Federal cabinet met on Monday night without a single formal cabinet submission to consider.

Amid concerns about the bypassing or breakdown of normal cabinet processes and growing mistrust within the Abbott government, the formal business before cabinet on Monday night comprised a minute relating to infrastructure, a letter on a social services issue, a general political discussion and reports from the chairs of backbench committees.

Formal cabinet submissions provide departments and ministers with a crucial opportunity to consider and prepare for a cabinet debate on a subject. But under the Abbott government they are sometimes missing, or missing key details. And some within the government are concerned that its policy agenda is looking “thin”.

Last week the submission regarding Australia’s new post-2030 emissions reduction target did not contain the proposed figure (26% to 28%). The actual number was left blank. This was circulated separately just before the meeting.

That meeting also did not discuss options to resolve the same-sex marriage issue, with Tony Abbott then surprising colleagues by calling a lengthy joint party meeting for Tuesday night, which came to an inconclusive decision and has resulted in open cabinet divisions ever since about the best way forward.

Despite ministers, including the attorney general, George Brandis, declaring publicly that a referendum was not necessary or desirable and that a vote should be conducted by plebiscite, Abbott did not rule out either option on Monday.

“It should be a people’s choice. This is something that has been the way it currently is for thousands of years, hundreds of years, it’s a very big decision to make a change like this,” he said.

He and senior ministers say the government is proceeding with its plans to promote economic growth and job creation.

A breakdown in proper cabinet processes was one of the charges against Abbott when he successfully stared down a leadership spill motion in February. It came after he made the hugely unpopular “captain’s pick” to confer a knighthood on Prince Philip without reference to either cabinet or the party room.

After that vote, which he described as a political “near-death” experience, Abbott promised better consultation with both cabinet and backbench colleagues.

But in May cabinet ministers were again furious after they were presented with a proposal that the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, should be given the power to strip citizenship from foreign fighters. Dutton was backed by Abbott but other ministers argued the plan was likely to be unconstitutional. A full account of the cabinet dispute was leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald.

A slightly pared-back version of the bill has now been presented, but a line-up of leading constitutional lawyers has told a parliamentary committee it is still very likely to contravene the constitution. Abbott said after the leak that there would be “political and personal consequences” for anyone caught leaking from cabinet.

On Monday cabinet was also due to hear from the chairs of some backbench policy committees, part of Abbott’s promise after the February “near-death experience” to be more consultative with the broader party.

The Rudd government was also accused of failing to adhere to proper cabinet processes, with many decisions taken by the “gang of four” ministers without reference to other ministers. A former minister, senator Stephen Conroy, accused Rudd of having “contempt” for his cabinet.

When submissions are not circulated in time for the pre-cabinet deadline, issues can be still brought for discussion “under the line”.