Developments of various kinds in the field of vote-counting:
• Labor’s month-long leadership election campaign is finally drawing to a close, with caucus having determined its 50% share of the total vote yesterday and around 25,000 rank-and-file ballots to be counted on Sunday. Reports suggest that Bill Shorten has won at least 50 out of the 86 votes in the party room, receiving the undivided support of a Right which had been polarised during the Gillard-Rudd stand-off. By contrast, David Crowe of The Australian reports that Left members including Warren Snowdon, Brendan O’Connor, Kate Lundy, Laurie Ferguson, Maria Vamvakinou, Julie Owens and newly elected Bendigo MP Lisa Chesters have failed to fall in behind Albanese. Tea-leaf reading from party sources quoted around the place suggests Bill Shorten will do best if a large number of votes are received from his relatively strong states of Victoria and Western Australia, with most other states (together with the ACT, which punches above its weight in terms of ALP membership) considered strongholds for Albanese.
• ReachTEL published a poll yesterday of 891 respondents in New South Wales and Victoria showing Anthony Albanese favoured over Shorten by 60.9-39.1 in New South Wales and 54.0-46.0 in Victoria. Each had slight leads over Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister in Victoria and slight deficits in New South Wales. Results on voting intention confirmed the general impression from the limited national polling in finding no honeymoon bounce for the new government.
• Electoral Commissioner Ed Killesteyn has ordered a recount of above-the-line votes for the Western Australian Senate, which will change the result of two Senate seats if a 14-vote gap between the Shooters and Fishers and Australian Christians parties is reversed. Also under review are votes declared informal the first time around, which is always a grey area. Tireless anonymous blogger TruthSeeker has performed good work in identifying count peculiarities potentially significant enough to turn the result, including a popular favourite known as the “Waggrakine discrepancy”.
• The Fairfax recount limps with the Clive Palmer camp apparently challenging any vote that doesn’t go its way, thereby requiring it to be sent for determination by the state electoral officer in Brisbane. AAP reports the result “won’t be known for at least another week”.
UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes relates that ReachTEL has let rip with its first post-election poll of national voting intention, and it continues an unbroken run of such polling in plotting a position for the Coalition south of what it achieved at the election, however slightly. Coming off a large-even-for-ReachTEL sample of 3600, it shows the Coalition with a two-party preferred lead of 52.1-47.9, compared with roughly 53.5-46.5 at the election, from primary votes of 45.4% for the Coalition (45.6% at the election), 35.3% for Labor (33.4%) and 8.6% for the Greens (unchanged). Tony Abbott’s performance is rated good by 40.5% and poor by 40.2%.
The purpose for entitlements is to compensate for the cost of carrying out a work activity outside of normal work activities.
mexican
Yes. Thus attending a State Wedding is a work related expense. Attending a private one is not.
The question is whether it’s relevant to their functioning in their job as a politician.
Do politicians even have a job description? 🙂
Guytaur
Yes that is why i drew the difference between going to Sophie’s wedding and Prince William/Kate Middleton wedding
Another good example is funerals. A State Funeral is work related and a private one is not.
The same principle applies to both.
I have not heard anyone claim expenses for a private funeral. I have not heard of anyone begrudging politicians claiming expenses for State funerals.
zoomster @1250
[It can be.]
So, it is clearly not cut and dried – there are no clear firm rules?
Is talking to people only qualifying if during the event? Not before or after?
CC –
What is this alluding to?
If the media turns up to film a Politician in an event does that not make it claimable?
So, a wedding where 10,000 guests are invited from a broad range of international businesses and governments – that would be claimable?
Crank
Its not grey. Private weddings are private. State Weddings are public events.
Not in my opinion.
Someone quoted the relevant guidelines, and the guidelines appeared to say that expenses related to their work as parliamentarians – meetings associated with committee work etc – are ok. Just being a politician and campaigning did not appear, to me, to be covered.
So no, being a media tart and stuntmaster extraordinaire – by itself – is not sufficient.
CC
Yes, there’s always grey areas. So if you’re in doubt, you check the situation out before you claim.
MPs have staffers. It’s one phone call. It really isn’t that hard to administer.
CC
[So, a wedding where 10,000 guests are invited from a broad range of international businesses and governments – that would be claimable?]
No. Not unless you were invited to represent your country, by a relevant authority (for example, the government of another country).
Crank
Yes i image it would be.
Lets take the wedding of Prince William & Kate Middleton.
Regardless of what you may think of them or the current constitutional arrangements the fact is if you are a senior polly and are invited it is because they feel that they can or they may be interested in doing business with you in future so it becomes a network event.
As a federal polly you are representing the country as a whole so to say no is in effect say Australia doesn’t want to do business with you.
Just in case CC tries to confuse the greys – weddings aren’t a grey area. You’re invited in a particular capacity, either as a private guest or as a representative of your government.
Sporting events are similar – you’re either invited as a representative of your government (as per my example) or as an individual.
zoomster
Your 1265 is the clearest I have seen it put.
Very easy to understand
[Forty counters and two scrutineers had completed the first count of just under 30,000 ballots by Saturday morning but a final tally will not be declared until Sunday, with a handful of disputed ballots to be decided.
An official announcement will be made in Canberra at 2pm when the Labor caucus meets.
Advertisement
Those overseeing the vote said Mr Albanese appeared to have received the 60 per cent of the grass roots votes he needed to remain in the hunt.
“It’s going to be a photo finish, it’s very close,” said a source. “I don’t think anyone could say right now which way it will go.”
A source familiar with the count said: “It’s all about what’s in the box now,” – a reference to the caucus vote which will be kept uncounted and under lock and key until Sunday.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/late-surge-for-anthony-albanese-puts-labor-leadership-contest-with-bill-shorten-on-a-knife-edge-20131012-2veym.html#ixzz2hU8UllXN
So if the Sikh commnity invites a Politician to an event that turns out to be a Wedding and the Politician is friends with some of the guests, is that claimable?
Andrew Elder still not impressed by the competence of the MSM, or the discipline of the Coalition.
http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/competence-discipline-strategy-and.html
[Last Sunday the current editor of The Australian Financial Review, Michael Stutchbury, declared that travel allowance rorts by the then-opposition wasn’t important as a story, but now that those same people are in government it has become very important. There seems to be a lot of this about: stung by the idea that they just waved these clowns into office without so much as a journalistic pat-down, let alone the scrutiny as to whether this lot might be less effective than those they eventually replaced, they are digging out the cliche of travel rorts and flinging it about as if to say: see, we dish it out to Both Sides! We’re not biased!
So we have:
*a government made up of people who aren’t very good at the details when it comes to spending public money, boding ill for its ability to deal with education and defence and the budget and all that government stuff;
*a PR machine for said government whose only tactic, water-muddying, will only make things worse; and
*a mainstream media that loses credibility – and ratings – when it tries to schedule scandals to its timetable.]
CC
How can an event ‘turn out’ to be a wedding?
[So if the Sikh commnity invites a Politician to an event that turns out to be a Wedding and the Politician is friends with some of the guests, is that claimable?]
No.
CC, don’t you already have enough information to work it out for yourself?
Crank
Can the politician prove they are there representing the Government?
If yes then they can claim
Crank
Yes, if the Sikh community invites the local MP then yes that is clearly a work event.
Politicians should be trying to befriend members of the community.
The odds are the MP wont claim for that for it would fall into normal MP activities.
Zoomster @1265 – so even though politciians have been invited in their Official Capacity as Members of the Opposition to attend weddings they have now been lambasted and forced to pay back expenses claimed for attending in their official capacity – that makes sense.
Zoomster is right as most community events happen within the MP’s seat so he/she might claim petrol but only if he has traveled a great distance.
Zoomster @1270
Cultural misunderstanding of protocols – they happen.
mexican
It’s hard to imagine the pollie in question attending such a wedding unless it was within his electorate, in which case there’s nothing to claim.
Crank
I don’t believe Sophie invited Tone as he was a minister but because they were friends.
Heh, “being invited in their official capacity” is such an easy rule to rort.
I believe the distinction zoom made was between state and private weddings, not how they were addressed in an invitation.
Crank
One thing we do know. You cannot claim expenses for attending friends and party colleagues weddings.
CC
[Cultural misunderstanding of protocols – they happen.]
So what do you think the putative MP THOUGHT they were going to? A bar mitzvah?
Right – so if you are friends with anyone who invites you to an event in your official capacity as a Politician – it’s not claimable because you are friends.
CC @ 1276
Then it was a misunderstanding and the polly, having turned up and realised it wasn’t claimable, won’t claim it. Are you suggesting they continued to misunderstand what it was even after they attended?
zoomster @1277 but if you attend some other “claimable function” before or after the wedding then the whole cost is claimable?
Anyone seen Dreyfus lately?
CC @ 1282, no, the distinction is not made on how you are addressed in an invitation.
CC
[Zoomster @1265 – so even though politciians have been invited in their Official Capacity as Members of the Opposition to attend weddings they have now been lambasted and forced to pay back expenses claimed for attending in their official capacity – that makes sense.]
No, they weren’t. They were invited by people who thought they were friends.
Abbott was Slipper’s best man, which certainly suggests that at least Slipper thought Abbott actually wanted to be there. Mirabella was a long time friend of Abbott’s, from before either of them entered politics.
Must be disappointing for both of them to now learn that Abbott was only there because he was paid to be.
CC, Dreyfus is irrelevant to the definition of a rort.
Was Bob Hawke’s Stripper show claimable?
Crank
What was the official event connected to Sophie Mirabella’s wedding.
It was her private wedding with family and friends invited, there is nothing confusing or hard to understand unless you somehow see Sophie as Australia’s answer to Kate Middleton
I admit I lol’d. Is that wrong?
Dreyfus = foot shooting.
Crank
Good try at Unicorn. Wedding in question LNP in the news for were those of friends or at least party colleagues.
My view is the most that should have been claimed should have been from party funds and even that of doubtful validity.
It’s not a rort to shoot your foot, CC.
It is if you then claim the costs for shoe repair!
DisplayName @1285 – apparently you aren’t allowed to claim anything if you attend something if you’re friends withthe organisers – that explains a lot about the ALP then.
CC
actually, yes. If a politician attends a private function and then combines it with duties which clearly relate to their public life, it’s allowable (this is all really easy stuff, it gets thrashed out endlessly at local council level).
However, anything private connected with that visit can’t be charged for (so if you detour to visit a friend, you shouldn’t charge for that travel).
I have some sympathy for Barnaby’s claim that he attended to official business after the Indian wedding. However, he would need to show that he had intended to meet with the people concerned regardless (even if there had been no wedding) to avoid the impression he just met with them so that he could claim.
I’ve said it before – if the claim was fair and reasonable, then the politician concerned should show a bit of balls and stand up for themselves, not crumble the second pressure is applied.
We expect politicians to be able to argue the case when they believe it’s right to do so. If a pollie can’t mount a reasonable defence when it comes to a relatively small issue like an allowable claim, then it doesn’t bode well for their ability to argue in favour of a complex policy.
You have the choice – either Barnaby was rorting, or he is weak.
Crank
Wrong if it is organized as a public event, community event or business event then yes it might well be claimable but i don’t see any community or business aspect to Sophie Mirabella’s wedding.
She is a colleague and friend.
CC – the “friends” issue is irrelevant as you know; “friends” come into it because there would otherwise be no reason for the pollie to attend the wedding.
If a pollie gatecrashes a totally random stranger’s wedding it wouldn’t be any more claimable as an expense.
As Zoomster said – it must suck to be a Coalition politician knowing that no one attends your wedding because they personally like you – the LNP pollies all attend because, apparently, it’s an official meeting where parliamentary business is discussed.
Crank
Zoomster has laid it out nicely for you,
CC
[apparently you aren’t allowed to claim anything if you attend something if you’re friends withthe organisers ]
Please explain this bit of logic. No one has said anything like that.