Albanese accuses Dutton of engaging in ‘culture war stunts’ over Indigenous voice

Anthony Albanese has accused Peter Dutton of engaging in “cheap culture war stunts” over the Indigenous voice to parliament.

Dutton on Sunday demanded – in a letter to the prime minister also released to the media – more detail on the proposed body which will be voted on at a referendum by the end of 2023.

But key yes campaign groups insisted there would be more detail released before the vote and argued that the proposal was too important to be “held hostage by party politics”.

The opposition leader claimed Albanese would damage reconciliation efforts if the referendum failed and repeated allegations that the government was being arrogant by not releasing more detail now.

“It’s obvious the prime minister has made a political decision based on the advice of his strategists not to provide the detail to the Australian public, and by doing that, I really think he’s treating people like mugs,” Dutton told reporters on Sunday.

He suggested Labor should legislate the voice before the vote on constitutional change.

The Liberal leader wrote to Albanese outlining 15 questions regarding eligibility and appointment of members, the voice’s powers and its cost. Dutton also asked how it would interact with the closing the gap process and suggested the voice should not be used to negotiate a treaty with Indigenous people.

“Many Australians do not understand the scope and operation of the voice and expect comprehensive information before being asked to vote,” Dutton wrote.

“I believe you are making a catastrophic mistake in not providing accessible, clear and complete information regarding your government’s version of the voice, condemning it to failure and, in turn, damaging reconciliation efforts in our country. Your approach will ensure a dangerous and divisive debate grounded in hearsay and misinformation.”

The government has repeatedly said the voice will broadly follow the model outlined in the 2021 co-design report from Marcia Langton and Tom Calma, twice presented to the former government’s cabinet by former Indigenous Australians minister Ken Wyatt. It sets out proposals for the voice in great detail.

Wyatt has dismissed his former colleagues’ criticism as “laziness”.

The Albanese government has not yet endorsed many details of the co-design report, with the prime minister stressing it would be “subservient” to the parliament and therefore subject to legislative change.

Albanese responded to Dutton with a tweet, saying he had spoken to the opposition leader on Friday and hadn’t actually seen his letter, despite it being reported in media outlets on Sunday.

“People are over cheap culture war stunts,” Albanese tweeted.

The Indigenous Australians minister, Linda Burney, posted a reply to Albanese’s tweet saying the voice would be “a unifying moment for Australia”. Burney has previously dismissed criticisms about a lack of detail as “rubbish”.

Government sources have said further detail on the model will be outlined in the coming months.

Sign up to Guardian Australia’s Afternoon Update

Our Australian afternoon update email breaks down the key national and international stories of the day and why they matter

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

But, the prime minister has also repeatedly said “I don’t want it to be the government’s proposal” and stressed the final model would be subject to parliament’s approval. That suggests Labor may not specify an exact model before the referendum.

Prof Megan Davis, the director of the Indigenous Law Centre at the University of New South Wales and a co-chair of the Uluru statement from the heart, said on Sunday that work on the voice was continuing.

She defended the process and pledged more detail would be released before the referendum.

“Constitutions are for principle,” Davis told Guardian Australia. “The machinery is for parliament. This is no different to how other constitutional bodies are created.

“The high court of Australia was recognised in 1901 and set up via legislation several years later. It’s a normal constitutional approach.”

The academic pointed to several working groups set up by the government whose work was still under way. Davis said that work included finalising “the appropriate amount of detail required for an informed vote”.

A spokesperson for From the Heart – one of the main yes campaign vehicles – criticised the political fight emerging over the process.

“Constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians,” the spokesperson said. “Government programs delivered without hearing from Indigenous communities have failed to close the gap. This process is too important to be held hostage by party politics.”

Referring to the Langton and Calma co-design report – which Albanese has pointed to when asked for detail – Dutton on Sunday called for the government to clarify if it would adopt the exact settings suggested.

“They’re referencing … a good report but it has not been adopted by the government because there are options in the report,” he said.

“He hasn’t said that this is the reference document, this is what we will implement if the voice is successful at a constitutional vote.”