Balancing business and politics is nothing new for members of the Business Council of Australia but this time they must also manage the expectations of a Labor government intent on pulling them into this historic debate.
The Prime Minister has already made pretty clear he’d like the corporates to fall in behind and actively encourage a “yes” conversation inside and outside their organisations.
He spoke at length about the voice at the BCA’s annual dinner in Sydney on August 30, a move that underlines the extent to which business leaders might need to consider their relationships with Canberra as they decide on their stance on the Voice.
Unlike the 1999 referendum for a republic when the then Howard government funded yes and no campaigns, the government may not do that with the voice. According to UNSW constitutional expert Professor George Williams, in 1999 $15m of public money was divided equally among the official Yes and No campaigns and a “neutral” campaign ($4.5m) was also funded.
But Williams says the Referendum Machinery Act prohibits funding of this kind. Williams says: “1999 was possible because a special one-off amendment was made to the Act, which has now lapsed. A similar amendment would need to be made for the upcoming voice referendum if public funding of this kind were again to be made.”
Not surprising perhaps that Anthony Albanese is keen to see corporates do their bit.
But for business, backing the voice is a far more complex issue than same-sex marriage or climate change, for example, and one that divides Indigenous commentators.
This week, this newspaper published an opinion piece from Ben Wyatt, the former West Australian treasurer who sits on the boards of Rio Tinto and Woodside, urging business to back the voice.
On the same day, the Financial Review carried a piece by Nyunggai Warren Mundine, the director of the Indigenous Forum at the Centre for independent Studies, suggesting instead corporates “sit down with Indigenous people who oppose the voice and try to understand why”.
The chances are none of those who will meet online on Monday as part of the BCA’s Indigenous engagement task force will oppose the voice – either now or at a referendum. There’s too much at stake for any business that cares about its reputation with employees and customers for that. Rather, the question in the next couple of years will be how far they go in backing the constitutional change – and perhaps, for a few, whether they can stay neutral and stay credible.
Danny Gilbert, chair of the task force, says businesses see the voice as a social responsibility. Gilbert, who is managing partner of law firm Gilbert + Tobin, says corporations want to establish their credentials as good corporate citizens, and this means engagement with “longstanding and unresolved societal problems”.
He says: “The long-term viability and success of corporations is dependent upon their ability to operate in a society that is fair and where all citizens have equal opportunities to participate in the life of our nation.
“In my experience, Australian corporations will understand that many of the intractable problems facing Indigenous communities are crying out for better solutions. They understand Indigenous Australians need to have a more influential say in the policies and laws which impact their daily lives – policies and laws supposedly designed to overcome intergenerational poverty, shockingly low health and educational outcomes, structural unemployment and the very limited opportunities Indigenous people have to develop their own wealth.
“Corporations have a vital role to play because they have large staff and customer numbers to whom they can speak … In other words, corporates can support conversations on the ground between Australian citizens and this is where it will matter and make a difference.”
Gilbert rejects the idea that supporting the voice is “woke or an easy ESG win” for business. “It is so much more than some shallow feel-good gesture,” he says.
Last year, well before the voice became a first-order issue, a BCA survey found solid support from members. Sixty of the BCA’s 128 members responded to the survey, with 98 per cent reporting engagement with Indigenous issues, and 44 per cent backing the voice. Gilbert believes support will be higher now but says that, like everyone, business is waiting for more detail.
He says those already backing the voice vary in their activities: some are developing information bases for staff; some have statements of support in their offices or on websites; some are developing online tools to help staff become familiar with the issues.
The big four professional services firms are among the strongest supporters. EY chief executive, David Larocca says: “EY Australia fully supports a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament in order to bring about real change to secure the social, political and economic future of First Nations peoples; KPMG says in its latest impact report that it will work to educate its employees in the lead up to the referendum; PwC has announced it supports the voice; Deloitte says on its website it is working to incorporate key elements of the Uluru statement “into the way we engage with the Indigenous leadership team at Deloitte.”
Gilbert warns the voice must not be seen as an issue “owned” by corporate Australia. Business should be a facilitator, disseminating information and encouraging conversation, so it “becomes a real movement of the people”.
“It’s unfinished business,” he says. “Nobody thinks it’s a complete silver bullet, but it’s an incremental step along the way to a better relationship, that’s for sure.”
The deeming rate is a joke
Investors want incentives in next week’s federal budget, but the first big move from the government will look a lot like a pay-off.
Karma has come for Mark Carney – and Canada
This embodiment of globalism finds himself championing national sovereignty as Trump eyes a North American union.
On Monday, when 60 of Australia’s top corporates meet to discuss their approach to the “voice” to parliament, they will juggle the demands of some stakeholders that they campaign for constitutional change and those who’d rather they didn’t.