This post is a fortnight old. Yawn.

Foxy,

I have read the report including all the tedious waffle that you quoted.

Perhaps you can provide the section which guarantees that this cannot be used by activists to extend the impact far beyond the homilies given by Labor?

shadowminister,

I'm not going to argue any further. To me the
report is quite clear in the boundaries set.
You obviously have made up your mind. Fair
enough. I won't waste any more time trying to
change it.

Foxy,

Either you haven't read the document or you cannot find any protections against activist judges.

This is where the referendum should include the exact changes to the constitution rather than flowery words and intentions.

shadowminister,

The following link will clarify things for you:

http://theconversation.com/no-the-voice-isnt-a-radical-change-to-our-constitution-200056

Hi Foxy,

Don't fall for this guys three card trick. First he claims to have read the entire report and all the attachments, highly unlikely. Then he demands you provide evidence that something that is not in the report is not actually there. What we do know is the guy has a racial bent that will never agree with any kind of equality for Aboriginal people, don't need a report for that!

SM, name those you claim are ""activist judges" and provide evidence they are as you say.