Division Description Changes — Bills — Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Bill 2011; Consideration in Detail — 12th May 2011

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2011-05-12#4 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:19:17	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives Tony Smith]. ~~The amendments were:~~ ''(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ~~''(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".''~~ Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting. One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section]. ) ~~''Background to the bill''~~ The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].) ~~References~~ The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1) introduced by Liberal MP [Tony Smith](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives). The amendments were: _(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast"._ _(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast"._ _(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast"._ _(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast"._ Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting. One member, Nationals MP [Tony Crook](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives), rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [FAQ section](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree). ) _Background to the bill_ The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [Productivity Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission) in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520).) References
representatives vote 2011-05-12#4 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:19	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives Tony Smith]. The amendments were: ''(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".'' Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting. One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[1] One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section]. ) ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.[2] The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].) References * [1] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section]. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].
representatives vote 2011-05-12#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-04-30 15:51:16	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives Tony Smith]. The amendments were: ''(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".'' Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting. One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2] One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[1] ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.[1] The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.[2] References * [1] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here]. * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section]. * [1] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section]. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].
representatives vote 2011-05-12#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-04-30 15:50:30	Title Bills — Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Bill 2011; Consideration in Detail Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Bill 2011 - Consideration in Detail - 25 per cent Description ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in the name of the honourable member for North Sydney, together:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".</p> <p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".</p> <p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".</p> <p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".</p> <p>On 24 March the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer, outlined on behalf of the coalition, as the parliamentary secretary would be aware, that we supported this bill. He said that at the outset of his speech. But he also flagged back at that point that there was one issue on which we would be moving an amendment. He said at the time that the coalition would be moving an amendment—which was circulated some time ago; it is my understanding that it was circulated back on 24 March—to amend wording in relation to the 25 per cent trigger that the parliamentary secretary has just referred to. He said:</p> ~~<p class="italic">The intention of the amendment is to improve the representation of total shareholder views, because as the legislation stands—</p>~~ ~~<p>as the shadow Treasurer said—</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">it is possible for a no vote to be triggered against a remuneration report by less than 25 per cent of all available votes …</p>~~ <p>On behalf of the coalition, the shadow Treasurer has consulted widely on this and, as a consequence, it is the view of the coalition that there would be an improvement if the amendments that have been circulated were passed. The effect of the amendments is to ensure that the 25 per cent relates to all available votes. As the parliamentary secretary outlined, his legislation as it stands has the 25 per cent threshold applying to votes cast at an annual general meeting. That could be a fraction of the total votes that are available. The coalition, as the member for North Sydney outlined, has considered this. Following consultations, we believe that it is important to make this change. We think that the measures within the bill themselves are improvements but we think that, when it comes to this test, the 25 per cent test should apply in the way that the amendments moved would provide. The amendments would strengthen it. That 25 per cent test should apply to available votes. The amendments seek to make that change and that change only. Having heard the parliamentary secretary's opposition to these amendments in his speech in the second reading debate, I will now give him the opportunity to repeat everything he said in the last five minutes of his speech. Now he has had a warm-up, so we will see how he goes the second time around.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">David Bradbury</p>~~ <p>I am only getting warmed up. The member opposite in his response to the matters that I raised was almost as weak and insipid as these reforms would leave the position of shareholders, were these amendments to be adopted. Frankly, it is shameful that on the one hand the coalition want to pretend that they are supporting the empowerment of shareholders. They want to pretend that that is what they are doing. In fact, I heard the member opposite say that this would strengthen the two-strikes test.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ <p>No, the bill.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">David Bradbury</p>~~ <p>It would strengthen the bill. He did not provide any elaboration as to how it would do that. If we look at the history of what has occurred here, these are not some proposals that we have slapped together over a very short space of time. This is a very deliberative process that we have worked through, a very consultative process. I want to take this opportunity and a little bit of time to take the House through the process that we have been through, because it is important to understand why we are so opposed to these amendments that have been moved by the opposition.</p> <p>The government announced the Productivity Commission inquiry in March 2009, so it was not yesterday. It has been going on for a long time. An issues paper was released by the Productivity Commission in April 2009, a discussion document in September 2009, and a final report to government in December 2009, which was then publicly released in January 2010. The Productivity Commission received 170 submissions, so people have had plenty of opportunity to contribute to this. There were 170 submissions received. The Productivity Commission conducted roundtables and public hearings over nine months. Government announced its response to the Productivity Commission report in April 2010. The government then released draft legislation on 20 December 2010 and consulted on that legislation through until late January 2011. More than 50 submissions on the draft legislation were received, and I personally met with many stakeholders about the issues and concerns that they held. The bill was finalised and then introduced into this House on 23 February 2011.</p> <p>The amendments that have been brought forward by the opposition, as I mentioned earlier, strike at the very heart of this package of reforms. I have outlined how extensive a process this was. I note some comments made earlier in the debate by the member for Mayo in particular. He said some very nice things about the Productivity Commission. In fact, I think that they were warranted comments. He said:</p> <p class="italic">What we do seek to do is empower shareholders more, particularly when the Productivity Commission, whose work I have a very high regard for, is making some sensible recommendations on how we do that.</p> ~~<p>The government agrees with that. We are not proposing to overturn some of those recommendations. Indeed, the member for Mayo went on later in his speech and said:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">I do not think there is any doubt about the quality of the work that the Productivity Commission does for the Australian public; it is always there.</p>~~ <p>We agree. On this very question of whether or not the 25 per cent should be calculated by reference to votes cast or by reference to issued shares, the Productivity Commission had something to say. In their report, on page 391, the Productivity Commission said:</p> <p class="italic">Normal voting protocols should apply, however, to the re-election of directors. (While some participants argued that sanctions should be triggered only by a majority vote based on issued shares, rather than votes cast, the Commission does not see a case for this departure from normal voting conventions.)</p> ~~<p>There it is from the Productivity Commission.</p>~~ <p>What the opposition are proposing here is to depart from normal protocols when it comes to voting at AGMs. One would have to ask the question: why, out of all of the votes that are considered at an annual general meeting, depart from protocol for this particular vote? I might remind the House that this is a non-binding vote. Why for this particular vote do we now see the coalition come forward and propose that we water down the calculation of that vote so that it would not be 25 per cent of votes cast but 25 per cent of issued shares? There is a good reason for that, and it is that those opposite are not committed to these reforms. They have had a range of positions in relation to these measures that we have brought forward. <i>(</i><i>Extension of time granted</i><i>)</i></p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>Do it all again.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">David Bradbury</p>~~ <p>The member opposite has invited me to do it all again. I am tempted. As tempted as I am, I will stick to new material. When I heard those opposite were going to move amendments, I was interested to see what they would be. I was absolutely stunned when I heard that what they were proposing was to move from 25 per cent of votes cast to 25 per cent of shares issued. I was stunned that they would do that, but when I heard that was what they were proposing I thought to myself: 'I have heard that before. I have read that proposal somewhere.' Not many people that I met with through the stakeholder consultation raised this particular proposal. I did not see it in many of the submissions that were made either to the Productivity Commission or on the government's exposure draft. But I knew that I had seen it somewhere.</p> <p>I did a little bit of research and I found that it was actually in a submission that was made on the exposure draft from the Australian Bankers Association. I will read from page 2 of their submission in which the Australian Bankers Association said:</p> <p class="italic">The 25% ‘no vote’ threshold is set too low. It ignores the 75% majority view and can be inflated by the fact that the percentage required is of the votes cast, not total eligible votes …</p> <p>That was where I had heard it before. I have to say that it is not often that you would hold the Australian Bankers Association up as a beacon of honesty in this debate but, on this point, they have been much more honest than the coalition. At least the Bankers Association were upfront about it. They went on and said in their submission:</p> ~~<p class="italic">A majority vote is more appropriate. We recommend that the voting threshold be set at 50%, in line with other ordinary Board resolutions.</p>~~ <p>I understand the position of the Bankers Association, but what I do not understand is the sneakiness of those opposite who seek to conceal their distaste for the two-strike test behind this fig leaf that is their amendments. They want to move away from 25 per cent of votes cast to 25 per cent of issued votes so that every person who does not turn up at the AGM effectively votes in favour of the remuneration report. To put that in context, that would put us into a much worse position than where we are at the moment when it comes to shareholder rights. Under the current non-binding vote at least shareholders that do not turn up do not get counted as supporting the remuneration report. So the Bankers Association, understandably representing their interests, have made this point. At least they were honest about it. I say to the opposition: 'If you are serious about watering down this position, don't hide behind your 25 per cent of shares issued. Come out and tell us what you really think.'</p> <p>The reason the coalition are so confused is that they have had so many positions on this issue over the last little period throughout this consultation. It all started when Malcolm Turnbull was the leader. I know that we do not like to talk about that because it is ancient history. But when Mr Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, was the Leader of the Opposition he said:</p> <p class="italic">All you need to do is change the law and say the senior executives, the chief executive and say the next two or three people, they're salaries must be approved by the shareholders—yes or no.</p> ~~<p class="italic">If the shareholders approve it, well it's their company they can pay their staff high and low what they wish.</p>~~ ~~<p>He said that on the ABC on 27 February 2009. Mr Abbott backed him on it. The now Leader of the Opposition said at the time:</p>~~ <p class="italic">I certainly think that Malcolm Turnbull's suggestion that the shareholders ought to be able to vote down directors' fees and salary increases is a very good one. I think the Government can do that straight away. They don't need to go to the G20 for that. They don't need to form another committee, review or inquiry to go ahead with that, and they should—straight away.</p> <p>He said that on <i>Lateline</i>, also on 27 February 2009. So we had a situation back in 2009 where the coalition were so gung-ho about this that they wanted a full binding vote. But now they will not even support some very sensible reforms supported by the Productivity Commission. <i>(</i><i>Extension of time granted</i><i>)</i>As I said, they were not happy with their original position and not only have they backflipped on it but if those opposite had listened to the debate they would have been a little bit surprised by some of the rhetoric in it.</p> <p>Frankly, listening to some of the opposition speakers on this bill you would think that they were opposing the bill. They come in here and they want to send mixed messages. But they do not want to go back to their electorates and have to admit that they voted against this legislation. They do not want to do that because they know that the Australian community want us to take the action that we are proposing. If they come in here and send their mixed messages they can pretend somehow that they support these measures and dress it up behind this fig leaf of amendments. But in the end they have been exposed. They do not support this. They want a system in place that strips away any power that shareholders have. Shareholders will have less power than they currently have. We are opposed to those amendments and we will be recommending that all members do what is in the interests of shareholders and their electorates and oppose these amendments.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ <p>I will just speak very briefly. We reject for the second time the opposition of the parliamentary secretary to these sensible amendments. I will not restate all of the obvious reasons why we believe—</p> ~~<p class="italic">Mr Bradbury interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p>Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are in the chair. I listened—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">David Bradbury</p>~~ ~~<p>You were interjecting when I—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>I did not interject. It is a case of mistaken identity, I say to the parliamentary secretary.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Sharon Bird</p>~~ ~~<p>The member for Casey will hold up for a moment. I will indicate that I am indeed in the chair and people will not interject while someone has the call.</p>~~ ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives Tony Smith]. The amendments were: ''(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".'' ''(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".'' Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting. One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2] ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.[1] References * [1] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here]. * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].

Change

Division

representatives vote 2011-05-12#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:17

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives Tony Smith].
~~The amendments were:~~
''(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
~~''(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".''~~
Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting.
One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section]. )
~~''Background to the bill''~~
The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].)
~~References~~
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1) introduced by Liberal MP [Tony Smith](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives).
The amendments were:
_(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast"._
_(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast"._
_(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast"._
_(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast"._
Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting.
One member, Nationals MP [Tony Crook](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives), rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [FAQ section](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree). )
_Background to the bill_
The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [Productivity Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission) in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520).)
References

representatives vote 2011-05-12#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:19

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives Tony Smith].
The amendments were:
''(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".''
Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting.
One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[1]
One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section]. )
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.[2]
The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].)
References
* [1] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].

representatives vote 2011-05-12#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-04-30 15:51:16

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives Tony Smith].
The amendments were:
''(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".''
Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting.
One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2]
One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[1]
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.[1]
The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.[2]
References
* [1] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].
* [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].
* [1] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].

representatives vote 2011-05-12#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-04-30 15:50:30

Title

Bills — Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Bill 2011; Consideration in Detail
Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Bill 2011 - Consideration in Detail - 25 per cent

Description

~~Tony Smith~~
~~by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in the name of the honourable member for North Sydney, together:~~
(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".
(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".
(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".
(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".
On 24 March the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer, outlined on behalf of the coalition, as the parliamentary secretary would be aware, that we supported this bill. He said that at the outset of his speech. But he also flagged back at that point that there was one issue on which we would be moving an amendment. He said at the time that the coalition would be moving an amendment—which was circulated some time ago; it is my understanding that it was circulated back on 24 March—to amend wording in relation to the 25 per cent trigger that the parliamentary secretary has just referred to. He said:
~~The intention of the amendment is to improve the representation of total shareholder views, because as the legislation stands—~~
~~as the shadow Treasurer said—~~
~~it is possible for a no vote to be triggered against a remuneration report by less than 25 per cent of all available votes …~~
On behalf of the coalition, the shadow Treasurer has consulted widely on this and, as a consequence, it is the view of the coalition that there would be an improvement if the amendments that have been circulated were passed. The effect of the amendments is to ensure that the 25 per cent relates to all available votes. As the parliamentary secretary outlined, his legislation as it stands has the 25 per cent threshold applying to votes cast at an annual general meeting. That could be a fraction of the total votes that are available. The coalition, as the member for North Sydney outlined, has considered this. Following consultations, we believe that it is important to make this change. We think that the measures within the bill themselves are improvements but we think that, when it comes to this test, the 25 per cent test should apply in the way that the amendments moved would provide. The amendments would strengthen it. That 25 per cent test should apply to available votes. The amendments seek to make that change and that change only. Having heard the parliamentary secretary's opposition to these amendments in his speech in the second reading debate, I will now give him the opportunity to repeat everything he said in the last five minutes of his speech. Now he has had a warm-up, so we will see how he goes the second time around.
~~David Bradbury~~
I am only getting warmed up. The member opposite in his response to the matters that I raised was almost as weak and insipid as these reforms would leave the position of shareholders, were these amendments to be adopted. Frankly, it is shameful that on the one hand the coalition want to pretend that they are supporting the empowerment of shareholders. They want to pretend that that is what they are doing. In fact, I heard the member opposite say that this would strengthen the two-strikes test.
~~Tony Smith~~
No, the bill.
~~David Bradbury~~
It would strengthen the bill. He did not provide any elaboration as to how it would do that. If we look at the history of what has occurred here, these are not some proposals that we have slapped together over a very short space of time. This is a very deliberative process that we have worked through, a very consultative process. I want to take this opportunity and a little bit of time to take the House through the process that we have been through, because it is important to understand why we are so opposed to these amendments that have been moved by the opposition.
The government announced the Productivity Commission inquiry in March 2009, so it was not yesterday. It has been going on for a long time. An issues paper was released by the Productivity Commission in April 2009, a discussion document in September 2009, and a final report to government in December 2009, which was then publicly released in January 2010. The Productivity Commission received 170 submissions, so people have had plenty of opportunity to contribute to this. There were 170 submissions received. The Productivity Commission conducted roundtables and public hearings over nine months. Government announced its response to the Productivity Commission report in April 2010. The government then released draft legislation on 20 December 2010 and consulted on that legislation through until late January 2011. More than 50 submissions on the draft legislation were received, and I personally met with many stakeholders about the issues and concerns that they held. The bill was finalised and then introduced into this House on 23 February 2011.
The amendments that have been brought forward by the opposition, as I mentioned earlier, strike at the very heart of this package of reforms. I have outlined how extensive a process this was. I note some comments made earlier in the debate by the member for Mayo in particular. He said some very nice things about the Productivity Commission. In fact, I think that they were warranted comments. He said:
What we do seek to do is empower shareholders more, particularly when the Productivity Commission, whose work I have a very high regard for, is making some sensible recommendations on how we do that.
~~The government agrees with that. We are not proposing to overturn some of those recommendations. Indeed, the member for Mayo went on later in his speech and said:~~
~~I do not think there is any doubt about the quality of the work that the Productivity Commission does for the Australian public; it is always there.~~
We agree. On this very question of whether or not the 25 per cent should be calculated by reference to votes cast or by reference to issued shares, the Productivity Commission had something to say. In their report, on page 391, the Productivity Commission said:
Normal voting protocols should apply, however, to the re-election of directors. (While some participants argued that sanctions should be triggered only by a majority vote based on issued shares, rather than votes cast, the Commission does not see a case for this departure from normal voting conventions.)
~~There it is from the Productivity Commission.~~
What the opposition are proposing here is to depart from normal protocols when it comes to voting at AGMs. One would have to ask the question: why, out of all of the votes that are considered at an annual general meeting, depart from protocol for this particular vote? I might remind the House that this is a non-binding vote. Why for this particular vote do we now see the coalition come forward and propose that we water down the calculation of that vote so that it would not be 25 per cent of votes cast but 25 per cent of issued shares? There is a good reason for that, and it is that those opposite are not committed to these reforms. They have had a range of positions in relation to these measures that we have brought forward. (Extension of time granted)
~~Tony Smith~~
~~Do it all again.~~
~~David Bradbury~~
The member opposite has invited me to do it all again. I am tempted. As tempted as I am, I will stick to new material. When I heard those opposite were going to move amendments, I was interested to see what they would be. I was absolutely stunned when I heard that what they were proposing was to move from 25 per cent of votes cast to 25 per cent of shares issued. I was stunned that they would do that, but when I heard that was what they were proposing I thought to myself: 'I have heard that before. I have read that proposal somewhere.' Not many people that I met with through the stakeholder consultation raised this particular proposal. I did not see it in many of the submissions that were made either to the Productivity Commission or on the government's exposure draft. But I knew that I had seen it somewhere.
I did a little bit of research and I found that it was actually in a submission that was made on the exposure draft from the Australian Bankers Association. I will read from page 2 of their submission in which the Australian Bankers Association said:
The 25% ‘no vote’ threshold is set too low. It ignores the 75% majority view and can be inflated by the fact that the percentage required is of the votes cast, not total eligible votes …
That was where I had heard it before. I have to say that it is not often that you would hold the Australian Bankers Association up as a beacon of honesty in this debate but, on this point, they have been much more honest than the coalition. At least the Bankers Association were upfront about it. They went on and said in their submission:
~~A majority vote is more appropriate. We recommend that the voting threshold be set at 50%, in line with other ordinary Board resolutions.~~
I understand the position of the Bankers Association, but what I do not understand is the sneakiness of those opposite who seek to conceal their distaste for the two-strike test behind this fig leaf that is their amendments. They want to move away from 25 per cent of votes cast to 25 per cent of issued votes so that every person who does not turn up at the AGM effectively votes in favour of the remuneration report. To put that in context, that would put us into a much worse position than where we are at the moment when it comes to shareholder rights. Under the current non-binding vote at least shareholders that do not turn up do not get counted as supporting the remuneration report. So the Bankers Association, understandably representing their interests, have made this point. At least they were honest about it. I say to the opposition: 'If you are serious about watering down this position, don't hide behind your 25 per cent of shares issued. Come out and tell us what you really think.'
The reason the coalition are so confused is that they have had so many positions on this issue over the last little period throughout this consultation. It all started when Malcolm Turnbull was the leader. I know that we do not like to talk about that because it is ancient history. But when Mr Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, was the Leader of the Opposition he said:
All you need to do is change the law and say the senior executives, the chief executive and say the next two or three people, they're salaries must be approved by the shareholders—yes or no.
~~If the shareholders approve it, well it's their company they can pay their staff high and low what they wish.~~
~~He said that on the ABC on 27 February 2009. Mr Abbott backed him on it. The now Leader of the Opposition said at the time:~~
I certainly think that Malcolm Turnbull's suggestion that the shareholders ought to be able to vote down directors' fees and salary increases is a very good one. I think the Government can do that straight away. They don't need to go to the G20 for that. They don't need to form another committee, review or inquiry to go ahead with that, and they should—straight away.
He said that on Lateline, also on 27 February 2009. So we had a situation back in 2009 where the coalition were so gung-ho about this that they wanted a full binding vote. But now they will not even support some very sensible reforms supported by the Productivity Commission. (Extension of time granted)As I said, they were not happy with their original position and not only have they backflipped on it but if those opposite had listened to the debate they would have been a little bit surprised by some of the rhetoric in it.
Frankly, listening to some of the opposition speakers on this bill you would think that they were opposing the bill. They come in here and they want to send mixed messages. But they do not want to go back to their electorates and have to admit that they voted against this legislation. They do not want to do that because they know that the Australian community want us to take the action that we are proposing. If they come in here and send their mixed messages they can pretend somehow that they support these measures and dress it up behind this fig leaf of amendments. But in the end they have been exposed. They do not support this. They want a system in place that strips away any power that shareholders have. Shareholders will have less power than they currently have. We are opposed to those amendments and we will be recommending that all members do what is in the interests of shareholders and their electorates and oppose these amendments.
~~Tony Smith~~
I will just speak very briefly. We reject for the second time the opposition of the parliamentary secretary to these sensible amendments. I will not restate all of the obvious reasons why we believe—
~~Mr Bradbury interjecting—~~
~~Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are in the chair. I listened—~~
~~David Bradbury~~
~~You were interjecting when I—~~
~~Tony Smith~~
~~I did not interject. It is a case of mistaken identity, I say to the parliamentary secretary.~~
~~Sharon Bird~~
~~The member for Casey will hold up for a moment. I will indicate that I am indeed in the chair and people will not interject while someone has the call.~~
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2011-05-12.39.1 amendments] introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Smith&mpc=Casey&house=representatives Tony Smith].
The amendments were:
''(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 6 and 7), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (lines 9 and 10), omit "votes cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast on a resolution that the remuneration report be adopted were cast".''
''(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 and 30), omit "votes cast were", substitute "total votes that were entitled to be cast were cast".''
Mr Smith explained that these amendments ensure that the 25 per cent referred to in the bill relates to all available votes rather than being limited to the votes cast at a particular annual general meeting.
One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the Government.[2]
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to implement some of the recommendations made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_Commission Productivity Commission] in its recent inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia, including providing for a ‘two strikes and re-election’ process when a company’s remuneration report receives a 25 per cent or more ‘no’ vote in two consecutive years.[1]
References
* [1] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4520%22%20Dataset%3Abillsdgs;rec=0 bills digest]. More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4520 here].
* [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ section].