It's deeply entrenched in our political system, and par for the course when it comes to top-line issues that have a tendency to dominate the public discourse for days, even weeks, on end.

But when does opposing something important become obstructive well beyond a sign of a healthy democracy?

No one can deny that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is playing the game hard.

But his insistent position on the Voice - that he needs more detail before confirming Liberal party support or opposition - risks needlessly jeopardising a historic move towards reconciliation.

As recently as late last week, he met with the Voice working group, but thus far has shown little willingness to change his position - both in principle and in form.

His insistence that we need more detail is sounding increasingly hollow, even ludicrous. Professor Tom Calma - chancellor of the University of Canberra and recently named Senior Australian of the Year - has already co-authored a model with plenty of detail in it, certainly enough to answer any and every question Dutton might have.

But it seems Dutton is persistently sowing the seeds of doubt - or at least trying his hardest - to deny Prime Minister Anthony Albanese an important win.

If this is indeed his overriding aim - and this seems more or less a given - then his opposition becomes reprehensible, rather than irritating.

A successful referendum is far too vital to the cause of reconciliation to be sacrificed at the alter of political warfare.

The tragedy Dutton seems intent on ignoring is that if the referendum fails later this year, it will be a terrible blow for race relations in this country, and will cause enormous damage.

It's worth pointing out the Liberal Party has not, as yet, adopted a formal position on the Voice, while the Nationals have chosen to oppose it wholesale.

Meanwhile, the Greens' position has been shoved into disarray by Senator Lidia Thorpe, an Indigenous woman who has indicated her opposition to the Voice unless there is an assurance from the federal government that Indigenous sovereignty will be guaranteed.

This is another version of Mr Dutton's tactics, making the vote unnecessarily more complex and far-reaching than it needs to be in the first case.

Nobody has ever claimed enshrining the Voice will be a quick fix for all ills, but it is an important step forwards.

Albanese reminded us of the importance of returning to first principles - a simple yes or no - last week, when he pointed out that the issue was actually more simple than complicated.

"It is about reconciliation. It's not a radical proposition. So I'm not surprised that some radicals are opposed to it, because this is a mainstream proposition."

While opposition within Indigenous communities can't be ignored - along with understandable confusion on the part of many Australians anxious only to do the right thing - a successful referendum would represent a substantial step forward for our country that still has so much unfinished business in relation to its treatment of first Australians.

Referenda are hard, and they usually fail. To be successful, the Voice needs bipartisan support.

It's too important for Dutton and co to play politics with, and will be stain on the party's legacy if he's successful in attempts to divide the country and bring down the vote.

Letters to the editor should be kept to 250 or fewer words. To the Point letters should not exceed 50 words. Reference to The Canberra Times reports should include a date and page number. Provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published).

Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.