The government has been accused of deliberately withholding detail on its push to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the constitution for political reasons.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser were briefed by the referendum working group after calling for more information on the proposed voice’s make-up and function.
Mr Dutton accused the prime minister of withholding details of the voice as a deliberate political strategy.
“Like all Australians, we want to see a better outcome for the Indigenous people of our country,” he told Nine’s Today program on Friday.
“We are willing to look at any measure to do that. There are lots of questions around the voice and lots of detail that hasn’t yet been provided.
“The pressure continues for him to put it out so people can make an informed decision. Some models will work, others can’t.”
Mr Leeser, who is also the opposition Indigenous Australians spokesman, said he didn’t learn anything new from the group’s presentation.
“It was a very comprehensive briefing about the process I was familiar with, it was good to be reminded of some of those things,” he told ABC radio.
Mr Leeser said the government hadn’t consulted widely enough on the changes.
“We noted this had been a very strange and unusual process that the government had adopted here in most previous referenda,” he said.
“The best way to ensure that more Australians vote for this than not is to provide the detail.”
The Albanese government has consistently said the referendum will only deal with two issues, the recognition of Indigenous people in the constitution and their right to be consulted on issues pertaining to them.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote to the opposition leader, saying the proposal had come off the back of years of discussion.
The final model for the voice would then be decided by the parliament if Australia agrees to the principle of enshrining the body in the constitution.
“We know the most effective outcomes for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities occur when their voices are heard and they have ownership over the policies that affect them,” Mr Albanese wrote.
He reiterated that the voice would have no veto function over legislation.
