Opposition MPs have been criticised for misrepresenting comments made by two former High Court judges on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The comments were made by former Chief Justice Robert French and former judge Kenneth Hayne, both strong supporters of the Voice, as part of evidence given to the parliamentary inquiry examining the proposed Voice model.

In their comments, the pair dismissed concerns about whether the Voice would affect the function of federal government.

However, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, a Liberal Party report based on that inquiry selected only parts of their responses to suggest Mr French and Mr Hayne held concerns about the Voice.

Numerous speeches made by Opposition MPs including defence spokesperson Andrew Hastie, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor, Forrest MP Nola Marino, Moore MP Ian Goodenough, Bowman MP Henry Pike, and Flinders MP Zoe McKenzie used the cherry-picked report during recent debates about the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Bill.

Mr French told the joint select committee examining the Voice to parliament that the duty to consult the Voice would be constructed by parliament and if "for some reason or other, that became unworkable, the parliament could amend the law accordingly".

"Given the immense range of matters in which there might be an interaction between a proposed policy or practice and impacts on Indigenous people in one way or another, to imply a duty to consult across all of that range would really make government unworkable. I don't think the High Court is in that business," Mr French said.

However the Liberal Party report said Mr French gave evidence suggesting if it were mandated for the Voice to be consulted it would "make government unworkable".

Similarly, Mr Hayne's evidence was misquoted in the report.

"The very argument that requiring consultation, advanced notice and delay would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government, and the executive government in particular, demonstrates conclusively – and I use the word 'conclusively' deliberately – why you do not make the implication suggested. You do not make implications in a constitution that will bring government to a halt," Mr Hayne said.

Mr Hayne also dismissed the argument that a duty to consult the Voice would render the government "untenable" as parliament would be responsible for designing laws to underpin the Voice.

However, based on Mr Hayne's evidence, the Liberal Party report said he had provided "evidence that a duty to consult the Voice would 'disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government' to such an extent that it would 'bring government to a halt'".

When questioned about the apparent mischaracterisation of Mr French and Mr Hayne's remarks, Mr Hastie defended both the report and his speech.

"I assess risk by severity as well as likelihood," he said on Tuesday.

"Mr Hayne's evidence to the committee sought to downplay the likelihood of a duty to consult by claiming it could bring government to a halt. When it comes to assessing the severity of constitutional risk, we will take him at his word."

The remaining five MPs pointed to the report when asked why they had made such remarks about Mr French and Mr Hayne's perspectives.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the report and subsequent speeches were a "flagrant" misrepresentation and "deeply disappointing".

"Mr Hastie should immediately apologise to both these distinguished former High Court justices and, as soon as Parliament returns, stand up, apologise to the House and correct the record," Mr Dreyfus said.

"Mr Hayne and Mr French, along with so many other constitutional experts, have made their views absolutely clear: the proposed amendment is constitutionally sound and would enhance our system of government."

The Australian Greens said the Liberal MPs had misled both the parliament and the public.