The recent amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) have sparked criticism from various sectors of corporate Australia. On Friday, the Prime Minister announced a deal with the Greens to pass these reforms, signalling a shift in the political landscape that many business leaders feel unprepared for. Murray Watt, the Environment Minister, had engaged in prolonged negotiations with both the Coalition and the Greens, ultimately aligning with the latter to secure the passage of the Bill.
Corporate Australia had hoped for a collaborative approach between the Labor Party and the Coalition, as the latter had been advocating for amendments that aligned closely with business interests. However, Labor’s agreement with the Greens has been deemed a “missed opportunity” by the Business Council, while the Minerals Council labelled it an “inferior and disappointing outcome.” The Australian Energy Producers expressed concerns that the new regulations will lead to prolonged approval processes, escalating energy costs and deterring investment in new gas supplies.
The crux of the issue lies in a significant evolution in political dynamics. Jason Falinski, a prominent figure in the Coalition, suggests that corporate Australia has failed to adapt its lobbying strategies to the changing political environment. Historically, businesses could rely on established relationships with government officials, leveraging traditional media to sway public opinion. This approach, he argues, is outdated as the landscape has shifted towards more grassroots activism, enabled by social media.
In the past, businesses would engage with lobbyists and expect a fair hearing from predominantly Coalition governments. If their requests were not met, they could apply pressure through media channels, often finding sympathy from government representatives. However, the political climate has changed dramatically.
“Politics has changed, but your approach has not,” Falinski noted, highlighting that opponents of corporate interests are now more adept at shaping public narratives before businesses can respond. This preemptive framing positions corporate entities as adversaries in the public eye, often before they have the chance to voice their concerns in Canberra.
By the time corporate representatives attempt to influence decisions, they often find themselves in a weakened position. Politicians, facing electoral pressures, may feel compelled to side with voters rather than business interests. This creates a challenging environment for corporations, which may hesitate to take a strong stance in political debates.
The retreat of business leaders to their corporate headquarters after setbacks is a familiar pattern. Many corporate entities lack the willingness or infrastructure to invest in proactive campaigns that could sway public opinion or political outcomes. In contrast, labor unions and environmental groups are actively building their campaign capabilities to advocate for their interests effectively.
This has led to a situation where the Labor Party can maneuver between the pro-development Coalition and the anti-development Greens, effectively maintaining support from both sides while sidelining corporate interests. The unions are consistently advocating for their members and positioning themselves as essential allies to the government, leaving corporations to wither in silence.
For corporate Australia to regain its footing, a cultural shift in advocacy is necessary. Falinski emphasizes that businesses need to engage more actively in political discourse, rather than relying solely on traditional lobbying methods. Building alliances and demonstrating a commitment to shared values could foster more substantial relationships with political entities.
The challenge ahead is clear: corporate interests must evolve to meet the demands of a new political reality. As organizations in the progressive-left movement sharpen their strategies, the time for corporate Australia to reassess its approach is now. Without a proactive strategy that resonates with contemporary audiences, businesses risk losing their influence in shaping policy outcomes.
In this changing environment, the message is simple: adapt or risk being left behind in a political landscape that no longer favors the old ways of lobbying and advocacy.
