"We've obviously got to make sure that we protect the national security of Australia, we make a strong stand against this global threat of terrorism, and we also have to do so within the rules  ... which above all of course is the constitution [with] which we all have to comply," he told Sky News.

His remarks, which followed references to the limits of governmental reach under the constitutionally enshrined separation of powers, suggest both cabinet tension over a controversial area of policy and that senior ministers are at odds with the stated intentions of Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

The Communications Minister, who spoke up in cabinet against an earlier proposal to give the Immigration Minister the power to strip Australians of their citizenship when they engaged in terrorist activities - even if it would render them stateless, now appears to have toughened his stance, concerned that expanded ministerial power to cancel citizenship in the case of dual nationals without a court conviction is a step too far.

Lawyers have already argued the change is likely to be unconstitutional and it is understood the government is having a difficult time drafting a change that would stand a chance of surving a legal challenge.

Unbowed, Mr Abbott has made no secret of his intent, boistrously prosecuting an argument in favour of widened ministerial powers without any need for a successful prosecution and accusing Labor of equivocating in the face of the threat.

The government is relying on what is now known to be a contested interpretation of advice from eminent jurist Bret Walker SC. The former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) had recommended a series of changes, including the extension of ministerial discretion to cancel the citizenship of convicted terrorists.

However he has since made clear his intention was never to have a minister assume a judicial power but rather to give the minister the discretionary power post-conviction, including therefore, the option of continuing the citizenship of a convicted terrorist if that person had assisted in the avoidance of an attack, or the arrest and disruption of terrorism network members.

Currently, a person with dual citizenship automatically surrenders their Australian citizenship the moment they take up arms for another country against Australia. There is no ministerial discretion one way or the other.

The government however has taken a completely different interpretation of the Walker advice and is using the recommendation to argue for the minister to assume a power that is at present held exclusively by the courts.

Labor has been eager to stay close to the government on national security but in Parliament on Tuesday, its immigration spokesman Richard Marles showed the first signs of a Labor shift.

"Can the minister confirm that ... he as minister will make the decision to revoke Australian citizenship from a dual citizen suspected of fighting against Australia?" Mr Marles asked Immigration Minister Peter Dutton.

In response, Mr Dutton again cited the advice from Mr Walker.

"If I go to page 57, Bret Walker SC says: 'Taking into account Australia's international obligations, and the national security and counter-terrorism risks posed by Australians engaging in acts prejudicial to Australia's security, the INSLM supports the introduction of a power for the Minister for Immigration to revoke the citizenship of Australians, where to do so would not render them stateless, where the Minister is satisfied that the person has engaged in acts prejudicial to Australia's security and it is not in Australia's interests for the person to remain in Australia'.

"That is exactly the principle by which we are guided," Mr Dutton said, before going on to conflate citizenship policy with asylum seeker policy in order to add "when Labor were in government, they had completely and utterly lost control of our borders, and if you cannot control your borders you cannot control national security."