I have never heard of it being a 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament'.

If this was the plan for the Voice, then all we would really be doing is adding a representative with less sway in the parliament than an Independent, think Kate Chaney, Helen Haines. They can get things done, but their resources are limited. A 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament' wouldn't have the bandwidth for the amount of projects they'd be expected to take on, on day one.

To be clear, per the constitional proposal, i think a 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament' could fit the constitutional requirement, as it doesn't impose any organisational structure requirements on the Voice. The constitutional language, (aka what us plebs are voting on), is kept vague deliberately to allow change over time, but hard to abolish altogether. Thats how i've come to understand it.

I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that it will be a non voting position for an indigenous person in parliament to directly address parliament.

This is misleading, the Voice is not one person nor is it "in parliament". It is a permanent advisory body that can make recommendations to Parliament and/or government. If you are confused on the difference, just look at the name; it is a Voice to Parliament, not a Voice in Parliament.