Division
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
Senate, 2015-11-25. affirmative: ayes 34, noes 30.
Question
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
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.