While bipartisanship is desired for a referendum, all roads appear to be leading to a full Coalition "no" push.

The Nationals formed their position weeks ago. Peter Dutton has all the appearance of leading the Liberals to follow suit.

Requests to the Prime Minister for more detail, not offering changes and, according to participants, not engaging with the referendum working group. A flummoxed Anthony Albanese has accused Mr Dutton of playing a political "game" with the Voice.

"It lacks genuineness to just continue to say, 'Aw, we don't have the details'. No matter how much detail is put out, Peter Dutton will say, 'Aw what about more detail'?" he said.

"That's the game that's been played here. And he should make a decision of where he stands on this issue."

There is a breakdown over the Voice's basic premise. We have Indigenous leaders on one side saying advisory groups, consultative bodies and councils worked in the main, but were not listened to or were dismantled by powers that be.

"It is time for us to have a voice," referendum working group member Thomas Mayo said.

And we have another side saying Indigenous people are not being listened to. And there is a disbelief the Voice can improve First Nations lives.

"Some of the groups are more worried about practical action than they are the Voice. That's the advice back to us," Mr Dutton said on Thursday.

Yep, that's a firming of position.

Adding to this is a layer of Canberra-poking. "We don't need bigger bureaucracy. We need a better bureaucracy," Nationals Leader David Littleproud said on Friday.

But everyone wants a better outcome for Indigenous Australians. This is where the popular vote comes in.

The path to Indigenous constitution recognition began a long time ago. It was given legs under John Howard and has been allowed to fly towards a popular vote under Mr Albanese.

Now, perhaps seven months out from the vote, the Liberal leader is unconvinced and is seeking the release of the Solicitor-General's advice to "build confidence" they have the right set of words.

Is there too much vagueness in the wording? Is it lawyers at 100 paces?

Mr Albanese said there will always be advice to tell you what you want to hear, but he was clear about the issue of wriggle room with the Voice: "The primacy of the Parliament is there, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."

Would Mr Dutton do the same if the tables were turned? Perhaps the Voice is worthy of the government doing this? It is a very rare act. Think secret ministries scandal. The Prime Minister said at the time that it should "not be considered to be a precedent".

If the Prime Minister is as "absolutely confident" of the advice from the "best legal experts in the country", as he said he is, perhaps this needs to be done to knock off the concern?

But would even that satisfy?

Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney has accused the Liberals of looking for excuses. "And I think they've almost run out," she said.

READ MORE:

The Parliament needs to consider the proposed wording of the question and draft constitutional change over the next week.

Increasingly, though, it will probably be best for politicians to leave Voice campaigning to others, and get on with the other "yes" or "no" questions in Parliament.

Politics, as usual, has done few favours for Indigenous Australians.