Mr Dutton needs to decide where he stands on constitutional recognition and the Voice to Parliament | Samantha Maiden

The cheat’s guide to this year’s big debate on constitutional recognition has landed, writes Samantha Maiden.

The summer holidays are drawing to a close and the cheat’s guide to this year’s big debate on constitutional recognition and the Voice to Parliament has landed.

The Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can’t explain it.

The Liberal leader Peter Dutton won’t say whether or not he supports it.

Good times. It’s a dire state of affairs which acts as a depressing reminder that the current crop of politicians sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.

And it’s hardly a surprise that, as a result, many Australians would not be able to tell you what the debate is about and what it means.

Prepare yourself. This year you are going to hear about it until your ears bleed.

In simple terms, the Voice would advise the Australian parliament and government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The Prime Minister has already flagged the question to be put to voters, suggesting, “we should consider asking our fellow Australians something as simple as: ‘Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?’.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gives a press conference in Geelong. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Luis Enrique Ascui

But it’s clear that Mr Albanese’s claim that changing the constitution is “simple”, is not perhaps as simple as it first appears.

More than 15 years ago John Howard was the first prime minister to promise constitutional recognition of the special status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

He pledged to hold a referendum if he won the upcoming election in 2007. Reader, he did not.

Since that promise, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison have all promised to do something but ended up delivering not much.

Enter Mr Albanese, who is determined to change all of that.

He based his plans in the space on the key recommendation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a 12-paragraph document endorsed by Aboriginal leaders five years ago which demanded an advisory body, called “the Voice”, to advise parliament.

Things escalated quickly this week after the Prime Minister did a media blitz on the issue.

The Prime Minister was asked a simple question he didn’t want to answer: If the referendum was to fail, would you go ahead and legislate a Voice anyway?

“Well, one of the things that I’m not doing is leading with a position that assumes a loss of a referendum,’’ Mr Albanese replied.

“That would not be a very sensible thing to do. And I am determined to do what I can, along with so many other Australians who will be campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote from across the political spectrum. And that is my focus.”

In other words, he wouldn’t rule it out.

Not unreasonably, 2GB host Ben Fordham pointed out that “it’s important, isn’t it, when we are being asked to go to the ballot box and to say yes or no, that we know whether or not that vote counts?”

Then, he asked the Prime Minister if he had sought legal advice from the Attorney-General.

“The Attorney-General isn’t there to give legal advice,’’ the Prime Minister said.

As Mr Albanese explained, they have got advice already from a bunch of former High Court judges.

But he also got grumpy, telling Fordham at one point: “I hope you know what the Constitution is.”

If that’s the standard of debate we are going to have when people ask questions about a constitutional referendum, God help us.

By midmorning, Mr Dutton was up and about helpfully describing the Prime Minister’s “train wreck of an interview.”

“It was just a shocker,’’ he said.

“Is he saying to the Australian public if you vote no in the referendum that he will legislate the next day to bring it in?

“If that’s the case, well, pass the legislation now and demonstrate to Australians how it can work.

“And frankly it’s pretty tacky from the Prime Minister to try and conflate the two issues and to try and trick and deceive the Australian public.”

“If Anthony Albanese doesn’t understand how The Voice will operate, how can Australians be expected to understand?”

What he won’t explain is what the hell the Coalition’s position is on the baseline question. Is it a yes or is it a no?

The Leader of the opposition Peter Dutton speaking at a press conference in Brisbane. Picture: Tara Croser

There seems to be all sorts of signs that the Coalition position now might end up being a “no”, which could lead to the referendum failing.

The majority of backbenchers seem opposed, and while there’s a few more moderates on the frontbench, some hard political calculations could stop the Coalition from going with a conscience vote.

For example, they figure the minority of moderates in the party will campaign for yes anyway and won’t face consequences.

When he took over the job of Liberal Leader last year, Peter Dutton moved quickly to admit a “mistake” in this space in the past.

He admitted he was wrong to refuse to support the National Apology to survivors of the Stolen Generations and their families in 2008.

“I understand the symbolism and I made a mistake,’’ he said.

“At the time, I believed that the apology should be given when the problems were resolved and the problems were not resolved.”

The risk that he faces if he is responsible for scuttling constitutional recognition is he risks looking once again like a wrecker.

But sooner or later he needs to work out what his actual position is because right now the debate is unbearable noise.