Bill
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Governance) Bill 2015
lapsed, as at 2016-04-17. Treasury portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Treasury
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2015-09-16
- second reading — 2015-09-16
- second reading — 2015-10-19
- second reading — 2015-10-20
- second reading — 2015-10-20
- third reading — 2015-10-20
- introduced — 2015-11-09
- second reading — 2015-11-09
- second reading — 2015-11-25
- second reading — 2015-11-25
- other — 2016-04-17
Divisions
- Lisa Chesters As I was saying before debate was adjourned earlier, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Governance) Bill has nothing to do with growing superannuation funds. It has nothing to do with ensuring that hard-working Australians will have increased superannuation. The bill is about red tape. It is about taking a wrecking ball to an industry that is already working well. Industry super funds in this country already outperform retail funds, and they have done so since their creation. I note, however, that it did not stop the government in question time trying to go after the current leader of the Labor Party. It did not stop them trying to allude to something that happened when Bill Shorten, the current Leader of the Opposition, was involved in industry super. Let us set the record straight about what did happen with the Leader of the Opposition was a director of AustralianSuper, before entering parliament. This is relevant, because, two million Australians, like me, have AustralianSuper funds. AustralianSuper featured in the 10 top-performing funds every year for a decade, including when Bill Shorten was a director. Overall, AustralianSuper fund is ranked 5th of the 10 top-performing funds for the last 10 years. This is what is relevant to this debate. Industry super funds are already doing a great job ensuring that the working people of Australia have decent retirement incomes. Yet what the government is proposing is to take a wrecking ball to a model that is working—to take away the 50-50 per cent representation and impose this new model of one-third independent directors. That is so loosely defined and gives absolute power to a body to decide what independent is. AustralianSuper, however, is not the only industry super fund that is performing well. They are in good company. Of the 10 top-performing growth funds for the last 10 years, we also have CareSuper, AustralianSuper, which I have already mentioned, Cbus, QSuper, UniSuper and Hostplus. — 2015-10-20, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 76, noes 53
- Sam Dastyari Finally it is here. There has been a lot of talk, a lot of waiting and a lot of anticipation about when we were finally going to see the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Governance) Bill 2015 and have the opportunity to debate it. I thank the government for bringing this forward on the agenda today so that we will have the opportunity to put forward our views on it. Let me say from the outset that this is a bad bill that is attempting to fix a problem that does not exist. This is a bad bill that does not warrant the support of this chamber, that does not achieve what it purports to achieve, and it fundamentally risks damaging one of the most successful types of governance models. Let us be clear what this is about. This is an ideological agenda against industry super, an agenda this government has always had. This is laying the groundwork for what the government has always wanted to do—that is, take away default super. This is about damaging and destroying one of the most successful models we have. Also, at the end of the day, when it comes down to it the trustee model of governance works. It works because the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the actual returns that are given to consumers. It is a model that works and it does not need to be tampered with. This legislation does not do the right thing. I am concerned that this bill will impose a significant ideological shift from a model of trustee governance to a model of shareholder governance, and there is no clear or compelling evidence that the changes are warranted. There is widespread concern that the definition of independence contained within this bill is ambiguous. The most concerning aspect of this bill is that it blindly conflates and confuses trustee governance with shareholder governance, rather than contrasting the two. Under the trustee government model the board of directors have a fiduciary duty to their trustee members, the customers who are buying into the fund. Un — 2015-11-25, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 30
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2015-09-16.
The bill would require superannuation fund boards to include at least one-third independent directors and an independent chair.
It would amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to impose these new governance requirements on registrable superannuation entity licensees.
The change would apply to all RSE licensees, with no specified start date or exemption in the source.
- Requires at least one-third of directors on superannuation fund boards to be independent.
- Requires the board chair to be independent.
- Amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.
Trustees of registrable superannuation entities, commonly called RSE licensees, would be affected.
Sources
em
em supp
billhome