Loading

Dutton said the Coalition would go to the next election with a policy to hold a referendum to recognise Indigenous people in the Constitution, but without a Voice specified in the Constitution.

“Yes, I believe very strongly that that is the right thing to do,” he said.

“But enshrining a voice in the Constitution is divisive, it will divide the country down the middle. It will not provide the practical outcomes.

“It will change the way of government very significantly, because of the broad words.”

“And I think it would grind the process of government decision-making to a near halt.”

Albanese warned last week about a halt to progress on closing the gap if the Voice was defeated at the referendum.

“Voting No leads nowhere. It means nothing changes,” he said in his campaign speech.

“Voting No closes the door on this opportunity to move forward.”

Albanese said the Voice would be independent of daily politics, would be set up to offer advice and would not prevent the parliament from making decisions on laws and funding.

Loading

He used his speech to quote a key section of the proposed change to the constitution, the last of three provisions on how it would work, which says the parliament would have the power to make laws regarding the “composition, functions, powers and procedures” of the Voice.

Dutton’s remarks on Sunday are the first comments since the referendum launch last week that suggest Australians would go to another referendum on Indigenous recognition if the Voice is defeated on October 14.

Uluru Dialogue co-chair Professor Megan Davis said Australians want constitutional change that isn’t just symbolic.

“There’s no use going to referendum if it’s not going to change the daily lives of First Nations peoples,” she said.

“There’s zero evidence anywhere in the world that a statement of recognition changes anything.”

South Australian traditional owner Kirstie Parker said Dutton’s comments showed the opposition leader wasn’t listening to Indigenous communities.

“Some people have said the referendum is an expensive exercise,” she said. “And here we have the opposition leader proposing to spend the same amount of money on something that would not change lives. That’s the poorest investment of Australian taxpayers’ dollars.”

Loading

Asked how many people will make up the Voice, which Albanese has called an advisory committee, Davis said that detail would be worked out by parliament, should the referendum succeed.

“Our primary focus is getting the principle embedded into the constitution. [That principle] is that we should have a voice and we should be at the table.”

The Uluru Dialogue co-chair added that it was not up to her to say whether the people who make up the Voice should be paid.

The elected representatives of Victoria’s First Peoples’ Assembly, for example, are paid a stipend. However, the exact figures are not publicly available.

“The Australian parliament has rules about how you pay people within the framework and machinery of governance,” Davis said.

As for how soon after a successful referendum she and others would like to see the Voice implemented, Davis said she was hoping for at least one day of rest after voters attend the ballot box.

“There’ll be a period of design where communities are asked to contribute to what the Voice looks like. Once that process is finished, it will enter the parliament. I don’t want to speak for the prime minister or the government, but that is the conventional way these things occur.”

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.