Legal experts worry the words 'executive government' could lead to Voice referendum court battles

Constitutional lawyers remain divided over the potential for the Voice to Parliament to lead to government decisions being caught in a quagmire of High Court legal challenges. Key points: The inclusion of "executive government" for the proposed constitutional amendment has prompted concerns An expert says the current draft constitutional amendment leaves room for the "No" campaign to capitalise on uncertainty Referendum Working Group member Megan Davis says the concerns are "disingenuous and overblown" The federal government's preferred wording for the proposed constitutional amendment to enshrine an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, unveiled on Thursday, retains the words "executive government". "Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus wanted to add the words 'the legal effect of representations' that parliament could make laws with respect to them and that was rejected by the working group and then the Albanese government. University of Sydney Professor Emerita Anne Twomey — who was also appointed a member of the Constitutional Expert Group — said the new wording would allow parliament to legislate the effect of representations to it, achieving the same result as the earlier set of words proposed by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. Professor Megan Davis — a constitutional lawyer and member of the First Nations Referendum Working Group — has previously labelled concerns over the potential for High Court challenges "disingenuous and overblown".