The Australian Financial Review reported last night that the MP for Fairfax and leader of the Palmer United Party has “stepped back from his previous position that his senators would vote with Labor and the Greens” on FOFA and has “put to Senator Cormann a list of demands which the government is considering”.
The report suggests that Mr Palmer’s demands are relating to additional transparency provisions and include a legally binding disclosure document from institutions to consumers that the advice they are receiving is in their best interests.
Mr Palmer has also flagged the notion of a “get-out clause” for investors, in which they could “order a switch in strategy should their investment begin to sour”.
Labor was expected to table a FOFA amendment disallowance motion yesterday but it was not forthcoming, possibly as a result of Mr Palmer’s last-minute change of heart.
If a disallowance motion is not tabled this week, the Senate will not be able to consider one until it sits again on August 26.
Mr Palmer previously indicated strong opposition to the government’s FOFA amendment agenda.
Let’s not jump to conclusions on this. I saw his ideas in another publication this morning and they seem reasonable. If he walks away with a moral victory, and we end up with a workable solution, then well played Mr Palmer!
Yep, because the FOFA debate needs more input from the clueless. The list of dribble from all sides of parliament is overwhelming. If only there was one part of FOFA that would result in the protection of clients and the reduction in conflicted advise.
I believe one of the demands was honey chicken.