BHP’s donation to the voice will anger the Coalition

BHP has donated $2m to the ALP’s Yes campaign in the coming referendum. Revelation of the donation will deeply anger the Coalition which is spearheading the No campaign.

In my view – but not BHP’s – the BHP donation is in direct contradiction to the company’s stated policy of not donating money to support political issues.

Like Qantas, BHP’s actions are likely to be debated in the parliament. I asked BHP for a comment and their full statement is recorded below.

In essence, it believes that while there are different views on the matter, “relationships with traditional owners and other Indigenous stakeholders are fundamentally important to BHP and our business”.

“Indigenous stakeholders expected BHP to advocate for a voice given we operate on Indigenous peoples’ lands and work closely with traditional owners,” the firm states.

BHP is one of a number of major companies to support the ALP in the Yes campaign and it is multi-billion corporations that are playing a big role in the enormous television and print campaign that the ALP is mounting to support its Yes campaign.

The Coalition in Opposition is not getting the same support, so is white hot with anger that companies would take sides with their money in such an intense Australian political debate.

Under the heading “Interacting with Governments” BHP makes this assurance to shareholders, customers and governments around the world:

“We maintain a position of impartiality with respect to party politics and do not make political contributions or expenditure/donations for political purposes to any political party, politician, elected official or candidate for public office in any country”.

BHP’s Oak Dam site in South Australia is one where it worked with traditional owners. Picture: Supplied

The referendum campaign is being conducted by the electoral commission and both major parties have different stances. It is “party politics” at its worst and BHP’s donation thrusts the company into the heart of the debate.

The above governance statement is vital for a companies like BHP that operate in many countries. For example, in politically unstable countries over the decades there have been major changes in government and because BHP didn’t contribute money to any of the forces in the political battles it has been able to operate aside from politics and keep its mining assets when regime change.

Given Australia is a democracy, it is likely that at some time the Coalition will gain office and will not forget its view that BHP broke its rules to play party politics.

The BHP statement below says that it supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart – which presumably is the shorter statement that the Prime Minister relies upon.

An earlier statement when made also claimed to be “from the heart” reflects the Indigenous peoples’ view that the voice body should be designed to support and promote a treaty-making process and that the treaty is to be the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government.

The agenda statement says a treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

In its statement, BHP says that it supports the voice body to make representations “to parliament”.

The referendum also provides for the voice body to make representations to the public service on almost any subject, which is where some voice planners would appear to be creating the power to make it very difficult to govern the country without a treaty.

I should add that senior people in BHP are able to make statements in political issues like the voice. It is the allocation of money that is governed by the charter.

One alternative for BHP is to ask the ALP’s Yes campaign to return the corporate money and individual board members and management people who feel strongly about the issue can make personal tax-deductible donations.

Meanwhile, many in the Coalition are considering that if they regain office, the role of the large corporations in the referendum political campaign will require it to consider higher company taxes for those with large profits. That’s what happens when you play party politics.

The fact that two of Australia’s largest companies, Qantas and BHP, face governance issues about topics which are likely to be subjects of parliamentary debate means that the long governance statements made in annual reports from large corporations may not be getting through to detailed board considerations and corporate monitoring.

I asked BHP about the donation, and without mentioning the donation, they made this statement:

“We invest our voluntary social investment funds on matters that are integral to the ongoing success of our business.

“Our relationships with traditional owners and other Indigenous stakeholders are fundamentally important to BHP and our business. We operate on the traditional lands of Indigenous peoples across Australia and around the world.

“We partner widely with Indigenous communities and have long-term agreements with traditional owners, who are critical to BHP’s ability to start new projects, expand existing projects, and to BHP’s operational continuity.

“Our relationships with traditional owners are, as a result, central to our business success, and the creation of long-term value for BHP’s shareholders.

BHP has been a longstanding supporter of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which reflected the views of a majority of Indigenous peoples in Australia.

“We support Traditional Owner views that an Indigenous voice to Parliament is an important next step towards improving the lives and aspirations of Indigenous people and communities. BHP is also a strong supporter of broader reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

“We recently engaged with many representatives from Traditional Owner groups and Indigenous businesses, organisations, communities and peak bodies to develop our new Reconciliation Action Plan which was released in June. This confirmed that Indigenous stakeholders expected BHP to advocate for a voice, given we operate on Indigenous peoples’ lands and work closely with traditional owners.

“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 and perspectives on this issue and any decision. Our aim is to support informed, respectful discussion within BHP and more broadly in the community about a voice, why it has been proposed and what it is seeking to address.”