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.
Still voting yes in spite of Qantas’ support for the yes vote. But it’s not helpful for the case
AGREE MIKE
Also agree Mike. Qantas can also keep their schmaltzy Australiana music too!
One could be forgiven in thinking the Voice referendum has been designed to fail.
Is Albo so far out of the loop he doesn’t realise how on the nose Qantas is with the Australian public. Note to labor: privatisation has ruined/is ruining our way of life, what are you going to do about it! We all know the answer of course…
What’s the latest on Rundle? Any updates there?
Until he returns, Not Another Zack from me.
Oh dear, what can the matter be, 2 Worms so far this week stuck in the lavatory with no comments allowed .
Given the weak-as, cut’n’paste, by-the-numbers waste of electrons it cannot be contentious topics on which we paying plebs. cannot be trusted to follow the PC house style or party line.
You are persistent and consistent!! a fair question- come on Guardian, tell your readers!
Albo’s poor judgement calls keep piling up, wearing his badge of disconnect with ordinary people like a mark of honour.
I don’t believe this is bad judgement, at least not in the sense he is making a mistake. He has decided, very consciously and deliberately, to take Labor squarely onto the centre-right territory where the Liberal Party used to be, and this is all part of the strategy. Albanese is only interested in those voters who used to be solid for the Liberal Party but don’t like the way it has gone over to the far-right and crazy stuff; in other words, the same voters who like teal candidates. Albanese does not worry about ‘traditional’ Labor voters, it’s not as though they are likely to go over to the Coalition, no matter how much to the right Labor goes, and thanks to mandatory exhaustive preferential voting they cannot stay at home during elections either.
I’ll take Teal.
Let’s hope the voting public will take away that cosy, two party zone and vote green or independent.
Or matching where many above median or baby boomer voters are, including rusted on Labor who can be quite conservative, not just socially, but subjected to an information environment dominated by a RW oligopoly or cartel promoting LNP/IPA talking points.
Holy crap mate, that happened over a decade ago.
The Teals appeared to capture the broadly sensible Liberal voters who would never vote Labor because of (ironically) unions but have been completely turned off by the likes of Abbot and Morrison.
They’re not chasing votes anymore, it’s who they are.
Well, Albanese has only been Labor leader recently, so when discussing what he is doing as leader it’s the recent events that figure. Sure enough those paying attention decades ago noted,
But still so many who don’t vote Coalition try to convince themselves that Labor is at heart social democratic, or even more progressive. For example, you’ll have seen all the comments before, during and after the last election declaring that Labor has a cunning plan to not see through the Stage Three tax cuts. Just how many times do Albanese and Chalmers have to tell them otherwise before the message sinks in?
He should look out to his left – the Greens are making a lot of sense lately
You used to hear this reasoning a lot among right-wing young Labor types: the swing votes are in the centre, compulsory voting and preferential voting means left votes that go to the Greens come back to the ALP anyway. There are flaws with that argumentation: if you let your primary vote drop too much, you are in trouble. Look at European social democratic parties that never came back from neo-liberalism and lost their base entirely. And if you can’t enthuse your own traditional base, why should other voters care about you?
You are correct Andrew. In France, the old Socialist Party has all but disappeared, the politics dominated by a new centre-right party + far right. In Germany, the old SDP is in government, but with 25% of the vote.
No-one would accuse the conservatives of not knowing what they want. Forget history – if Labor don’t deliver something big, this term, why would I vote for them again?