Once again, I give credit to the ABC in telling a story that shows how government programs have been working with aboriginal communities for health improvement (as I showed last week has also been happening with rheumatoid heart disease.) This time it's improvement in trachoma rates.
On the pro-Voice side, it's being held as an example of why 'listening' works, and the implication being that the Voice will increase the amount of listening.
On the 'the Voice is completely unnecessary' side, we have the fact that, well, we didn't need the Voice to get these improvements. Now, I really do think Warren Mundine is a flaky guy, but his point on this story is pretty valid, even if he goes over the top in the claim as to how much money a Voice organisation is likely to cost:
Warren Mundine, one of leaders of the No Campaign, said the success of trachoma demonstrated that Indigenous people already had a voice and what was really needed was better coordination of services.
"Through the Voice process, we're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars when that money can be better spent actually doing similar things that this health project did," he said.
He said the problems of housing, health and education were largely state government responsibilities that would not be solved with a federal voice to parliament.
While I would agree that the "no" side has the nuttiest people on it, I also am somewhat amused as to how on the "yes" side you have so many on the arts and entertainment industry showing themselves as stereotypically completely captured by emotional arguments that are full of hyperbole. I forget who I saw this morning saying "if you vote no, you want the indigenous gap to get worse". It's like they refuse to think more deeply about matters beyond sloganeering.
No comments:
Post a Comment