With a growing focus on the blatant racism of much of the No campaign ahead of the Voice to Parliament referendum, yesterday’s announcement by Qantas of its support for the Yes campaign would have been welcome among those who prefer First Nations peoples silent.
Qantas fits the “elite” narrative about the Yes camp peddled by the far more elite No campaign. And as the most complained-about company in the country, one that has become a byword for rotten service, lost baggage, mistreatment of its workers and profiteering, its opining about an issue far outside its remit rightly invites scepticism, if not abuse.
If it ran flights on time and didn’t randomly spray baggage around the country, illegally sack its workers or rip off customers, parading as a billboard for one side in the referendum might be a little less offensive.
Why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese thought it was a good idea to join outgoing Qantas CEO Alan Joyce in this frolic yesterday is anyone’s guess — and does nothing to undermine the growing perception that this government is far too close to an airline that appears to hate workers, competition and its own customers and which is a significant contributor to inflation.
What does it mean for a corporation to support a Yes vote? It can’t speak on behalf of all of its workers, or even all of its executives, or its shareholders. It doesn’t get a vote in the referendum. It’s not a person, however much corporations would like to have the rights of persons while avoiding any of the responsibilities that come with personhood. At best it’s an advertisement to potential customers, workers and investors, of the “values” the company holds under the present board and management, though that could change in an instant with a change of CEO.
Joyce said yesterday that Qantas believed “a formal voice to government will help close the gap for First Nations people in important areas like health, education and employment”. Fair enough. It’s right. But why does Qantas believe that that is important? According to Joyce’s media release, it’s because it “continued the national carrier’s long commitment to reconciliation and, more broadly, the notion of a ‘fair go’”.
See, Joyce doesn’t get too far before the simple act of explaining why Qantas supports the Yes campaign trips him and Qantas up. Where was the fair go for the baggage handlers illegally sacked by Qantas? For the customers treated like dirt? For passengers gouged to lift profits? If Qantas is so committed to a fair go, why does it lobby the politicians it is over-friendly with to keep competitors out?
Like nearly all large corporations, Qantas’ business practices are the antithesis of a “fair go”. Maximising shareholder value and fairness are inimical. Shareholder value is maximised by reducing costs, pushing down wages, maximising revenue, investing as little as necessary, paying as little tax as possible, undermining competition and using influence to manipulate politicians to delivery regulatory and taxation favours and a broader “positive business environment”.
What’s left over after that is selective performance of non-financial “fairness” consistent with the principles of Western capitalism around freedom — individual freedom, free global movement of people and money, freedom of opportunity, freedom from harassment or abuse — and some bells and whistles seen as necessary for environmental, social and corporate governance purposes and avoiding criticism at dinner parties: lip service to climate and the environment, avoiding obvious investment with egregious human rights abusers or criminals, respect for Indigenous cultures and peoples.
The hope is that this performance of social fairness distracts from the core economic unfairness corporations — especially multinational corporations — are engaged in as their core activity. It’s particularly designed to distract from the link between economic unfairness and the social themes on which corporations feel safe to campaign: global capitalism and large corporations contribute directly to Indigenous disadvantage and dislocation, especially in extractive industries — behold the irony of Rio Tinto supporting the Voice.
The performance of social fairness by Qantas is no thicker than the Yes paint slapped on three of its planes. But at least the chattering racists of the No campaign will be happy.
