The agenda is to ultimately remove the British Crown from Australia, as it is the crown that has stolen the land and its organizations, like courts and police, who is oppressing aboriginal children and men.

These views are being taught in schools and University to increase the guilt and present a sanitized view of aboriginal history and culture, so that children and new migrant citizens believe repatriation means returning the lands to the rightful tribal owners and their Mob. The Labor party education strategies sees this as the way to change societies views, and when the time is right will hold a Republican Referendum and install aboriginal elders as heads of State, with a new constitution.

The following link explains what the Indigenous Voice to
Parliament is, what does it mean and what it's all about:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/14/what-is-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-what-does-it-mean-explained-referendum-campaign

OOOOps - sorry, my mistake.

Here's the link again:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/14/what-is-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-australia-what-does-it-mean-explained-referendum-campaign

Foxy,
I can't see any reference to how the Voice will deal with the racist activists in its ranks ?

Dear Indyvidual,

What racist attitudes?

Dear Fester,

You had earlier said: "The fact that the Voice will give a democratic privilege to one group of people over another is reason enough to reject it. So while there might be speculation as to what sort of world it will be, no amount of Orwellian doublespeak can convince me that I will be making Australians equal by creating inequality."

But in answering BP you say: "The government could just legislate the Voice. This would save $300 million and would allow voters to see how it works in practice. If it works well then a referendum could be proposed if it were thought necessary."

Why would you respond in this fashion when you clearly don't support a Voice at all?