Modern CEOs have more money than sense when it comes to the voice

Prepare for a massive big corporate funded “yes” referendum campaign designed to convince Australians that “voting yes” for the Voice is the right thing to do.

Given the unprecedented sums being raised from the big corporations plus the unions, and combining with the pro-yes media and voting method decisions from the Electoral Commission, the ALP’s “yes” drive is in a wonderful position to win.

When they agreed to contribute enormous sums to ALP coffers, few if any chief executives realised that what they were actually doing was setting up a body with the power to make the public service unworkable and slash government productivity.

But most now understand the dangers involved in what they are doing, but their decision is made. CEOs hate admitting mistakes.

Some of them realise the irony of conducting campaigns to stop the ALP government slashing corporate productivity via industrial relations legislation, while taking actions that are likely to foster slashing government productivity.

The predecessors to today’s generation of chief executives might express views about issues but when it came to elections they took the long-term view and either stayed out of funding or contributed to both major parties.

They knew eventually that the opposition would form government.

Today, CEOs think short term and are assuming the Coalition will never get back to power.

Coalition politicians are stunned that their “friends”, the big corporates, would turn on them so viciously on issues that involve public service productivity. They conclude is that the current generation of CEOs have more money than sense.

Removing the words “from the heart” from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agenda document makes it easier to understand what the Voice body agenda involves and grasp how the Voice body aims to achieve that agenda.

The carefully prepared 26-page agenda document brings together the views expressed in some 13 dialogues held around the nation covering a great many views in reaching its conclusions.

One item on the agenda will stun most non-Indigenous Australians.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders do not -- repeat not -- want their historical role simply recognised in the Constitution. They want the Voice body to deliver much more:

• Any Voice to parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process.

• A treaty will be the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government.

• 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.

• The Voice body must also be supported by a sufficient and guaranteed budget, with access to its own independent secretariat, experts and lawyers. It was also suggested that the body could represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples internationally.

Qantas unveiled its new livery on three aircraft, in support of the Voice to Parliament referendum. Picture: Qantas

In summary Australia would be two nations with their own legal systems and international relations perhaps including defence.

The agenda document, minus “the heart”, is not a document of mutual respect but rather is full of hatred and vitriol towards non-Indigenous people both past and present.

Alleged ongoing “injustices and discrimination” are combined with descriptions of past “genocides, massacres, and wars”.

The chief executives who have seen this agenda say that there is no way non-Indigenous Australians would ever agree to such an agenda and the Voice referendum terms will not deliver that agenda.

But the constitutional amendments were brilliantly drafted to fool top executives and others whose mind is on other the things.

Many CEOs point out that the Voice is subject to parliament and it can only make representations to parliament. It is not a decision maker. And of course that it is true.

But the powers of the parliament over the Voice are subservient to what is in the constitution. And the key power of the Voice is not over the parliament but over the public service.

The proposed wording of the constitution gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the right to make representations to the public service. And in the wording, all that power does not limit the representations to matters that solely impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Unless the High Court decides otherwise the representations to the public service can cover almost any issue.

It is reasonable to speculate that the High Court is likely to decide that those representations will need to be considered by the public service.

Public servants may therefore need to inform indigenous people of pending decisions and receive their views or, alternatively, public servants may make a decision and then refer it to the Voice body for review.

Either way we are looking at the potential of tens of thousands of representations.

That power clearly has the potential to make the business of government unworkable by greatly elongating the decision-making process.

In theory, politicians that don’t go along with Indigenous representations may be “punished” via their departments being totally clogged in consideration requests.

Endless representation queries may have the potential power to tear down politicians and institutions firing them into a “treaty”.

On the other hand, the High Court has the power to limit such a strategy.

Alternatively, the Voice body of its own may limit its representations to matters that solely concern Indigenous people. But if that strategy is adopted then the aims of the agenda will need to be discarded.

And at least on the surface it would seem that the Voice referendum words were skilfully drafted by those driven first by aims in the 26-page Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agenda and secondly by the need to obscure the power of the body that non-aboriginal Australians were creating.

The culmination of the agenda — a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), land, water and resources rights plus Aboriginal law — is not what most non-Indigenous Australians think the referendum is all about.

I am not going to speculate on the amounts of money involved any reparations but they are likely to be truly enormous.

Because big corporations will have played a vital role in achieving the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reparations agenda, their corporate assets might be required to fund those reparations.

That sounds extreme but in any country if CEOs use the power of their money to play political games, they are taking large risks.

If I was a 2023 CEO I would follow the example of my predecessors and put the same amount of money behind the other side and do so immediately.

But I am not a 2023 CEO.