An inquiry into the Voice proposal has landed. It has just one recommendation

A report looking into the wording of Labor's Voice to Parliament bill has delivered just one recommendation.

A parliamentary inquiry has recommended Labor's Voice bill be passed in full. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch

KEY POINTS:

• A parliamentary inquiry into Labor's Voice to Parliament wording has handed down its report.
• The Labor-majority committee has recommended the wording be passed unamended.
• But dissenting Liberals have blasted Labor's approach.

An inquiry into Labor's Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal has made a single recommendation to parliament: pass it unamended.

But the inquiry was unable to strike a unanimous verdict, with dissenting Liberals attacking Labor for a process they say left the committee "hamstrung" by a lack of detail about the Voice.

The Labor-majority committee, which heard from Indigenous leaders and legal experts over five public hearings, handed down its final report on Friday afternoon, rubber-stamping the government's suggested referendum question:

A proposed law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this alteration?

The bill, outlining that question, must pass parliament before the referendum is held later this year.

The report, tabled by committee chair and Labor senator Nita Green, found the approach answered the requests outlined in Uluru Statement from the Heart and was "constitutionally sound".

After decades of consultation over Indigenous recognition in the constitution, Senator Green described Labor's bill as the "culmination of this extraordinary path".

"Yunupingu called for 'an honest answer from the Australian people to an honest question'. This is an honest question; it is now time for the Australian people be given the opportunity to provide an honest answer," she said.

Much of the controversy centred on the Voice's expected ability to speak to "executive government" directly, with the inquiry hearing fears the provision could prompt a wave of litigation in the High Court.

• Key architect answers your questions on the Voice
• When the Voice referendum could be held
• What we know about the Voice so far

That concern was played down by advice from Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue, while Yes proponents argued the Voice would be most effective if it was able to speak directly to the decision-makers sitting at the cabinet table.

"The Committee considers that the provision ... is appropriate, fit for purpose as per the wishes of First Nations peoples, and should not be amended," the report said.

Senator Andrew Bragg was among the dissenting voices who took aim at the government's approach. Source: AAP / Paul Braven

A dissenting report signed by three Liberal members - senators Andrew Bragg and Kerrynne Liddle, and MP Keith Wolahan - confirmed the Coalition would not attempt to prevent the referendum from being held, accepting "it is right that Australians will have the final say".

But they warned risks associated with Labor's wording were "unquantifiable" and would be "permanent" if enshrined in the Constitution.

“There is no defensible reason why the government established a committee to consider a permanent change to our country’s constitution with only six weeks to receive submissions, hold public hearings around the country, and report back to the parliament on the legal effect of the constitutional change," they said.

The trio labelled the government's decision to legislate details after the referendum "extraordinary", saying the committee had been "hamstrung" by a lack of detail over how the Voice would operate.

"The parliament should never again be asked to consider a constitutional change that is put forward without detail, without process, and without a proper understanding of the risks," it said.

"More importantly, the Australian people should not be asked to vote on a serious constitutional change in those circumstances."

Senator Bragg described the Voice as a "good and fair idea", but said the majority of the committee did "not undertake the detailed analysis which was expected".

"There are mixed views on the degree of risk, but it cannot be ruled out under the current wording," he said.

Greens Indigenous Australians spokesperson Dorinda Cox, a member of the committee, welcomed advice from the Attorney-General's Office which said the Voice would not hamper future efforts to negotiate a First Nations treaty.

"We are however disappointed that the final bill did not take the obvious extra step and refer to the First Nations of this country," she said.

Political calculations surrounding the question were excluded from the report, with the committee saying the wording's impact on the success of the referendum was not in its remit.

A statement from Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney welcomed its conclusion.

"It also reflects the overwhelming consensus of constitutional and legal experts," they said.

Tony Abbott speaks during a parliamentary committee hearing into the Indigenous Voice referendum at Parliament House. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch

Labor has already successfully passed its referendum machinery bill, modernising the rules surrounding referenda in Australia, after allowing pamphlets outlining arguments for and against the Voice to be distributed.

This week's budget allocated more than $300 million towards the referendum over three years.