Investors put heat on big business over backing for Voice

The chiefs of some of Australia’s biggest companies will be confronted at their annual general meetings by small shareholders demanding answers on how bankrolling the Voice Yes campaign aligns with the firms’ core business.

Corporate giants such as Qantas, Wesfarmers, Rio Tinto and BHP have poured millions into the Yes campaign, which has been tapping donors as it tries to reverse falling support ahead of the October 14 referendum.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese with then-Qantas chief Alan Joyce. Corporate giants such as Qantas, Wesfarmers, Rio Tinto and BHP have poured millions into the Yes campaign.Credit: Louie Douvis

Australian Shareholders’ Association chief executive Rachel Waterhouse said 120 volunteer retail investor representatives would use upcoming AGMs and scheduled meetings with company chairs to seek explanations about how Voice donations aligned with firms’ strategies and core purpose.

Waterhouse said investors had been writing to companies about their concerns, highlighted by a survey her association conducted in July showing 70 per cent of 300 respondents opposed donations to either the Yes or No side.

Her members were “good people who wanted their company to do the right thing” but many, Waterhouse said, questioned the appropriateness of donating to causes involved in politically contested debates.

“We will be asking those questions,” she said.

“They just don’t want to see funding of Voice campaigns, which is different from their general view about companies giving to charities for things like floods or fires.

“They are generally comfortable with that but they’re not comfortable with companies – not all of them, but the majority – making a donation to a Yes or No group.”

But prominent Telstra and IFM Investors director Ming Long, who leads the Directors for the Voice group, said boards had a duty to act in the best interests of their firm and were backing the Voice after considering the views of employees, customers and Indigenous stakeholders.

“As directors, we have to consider what’s in the best interest of the organisation and every director will bring their life experience and diversity of thought to that board,” she said.

As the Voice campaign reaches its final weeks, Coalition figures have warned that big business has eroded its influence by picking sides in what has turned into a heated political issue.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton last week suggested support from Qantas – which has been under fire amid allegations it sold tickets for already cancelled flights – would be a negative for the Yes campaign.

Many companies, peak bodies such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and sporting codes including the AFL and NRL have announced their support for the referendum, even as polling has shown a steep decline in support for the Voice in recent months.

The Directors for the Voice group ran full-page ads in national newspapers earlier this month declaring support for the Voice. The effort frustrated strategists in the Yes camp, according to sources speaking anonymously to detail private thinking, as the campaign was fighting a perception, fanned by the Coalition, that the reconciliation effort was elitist.

Opposition Indigenous affairs spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price warned corporate leaders that the Coalition would eventually return to government.

“The corporate sector needs to understand that Australians want their services, not their political opinions,” she said.

“The latest polls show a drop in support for the Labor government corresponding with a drop in support from the Voice, so it might be time to reevaluate their strategy.”

Senator Paul Scarr, a leader of the Liberals for No group, said the link between the traditionally pro-business Coalition and corporate Australia would be harmed as a result of the referendum.

Australian Shareholders’ Association CEO Rachel Waterhouse says many members are questioning the appropriateness of donating to causes involved in politically contested debates.Credit: AFR

“It will diminish their ability to make constructive and persuasive arguments in future with respect to their core business,” Scarr, a former company secretary of ASX-listed miner PanAust, said.

“Tens of thousands of shareholders of Qantas, Rio [and] BHP are actually in the No camp. So how can it be that donating shareholders’ money to one side or the other can be in the interests of all shareholders?

“Boards and companies need to deeply reflect on these issues.”

Rio Tinto has a policy prohibiting donations to political parties. Asked why the firm put money into a campaign opposed by the opposition, a firm spokesman said: “We have rigorous governance and due diligence protocols for all aspects of our business, which were followed in this instance.”

BHP stressed it had been a supporter of the Voice before the referendum campaign began and said in a statement that “while BHP supports a Voice to parliament, we recognise the upcoming referendum is a vote that will be taken by the people of Australia and we understand and respect that there are diverse views.”

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.