Meanwhile, the junior Coalition party, the Nationals have renewed their opposition to the Voice, with concerns that proposed amendments could make the advisory body more powerful than "any Cabinet minister".

After months of consultation and speculation, Mr Albanese on Thursday revealed the proposed wording of the question that will be put to Australians, between October and December this year, to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

But Mr Dutton remains unconvinced after hearing the draft wording, and is still asking for more details and for the Solicitor General's legal advice to the working group.

"The Liberal Party has been consistent also from day one in saying that we want to contemplate and consider what it is the government's putting forward," the Liberal leader told reporters in Canberra.

"We will look at the pros and cons here, cases for and against, and then we would make our decision as to whether we supported the voice or not."

Earlier, Mr Albanese stood beside key Labor Ministers and members of the referendum working group to unveil the wording of the question, which read:

"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 proposed alteration?"

Mr Albanese also revealed the draft constitutional amendment which contain the words that the Voice would provide advice to the executive government of the Commonwealth.

"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 - and deliver the best possible outcomes in the years ahead," Mr Albanese said.

"The constitutional provisions we are releasing today enshrine two fundamental principles: Recognition and Consultation."

Part of the proposed draft amendments include the design principles for the Voice, which stipulates that it would be community-led, gender-balanced and include young people.

The Voice would also be transparent, work alongside existing organisations, and would not deliver programs or have a veto power.

But Mr Dutton said he wanted the Albanese government to demonstrate how the Voice could deliver any outcomes for Indigenous communities.

He said the Prime Minister was yet to answer any of the 15 questions he had been asking around more details on the Voice, and was asking for Mr Albanese to publicly release legal advice on wording from the Solicitor General.

"Because, in the absence of that advice, and in the absence of detail from the Prime Minister, how can the Australian public make an informed judgement about a very, very important issue?" Mr Dutton said.

"So I think the detail is required. It's essential that the Solicitor General's advice is released, and then Australians can make an informed decision."

But Nationals Leader David Littleproud said he feared a Voice could lead to "lawyers at 10 paces" as the interpretation of power could be determined by the High Court, not by Parliament.

He said an unelected Voice could bring "more confusion" rather than deliver practical needs for disadvantaged Indigenous communities.

"So the question has been posed is a one that is adding another layer of bureaucracy, there's over 1000 indigenous representative bodies to governments around this country already," Mr Littleproud said.

READ MORE:

"What we're saying is you need a better bureaucracy not a bigger one.

"This is about making sure there aren't Canberra solutions, but local solutions, ones that are designed by local communities, local indigenous elders to make sure that there is buy-in and you actually get results."

Referendum working group member Thomas Mayo pointed to aspirations of the 2017 Uluru Statement of the Heart which called for the "establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution".

Mr Mayo said a new chapter nine in the Constitution would do "something simple and profound".

"In its simplicity, it is giving Indigenous people who have been ignored and treated poorly for far too long a Voice so that we may improve our lives," Mr Mayo said.

"It is profound because it includes over 60,000 years of continuous heritage and culture in our constitution, a recognition from that the moment we say 'Yes', we are collectively as an Australian nation the longest continuing civilisation on the planet."