70% of shareholders believe companies should not be funding the Yes campaign
While some big names are saying Yes, many of Australia’s top 300 companies have been overly cautious about stepping into the Voice to Parliament fray.
While you expect the Murdoch press to rip into the Voice to Parliament at every opportunity, it was a little surprising to see Paul Sakkal from the Nine newspapers produce this piece recently suggesting hordes of small shareholders were set to attack companies backing the Yes campaign during the upcoming AGM season:
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.
The Australian Shareholders’ Association (ASA) has long had a commendable policy opposing political donations by public companies, and produced this policy in 2019 covering whether public companies should get involved in so-called “social issues”.
The latter policy position is fairly nuanced and the ASA provided this explainer in the latest edition of its monthly magazine, Equity. After asking members about their views of companies donating to, or supporting, charities and social issues, it said:
The results confirmed broad agreement for companies supporting charities that align with their purpose, strategy, and objectives, but strong opposition to throwing weight behind any political causes.
Obviously, organisations will occasionally take stances on social issues, and there may be good reasons for them to do so. ASA is supportive of companies who take a well-communicated stance, where it aligns with the best interests of the company. These need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
However, ASA will not be taking a position on the Voice referendum beyond supporting respectful debate, as we believe that this is a matter for individuals to decide for themselves.
Despite what the Sakkal article suggested, don’t expect to see volunteer ASA monitors manning the barricades opposing the likes of BHP, Rio Tinto, Qantas and Wesfarmers making donations to the Yes campaign.
Besides, none of the prominent corporate Yes supporters are holding their AGMs before the October 14 referendum date, and once it has been voted down, as seems likely, the caravan will have largely moved on. There are no known ASX300 companies funding the No campaign or recommending a No vote. Then again, strong British corporate support for the Remain campaign didn’t stop Brexit and it probably won’t get Yes over the line next month.
As an ASA member and former director, I would certainly be concerned if the peak body for retail shareholders formally opposed the likes of BHP and Rio Tinto donating to the Yes campaign when good relations with Indigenous communities and access to their land is clearly good for their business. Besides, it’s the right moral call to make.
The political right has been significantly outplayed by the left when it comes to AGM activism in recent years, particularly on the issue of climate campaigners putting up shareholder resolutions pushing greater carbon emissions transparency and stronger targets for reductions to align with the Paris Climate Accord.
That said, the Voice campaign may well be the issue that gets individual shareholders fired up at AGMs. The ASA survey of 300 retail shareholders concluded that 70% believe companies should not be funding the Yes campaign.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) is formally backing the Yes campaign, and there was an interesting full-page advertisement in The Australian Financial Review last month featuring the names of 985 “directors” personally supporting the Yes campaign, describing it as “the way forward to a stronger, more inclusive, and united Australia”.
There weren’t too many rich listers amongst them and it probably didn’t help including former James Hardie chair Meredith Hellicar in the group.
Indeed, the female ASX chair cohort seemed more prominent with people such as Margaret Jackson, Rebecca McGrath (OZ Minerals), Diane Smith-Gander (ZIP, etc), Elana Rubin (ex-Afterpay chair), Ilana Atlas (ex-Westfield director and Coca-Cola Amatil chair) and Karen Wood (South32 chair) all stepping up.
The prominent current male chairs included Michael Chaney (Wesfarmers), Damian Roche (ASX), Michael Ullmer (Lendlease) and Paul O’Sullivan (ANZ), but where were Solly Lew, Gerry Harvey, Kerry Stokes, Peter Costello, Catherine Livingstone and any number of other prominent chairs?
The proposition is a straightforward acknowledgement and advisory committee proposal, hence the No campaign is talking about everything except the very modest actual proposal.
That said, Anthony Albanese arguably blundered by not legislating the details of the Voice first, which would have neutralised the fearmongering about uncertainty over the lack of detail. However, future parliaments are in total control of the Voice. It could be one person in a Penrith sharehouse with a Twitter account, and they can only opine on matters relating to the federal government, not public companies, state governments or the council structures they create.
That said, only about 20% of Victoria’s 79 councils have formally endorsed the Yes campaign, but that’s a better strike rate than across the top 300 public companies, many of which have proved to be overly cautious about stepping into the fray.
This article was first published by Crikey.
