In the afternoon session of parliament yesterday, Labor Senator Sam Dastyari initiated a motion to force the government into tabling the regulations amending FOFA, backed by Senator Muir along with the Greens, the Democratic Labour Party’s John Madigan, independent Nick Xenophon and Jacqui Lambie, one of the three Palmer United Party (PUP) senators.
While Mr Muir has previously indicated he would vote as part of a bloc with PUP, he yesterday broke with Cliver Palmer’s party line to vote with Labor and the Greens against one of the government’s carbon tax repeal measures, leading the The Sydney Morning Herald to remind readers that Mr Muir is “not a full- time PUP senator”.
In a communication released last week, consumer advocate and vociferous FOFA-amendment opponent Choice also reiterated that despite the supposed bloc voting deal in place with PUP, Mr Muir has not publicly “indicated how [he] would approach a [FOFA] disallowance motion”.
The move indicates that despite Mr Muir’s shock voting movements on the carbon tax, that the government may not be able to rely on the Motoring Enthusiasts for support of its FOFA amendment Bill.
Liberal Democratic Party Senator David Leyonhjelm, however, voted against Senator Dastyari’s motion – having previously told ifa he had not come to a “final position” – as did Family First Senator Bob Day.
The government subsequently tabled the regulation at 3.48pm, prompting Minter Ellison partner Richard Batten to issue a statement explaining that the tabling of the document now means that Labor’s slated disallowance motion could proceed.
“It is not yet clear whether the opposition will move to disallow all or only part of the regulation,” Mr Batten said. “As many non-controversial aspects of the Regulation make important technical amendments to the FOFA regime, it is to be hoped that the opposition will be selective in any notice of motion they table.”
Speaking to ifa yesterday, the FPA’s Dante De Gori also speculated that “the reason why [Senator] Dastyari is pushing it is Labor can’t put in a motion to disallow the regulations until they’re tabled”.
Agree with you Craig but don’t expect a response from Philip Carman. It is all one way traffic from these hypocrites. They criticise advisers with all sorts of stats and lies they pluck out of the air and then have the hide to criticize adviser professionalism. This FOFA exercize has revealed the true colours of certain sectors which now defines them. This will not be forgotten and will come back to haunt them.
Hi Craig,
agree totally when only 2 in 10 Australians seek advice or 4.8 mil at a guess or at best. When 80% of super clients are disengaged aust wide. Most clients would go what the??? FOFA most would have no idea. Most of the clive’s changes we are doing already. We just need to get on with it and now and give sound advice to clients as always.
To Philip Carman:
Would you please make reference to your specific source regarding your statement that “80% of Australians disagree with watering down FOFA rules” and “the same percentage that distrust advisers.”
Please quote the survey references to enable those who are reading your statement to assess these results on their merits or otherwise.
Do 80% of your clients distrust you?
Do 80% of adviser’s clients in Australia distrust their adviser?
Do 80% of Australians ie.18,675,788 people understand the detail and specifics of FOFA in order to be able to disagree with it?
Do 18,675,788 people distrust advisers?
These are big claims, so it is important we all have the evidence supporting your comments.
Thanks Philip.
80% of Australians disagree with watering down FOFA rules on protecting clients – the same percentage that distrusts advisers…and those in our industry who complain about scrutiny should learn that practice standards must be high and totally transparent if it is to gain the trust of the public. Senator Muir is no more “self-serving” than those who rant about being made accountable. Only the banks benefit from the removal of the best interest clause – because they want to flog their products using sales incentives for staff who act as “spotters”. The rest of us are better served by better and more stringent regulation as it provides a safer environment that can eventually weed out (most of) the dodgy practices of the few that wreak things for the good advisers. Advisers independent of banks and product manufacturers have nothing to hide and welcome transparency and scrutiny and I reckon ASIC’s funding should be doubled so it can weed out the few dodgy ones who spoil it for the rest.
Great – now we have an L plate pollie who doesn’t know what the balance of power is deciding the future of financial advice in Australia. Can this whole thing get more self serving and ridiculous?
That makes sense. I would put them in the same boat. No chance of cutting yourself on any of those tools.
with all the CBA issues and The new senate it will be unlikely the changes will go through
How did the country come to this…when a Motoring Enthusiast party gets to help determine the shape of a nations’ future in an area they are clearly not qualified in.
The mistake made by the coalition was to allow Sinodinis to curry favour with his bank buddies to include general advice exemptions for the banks at the last minute. This was not discussed in the lead up to FOFA, creating an unlevel playing field for ‘advice’ made absolutely no sense given the banks and industry funds track record in advice and service and has been used by Labour to ridicule the reforms in the light of CBA.Cormann cannot defend the indefensible. The solution is simple. Scrap the whole concept of general advice. It should be termed product information full stop. The risk is that if this is not addressed, all advisers will cop a whole bag of unworkable red tape.
This just gets better all the time. And I am absolutely certain that Ricky has a full grasp on what the proposed legislation means – not.