Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Aston has just had the opportunity to explain to the House how on earth it could possibly be consistent or logical for the coalition to propose this amendment tonight if it remains its position that all executive remuneration should go to shareholders. He had the opportunity. He talked about lots of things. He talked about other policies. But what he did not talk about was this policy. How is it consistent for the member for Aston to argue that fewer things should go to the shareholders and for the member for Wentworth to argue that everything should go to shareholders? How could that possibly work? The member for Aston has had his opportunity to outline it to the House—I asked him to do it in my remarks. He has failed to do it. He failed to do it because it cannot be done. He failed to do it because it is internally inconsistent. It is illogical. There is no possible way that the opposition could argue that every dollar of executive remuneration should go to shareholders for approval—except the bits they do not think should go to shareholders for approval by moving this amendment.

The member for Aston said he supports moving from seven years to one year. But what he is doing is increasing one year by stealth. He is increasing the base. He is saying that what should be considered is broader than base salary; therefore, he says it should be total remuneration. What that does is very considerably increase the threshold before shareholders have to approve of it; therefore, far fewer decisions will go to shareholders for approval. He, by stealth, is undermining the intent of this legislation. So we will not be supporting and accepting the opposition’s amendment, because it makes no internal sense. It is inconsistent with their previous policy positions and will, by stealth, undermine the policy objective of this legislation.

See this speech in context