Sky News - Stream The Voice Debate Channel for Free

His_Holiness on 14/08/2023 - 10:44
Last edited 14/08/2023 - 10:46 by 1 other user

Moved to Forum: Original Link

As the nation leads up to the historic referendum later this year, Sky News The Voice Debate channel covers all aspects of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Comprehensive, up-to-the-minute news updates, delivering coverage and content across all sides of the debate can be streamed right here on 'Sky News The Voice Debate'.

Mod: "Live channel: Sky News The Voice Debate" is a limited release channel, released as free last month and will be always free until the end of it's broadcast/existance. See guidelines.

Free Software/Websites

Related Stores

Sky News Australia
Sky News Australia

Comments

            • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 16:56

              @jv: More tosh. Equity takes action

              • CtrlAltSpoods on 14/08/2023 - 17:02
                +4

                @Protractor: Equity - so fighting racism with more racism is now meant to be a good thing?

                Idk but it sounds to me like a pretty good way to keep everyone divided.

                • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 17:35
                  +1

                  @CtrlAltSpoods: All the lies about what powers the Voice will bring forget that it's an advisory body to the fed exec. Most of the fera mongering hides the fact that state govts have the say on most of the issues. Health,land,educations etc. And the liars in the right wing camp know that whichever leaning of govt is in govt can reject whatever the Voice body submits. Voice takes nothing away. It's not racist.

                  I do accept some people choose not to acknowledge that, because frankly it's not about the constitution or anything else. It's about refusing to consider indig ppl as equal, or to even attempt to fix our toxic legacy.

                  The opposition were for recognition and voice before the legislation went into the HoR. Now they are using every lie and and several "sold out", First Australians to sabotage reconciliation.
                  Ken Wyatt quit the Libs because they lied to him, broke their promise and kicked all his work into the long grass. Divide & destroy is what Nampajimpa Price has bought into. As for Mundine. LOL .
                  His actions will haunt him. Not for the first time. The guy back-flipped from the ALP to the Lib side of politics in a nano second. When the Voice referendum is done, both of those ppl will be thrown in the bin

      • OrangeBJ on 15/08/2023 - 14:59

        Keeping fares high for long due to monololy/duopoly to subsidy for that. Happy?
        I know you're a typical Ozb with 1M+ in saving. So shall we concern?

  • this is us on 14/08/2023 - 17:25
    +2

    Not getting into the debate but if the government supports the voice why don't they just do that instead of again spending lots of money to recognise that someone has the right to something? Similar to gay marriage, this should be a government decision and making stupid people vote is unnecessary and populist.

    We don't have to "legitimise" a decision by referendums if we elect members of the parliament to actually make these decisions.

    Why don't they ask our opinion about the increase in the interest rates, or approval of Qatar Airways to operate more flights (corruption benefiting Qantas), and many other decisions that they make every single day without giving a shit about what we think?

    All these discussions about people's rights are ridiculous, polarise the society, and could be avoided if they had the balls to just choose what they think is best for everyone, as they do for everything else.

    • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 17:40

      You just stepped right into the debate

      You conveniently brush over the 'recognition' part. It requires a referendum, and if the LNP claimed to be 'for ' that. Now that the dog whistling has unleashed the race based pushback the Nats have walked away even further. And they were already under a rock on another planet.

      They did ask your opinion on economic management, but you voted in the Scomo experts and they wrecked the joint

      Discussions about peoples rights ridiculous? I'll let that sink in.

      • brendanm on 14/08/2023 - 18:21
        +2

        dog whistling

        That's gonna be a "yikes" from me.

        • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 18:22

          You need a better dictionary

          They should change the term to 'Howardising'. Same thing
          Wiki nailed it

      • this is us on 14/08/2023 - 18:43
        +2

        I don't think we are speaking the same language here as you seem to have maliciously interpreted what I've written.

        Let's try again…

        I am not getting into the debate because I am not addressing the yes or no discussion. I am highlighting that voters are not capable of making technical or important decisions that affect the life of minorities, or everyone else.

        Examples of referendums that are ridiculous and should never happen are:

        Should we allow black people to vote?
        Should we allow gay people to get married?
        Should we allow children in airplanes?
        Should we allow latinos to become Australian citizens?
        Should we allow lesbians to enrol in university?
        Should we allow women to drive?

        We shouldn't be voting or discussing these things because it's not up to society to decide when we've elected a government to make decisions for everyone (including people who didn't vote for them).

        If you assume that "they did ask" my opinion on economic management, they also asked my/your opinion about everything else, and we've voted for a party to make decisions. One of them was elected and is supposed to make decisions. Otherwise, we don't need a parliament or even the supreme court… We can just do quizzes for everything that has to be decided in the country and one person to make sure we follow everything that we decide.

        There are economy/health/tourism experts who make decisions without consulting the population. And there are social or justice experts who make decisions in their fields without consultation.

        Therefore, the average population should not be discussing if a group of individuals/citizens should have voice or not.

        When are we going to vote about LGBTQIA+ voice? When are we going to vote if migrants from Colombia should have the same voice? Because (I hope you know that) they don't, even if they become citizens.

        You seem to be pretty limited yourself when you assume I voted scomo based on what I've written. That's precisely the polarised discussion I've mentioned, and the kind of average people who have no capacity to reflect on important issues that affect other groups.

        • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 19:09

          Not malicious anything. For a start if you are of an opinion we should not be asking this question now, 240 years after the appropriate time,, then you're just supporting a sanitised view of history.
          This thread is about Sky spewing out more of the colonial race based power base spin. Division by fear & lies, and this time around the joke is on the AEC, as they in affect are irrelevant to our democracy if they can allow lies to be told on voting info given to voters on such a crucial issue
          The big corps and ( mainly white) multinational overlords see a threat to the $$$ status quo, and they know if the justice part is forthcoming, scrutiny will rightfully fall on the cost to those disadvantaged for those 240 years.
          Bad news for them. International courts would be all over that a long time before this country would even consider it. So if the Voice fails I reckon the case goes offshore for scrutiny.

          We already have a say on everything else you are talking about. By ballot. We have to face our history. Colombians and LGBTQI+ and all the other grenades are just smoke bombs. "Won't somebody think of the kiddies"

          The High Court has paved the way for the country to face it's own wanton historical demons, and a few contemporary ones, and it will be a good thing when we do. For everyone.

          We know based on history if this govt legislated the voice, the other side would gut it as soon as elected. The reason we don't have a voice or acknowledgement (in the constitution) is a deliberate and perverse contradiction. The LNP adhere to the Howard worldview of total denial on any lights shone on our actual history. To the point of expunging or sanitising it from the curriculum every time they have a chance. Funny though, how sky fairies get a front row seat ,innit.

          I'd be stopping direct religious influence on our politicians before , questioning the public rights to input. The main point here is First Australians should be given the same rights in law as Maori are in NZ.
          That's what Albos referendum should have sought IMO.
          After all NZ was almost Australian once.

          "the kind of average people who have no capacity to reflect on important issues that affect other groups."
          Yes, only clever people like you should have a say. This country hasn't reflected TRUTHFULLY for 240 years. Give it a go

          • brendanm on 14/08/2023 - 20:43
            +2

            @Protractor: Failed reading comprehension yet again, sad.

            • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 20:59

              @brendanm: Says the non indigenous bloke who happily played the 'skin in the game' card, but has no idea of the impacts of dispossession.

              • brendanm on 15/08/2023 - 07:19
                +2

                @Protractor: Yet another case of poor reading comprehension 😂

          • RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 21:05
            +1

            @Protractor: International organisations that arent elected by the people telling people what to do? You must be kidding. Dictatorship by who?

            As for a referendum protecting the voice, how can that be so. We have been told it will be appointed by the Parliament. Hence it wont be that all powerful, so nothing to fear, like imposing new restrictions on various aspects of Australian life.

            But at the same time we are told like you say this stops another party cancelling this voice.

            2 things to be aware of.

            1. If the Voice is effective for our indigenous, then why would any party get rid of it? Today many of the voices up to know havent been effective, and they still exist. You dont need to change the constitution to appoint a Voice.
            2. If its appointed by Parliament any new government can unappoint it, and appoint new members to the Voice. Both parties can stack the Voice with those who are supportive of the government. Now if elected it can't be manipulated in the same way.

            Its already incredibly divisive, so unless it gets up with a large majority what is being gained.

            Implement the Voice ,find out what works, show the country this, then if necessary have the referendum, that way everyone has an interest in making sure it works and has verifiable outcomes that improve indigenous lives everywhere.

            If elected it cant be

            • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 21:12

              @RockyRaccoon: Careful Brendo may give your esssay a D-

              The voice will almost certainly fail because of our social structure slide backwards ( especially morally ) since 1967 , by way of remnant WAP migration policies.

              • RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 21:22
                +1

                @Protractor: The Voice will only fail unless people can see how it will work and why its absolutely necessary to have it in the constitution, as well as telling us why adding it to the constitution will concretely mean it will work to improve lives.

                Hence my preference to prove it before enshrining it.

          • this is us on 14/08/2023 - 22:52
            +3

            @Protractor: You are limited and repetitive. You are part of the problem. It's exhausting.

    • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 16/08/2023 - 18:02

      Not getting into the debate but if the government supports the voice why don't they just do that instead of again spending lots of money to recognise that someone has the right to something?

      Umm, because in order to change the constitution you need a referendum. Perhaps somebody should go back in time and tell Gough Whitlam.

      • Protractor on 18/08/2023 - 12:26

        and they're pontificating about a constitutional requirement they have no idea about , surrounded by others who are born again patriots, until the moment the referendum is over.Mission accomplished. Status quo preserved.

        A no vote just legitimises the specialist anti indigenous racism this country is renowned for.

        • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 18/08/2023 - 16:13
          -1

          Umm… what??? Could you please make some actual sense?

          It's a terrible idea that will not make anyone any happier least of all the aborigines. It might however make some very silly white people feel better about themselves for 5 minutes or so.

          • Protractor on 18/08/2023 - 16:37

            @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: ' the aboriginies.?

            New here are we?
            I agree voting NO is a terrible idea.
            A defeated referendum doesn't rewrite history.It just ripples it further out from our isolationists mentality.
            It's one thing to deny history or lie about it, but another to pretend the world doesn't know the truth and isn't watching.

            By making sense , you mean agree with you? Yeah nah

            • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 18/08/2023 - 17:15
              -1

              @Protractor: No i just mean make an actual argument that is coherent.

              Like I said it will solve nothing and be used for all the wrong reasons. Anyone with any sense can see that from a mile away.

              Being treated as equals is the way forward.

              • Protractor on 18/08/2023 - 17:34
                +1

                @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: The whole paradigm is broken because of a colonial genocidal structure, whereby STILL, 240 years later,the impacts thereof are denied.
                You can't treat the people as a scapegoat,football,target and problem and lift them to 'equals under the law'. NEWSFLASH: In the actual law indig ppl are singled out. It shows in every state.
                Acting suspicious, is a very handy code used more often as a spurious reason to target indig ppl.

                You can't have a coherent argument UNLESS you accept that the impacts of genocide,dispossession,colonisation and contemporary prejudice are still impacting via multiple fronts and on every hour of every day.
                You only need to look which parties support NO, to know their true motives.
                Thus it has always been.

                • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 18/08/2023 - 17:48

                  @Protractor: You are talking like this has never happened to anyone else's ancestors in all of history.

                  Everyone's ancestors got beat at some point by somebody elses ancestors. How far do we go back in history in order to equalise things? Will it make anybody any happier? Will it solve any of the current problems?

                  Will it solve white hate? Ofcourse not, we still have a strong need for that.

                  240 years later. Exactly. Long gone in the past. Time to move on to something better. Certainly not this.

                  • Protractor on 18/08/2023 - 19:18
                    +1

                    @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: You're just looking for an excuse to justify voting for the status quo because you're a beneficiary. Nothing new at all about that. Denial is cheap.What happened here was a home grown holocaust.

                    • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 18/08/2023 - 19:24
                      -1

                      @Protractor: Like I said before we are all beneficiaries of one thing or another. None of it will ever be solved by this. Im not denying anything.

                      Will the Aborigines pay reparations to each other for their past warring and genocides?

                      Time to move on.

                      • Protractor on 18/08/2023 - 19:27

                        @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: Bad news for you.

                        I get you don't want to step up, (that's the default non -indig world view) but at least get out of the way

                        • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 18/08/2023 - 19:56

                          @Protractor: How can I admit fault for something I was never a part of?

                          We cant even confirm exactly what took place and what didnt because it was so long ago.

                          How long will we need a special indiginous voice? When will the problem be fixed? What will it take?

                          • Protractor on 18/08/2023 - 20:05

                            @OBEY YOUR MASTERS: You are a part of it.
                            And what's more your actively trying to derail repairing the impact. You're not alone.

                            Self. Egoism. Self absolution. Enjoy it.

                            Like I said. You're gaming this thread for base reasons and your calling card exposes your outward attitude to the issue.
                            Find another football, upskill

  • WreckTangle on 14/08/2023 - 19:53
    +2

    Not much to debate. Either you support the voice, or you’re a racist.

    • ozhunter on 14/08/2023 - 19:55
      +4

      If that is the case, I'd choose the latter 😂

    • brendanm on 14/08/2023 - 20:42
      +4

      Truly ridiculous take.

    • RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 21:16
      +1

      Hmmm this ornery soul, hates being lectured to by some unknown who cant even discuss things. If it wasnt so important to understand what we are doing I would like to react by voting NO, however that doesnt help anyone. In the meantime I'll keep questioning before finalising my vote.

      Just like when Qantas and any other corporate that promotes yes or no, just makes me want to avoid their businesses where possible.

      However I'll keep my upcoming flight, but will spend more time next time looking for alternative carriers.

      As for unknowns, cant do much more than feel sorry they have to use hateful labels in a discussion.

      • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 21:27

        Sure,sure.Of course there's a chance , you'll vote YES.

    • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 21:19
      +2

      You nailed it. It takes nothing from any non indigenous person, and yet look at the extremist push-back.

      • RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 21:33
        +1

        Yes it does, it can mean more of the same as now. So it doesnt help indigenous people, which takes from everyone in this nation.

        As you seem to know so much, what about some insights to the points I am querying

    • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 16/08/2023 - 18:54
      -1

      Not much to debate. Either you support the voice, or you’re a racist.

      You're a very silly person aren't you?

    • HangryCakeStore on 01/09/2023 - 15:44
      -3

      The person screaming racist is also racist, the whole event is such a waste used to devide people over unimportant crap

  • jimbobaus on 14/08/2023 - 21:17

    Covers all aspects of the debate

    Lol. That’s funny.

    • RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2023 - 21:30
      +1

      Did you look at it?

      It covered a lot. Enlightening for both cases, I admit I was inclined to say No, now I am questioning that decision.

      As I indicated above, I think we need to have an effective and proven Voice that improves indigeous lives. Past actions havent overall worked. Chopping and changing, while at the same time leaving other things coast along without evaluation, have failed.

      But I still cant get anyone to explain why the need to a constiutional change, when the Voice is going to be appointed rather than elected. Appointment will be by parliament. Then it will advise parliament. Tell me why I want to hear and you can be reappointed. Thats not going to help much more than whats there now.

      • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 21:59
        +1

        Let me help. How is telling the truth ( as per the High Court terra nullius finding ) , in our constitution, an impediment to the lives of non indigenous ppls lives?
        Ergo why do NO voters have a problem with the 'actual' truth being enshrined in our birth certificate?

        • [Deactivated] on 14/08/2023 - 22:14
          +3

          Why can't you ….you know …. just be genuine ?

          • Protractor on 14/08/2023 - 22:36

            @[Deactivated]: LOL.
            When they said bring a plate, they didn't mean , bring the same thing as everyone else. .Or worse,an empty one/

            Given it's your first and only post on this topic,, I'll take your comment as my 'genuine' doesn't align with yours.
            I'm OK with that. No really.I am. REALLY OK.

            • [Deactivated] on 14/08/2023 - 22:48
              +3

              @Protractor: I mean, be authentic with your comments.

              It's like you're wrapping everything up with hyperbole that it gives the impression of insincerity & makes it difficult to follow your argument at times.

              • brendanm on 15/08/2023 - 07:27
                +4

                @[Deactivated]: It's almost like a bot, insert as many buzzwords as possible to a bunch of nonsensical rambling.

                • Mad Max on 15/08/2023 - 08:49
                  +2

                  @brendanm: Protractor is a paid government media advisor tasked with supporting government policies on ozbargain. He supports ANYTHING the government tells him to support. It is his job.

              • Protractor on 15/08/2023 - 10:10

                @[Deactivated]: If this
                https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14160725/redir
                is not manageable to read and understand, for you or anyone else, then it's not the commenter that has the problem.
                And if you can see hyperbole in there, you must reading it between the lines. Your 'dig' about being 'genuine' was anything but an attempt to draw attention to the structure of the comment. You do you

                • [Deactivated] on 15/08/2023 - 11:48

                  @Protractor: It was an overall observation.

                  But hey, if this is your shtick then wishing you well with it.

            • Almost Banned on 15/08/2023 - 10:03
              +1

              @Protractor: The unmitigated gall of someone who has been a member of this site for five minutes and has posted thousands of comments BUT NOT ONE DEAL, criticising someone else for their first comment…
              That kind of freeloader mentality explains a lot…

              • Protractor on 15/08/2023 - 10:16

                @Almost Banned: I was unaware of these new forum rules. Thanks for bringing them to my attention

  • mattyman on 15/08/2023 - 10:15
    +2

    Sky News? Nah, gross. That's yucky.

  • GlorybetoGod on 23/08/2023 - 09:26
    +3

    Voting No. Don't want another esg policy
    (rebranded communism)

    • m0tyrider on 04/09/2023 - 10:39

      Can you elaborate?

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 29/08/2023 - 22:58
    -3

    there is no benefit for non-indegnous people to support the voice but there is potentially a lot of costs - ie pay the rent, reperations etc why anyone would vote yes that doesnt see a clear benefit is beyond me

    it is 100 percent a No for me the PM can smile and lie all he wants i think the bulk of Australians have kind of realised the bloke is a massive lier and is full sh-t

  • HangryCakeStore on 01/09/2023 - 15:46

    This whole voice thing felt like it was just stuffed in our faces when nobody cared.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join