Australia’s immigration laws already grant broad powers to strip Australians of their citizenship, but Tony Abbott has foreshadowed extending those powers even further.

The prime minister has suggested that Australia has been “played for mugs” by “bad people”. He has pointed to Australia’s citizenship laws as an issue that may be the focus of a statement he will give in parliament on national security next Monday.

The Australian Citizenship Act allows the immigration minister to revoke the citizenship of Australians who have committed serious crimes – including terrorism offences – where the minister believes it would be contrary to the public interest to allow them to remain a citizen.

This power has three key limitations: first, it can only be used where the serious offence was committed before they became an Australian citizen. Second, it only applies to citizens by conferral, adoption or descent – which means it doesn’t apply to citizens who are citizens of Australia by birth. And third, the revocation can usually only occur for dual citizens, because the minister is not permitted to allow a person to be stateless.

These laws are already set to be expanded slightly by a bill introduced by the previous immigration minister, Scott Morrison, that would make it easier for the minister to revoke citizenship where fraud has been used to obtain it.

In an opinion piece for the Australian on Monday, Liberal MP Andrew Nikolic foreshadowed areas that may provide some indication of what the prime minister will put forward next week.

He wrote that “Those who persist in associating themselves with terrorist causes must be identified and wherever possible ejected from the state.” He said that “many would argue” that “even Australian-born citizens forfeit their right to be considered Australian.” And he referred to the British example of allowing citizenship to be temporarily suspended – even for non-dual citizens – which could circumvent the statelessness issue.

These statements all go directly to overcoming the three limitations to the revocation powers, and suggest the government is considering adopting a system more like the powers available in Britain.

Under British citizenship laws, the home secretary can revoke citizenship where they are satisfied “that deprivation is conducive to the public good”. This test is considerably lower, and there is no requirement for a criminal offence to be committed. It can also apply to British citizens by birth. Recent material released under British freedom of information laws indicates there have been at least 37 people subject to these revocations since January 2013.

Although there is still a prohibition on leaving people stateless, the British government won even greater powers in May 2014 that may render naturalised citizens stateless if they are suspected of involvement in terrorist activity.

The home secretary can now strip a naturalised Briton of citizenship – irrespective of whether it may risk making them stateless – if they are satisfied that the person “has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.

The question is whether these laws are both proportionate and necessary for Australia. During similar debates in Britain, human rights groups have warned that the system could create a two-tier system of citizenship.

The laws grant the government powers so broad they were compared to those Saddam Hussein wielded in Iraq. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has previously raised serious concerns about the procedures for how citizenship can be revoked in the UK.

Such measures also run the risk of fracturing the community even further, if people – including citizens born in Australia – were faced with losing their citizenship on the mere grounds of association.