By Dominic Giannini and Paul Osborne in Canberra

A LEADING expert says the proposed wording of the constitutional change for an indigenous Voice will ensure parliament decides the legal effects of its representation.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Thursday released the details of the referendum question and a new section in the constitution recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the “First Peoples of Australia”.

A key concern has been that decisions might be delayed or taken to court because representations by the Voice must be considered by government decision-makers before they can validly make a decision.

However, constitutional expert Anne Twomey said the addition of words saying parliament can make laws with respect to “matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures” was important.

“They are intended to permit parliament to legislate about the effect of the voice’s representations, so it is a matter for parliament to decide whether the representations of the voice must be considered by decision-makers when making administrative decisions,” she said.

The bill will be introduced to parliament on Thursday and then head to an inquiry which will take public feedback.

Once the bill is passed a referendum is expected between October and December.

While the Nationals party room has already come out in opposition to the Voice, the Liberals have yet to decide whether to oppose it as a party or allow a conscience vote.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton wants to see the legal advice from the solicitor-general.

“People want to know the detail, how practically it will work and as importantly as anything, the considered legal advice around what the words will mean,” he said.

He added that he was supportive of constitutional recognition of indigenous people.

Mr Albanese insists the Voice will not be a legal minefield, saying the issues had been canvassed by the referendum working group and a number of eminent lawyers.

“This form of words is legally sound and it is the form of words that all of us have confidence will gain the strongest possible support from the people of Australia at the referendum,” he said.

“The words that are being put forward are even stronger … (than) that was necessary if you look at the legal advice that was there.”

Nationals leader David Littleproud said having a Voice would spark “lawyers at 10 paces” and make government decision-making confusing.

Law Council president Luke Murphy said it was a “necessary and overdue advancement of the right of First Nations peoples to self-determination”.

“The right to self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law,” he said.

Saying no to the Voice brings other problems