Extract from The Guardian
Palmer closing the door after his Tasmanian devil had already bolted was not among the day’s very significant developments
- Lenore Taylor, political editor
- theguardian.com,
Three very important things are happening in the Senate today.
First, the influence of the Palmer United party appears to have declined, a lot.
By agreeing to help undo a deal on financial advice reforms done by her own leader, Jacqui Lambie, has effectively left the party and joined the ranks of unattached senators on the crossbench. Her support for an anti-wind power inquiry (when PUP strongly backs the renewable energy target) could be evidence of the same. Clive Palmer then sacking her as deputy Senate leader is like yelling “and stay out” when someone has already left and slammed the door.
This is bad news for the Abbott government. It needs six of the eight crossbench votes to pass legislation that is opposed by Labor and the Greens.
When PUP had three votes, that meant that if the Palmer party opposed a bill, it went down. But the government had a pretty good track record of talking Palmer around and winning his support in exchange for relatively small concessions, even on issues he had been vociferously opposed to just weeks previously.
Now – if Lambie’s split proves irreconcilable and she eventually stops her self-defeating stance of voting against everything until the government gives way on defence force pay and starts wielding the power of her voting position – the government will have to look for deals with the non-PUP six.
That is a truly eclectic mixture of ex-PUP, ex-DLP, free marketeer LDP, Motoring Enthusiast-and-god-knows-what-else-they-stand-for, Family First and Xenophon, the wily and popular dealmaker from South Australia.
It is clearly also bad news for PUP. With two votes instead of three its power is diminished.
Second, if the non-PUP six succeed in disallowing the Fofa regulations the previous laws will come back into effect, with consumer protections considered far superior not only by the Industry superannuation funds, but also by consumer group Choice and by lobby groups such as the Council for the Ageing and National Seniors.
Third, the bitter procedural debate when this bombshell dropped in the Senate on Wednesday brought into the open deeper political motivations behind this long-running fight. The government, backed by the financial services council and the banks, has argued the changes are designed to reduce “red tape” and bring down the cost of providing financial advice, to the benefit of consumers. But speaking to the Senate, the finance minister, Mathias Cormann made another point.
He said Labor was motivated to reverse his changes in order to protect the power flowing to the union movement through its involvement with the fast-growing and successful industry superannuation sector.
“Don’t let anyone think this has anything to do with the interests of the consumer … this is all about the commercial interest of the Labor mates in the union movement … Labor is desperate to protect the commercial advantages that Labor delivered to the union movement,” he said.
Which suggests undoing those alleged “commercial advantages” is also part of the government’s calculations.
First, the influence of the Palmer United party appears to have declined, a lot.
By agreeing to help undo a deal on financial advice reforms done by her own leader, Jacqui Lambie, has effectively left the party and joined the ranks of unattached senators on the crossbench. Her support for an anti-wind power inquiry (when PUP strongly backs the renewable energy target) could be evidence of the same. Clive Palmer then sacking her as deputy Senate leader is like yelling “and stay out” when someone has already left and slammed the door.
This is bad news for the Abbott government. It needs six of the eight crossbench votes to pass legislation that is opposed by Labor and the Greens.
When PUP had three votes, that meant that if the Palmer party opposed a bill, it went down. But the government had a pretty good track record of talking Palmer around and winning his support in exchange for relatively small concessions, even on issues he had been vociferously opposed to just weeks previously.
Now – if Lambie’s split proves irreconcilable and she eventually stops her self-defeating stance of voting against everything until the government gives way on defence force pay and starts wielding the power of her voting position – the government will have to look for deals with the non-PUP six.
That is a truly eclectic mixture of ex-PUP, ex-DLP, free marketeer LDP, Motoring Enthusiast-and-god-knows-what-else-they-stand-for, Family First and Xenophon, the wily and popular dealmaker from South Australia.
It is clearly also bad news for PUP. With two votes instead of three its power is diminished.
Second, if the non-PUP six succeed in disallowing the Fofa regulations the previous laws will come back into effect, with consumer protections considered far superior not only by the Industry superannuation funds, but also by consumer group Choice and by lobby groups such as the Council for the Ageing and National Seniors.
Third, the bitter procedural debate when this bombshell dropped in the Senate on Wednesday brought into the open deeper political motivations behind this long-running fight. The government, backed by the financial services council and the banks, has argued the changes are designed to reduce “red tape” and bring down the cost of providing financial advice, to the benefit of consumers. But speaking to the Senate, the finance minister, Mathias Cormann made another point.
He said Labor was motivated to reverse his changes in order to protect the power flowing to the union movement through its involvement with the fast-growing and successful industry superannuation sector.
“Don’t let anyone think this has anything to do with the interests of the consumer … this is all about the commercial interest of the Labor mates in the union movement … Labor is desperate to protect the commercial advantages that Labor delivered to the union movement,” he said.
Which suggests undoing those alleged “commercial advantages” is also part of the government’s calculations.
No comments:
Post a Comment