![Any proposed changes to the voice to parliament are legally sound, the prime minister says. (Lukas Coch/AAP PHOTOS) Any proposed changes to the voice to parliament are legally sound, the prime minister says. (Lukas Coch/AAP PHOTOS)](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-feed-data/6f1369e0-7cad-4a65-a749-cdab403c4dca.jpg/r0_0_800_600_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Australians have been assured constitutional changes enshrining a consultative Indigenous body are legally sound.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
"The best legal minds in the country ... have worked on this," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters in Canberra on Thursday as he unveiled the question about an Indigenous voice that will be put in a referendum at the end of this year.
The voice will initiate representations to the government and parliament, as well as respond to specific questions from both.
"We have words here that put beyond doubt the power of the Australian parliament to legislate on the broad scope of the functions, powers," Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said.
The voice will not have veto powers, nor will it administer programs, administer money or be able to grant any special rights.
It will be subject to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and members can be removed or sanctioned for serious misconduct.
The government considered legal advice from a range of constitutional experts, including former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne and high-profile law academics Anne Twomey, George Williams and Megan Davis.
Mr Albanese said while the proposed referendum question could be altered by parliament, it would take a lot to convince him to change the wording given the extent of consultation on it.
The legislation is expected to go to the Labor caucus on Tuesday and to parliament next Thursday.
Parliament will also decide the voice's final make-up if the referendum passes.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud have been briefed on the proposal, but both have called for the solicitor-general's advice to be made public.
Mr Dutton said Australians needed to be informed about the potential consequences of what they were voting for.
"In the absence of that advice and the absence of detail from the prime minister, how can the Australian public make an informed judgment about a very, very important issue?" the Liberal leader asked.
Shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser said there was a precedent for releasing the legal advice - which is not usually made public - set by former Labor prime minister Paul Keating during the republic referendum.
"If the government wants to build confidence that they've got the right set of words, they should provide people with the advice," Mr Leeser said.
Coalition senator Jacinta Price said the body would be able to challenge decisions made by the government in the High Court if it didn't agree with how its advice was considered.
"There is no guarantee that they will absolutely not be challenged in the High Court," she said.
"This will then put strains on the rest of the nation for decisions being made for all Australians.
"I would suggest this is now walking on very dangerous ground."
Australian Associated Press