|
| Blue and red numbers respectively indicate booths with two-party majorities for the Liberal and Labor parties. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room. |
Held by the Liberals without interruption since 1984, Casey covers Melbourne’s eastern suburban fringe at Lilydale, Kilsyth and Monbulk, together with the Yarra Valley townships of Yarra Glen, Healesville and Warburton and unpopulated Yarra Ranges areas further afield. The suburban areas are Liberal-leaning, middle-income and culturally homogenous, with an above-average number of mortgage payers. Outcrops of Labor support further afield coincide with lower incomes at Healesville, a “tree-changer” tendency around Monbulk, and a combination of the two at Warburton (the Greens outpolled Labor at the 2013 election at the Warburton booth and The Patch just south of Monbulk). Healesville and Warburton were added with the redistribution before the 2013 election, which further cut the Liberal margin through the transfer of Croydon and Ringwood to Menzies and Deakin.
Casey was oriented further westwards when it was created in 1969, extending northwards from Ringwood to Kinglake. The bulk of the modern electorate remained in La Trobe, the area having previously been divided between it and Deakin. Casey assumed approximately its current dimensions when the expansion of parliament in 1984 pushed it further east into the Yarra Valley, and the 1990 redistribution added some of its present outer suburbs territory. The seat has been in Liberal hands outside of two interruptions, from 1972 to 1975 and 1983 to 1984. The inaugural member was Peter Howson, who had previously held the abolished inner urban electorate of Fawkner since 1951. Race Mathews won the seat for Labor with the election of the Whitlam government, and after being unseated in 1975 entered state politics as member for Oakleigh in 1979. Peter Falcolner held the seat for the Liberals through the Fraser years, before being unseated by Labor’s Peter Steedman when the Hawke government came to power in 1983.
Steedman was in turn unseated after a single term by Robert Halverson in 1984, with some assistance from redistribution, and the seat has been in Liberal hands ever since. Halverson’s retirement in 1998 made the seat available as a safe haven for Howard government Health Minister Michael Wooldridge, whose position in Chisholm had been weakened by redistribution in 1996. However, Wooldridge only served a single term before quitting politics at the 2001 election, at which time he was succeeded by Tony Smith. During Smith’s tenure the Liberal margin broke double digits for only the second time at the 2004 election, but he went into the 2013 election with a margin of only 1.9% following successive swings and an unfavourable redistribution. He nonetheless retained the seat easily on the back of a statewide Liberal swing that pushed his margin out to 7.2%.
Smith’s entry to politics came via a staff position with Peter Costello, with whom he remained closely associated. After the 2007 election defeat he won promotion to the shadow cabinet in the education portfolio, but Malcolm Turnbull demoted him to Assistant Treasurer when he became leader in September 2008. Smith formed part of the front-bench exodus in the final days of Turnbull’s leadership, together with Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin, in protest against Turnbull’s support for an emissions trading scheme. He duly emerged a strong backer of Abbott in the ensuing leadership contest, and returned to shadow cabinet in broadband and communications. However, Smith was widely thought to have struggled during the 2010 campaign and was demoted after the election for a second time, this time down to parliamentary secretary level. With the election of the Abbott government he was dropped altogether, making way for the promotion of fellow Victorians Josh Frydenberg and Alan Tudge.
zoomster@135
No, outside the electorate as not all electorates have cemeteries or crematoriums, but within a relatively short drive.
What about shadow ministers? Are they able to travel around on official duties?
I don’t mind you defending yourself, ModLib. I just don’t see any reason to apologise for my opinion of you. It’s my opinion, and I’m allowed to hold it.
Or are you against free speech now, as well?
[CONTROVERSIAL laws that will allow teenagers to consent to electro-shock therapy and brain surgery will go ahead, a leaked WA Government memo reveals.
A briefing for Mental Health Minister Helen Morton ahead of the Bill’s introduction to parliament this week concedes new laws allowing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and psychosurgery to be performed on children without their parents’ consent, subject to approval by a special medical tribunal, will polarise West Australians.
“Some stakeholders such as the Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights (an organisation of the Church of Scientology) strongly oppose use of ECT and argue that it should be severely limited,” the memo says.
“Others, including clinicians and a number of consumers and families with direct experience of it, believe it is a life-saving treatment. It is particularly effective in training major depression and bipolar disorder.”
…
ECT a procedure in which seizures are electrically induced in anaesthetised patients would be banned for anyone under 14 but could be performed on children aged 14-17 without parental consent. The new law would also permit psychosurgery which involves removing parts of the brain for the first time in WA since the 1970s. It could be performed on children as young as 16.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wa-government-memo-shows-electro-shock-therapy-laws-to-go-ahead/story-e6frg6n6-1226738867248#sthash.0GwNMdvt.dpuf ]
14 year olds can’t vote, but they will be able to consent to psychosurgery and ECT.
[Have we witnessed the most insipid first month of a newly elected government, ever? What a disaster.]
The Coalition is well ahead in the polls, Gillard was losing by about this point.
So to answer your question, no, you lefties only think you are “winning” when you are in fact “losing”
Fran
As you and most people would know, salary packaging enables tax minimisation by allowing some expenditure to be paid with your own pre taxed dollars.
These schemes are tax exemption or tax minimisation schemes, nothing at all to do with “tax deductions” (which occur when one spends their own post-taxed $s and claims a tax deduction (ie refund) in their next tax return.
One is an apple, one is an orange.
Most taxpayers understand these simple things, or if they don’t they have the sense to talk to a tax expert.
[14 year olds can’t vote, but they will be able to consent to psychosurgery and ECT.]
Shorn is a special for this.
[DisplayName
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 10:54 am | PERMALINK
Mod
Netting on left hate is a pretty safe bet!
Says the bleeding heart boatie, wut?]
Should have been “Betting”.
This is an opinion only, but it is one I have long held, those on the left of the political spectrum are more prone to hate than those on the right. It is probably fair to say that those on the right of the political spectrum are more prone to disinterest and not being caring, but it is not “hate”. The exception might be the hatred that the right seem to have for Obama in the USA at the moment, but the Republicans are a ‘special case’ in so many ways.
For example:
The right don’t think the globe is warming much, or that it is not really us
The left HATE anyone who is not running around the streets screaming “the globe is burning, the globe is burning”
We have seen it here, with questions why we don’t love our grandchildren I remember…etc etc!!!
bemused
No you are mistaken. Going to a State Wedding is entirely different to attending a caucus meeting in the normal course of your job.
The wedding rorts are that because they are private functions not part of the job. Same with fun runs
Attending caucus is part of duties as an MP because its meeting in parliament the workplace to choose the leader (management position)
Mod, I feel sad that you think you’re a hater :(.
Unsubtantiated allegations? Given team right’s (why are we hung up on such useless characterisations) frequent mispresentations, generalisations, exaggerations, oversimplifications, assumptions to suit themselves, putting words in others’ mouths, etc …
Pot, kettle, black, glass houses, etc. etc.
If anything is clear about parliamentary expenses, it’s that the current rules are quite inadequate. The distinction between what can be reimbursed, and what cannot, is very blurred – I have some sympathy for politicians trying to make the distinction. A lot of the time, given that guidelines are unclear, it boils down to personal decisions.
This is exemplified by the differing approaches of Rob Oakeshott and Tony Abbott to the Pollie Pedal. One thought it clearly appropriate to claim expenses for the event; the other did not.
Labor has largely been playing dead on this issue for the past couple of weeks, for a good reason. It knows that some of its MPs have made claims to which they are not entitled. Rather, by and large, it seems happy to let the issue just bubble along.
At the end of the day, politicians in general come out of this looking bad, regardless of which side they are from. Who suffers individually depends on perceptions in the electorate. On that score, Tony Abbott is coming out of this looking pretty bad. Private charter flights to the Birdsville races and Bathurst are not a good look. So far, the scale of indiscretions on the Labor side seem to be substantially less than on the Coalition side, with Abbott in particular perceived to be making a high volume of marginal claims. Also, the Coalition (and Abbott in particular) will suffer more because they are now in Government and subject to more scrutiny. If you like, a double whammy effect.
So in summary, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Abbott’s Government is not exactly off to a flying start, as we are seeing from the few polls published so far, and this issue would be a factor. The ongoing reluctance of the PM to implement reform to the system is damaging to him. If the noise doesn’t go away soon, he will be forced to act.
Unicorns, strawmen …
bemused
So no excuse for him to claim travel expenses, then – a short drive outside his electorate would be OK as part of his normal travel claims, particularly if the event could not be held within it, and again, no reason for him to claim accommodation for an overnight stay.
The weddings attended by the Libs and claimed for were not weddings within their electorates, and neither were they weddings of constituents (I can see that a funeral is part of official duties, I struggle to see when a wedding can be defined as such…) so they don’t even have that figleaf.
(A bit strange you’re arguing on the side of the Tories, here…)
[What about shadow ministers? Are they able to travel around on official duties?]
Of course. I’ve outlined previously that some media events are perfectly claimable for Shadows. If the event is clearly related to their portfolio, then no probs.
I repeat what I’ve said before – ‘intent’ is very important here. Attending a private function and taking the opportunity to meet with groups you’d be planning to meet with anyway on the same trip would be fine. Arranging to meet with groups you had never intended to in order to justify claiming for the trip probably allows you to claim technically but morally is dubious.
confessions@153
Clinicians can order it be administered to patients without consent but prefer to have consent.
I don’t see it as a big change and may just be the Scientologists making an issue.
I think there’s a whiff of more utter crap in the air today. I hope this doesn’t offend too many.
If offended, of course the easy remedy is to do as the very classy former PMJG said “stop writing crap”.
zoomster
Thanks for the link. I was very interested in this. In particular, the detrimental effect on learning of the mother’s long hours at work. In this regard, flexibility of working hours for mothers would have a very high social and educational benefit, as well as removing stress from working mothers.
[Children who attend private primary schools don’t perform any better in NAPLAN tests than their peers at public schools, new research shows.
It was the children of a healthy birth weight, who grew up in higher socio-economic circumstances in homes filled with books and had mothers who didn’t work long hours who performed best at NAPLAN.
. . .
Students whose mothers worked long hours did worse in all tests except numeracy, yet the working hours of fathers had no impact on test results..]
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/private-schooling-myth-debunked-20131012-2vfda.html#ixzz2hXrHBneu
[zoomster
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 10:57 am | PERMALINK
I don’t mind you defending yourself, ModLib.]
Appreciated.
[… I just don’t see any reason to apologise for my opinion of you. It’s my opinion, and I’m allowed to hold it.
Or are you against free speech now, as well?]
No, free speech is kewl.
All I have asked you to do, and I think this is perfectly fair, is to provide a cut and paste of the post of mine you are referring to when you make an allegation against me.
There is nothing I can do about it if you don’t, but, nevertheless, it is the decent thing to do. If you make generic claims ‘some here think x or y’ that is fine. However, what you do is claim “Mod Lib thinks x” or “Mod Lib has claimed to be a cancer researcher” and never provide said post.
I am not a cancer researcher. I do not know every cancer researcher in Australia.
I am a researcher. I know some researchers, including some very prominent ones at a very personal level (including having their mobile numbers and having been to their homes) but I am not and have never claimed to be a megastar researcher.
If you think I have claimed something that is not true then post it and I can correct any misinterpretation. If you don’t post it and just leave it as innuendo that I am not what I claimed to be, then that is an unsubstantiated slur and I have every right to call you out on it.
psyclaw:
You continue to avoid my question:
Did you know that Wedding catering expenses were claimable in the Meal Entertainment scheme when you wrote the “utter crap” post?
Why the reluctance to answer?
…as I’ve also said, I’d really have no trouble with Barnaby’s India trip claim if he could clearly show that he had always intended to meet with the people concerned, and that he took advantage of being there for the wedding to do so.
(So if there had been a request on the table from the groups to meet and discuss issues relating to Australia/India trade, for example, and B’s office had replied along the lines of ‘we must catch up soon’, I think that would be morally defensible).
guytaur@158
WTF?
Oh crap, this stupid argument had me temporarily forget what I was going to say.
zoom
There’s an argument for adjusting our lifestyles that suggests even 6 months PPL after a child’s birth is poorly targetted.
ModLib
seriously, I am not going to troll back through years’ worth of posts to find an obscure reference. If you want to, go right ahead.
Great suggestion earlier that the Greens n Labor instigate a senate enquiry into the wedding n bike riding rorts before the newbies arrive in July.
And especially good if they focus on Brandis …….. karma.
bemused
Being a politician is a job. Parliament and the local electorate are the workplace.
…and you will find I accepted the change from ‘cancer researcher’ to ‘researcher’, whilst still finding it remarkable you don’t get a reference to someone who is well known across all fields of research (largely due to his extremely interesting piece on how papers submitted for peer review are fudged, regarded as essential reading for all researchers).
[zoomster
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:08 am | PERMALINK
ModLib
seriously, I am not going to troll back through years’ worth of posts to find an obscure reference. If you want to, go right ahead.]
Well isnt that cute! :devil:
You make an unsubstantiated allegation against me but cant be bothered providing the quote.
Its up to me to find it and bring it to you eh?
YIKES!!!!!
If the working hours of fathers have no impact on test results it’s probably because we have a culture that doesn’t see child rearing as the father’s responsibility and so even being home there is less interaction between a child and it’s father than it’s mother.
Or does that sound like total crap … hmmm.
zoomster:
Do you have any idea how many thousands of “well known” researchers there are in this country?
I am in a very tight field of research which I would prefer not to discuss to maintain my anonymity- which given your claim to be one of the “Mod Lib haters” here you will understand!
Mod Lib. I have given a lot of tax advice in my time, and am familiar with the FBT concession schemes.
I must say, even with that background, I was quite mystified by your opening comments that started this little PB saga, ie, that wedding expenses can be tax deductible.
I was quite mystified by what you meant, because such expenses (professional bigamists excepted!) are not tax deductible. I eventually realized that what you were talking about was the salary packaging option available to charity and hospital employees, allowing them to take advantage of FBT concessions available only to such employees (ie, not taxpayers in general) for expense benefits, not just wedding costs.
I note that you have continued to claim that wedding costs are tax deductible in some of your posts this morning. As has been explained several times, they are not.
Let’s just leave it at that.
lizzie & DN
One of the things it suggests is that parents maybe making the wrong priorities – for example, going back to work early because they need to pay private school fees.
Not quite on the topic, but I’d like to see PPL linked to breast feeding. If mum can prove she’s still breastfeeding, then she can still claim at least some PPL funding (up to at least a year).
Looks like the predictions that Abbott would be a disaster weren’t far off the mark if his first month is anything to go by. I suspected he would be bad, but this bad? Holy smokes.
guytaur@174
Who are you arguing with?
Who said otherwise?
24 saying on their ticker that Albo is ahead on the membership ballot.
The question of course is how far ahead? Glad its not a long wait to find out.
[Outsider
……Mod Lib. I have given a lot of tax advice in my time, and am familiar with the FBT concession schemes.
…..
I note that you have continued to claim that wedding costs are tax deductible in some of your posts this morning. As has been explained several times, they are not.
Let’s just leave it at that.]
Just answer this then, is the following correct?
Case 1:
$100k salary
$ 10k tax deductions
$ 90k taxable income
Case 2:
$100k salary
$ 10k Meal Entertainment claim for Wedding catering
$ 90k taxable income
ModLib
You obviously have difficulty grasping the difference between hating you and despising you. I don’t hate you.
Seriously, do you think someone here would hunt you down in the ‘real world’ for comments you made here? How absurd.
I must admit, that’s why I started here under an alias. I was up against one of the best haters in the business. But being outted hasn’t caused me any problems.
I repeat, it doesn’t matter what field of research you’re in, if you’re doing any kind of professional development at all, you’d know this guy.
bemused
The example you brought up is not applicable because of that. All the expense claims under a cloud are outside of workplace expenses.
ML
[Its up to me to find it and bring it to you eh?]
Yep. See, it takes time, but eventually you catch on.
[zoomster
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:17 am | PERMALINK
ModLib
You obviously have difficulty grasping the difference between hating you and despising you. I don’t hate you.]
Too funny for words! :devil:
[…..I repeat, it doesn’t matter what field of research you’re in, if you’re doing any kind of professional development at all, you’d know this guy.]
Right, so are you questioning whether or not I actually engage in research then are you?
I can’t even remember who “this guy” is now, who was he again?
waznaki:
And parliament hasn’t resumed yet, when they’ll have to do actual governing.
Mod Lib@178
I think I have it worked out…
You are conducting vital research into a topic like belly button lint in pursuit of you IGNobel prize. 👿
Mod Lib.
That is correct. But not for all taxpayers. Only public hospital and charity employees.
That’s why there is a world of difference between tax deductibility in general, and the specific FBT concession that only applies to public hospital and charity employees.
Case 1 is correct for all taxpayers. Case 2 is not. For me, my employer would be hit with FBT on the wedding expense payment.
That is why your original post was misleading.
ML
scroll back a few post, you’ll see the reference.
[zoomster
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:18 am | PERMALINK
ML
Its up to me to find it and bring it to you eh?
Yep. See, it takes time, but eventually you catch on.]
Well there you go guys….zoomster finds it perfectly acceptable for anyone here to criticise her directly, make specific allegations about something she has said and it is up to her to then go and find said post and defend herself against you.
This is the classic attitude of “innocent until proven guilty” where the prosecutor is responsible for providing the defence with the charge against them, including the specific evidence, but not in zoomster’s eyes!
You are really quite funny! 🙂
ML
[You are really quite funny!]
That was the intention.
Outsider
For some weddings there may always be grey ground as to whether one attends officially.
But there’s no doubt about weddings of close friends and colleagues, nor is there doubt about pursuing one’s own hobbies, such as bike riding. Such claims are simple ripoffs. Ditto for weddings of allies like Mike Smith who ran the case against JG and Wilson, on behalf of Abbott.
Henderson today tried to obfuscate by reference to funerals (he mentioned Margaret Whitlam’s). I don’t recall if it was a state funeral or not, but even if not, relatively few MP attenders would have been there because she was their close friend. Such funerals are the nature of cultural and societal cohesion …… types of rituals which many of our reps would rightly attend in official capcity.
This is exactly why I ask for the specific post, so that I am able to look into it and make an informed comment
So Outsider says:
[Outsider
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:20 am | PERMALINK
Mod Lib.
That is correct. But not for all taxpayers. Only public hospital and charity employees.
That’s why there is a world of difference between tax deductibility in general, and the specific FBT concession that only applies to public hospital and charity employees.
Case 1 is correct for all taxpayers. Case 2 is not. For me, my employer would be hit with FBT on the wedding expense payment.
That is why your original post was misleading.]
So my original post was misleading because it is only a subgroup who get the tax deduction. Well, lets look at the original post and see what I said:
[Mod Lib
Posted Monday, October 7, 2013 at 10:11 pm | PERMALINK
Weddings actually can be tax deductible.
If you work for NSW Health you can claim meal entertainment. Weddings are eligible. Hence if you cater your wedding you can claim that expense.]
Note If you work for NSW Health”
guytaur@186
And you have made various statements about what differentiates private from work or public duties and you have been incorrect on some as I pointed out.
I do not intend to respond any further on this with you.
[Mod Lib
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:06 am | PERMALINK
psyclaw:
You continue to avoid my question:
Did you know that Wedding catering expenses were claimable in the Meal Entertainment scheme when you wrote the “utter crap” post?
Why the reluctance to answer?]
Well? I have asked this for days and days now…..why the reluctance?
bemused
I have not been wrong. If you are representing the government it is official.
If you are not representing the government you are there in your capacity as an MP. In other words what you are paid for.
If you are not there as an MP or officially you have to be there in a private capacity.
Fairly simple. Remember this applies to when out of the workplace.
Interesting line from the resident conservative hacks about the bitter and twisted lefties “hating” Abbott.
Sense of deja vu here in that this is exactly the same line that was used back in Howard’s day. It was regularly trotted out by the likes of the OO and associated cheer squads.
At attempt to paint the ‘opposition’ as kind of warped in “hating” Howard/Abbott.
In actual fact “hate” is not the right word.
Contempt is much better.
In the end it did not matter as Howard lost his government and most deliciously, his seat. Maybe the simple answer was that by 2007 he there was more than contempt for him.
It has been already predicted the Abbott years will “end in tears” and I wonder what the excuses will be then from the said Tory hacks?
And for those deluded ones from the right who see six years of government ahead for them, when the next election is less than three years away, all that one can say is that “hope springs eternal in the conservative breast”.
The most laughable comment comes from our resident red neck jester who claims that the polls look good for the conservatives as they are “winning”.
To think that just four weeks after the election one poll shows the conservatives going backward from what turned out to be not the smashing win the conservatives hoped for, and with all kinds of nasty things in the wings, one wonders what the line will be as, without doubt, the polls get into really negative territory for the Tories.
Already their more strident operatives are using words like “longer term”, “have patience”, “it will take time” and “look at the problem Labor left” and blah, blah and blah.
So far, we have not had any “black holes left us” but I guess this can’t be too far away.
Apart from rank hypocrisy from the conservatives – their usual fare – their predictable responses are the other feature of their discourse.