Does Australia's proposed indigenous voice to parliament carry "authority"?

This article describes the proposed agency in sufficient detail to show that it would communicate indigenous concerns directly to parliament (that is, give advice) but would not have authority over parliament's decisions. The description seems clear to me. If I were Australian, I would vote yes to that.

However, the article says that changes demanded by right-wingers would have "reduced the authority of the voice’s advice." The use of the word "authority" in regard to it makes me wonder if there is a crucial misunderstanding at work here — if the words "advice to parliament" would be interpreted as implicitly giving the voice some sort of authority over some aspect of parliament's decisions.

That would make non-aboriginals second-class citizens in Australian democracy.

If I were Australian I would want an explanation of what "authority" means in this context. Is it a real issue or just a poor choice of words?