the interest they have where entitlements, especially travel and freebies are concerned.

However over the years and recently there have been many questions on the subject being discussed here in both Houses, often attacks orchestrated by political parties and resultant media attention. Going back in time, where the Australian and other governments had anything to say about citizenship these were always regarded as newsworthy by the media and the public broadcaster in particular. Such stories had oxygen for days, involving the commentariat (as might be expected!).

My immediate and extended families have many with dual citizenship and of different countries. We tended to travel a lot and work overseas (a problem of work specialisations not available in Oz). Changes to citizenship anywhere are so newsworthy in Australia that casual acquaintances and introductions would very likely regard even the likelihood of changes as topical and the next thing to say after hello.

I do not believe the public would be allowing politicians any leeway on this at all. The excuses would be adding accelerant to the smouldering resentment over the persistent greed and bad behaviour displayed by some politicians.

This in an environment where the public is being led to believe time and time again and by the politicians themselves, that the Senate has an inordinate share of bludgers whose only interest is to goof off, researching nice places to travel and to toe the Party line when asked to do so. And if extra $$s are wanted, to do the same in committees.

The contempt being held for the public is breathtaking.

I should add to the above that over the years I have a had a lot to do with parliamentarians especially on local issues through community clubs and so on. For every 'goof off' or fool one is aware of (you don't meet them with their sleeves rolled up, only briefly at photo opportunities with a decent free feed), there is another who is working extremely hard and under trying circumstances (usually caused by small but highly vocal interest groups). I know some whose families do suffer for large parts of the year.

I apologise for my occasional slackness in editing. A lot to do is my poor excuse.

The majority of early prime ministers were born overseas Chris Watson in Chile of all places, George Reid, Andrew Fisher, Joseph Cook and Billy Hughes in the United Kingdom. Their contribution to early Australia is indistinguishable from that of the native born, Edmond Barton and Alfred Deakin.
Did they ever renounce their foreign citizenship. maybe they did, maybe they didn't. If they did not then they were no lesser Australians than anyone else.

Billy Hughes served Australia longer than any other politician 52 years.

Are the 'Watermelons' stupid and arrogant enough to try that one on an already angry and ignored public, Paul1405?

The Australian Prime Minister gets higher pay than the US President and those Greens Senators' pay and entitlements weren't so shabby either. There wouldn't be many politicians anywhere who travel as much as Oz politicians. And where else do they get such a Golden Handshake on retirement, taken so early for some and for life.

For that dosh and taking into account all of the support they demand and receive, do you imagine that the average wage earner, or someone on a fixed income is going to have the wool pulled over their eyes?

The public is not as forgetful as some imagine. That applies to some of the media commentariat too whose already questionable credibility with the public (that is, the vast numbers of public outside of the ABC's Inner City Hipsters) could be taking a permanent hit on this.

Foxy/Paul,

Incl SW and SL there were 24 MPs in both houses that were born overseas. 22 of them had no problems sorting out their dual nationality, but there are a handful of journos etc that want to change the constitution.