Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Williams makes an observation, and I want to acknowledge Senator Williams here. He's right: I had a committee recommendation to support a royal commission. I did not cross the floor on a vote that Senator Williams put before the Senate. Senator Williams did cross the floor. As he's well aware, our party structures are very different in what the consequences for that are. I felt at the time it was better to stay within the Labor Party and be an outspoken voice, which I was, and to change Labor Party policy on the issue, which I was able to achieve. I note that Senator Williams made a different decision and chose to cross the floor. I commended him for it at the time and I commend him again for it now. Hopefully he will have the same success I was able to have in changing his party's policy, so that they have a policy of supporting a royal commission into Australian banking, but the magnitude of what you did, Senator Williams, and how much you have spoken up on this issue for such a long period of time, deserves the respect and admiration of those perhaps younger senators in this chamber who haven't had the opportunity to have served as long as you have.

Labor senators are concerned that these bills, which claim to improve governance in the superannuation sector, are being rushed through the committee by this government. Equal representation on boards is a longstanding arrangement which has served Australians well, and we believe it's something that should be maintained. Funds that operate with an employer and employee representative board—the not-for-profit industry funds that are attacked by the Turnbull government—have significantly higher returns for members. You have to question what is it the minister has in mind when she said:

… lift superannuation funds to at least the same standard as other financial services organisations like banks and life insurance companies—

as she told the Fin Review on 23 November last year. Is the minister really referring the example set by a place like the Commonwealth Bank, which now has its own investigations into it for money-laundering, as what we should be doing? Or the bank bill swap rate culture at ANZ and Westpac, who, as I understand, have now all settled and accepted responsibility? I don't know if CommInsure at the Commonwealth Bank, Commonwealth Financial Planning and NAB financial planning are the standard that is going to be set. The real aim of this bill is to make the governance of superannuation funds the same as the banks, and I can't understand or comprehend why that would be an approach for a successful industry that, unlike the banking sector, has not been plagued by scandal. Why we would want to set a standard and an example by those that have? This isn't a bill that will raise the standard of governance in superannuation; it will lower the standard of governance to that of the banks and the problems that we see time and time again—problems that only a royal commission will ever properly get to the bottom of.