Peter Dutton and I were good friends once, and worked together closely in the Howard and Rudd years. Sorry to say, however, more recently we fell out, and it’s fair to say we’re no longer on speaking terms. Things were said and we’re both to blame, but it’s probably irretrievable.

The one thing we have left in common is we both care for the future of the once-great Liberal party, and the future of the centre-right in general.

So, if I’m to offer him any suggestions about policy or politics, and knowing he’s a Spectator reader, it must be through this article.

Dutton deserves credit for finding his voice on the Voice, and having the political courage to oppose the Albanese government to Parliament and the executive government.

It takes guts to not only stand against politically-rampant Prime Minister and especially his Indigenous working group, who bent even Albanese to its sweeping vision of what the Voice should be. He’s also taking a stand denounced by the left generally, most of the mainstream media, the shrill activists and trolls of social media and, regrettably, even the leaders of state Liberal parties. It’s even gutsier to do so immediately after the humiliation the Liberals received in the disastrous Aston by-election.

In thinking he wouldn’t, I underestimated him, and I suspect many others did too.

Dutton has read the public mood correctly on constitutional recognition of Aboriginal Australians and the place in our island story. Almost all Australians want to recognise their Indigenous fellow Australians appropriately, and ensure that our society – not just our governments – do right by them in redressing a legacy of disadvantage, loss, and displacement.

But Dutton is also right to highlight the Albanese referendum proposal conflates constitutional recognition with embracing his flawed vision of the Voice. Dutton’s right to say this is intellectually and legally untrue. He is right to say that consulting with the Indigenous working group and elites is not the same as listening to Indigenous voices on the ground in their own communities.

And he is right to say that establishing a Voice-like mechanism for Aboriginal consultation and engagement in making policy and laws directly affecting their communities doesn’t require enshrining in the Constitution, potentially entrenching bad policy and bad governance, despite the best of intentions of the Prime Minister and his army of advocates.

Dutton has taken his stand, and given the hostility he’s already experiencing – such as the disgracefully personal invective thrown at him by Indigenous luminary Noel Pearson – staying afloat in the storm to come, let alone prevailing over it, is going to be a huge political and personal challenge.

So, Peter, here’s my two-bob’s worth. It’s basically three things.

First, ensure your Coalition colleagues play the ball and not the man. In announcing the Liberal party room decision on Thursday, you and your deputy Sussan Ley took aim at the Prime Minister. Ley especially attacked Albanese as being immovable and aggressive on the Voice, and using it as a political device to wedge the Coalition and entrench Labor’s current dominance.

Even if much of that is true, don’t counter-attack him personally. More likely, this is a case of Albanese believes he’s doing the right thing, in good faith. Praise him for it. But then point out that his blind determination to do this thing has driven him to embrace, against the advice of his chief law officers, a dangerously flawed proposal that opens a Pandora’s box of problems that will only be exposed when the Voice is actually legislated under constitutional authority.  Albanese is like a lover who refuses to see the flaws in his beloved.

That Albanese’s obsession with doing right, as he sees it, actually fuels community division and anger – making it easier for Voice activists to label anyone questioning the working group plan as mean-spirited, divisive, and even racist – has derailed his political judgment is something to be pitied, rather than attacked.

And if they play you rather than the policy or political ball, don’t bite back – however hard that may be.

If you are perceived as taking the low road in your reasonable and principled opposition, you will be flayed alive by the chorus of angry little Voices in luvvie-land and the media. It will derail you, and some of your own backbenchers and Liberal state leader counterparts will hang you out to dry.

Second, you’ve now outlined what you want to see: formal recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution, and a choir of legislated local and regional advisory Voices rather than a single national advisory body. You’ve said that’s what local communities really want, and you now need local community voices to back you. Urge them to get out there talking about real-life realities as soon as possible, so the Noel Pearsons and Marcia Langtons, making beelines to microphones to denounce you, don’t get all the airplay.

Third, before Parliament resumes in May, turn the dot points of Wednesday’s announcement into something solid, that is ready for the resumption of debate on the referendum enabling legislation that contains the actual Albanese question. Release a discussion paper that sets out, in detail, how your alternative Voice will work, especially who’ll be eligible to serve; what they can advise on and to whom; and how adverse consequences, like the Federal and High Courts being dragged into the day-to-day processes of government, will be avoided.

Then travel the country and blitz the media to ensure it’s discussed, especially with the Indigenous communities to whom this issue matters most.

Better still, also have a draft of a bill that could be introduced by you as a private member’s bill when Parliament resumes next month. In your shadow Attorney-General, Julian Leeser, you have a first-class legal mind who’s sympathetic and empathetic to the intentions of the Statement from the Heart: he can do it quickly, and do it well.

Yes, such a bill will be voted down by Labor and its allies, probably before it’s even given a reading. Unlike, however, the government’s nebulous ‘it’s the vibe’ and ‘just trust us’ assurances, it would be solid, concrete, and proof of both your own good faith and the Albanese government’s refusal to engage and find middle ground with you.

The Prime Minister can get away with avoiding detail, ministers contradicting themselves, and airily dismissing the risks of the Voice becoming a lawyers’ honeytrap. You can’t. Albanese has the monolith of elite opinion on his side; by contrast you are virtually the Lone Ranger, believing in the legitimacy, rightness, and righteousness of your cause, just as Albanese similarly believes in his.

But be assured: you’re not alone. Millions of Australians want to do the right thing, but aren’t convinced that the Prime Minister is giving them the right choice. At great political risk, you are offering an alternative and, most importantly, have stuck out your neck to ensure a respectful national debate or alternatives, when too many in power or influence want to shut it down.

So, Peter, while we don’t get on these days, I still want you to succeed. If we as a nation get this referendum wrong, the consequences for all of us, and especially our Indigenous brothers and sisters, could set back the cause of Aboriginal reconciliation and advancement for a generation, even if Albanese and most of his supporters are indeed acting in good faith and heart.

For what they’re worth, these are my suggestions about how to go from here. Good luck!