It was lunchtime on the second day of spring in 1983, and a glittering event was underway in the ballroom of Sydney's Regent Hotel.
As dozens of chauffeured limousines idled on George St outside, hundreds of the nation's top businessmen and politicians were dining on prawns and avocado inside.
It was an occasion equal to the grand ambitions of the body that the newly-elected prime minister, Bob Hawke, was pleased to be launching that day: the Business Council of Australia.
This new body - comprised of 60 of Australia's most powerful corporate chiefs - would not be a lobby group that would "whinge to the government about narrow interests", pledged its founding president, Sir Arvi Parbo.
Rather, it would be a non-political group that would develop "objective long-term views" in the "broad national interest".
The BCA was, Hawke said that day, "an idea whose time has come".
At the BCA launch in 1983. Pictured are: Don Hughes, John Cain, Bob White, Arvi Parbo, Bob Hawke, Milton Brideland, John Bannon, Cliff Allen and Andrew Peacock. Photo: Monte Luke
The arrival of the reformist Labor government in 1983 meant business needed a strong, united and credible voice to act as a counterweights to the unions. And Hawke -seeking a business group that he could deal with - welcomed the BCA's arrival.
That early BCA took bold, inventive positions on policy issues, being one of the first groups to propose a system of enterprise bargaining, for example. And when things became tense with the Hawke and then Keating governments, it was up for a fight; booking full-page ads in the nation's broadsheets to push for cuts to government spending.
"The BCA was a new idea; [it was about] blue sky policy making," says University of Queensland's Stephen Bell, professor of political economy and a long-time BCA watcher. "They wanted to set the policy agenda, rather than just react to it."
Paying attention: Bob Hawke and Paul Keating listen to Sir Arvi Parbo, of the Business Council of Australia, address the tax summit in Canberra in July 1985.
But times change. Listed company bosses no longer get about town in chauffeured limousines; the Regent's glitz has been refurbished and rebranded into history. The reform push of the 1980s has receded in the national memory, and the BCA is no longer regularly described - as it was throughout the 1980s and 1990s - as "influential" and "powerful".
Australia's peak business groups are confronting a challenging new reality, as old certainties of corporate life fall away.
It is a world of deep public cynicism about big business and its motives, where a populist backlash has emerged against the economic agendas popular with think tanks and business lobby groups.
Corporate spending on items such as business associations is under scrutiny from investors. Companies can now communicate directly with customers, shareholders and other public "stakeholders" in ways unimagined just a decade ago.
Within days, mining giant BHP will publish a long-awaited review of its membership of industry bodies, following a shareholder resolution at its annual meeting last month calling for it to quit groups where there was a "manifest inconsistency" between their policies and those of BHP.
BHP Chairman Ken MacKenzie (left) and chief executive Andrew Mackenzie faced pressure at the company's AGM.
This resolution, lodged by NGO the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), chiefly targeted the Minerals Council of Australia. Feared and respected for its devastating 2010 campaign against the mining tax, the MCA has had a horror run of late, with its chief executive departing in September, reportedly at BHP's behest.
Iluka Resources has departed the MCA, citing cost-cutting. And Wesfarmers - an MCA member through its Queensland coal mining outfit Curragh - confirmed to Fairfax Media this week that it would end its MCA membership at the end of the year, a move it said was due to reasons of "value".
The BCA has seen its membership ranks and revenue slip, and has weathered near-constant criticism from long-time foes and one-time friends alike.
Disunity has bubbled to the surface at several business associations. At the Australian Bankers Association (ABA) there was a reported - and denied - split during the year between the big and second-tier banks as calls for a royal commission gathered pace.
There was fresh attention on AGL's departure not only from the MCA but also from the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) - which AGL said was for climate change policy reasons. This came as an apparent surprise to APPEA.
Last week, the Financial Services Council's (FSC) former policy director, Andrew Bragg, detailed the conflict within that body's membership over the totemic issue of independent directors on super fund boards.
Andrew Bragg claims there was division at the Financial Services Council. Photo: SMH
With progressives attacking their policies and fiscal conservatives their inability to sell them, one thing all sides agree on is that key business lobby groups are struggling to connect with the public and are failing to inspire governments.
"The limitedness of it is remarkable - the laziness and backwardness of it, profound."
The year before, the Liberal Party's Victorian president, Michael Kroger, was scathing of the BCA for failing to be vocal enough on tax cuts at the 2016 election.
Politicians still show up to give speeches at business association dinners, and their leaders are constant fixtures in the media.
The groups dutifully file submissions on all manner of inquiries and consultation forums. But the big question now is whether anyone is listening. Have the peak business bodies, well, peaked?
"The impression lately is that federal governments aren't all that interested in what peak bodies think ??? in terms of general commentary and policy input," Bell says.
"That's the general observation, and that's certainly different to what it used to be."
Salad days gone
The BCA's chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, and president, Grant King, were unavailable to speak with Fairfax Media for this story.
BCA president Grant King and chief executive Jennifer Westacott at the group's annual dinner. Photo: Brook_Mitchell
In a statement, the BCA said: "Business Council advocacy on matters of reform can and does help shape the nation's policy agenda - from company tax, to our recent advocacy for policy stability in the energy sector and on skills and education."
Former Transfield Services chairman Tony Shepherd, who led the BCA from 2011 to 2014, argues that the BCA is still turning out "good quality" policy work.
"Whether it's having the impact that it might have done in the past is questionable, and I think the the swing towards populism probably counts against that [sort of] intelligent research," says Shepherd, who led the Abbott government's contentious 2013 commission of audit.
"I think it's fair to say the BCA and the other business lobby groups still have an impact directly on government ??? in terms of bringing the wider society with them, I think that's a challenge.
"I think the modern politician is more likely to take the community view on an issue on something that affects business, rather than the business view."
Former BCA boss Tony Shepherd says the organisation's impact has waned. Photo: Ben Searcy
Before the Hawke era, the business lobby scene was disorganised and divided; government consultation with business was ad hoc and informal, comprised of quiet chats with a chosen few chosen.
The Hawke-Keating years would see the creation or dramatic reworking of lobby groups, as industry scrambled to keep up with Labor's reformist agenda.
After the BCA in 1983, the ABA was relaunched in 1985; the Australian Investment Managers Association, a forerunner of the FSC, landed in 1990. And in 1995, the old Australian Mining Industry Council was killed off, and the Minerals Council was born in its place.
Today, a host of business associations - big and small, prominent and obscure - populate the ecosystem.
The BCA has long been the most high-profile; its structure where the chief executives are the members, not the companies, gives it an added layer of prestige. But with its members coming from all corners of the Australian economy - from fast-food giants to miners, from management consultants to corporate law firms - policy consensus is a constant challenge.
One chief executives of a major private company argues that the BCA's impact is undermined by its need to cater to the conflicting interests of its membership - one of the reasons he had chosen not to join.
Bell has published a series of academic papers about the influence and membership of the BCA and other bodies. His research suggests that the BCA's influence has waned over time, in part due to "declining" commitment from its chief executive members - due in part to the shorter tenure of chief executives, and increasing globalisation.
Its latest accounts, lodged with the corporate regulator in October, show its membership numbers and revenue have recently slipped from 135 to 129 at June 30, 2017 (this week, the BCA said its membership tally was back up to 130, not including five associate members, and that its membership had grown by 12 since 2012). Its membership revenues declined from about $8.64 million to $8.26 million.
It reported an operating deficit of $627,367 - an amount inflated by a drawdown of more than $840,000 on its special projects fund, which it spent on its "advocacy and campaigning strategy".
Few issues have riven the BCA like climate change and the environment, as seen in 2003, when the BCA was forced to publicly - and humiliatingly - announce that it had failed to come to an agreement on the Kyoto Protocol due to "strongly held differences of opinion".
The problem, says John Hewson - economist, company director and former federal Liberal leader - is that "you can't get an agreed decision because you can't get agreement from all the vested interests, [especially on] climate change ??? so they make a mealy-mouthed statement, if they make any statement at all. And it adds to the decline in their credibility."
John Hewson says there are too many vested interests. Photo: ABC Q&A
The BCA publicly supported the Finkel review's Clean Energy Target and has now thrown its weight behind the Turnbull government's National Energy Guarantee. But behind the scenes, members are said to have clashed on the issue.
Shepherd says divisions within these groups are inevitable, suggesting the way forward was to focus on issues where there was strong agreement.
"When I was president, there were 120 members and there was some issues where, it would be fair to say, the membership was divided on the best policy solution," he says. "That would create tension. The thing that really works is when you are all together and you agree on something - it becomes a lot more powerful."
Rocky road
In Shepherd's view, the MCA's 2010 mining tax campaign shows peak bodies at their best - what can be achieved with unity of purpose.
Mining magnate Gina Rinehart at a mining tax protest. Photo: Tony Ashby
"If we take the Minerals Council, when they bonded together and fought the mining tax, [they had] a very common purpose and clear engagement with their employees, and that was enormously powerful, and very successful."
But Hewson argues that while the mining tax campaign was devastatingly effective at the time, it cost the MCA credibility.
"The MCA has always been much more overtly about the interest of miners at the expense of everything else," he says. "That came to a head in the mining tax debate and since then their significance has dwindled ??? they killed off their credibility to be objective."
This year, amid agonising national debates about energy and climate change, the MCA was outspoken in its promotion of new coal-fired power stations as part of Australia's future energy mix, and a champion of its member Adani's proposed Carmichael coal mine.
Its ability to mount an effective campaign against political targets appeared undiminished, with its triumph in taking up arms against the new mining tax flagged by former WA Nationals leader Brendon Grylls in the state's March election. The Coalition lost government, and Grylls lost his seat.
But after this flush of success, the MCA's year turned sour.
Brendan Pearson left his position as chief executive of the Minerals Council of Australia Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
In September BHP's move to review its memberships, and release details of "material" policy differences on climate change caught many by surprise.
The MCA's chief executive, Brendan Pearson, departed shortly after - reportedly at the behest of BHP. And in November, reports surfaced that BHP had distanced itself from the MCA over draft laws seeking to crimp political activities by environmental groups.
The MCA was quiet in the weeks following the ACCR's resolution and Pearson's departure.
But in late November, it wrote a four-page letter to selected not-for-profits, labelling the ACCR's statements as "inaccurate".
The letter said that the MCA had a long-standing policy acknowledging that "sustained global action is required to reduce the scale of human-induced climate change".
David Byers, the interim CEO of the MCA, was not available for an interview. But in a statement, he said that the body advocated a "technology-neutral policy approach that delivers low-cost, secure and reliable power while reducing emissions".
"Australia is facing a fundamental challenge with the provision of affordable and reliable energy. The MCA will continue to advocate for policies which reduce the cost of energy, enhance reliability and reduce emissions. Our approach is consistent with public opinion."
On Pearson's departure, he said: "Recently the Board and Brendan agreed that it was time for a change of leadership."
The BHP events brought attention to the move by AGL to leave the MCA, a decision it made on climate change policy grounds. Two other ASX-listed companies - Iluka and Wesfarmers - have, or are about to, leave, however both were adamant that MCA policies were not a factor in their decisions. "Iluka's decision not to renew its membership of the MCA for 2017 was taken in light of cost," a spokesman said.
Wesfarmers described its move as a "value-based" decision, saying Curragh was a relatively small voice in the coal industry and the MCA was dominated by larger players.
"Additionally, the coal industry has relatively low representation within the MCA, relative to other commodities." Wesfarmers remained a member of the Queensland Resources Council, "which we believe delivers better value and representation."
Wesfarmers also pointed to its strategic review of its resources business, which may end in the sale of the assets.
"Companies join and depart industry associations for their own reason", Byers said, adding that the MCA continued to actively recruit new members, "including those from new and developing parts of the industry".
The MCA's most recent accounts, which (unlike the BCA) it publishes on its website, show its 2015-16 revenue dropped from $14.1 million the year before to $12.5 million.
Full disclosure
A significant development is a move by institutional investors to push big listed companies to be more transparent about their business lobby memberships; not only on what the memberships cost, but also what value they deliver and whether such memberships do "align" with shareholders' interests - particularly on climate change.
The ACCR, whose resolution at BHP attracted votes in favour of about 10 per cent,
confirmed to Fairfax Media that it planned to approach with Rio Tinto about its disclosure and membership of peak business bodies, and would lodge a resolution at its annual meeting "depending on how that engagement goes".
"Shareholders have an interest and an expectation of transparency around these issues," says ACCR executive director Brynn O'Brien.
The ACCR's moves follow similar efforts by institutional investors offshore. In Europe, investors have called on companies including BP and Glencore, Statoil and Procter and Gamble to review their membership of lobbying groups that "undermine" EU climate policies
AGL is one company that has dramatically ramped up its transparency around peak business body memberships, a move it said was made "to build trust with the communities in which we operate".
AGL chief executive Andy Vesey has led the company out of lobby groups. Photo: Louie Douvis
AGL disclosed not only which bodies it belongs to, but also how much it pays for the privilege: $65,000 for the BCA, $65,121 for the Clean Energy Council, and $13,700 for the Corporate Tax Association, to name a few.
Disclosing such fees inevitably leads to questions about whether the cost is justified. "Cash is tight," Hewson says. "If you are on a public company board you say, 'what benefit do we really get out of being part of these talkfests?'"
A Rio Tinto spokesman said the company was a member of many associations.
"Each association is different - they represent a different mix of members and organisations and often cover multiple issues," he said.
"On some of these issues we may disagree with associations, on others we may be more aligned."
Peak toil
Former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan - who has history with the MCA - has lately been among the peak bodies' most vociferous critics, particularly on the BCA's "dogged defence" of corporate tax cuts.
"What they're trying to sell to the people has been rejected by most of them," he says.
"They can see right through their self-interest, which constantly dominates the national interest."
Labor MP for Lilley and former Treasurer Wayne Swan has lashed lobby groups. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Last month, when the BCA's chairman, Grant King, took to the stage at the body's annual dinner, he spoke of the "loss of trust in business and of course most other traditional institutions".
The BCA, he said, planned to recognise and act on "lightning rod" issues that could damage the legitimacy of big businesses.
It would, he said, communicate more effectively with the community.
"Business is responsible for issues that affect its collective reputation and we are responding to them."
This week, the BCA told Fairfax Media that next year it would continue to advocate its positions "through channels people relate to and with messages they can understand".
The BCA's Twitter feed has lately sprung to life, engaging in debates and posting a string of slick videos, memes and links.
In August, the BCA hired Bragg - the former FSC policy director who is also a former Liberal Party federal acting director - as executive director, members.
Bragg has repeatedly urged Australia's business community to be more outspoken on its own behalf. Last year, while at the Liberal-linked Menzies Research Centre, he penned a cutting critique of "timid" business advocacy - arguing that many CEOs did not advocate in public because they feared a backlash from unions, and were "bashful" with social media.
"There is currently no counterbalance to groups such as GetUp who argue trade is bad, companies pay no tax and the taxpayers should fund car making."
Shepherd says the fact that "business is a bit on the nose" offers peak bodies an opportunity to sell the message that "business is not evil".
"It's very easy for some people to come out and demonise business," he adds. "It's an easy free kick ??? but in the end does that help a society where all of the wealth is generated by business, whether it's a corner shop or BHP? It's also easy to demonise welfare recipients or unions. But is that a constructive way forward?"
Shepherd underscores the importance of engaging with the public - and taking their "heartfelt" concerns into account.
"My impression is that the community is really worried about the cost of living. So what is a policy that would help them deal with significant increases in energy costs, transport costs, housing and childcare costs? It's no good coming out with policies that would exacerbate these problems."
Last month, Australia saw a preview of the change to be wreaked by automation, when National Australia Bank announced that 6000 jobs would go over three years. More is likely to come from sectors all over the economy, with a 2015 study from the Office of the Chief Economist found that 44 per cent of Australian jobs were highly susceptible to automation.
This process threatens to worsen inequality, hollowing out the labour market and particularly impacting the incomes of low and middle income earners. Worsening income inequality lowers demand, thus impacting growth overall, as the International Monetary Fund pointed out last year.
"That's not an argument that we suddenly turn our backs on technological change - it's an argument that the capacity of an economy to prosper now depends fundamentally on the capacity to re-skill and re-educate the workforce, to be as nimble and adaptive and as flexible as possible," says Bell.
The BCA could point to its voluminous output on the future of work and automation, its work on education reforms. But what impact has this had of late?
Business groups need to take more of a lead on immense and imminent changes such as automation, Bell says - but instead they are "still running the language of class warfare, with the focus on tax and wages competitiveness, that comes out of the 1970s".
Just what is the role of a peak business body in 2017? Is it to be a culture warrior, or a sober think-tank? Lobbyist, or research house? A hammer of GetUp and the unions, or a centrist peace-maker? Or a bit of everything - depending on the group, topic and issue of the day?
The answer is important, because Australian companies and workplaces are about to be wrestling with massive and destabilising change. The response of business and its peak bodies will be critical.
