That issue is not about terrorism, which all Australians should resist and oppose as far as possible.

The greater issue relates to freedom and liberty and the negative direction in which the Prime Minister commenced the debate.

Imagine if you or a member of your family were to be declared by a Government Minister as being a “murderer” and jailed for the rest of your life without a criminal trial and conviction.

You would thus be permanently deprived of your liberty on the allegation or suspicion of that member of the Government. Such action would offend all notions of justice held by thinking Australians.

Incredibly, that is exactly the scenario the Prime Minister proposed in relation to counter-terrorism measures which would potentially strip dual nationals of their Australian Citizenship without a criminal trial and conviction.

The key debate is not about whether terrorists with dual citizenship should be stripped of their Australian Citizenship.

The paramount issue is about the process that determines whether or not a person is a terrorist and the consequences that follow from that.

When you look at the debate from this perspective, it is understandable that there are said to be divisions in Government ranks as to the proposed process. Our democratic model is based on a separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.

Members of the executive, such as Government Ministers, should not be performing the functions of the judges. Where they seek to, such aspirations should be strongly opposed as they represent a threat to the basis of our democracy.

Clearly, a right of appeal does not correct a measure that is so offensive in the first instance.

All decent Australians oppose terrorism. Australians also uphold the basic principles of our freedoms, liberties and democratic system which we have, in the past, felt so strongly about that we have ventured to war to defend.

John Clarke is the Solicitor Director of Clarke Law, with a local network of offices in Narooma, Bermagui and  Bega