Cathy U’Ren

@GlennontheGC @LittleDrumJude One of the world’s best people. Happy Birthday Jude! 🙌🙌🙌

Today is @LittleDrumJude’s birthday. My wife is amazing and inspiring and just awesome. She’s an exceptional friend and partner, and a wonderful stepmum. I’m going to celebrate her for the day, and take a break from work. Walks on the beach and a delicious lunch are planned. (ps. The office is still operating with Linda checking the phones.)

@sbxr Judging by the desperate volume of anti-Voice tweets from you, I beg to differ …. 🤷‍♀️

@CathMayorMayNot I don't rent constitutional race privilege. It is not me with the problem.

Ok. How about from the Shadow Indigenous Affairs Minister who spent over a decade working on the Voice on behalf of the LNP and then quit in disgust when Dutton declared for NO? He knows more about the process and the politics than most. How bout him? x.com/kenwyattam/sta…

Where have we heard those arguments before? 🤔 #yes23 #Yes23au #voteyes #UnionsforYes

@sbxr @Fobic10 @complex_maths Goodness me you are desperate to be right aren’t you? No matter how ludicrous your point!

@CathMayorMayNot @Fobic10 @complex_maths So senators have no right of access to the executive. Legislation could wipe it out ? Not so with the voice... That might be called a right.

So the Voice will have a right that elected members of parliament do not have. Given we do not know how many people will be elected/appointed, under what terms, what qualifies them (ATSI I assume, what progress !), will all members of the voice get this access that elected officials don't etc ....why would we do this ? I will #voteno as I prefer the content of character compared to the colour of skin and think implementing constitutional race privilege is a BAD idea; but, if this progenitor of bad ideas makes it into the constitution where we have: - 16 sections, 1040+ words in Part 3 (Lower House); - 16 sections, 1800+ words in Part 2 (Senate); - before we get to part 4 and part 5.... (Both House and Powers) .... why is it this body will get a right that elected officials do not and then without ANY guard rails?

@sbxr @Fobic10 @complex_maths Haha! Getting desperate for a gotcha here Steve. It was from the Parliament of Australia website where information on Senate Committees (which you raised as a comparison) is found.

@CathMayorMayNot @Fobic10 @complex_maths So the thing you posted was NOT from the constitution? So not relevant to the point at hand... you do like posting red herrings.

@sbxr @complex_maths @Fobic10 The High Court is ultimately used to remedy any legislative conflict. So? Any law or line of the Constitution can be put before the High Court for a ruling when parties disagree on its meaning or application. That is completely standard. Why is it somehow scary here?

@complex_maths @CathMayorMayNot @Fobic10 The high court will be used to remedy the conflict. Legislation cannot limit 129.2.

@sbxr @Fobic10 @complex_maths Excellent point Steve! These powers are enabled by the Constitution and then defined and agreed upon by Act of Parliament, just like the detail of the Voice will be 👍

@CathMayorMayNot @Fobic10 @complex_maths What section of the constiuttion is that in ?

@Fobic10 @sbxr @complex_maths The Constitutional Amendment states what it can do. Here you go:-

@CathMayorMayNot @sbxr @complex_maths Doesn't it? It hasn't even been created and you're stating what it can and can't do..

@Fobic10 @sbxr @complex_maths I completely agree. Steve compared it to a Senate Committee so I was commenting on that …

@CathMayorMayNot @sbxr @complex_maths And it will not be a Senate Committee so using that as reference is redundant

@sbxr @complex_maths @Fobic10 This might help Steve. rmit.edu.au/news/crosschec…

@CathMayorMayNot @complex_maths @Fobic10 Yes, and if anything under that limits 129.2 then it will be arbitrated by the high court. If you think a court will take legislation over black and white words in the constitution then that would be a poor bet.

@sbxr @Fobic10 @complex_maths The Voice doesn’t have any of these powers 👇

@sbxr @Fobic10 @complex_maths LOL. Every member of a Senate Committee can draft a Bill to put before Parliament to actually make a law Steve. That’s a shed load more power than making representations. Seems you’re trying really hard to make something very simple sound sinister. It’s just not.

@sbxr @complex_maths @Fobic10 Parliament *will* limit how in accordance with 29.3 “the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

@complex_maths @CathMayorMayNot @Fobic10 So if parliament limits (tries to) how it can make said constitutionally defined representations, what is the remedy for that ?

@sbxr @Fobic10 @complex_maths No. It cannot modify the fact that the body can make representations. That’s the point Steve. The Parliament CAN modify the composition of the Voice, who is on it and how they get there. The Parliament controls all of the detail.

@CathMayorMayNot @Fobic10 @complex_maths Parliament cannot modify 129.2.

@FarCoughCunce @sbxr @complex_maths There is a lot of detail about how it *might* work but the actual detail is to be decided by Parliament. There’s no sneaking. We’re simply being asked to vote on whether the body can exist or not.

@Fobic10 @sbxr @complex_maths But it’s the Parliament that gets to decide who is on it and how they get there. The Parliament can change that at any time. We’re just voting on whether it gets to exist or not.

@CathMayorMayNot @sbxr @complex_maths Not scary? ATSI worked so it was abandoned, now we create a new body without knowledge of how Exactly it will work, enshrine it so it can't be removed? it could become a completely corrupt department that only benefits the selected and it would be impossible to remove? Smart.

@sbxr @complex_maths Bit of a stretch there Steve. Members of Parliament have the right to introduce Bills which actually make laws in the country. The Voice has the right to make representations. The whole point of that is that it can’t be legislated away. It’s not scary.

They will have the right to access the executive and make representations. What good a right to make representations without an obligation to listen (not act), how can you make a representation without warning, information and access ? The executive is the governor general down to an any public servant, This is a s129.2 right that cannot be legislated away by 129.3 (without one hell of a barney in the high court).

@sbxr Here they are Steve. (One guy didn’t fit in the snip, but yes he’s white too).

@sbxr Intentionally missing the point obsessing about a technicality here Steve. There is no “racism” against ATSI peoples to point at. There didn’t need to be. It wasn’t written for them. What makes you so angry when I point out that it was written by white men for their benefit?

Utterly disingenuous. Those wanting the Voice want a demonstrably marginalised people to have a say in how they are treated. So that in the future, there is at least a chance that the “content of their character” might be the only thing they are indeed judged by.