The progressive ‘no’ argument has percolated in the background of the Voice debate. The main proponents include people such as Lidia Thorpe. What exactly does it entail?

There are several key arguments. Which argument is emphasized depends on the person. The overarching claim is that the Voice does not go far enough, there should be a treaty immediately, and the Voice might be a mere veneer. In so doing, it gives the government an excuse to wash its hands of the issues while presenting the façade of consultation.

We should start by noting that there is an extreme version of the progressive ‘no’ case, which is that there should be a system of dual sovereignty or indigenous only sovereignty. That does not appear to be mainstream. Some argue it. But it is extreme and does not characterize most advocates. It is also likely a nonstarter. It is implausible that Australia would establish separate criminal justice systems, for example. There is also no chance of Australia simply ceasing to exist.

Subscribed

Treaty now

First, the progressive ‘no’ camp suggest that the Voice is inadequate and that there should be a treaty instead. Given that the Uluru statement indicates that the Voice would precede treaty, this appears to rest on the assumption that a Voice would be a bandaid and a panacea. As such, the progressive ‘no’ argument is that the Voice will be seen as sufficient and will halt momentum.

I am not sure that I agree with this argument. Voice advocates have indicated that they intend to use the Voice to bring about treaty, or financial reparations. These include people such as Megan Davis and Thomas Mayo. Perhaps the assumption is that those advocates will lose their zeal after the Voice exists. Or, that the Voice will push for an ineffective treaty.

Voice as a rubber stamp

Second, the progressive ‘no’ camp suggests that the Voice might be a rubber stamp that might be coopted by the government. The assertion here is that the government could appoint members to the Voice. Thus, they would appoint friendly people that they could control. Now, suppose the government wants to improve resources activity within indigenous areas, the government could solicit the Voice’s approval as a rubber stamp to make it appear as if they had done adequate consultation. This rests on the premise that the Voice – and its members – will not necessarily represent all indigenous Australians given the diversity in circumstances and viewpoints.

This argument is a theoretical possibility. Certainly, if the Voice’s members are appointed, then the government would presumably appoint people aligned with it. This could be under both the ALP and the Coalition. This may not happen: we do not know whether the members will be appointed or elected at this point. The government could put a project to the Voice. Approval from a friendly Voice body could then give the government cover to undertake a action that is unpopular with an indigenous community.

The main caveat to this is that the government would likely still need to consult with the specifically impacted community. This is because failure to do so would likely be judicable. Perhaps the government, in defending a case, could argue that they consulted the Voice. But, if the Voice itself undertook inadequate consultation, it is unlikely to help the government. Whether this is realistic is another question; how many remote communities have the resources to challenge a government decision.

Non-representative

Third, a related argument is that the Voice cannot possibility represent all indigenous Australians. The standard no argument also raises this issue. The concern is that people do not have confidence that the government will structure the Voice in a manner that properly considers all the indigenous communities.

One can see a parallel with our parliamentary system. Suppose we only had the house of representatives in parliament. Here, the large states, such as NSW and Victoria, have more representatives. This would enable NSW and Victoria to dominate Tasmania, for example. The attempted remedy is to have the Senate, where all states have the same number of representatives. The system

The rebuttal is that the government may well do so. At this point, it is simply a risk assessment: how likely do you think it is that the government will design the Voice well? How likely is it that the government will design it badly?

Many of us will have been associated with bodies that advocate for the opposite of what we believe in. Many of you will be members of a trade of a profession. These often have peak bodies. How much does the leadership team represent you? When the peak body takes a position, do all members agree with it? Do even a majority agree with it? It could plausibly be the same with the Voice entity.

Those appear to be the core ‘progressive no’ arguments. There is some overlap with the standard ‘no’ argument. What is clear is that there are many concerns with the Voice and people are right to be skeptical.