Shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus has accused the prime minister of “dishonestly” and “disgracefully” misrepresenting his comments about foreign fighters to try to “wedge” Labor and play politics with national security.



The only welcome I am talking about is an arrest warrant and a trial to put the person in jail for a very long time Mark Dreyfus

Former independent national security monitor Bret Walker has also demanded an apology from Tony Abbott after the prime minister continued to claim the constitutional lawyer had backed the government’s plan to strip citizenship from Australians fighting with Islamic State if this did not leave them stateless, without a conviction from the courts. Walker holds the opposite view.



Tony Abbott says Labor wants to “roll out the red carpet” for terrorists, based on comments made by Dreyfus in an interview on Thursday in which he was asked, “How do you convict someone fighting in Raqqa in Syria?” and Dreyfus answered “You get them back here. So I think the government needs to explain a great deal more, but most importantly the government needs to come forward with a clear concrete proposal instead of talking endlessly and vaguely about these matters where there is no clarity about what the government is proposing.”



On Friday, the Daily Telegraph backed the government’s attack with a front-page headline “Are you Syria’s Bill?” accusing the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, of “standing idly by” while Dreyfus “calls for death-cult Aussies to be welcomed home”. According to the paper, Shorten “reprimanded” Dreyfus during a parliamentary tactics meeting.



Guardian Australia has been told by sources at the meeting that no such reprimand was given, although some MPs thought Dreyfus could have been more careful to avoid misrepresentation. The meeting resolved to continue to refuse to lock in a position until the government produces legislation. Labor has been somewhat unclear on this in the past, with Shorten last week offering the “in principle” support Abbott has been demanding, but also insisting on the involvement of courts.

Constitutional lawyers have insisted the high court would overturn any legislation allowing the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, to revoke a foreign fighter’s citizenship without a prior conviction by the courts. The government is proposing the minister’s decision would be subject to “judicial review” and says this presents “minimal” constitutional risk.

After significant drafting changes, concerned ministers – including communications minister Malcolm Turnbull – believe the government has overcome constitutional problems with extra provisions for judicial review of ministerial decisions to strip citizenship.



“I’m working very hard with the immigration minister and the attorney general and the PM, providing a lot of input and assistance to ensure that the bill that is presented conforms to the constitution, and again, I’m surprised that my observation that our laws should conform with the constitution is somehow or other a remarkable one. What’s the point of passing a law if it’s going to get knocked out in the high court?,” Turnbull said.



An angry Dreyfus lashed out at the prime minister’s representation of his views.



“This is a disgraceful misrepresentation of my remarks by the prime minister, it is worse than verballing, it is deliberate misrepresentation in order to pick a political fight on this issue,” Dreyfus told Guardian Australia.



“The government has been caught out proposing something unconstitutional and the prime minister has lashed out with his trademark dishonesty to try to create a smokescreen to cover his internal dissent.



“The only welcome I am talking about is an arrest warrant and a trial to put the person in jail for a very long time,” Dreyfus said.



He said Labor would not agree to legislation it had not seen, but pointed to the views of constitutional lawyers that punishment must be meted out by the judiciary rather than the executive.



“If you are going to punish someone, [they] have to be found guilty of something first.”



“I would not trust Peter Dutton to strip citizenship and neither would anyone else in this parliament. He’s a minister who can’t separate fact from fiction.”



On Friday, Abbott was sticking with his attack, saying the problem with taking foreign fighters to court was that they might “get off”.



Asked about Dreyfus’s view that he wanted people to face court, Abbott said, “What happens if they get off? That’s the problem.”



“We all know that there are evidentiary issues with prosecutions of people for offences abroad. I mean how many terrorists does the opposition want to bring back to our country to give evidence? I mean this is a very serious question for the opposition. Not only does he want to bring terrorists back to stand trial but it seems he also wants to bring terrorists back to give evidence.

“Now, I don’t want terrorists in our country. Full stop. And if someone leaves our country to join a terrorist army abroad, I don’t want them back. The government doesn’t want them back. We don’t want any of them back, but if you’re a dual citizen we will stop you coming back by taking away your Australian passport.”



The government will present the legislation to the party room on Tuesday and introduce it on Wednesday.



Greg Craven, constitutional lawyer and vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, reckons giving a minister, rather than the courts, the power to impose the penalty is “irredeemably unconstitutional … [and] mocks the separation of powers”. He said it would be “swatted down like a bug by the high court”.



Another constitutional law expert, George Williams, told Guardian Australia he was less willing to make a definitive prediction about what the high court would say, but said there would be “significant constitutional problems with giving the decision-making power to a minister”.