In the case of anyone accused - and particularly the case of a sole Australian citizen - are we all relaxed and comfortable with Dutton's take on the matter:

"You don't need too much evidence. It's an administrative decision."

Would we be happy to see this sort of diminution of the rule of law in other areas?

Agreed Poirot. It should definitely be a decision of our court system, and not a politician.

I remain suspicious as to this PM's strong drive to take the passports of 'terrorists' though.

Do we have an actual definition of a terrorist? Who decides what that actually means?
Surely we should revoke the citizenship of ANY dual nationalist who has been convicted of a violent crime while overseas?

Otherwise, wouldn't this decision just be another anti-Muslim, "let me save Australia from the Muslim hoards" that our PM likes to use?

Peter Costello explained after the London
bombing of 2005 was troubled by the fact that
young people born and raised in a democratic ssociety
could turn to terorism and kill their fellow
citizens in the name of Islam. He gave a speech at the
Sydney Institute in which he argued that freedom and
tolerance can be protected only within a legal
framework that is accepted by all.

Here's just a little of what he said:

"To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty
first: loyalty to Australia.
One pledges to respect the rights and liberty of
others and to respect the rule of law."

"Terrorists and those who support them do not
acknwledge the rights and liberties of others -
the rights to live without being maimed,
the right to live without being bombed -
and as such they forfeit the right to join in
Australian citizenship. The refusal to
acknowledge the rule of law as laid down by
out legal institutions stabs at the heart
of who we are. There is one law that we are all
expected to abide by. It is the law enacted
by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution.
Ultimately this law is going to be enforced
whether anyone acknowledges its legitimacy or not."

Therefore citizenship should be revoked only by a
court of law. If we believe that there is a
legal framework that we are all expected to abide by.
Then it follows that people who do not obey our laws -
must be judged within that legal framework.
Our law courts.

Judges should not be involved. They do not represent us. They are not elected. At least we have some control over politicians, small though it is. If a relevant Minister cannot come to the right decision (I don't think that the stripping of citizenship would be automatic), then there is not much hope for democracy. Whereas, we have no say in what activist, self aggrandizing judges do.

A problem isn't it, not having the death penalty for those who wish to be, or are mass murderers.

As ISIS are claiming to be a nation, & definitely want to be one, controlling most of the middle east, let them issue their fighters with citizenship.

God help us, with Obama controlling the fight against ISIS they'll soon have a number of countries for whom they can offer citizenship.

With our fool judges & their softly softly sentences of serial rapists & prospective murderers, our courts would have these cut throat terrorists back in the community quick time, & it would only be a matter of time before they go off again, or kill here.

There is no truer saying than "a leopard does not change it's spots", & neither do serious criminal types, or those vicious types who join terrorists organisations.

Making sure prospective boat people knew they would be turned back cured that problem, letting these clowns know there will be no return, should they chose to join ISIS or similar warlord type armies should fix this one.

Right on, Poirot, and I'm pleases to see a softening of your stance, SOL. Are young people not allowed to make mistakes in Australia? Seems a tad unkind. Certainly it should never be up to a politician to decide who to make an outlaw. We have no reason in reality to make war on ISIS, or any other group attempting to clear their countries of the invading soldiers of the USA and it's vassals. The people we are bombing, maiming, murdering displacing, rendering homeless orphans had no intention of invading Australia. Our soldiers are not defending us, they are attacking people who refuse to follow the dictates of the USA. Hardly something to be proud of. The kids who go there to support members of their extended family are aware of this. So their decisions are excusable, if regrettable, so when they find they've made a mistake, we should help them to regain their senses, and use them to teach others not to be so stupid. Why create enemies of their friends and families within our own country by being vindictive?