Division
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.
House of Representatives, 2015-10-20. affirmative: ayes 76, noes 53.
Question
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.
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.