|
| 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.
looking forward to the transcript of this conversation
[ABC Radio Melbourne @774melbourne 8m
.@MissGorr is talking to Clive Palmer who is adamant that ASIO listens in to all his phone calls #Sundays]
Mod Lib. I accept that. The confusion was because you started off referring to tax deductibility. As I explained, I did not immediately realize you were actually talking about the FBT concession.
The two things are quite different. Indeed, I was initially thrown by your reference to NSW Health. Not all its employees are eligible for the FBT exempt expense payment Scheme. Only those working in hospitals are eligible. So from what I understand of your employment expenses, you are eligible. The vast majority of Australian employees are not. Including, I suspect, most of those working for NSW Health.
bemused
The question is are these out of workplace trips justifiable. Just as an employee has to justify a trip outside the workplace.
If it does not apply directly to your work then it is not justifiable.
This is why your mention of caucus does not apply. It is in the workplace.
Outsider:
I am very happy to discuss all these technicalities and fine print, however, the main point I have been making for the last week is the psyclaw’s claim that my post was “utter crap” is ridiculous.
What I said in my original post was correct, you can debate the intricacies of each word in that post, sure, I did not realise that there were going to be Barristers and Tax aficionados going through it with a fine tooth comb!!!! :devil:
Yes, I am eligible, and yes, not everyone is, I never claimed they were as you will see from the original post.
And one last thing Mod Lib.
I have tried not to criticise you personally. All I have done in my comments, going back to your original post, is explain the difference between tax deductions generally and tax concessions for public hospital/charity employees.
I have made my case as to why these are quite separate things. It seems you don’t agree with me that there is a difference. There’s not a lot more I can say.
Well, given the chances of psyclaw responding to my repeated questions are near zero (and do you think I don’t know why that is the case 🙂 ?) I am heading off into the beautiful sunny day.
Have a good one Bludgeroonies….
Mod Lib@204
Mad Lib, what you don’t seem to realise is that most people would think that most of your posts are “utter crap” and we have to trawl through them to find the occasional piece that isn’t “utter crap”.
“Utter crap” seems to be your default position, usually cloaked in a lot of smug self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
Outsider:
I appreciate our dialogue has been cordial, you are not one of the people I am referring to when I talk about unsubstantiated allegations so sorry if that was the impression I left- I was just pointing out that knowing the post enables me to respond!
I accept your greater knowledge on tax matters, I am just saying that from my perspective, whatever you call it, the Meal Entertainment is the same as a tax deduction for me, and the end result is exactly the same (except NSW Health gets half my deduction whereas I get all of other deductions). If you tell me it is technically not a deduction but some other term, then fair enough, but we have agreed a few days ago from memory, that it is “effectively” the same thing as a deduction.
Sorry Mod Lib. Our respective last posts crossed.
For me at least, your original post was very confusing, as I have explained. I think others shared my confusion.
So I think we are all agreed that wedding expenses are not tax deductible, but public hospital and charity employees are entitled to FBT concessions for expense payments, including wedding costs, up to the statutory limit each year!!
Maybe it would be good to look at some laws in place in the private and public service workforces for some guidance on expenses claims.
Look at where employees can claim compensation for work injuries. It is an area that seems to have some good demarcations between work and private.
Of course it cannot be applied directly to expenses. However worth thinking about.
…and that, whatever happens with FBT concessions, it has nothing to do with whether or not Abbott et al were justified in claiming for attending weddings.
[including wedding costs, up to the statutory limit each year!!]
…actually, my understanding is that there is no limit. However, having never claimed for wedding expenses, I am not sure about that one.
I certainly know that for meal expenses (sitting down at a restaurant) there are no limits.
my say
Thanks for that link on Scott Morrison what a nasty scheming piece of work he is and he claims to be a Christisn.
God help us all!
[zoomster
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:41 am | PERMALINK
…and that, whatever happens with FBT concessions, it has nothing to do with whether or not Abbott et al were justified in claiming for attending weddings.]
I have never said they had anything to do with whether or not Abbott et al were justified in claiming for attending weddings.
guytaur
You can have all the laws and guidelines you want in any area and someone will still try and rort the system.
It’s not the guidelines which are at fault, it’s the people putting in the claims.
I remind everyone, we’re not talking about JoeBlow here, wrestling over his tax return on his lonesome.
We’re talking about well paid MPs, who have several staffers, all of whom are capable of picking up a phone and asking the relevant Department a question if they have any doubt at all about the veracity of a claim.
MTBW@213
His is a particularly toxic mutation of Christianity. 😮
MTBW@213
His is a particularly toxic mutation of Christianity. 😮
zoomster:
I couldn’t resist but look up the synonyms for “despise” Haha 🙂
So which of these do you feel for me?
abhorstarderidestardeteststardisdainstareschewstarhatestarloathestarneglectstarrejectstarrepudiatestarrevilestarscornstarshunstarsnubstarundervaluestarabominatestarcontemnstardisregardstarexecratestarfloutstarrenouncestarslightstarspurnstar
You did say something to the effect of that we (the people of Australia) shouldn’t criticise because we’re no better.
[201
sprocket_
looking forward to the transcript of this conversation
ABC Radio Melbourne @774melbourne 8m
.@MissGorr is talking to Clive Palmer who is adamant that ASIO listens in to all his phone calls #Sundays]
Clive has a highly exaggerated sense of his own importance.
sorry, got mangled but here is a cleaner version:
abhor deride detest disdain eschew hate loathe neglect reject repudiate revile scorn shun snub undervalue abominate contemn disregard execrate flout renounce slight spurn
bemused
Don’t you just love the arrogance of people like him?
Christian my arse!
Following 219, talk about making unsubstantiated allegations, one directed at every person in Australia has to be the mother of them all :P.
[DisplayName
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:45 am | PERMALINK
You did say something to the effect of that we (the people of Australia) shouldn’t criticise because we’re no better.]
Stones and glass houses and all that….
Mod Lib. Eligible employees can only get the FBT exemption for expense reimbursements up to a statutory annual limit. It’s $30,000 for charity workers, but only $17,000 for hospital workers. And that’s for all expense reimbursements, not just wedding costs!!
DN:
Yes, you got me there! I can’t prove it, just a hunch (and one with multiple anecdotes in my personal experience).
ModLib
We know that. It was another example of how you obsfucate.
The other day we were having a conversation here about JFK’s assassination.
If I had plonked in to the middle that discussion a comment about the trajectory of a bullet fired from a certain elevation, without specifically saying that was in reference to JFK’s assassination, then I would quite rightly expect that people would assume that my comment was still relevant to that discussion.
You say yours wasn’t – that you just happened to have a little thought bubble about claimable expenses in the middle of a discussion about MPs’ claimable expenses, but it had nothing to do with the discussion about claimable expenses.
You can see why it confused people, who are silly enough to read posts in context.
Can I suggest that you now head each of your posts with a subject line, to avoid such confusion in the future?
MTBW@222
It has long seemed to me that the people who most vehemently attach such labels to themselves are the ones whose behaviour is most likely to be otherwise. 😐
MTBW@222
It has long seemed to me that the people who most vehemently attach such labels to themselves are the ones whose behaviour is most likely to be otherwise. 😐
[Outsider
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:47 am | PERMALINK
Mod Lib. Eligible employees can only get the FBT exemption for expense reimbursements up to a statutory annual limit. It’s $30,000 for charity workers, but only $17,000 for hospital workers. And that’s for all expense reimbursements, not just wedding costs!!]
I actually don’t think that is right, but perhaps we need someone better than me at this to work it out.
As a NSW Health employee you get the $17k and can claim all sorts of expenses there. Then you get the ADDITIONAL benefit of meal entertainment. That is DEFINITELY the case as I do both and manage it directly through my hospital Finance Department.
The Wedding one I am not sure about, but I assume it works the same as the sitting down at a restaurant scheme (ie ADDITIONAL to the $17k).
zoomster
Easy to fix rorters. Attach criminal penalties for fraud. That is what it is. Have exactly the same leniency for mistakes and penalties for wrong doing that would be imposed on a medical public servant for doing the same.
Then it only comes down to defining the division between work and not work.
[204…Mod Lib]
P was undoubtedly correct. Nearly everything you post is utter crap, ML. Is it so hard to post material that is interesting and informative? I don’t know what you research field is, but there must be a good chance it is “How to bore an audience to tears.”
zoomster
[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.]
That is a very good point. If I comment any more on reasons for needing extra money I might be accused of being a Luddite 🙂
ML
[I know some researchers, including some very prominent ones at a very personal level]
Ok. Pegged it – you’re Ginnie Johnson!
😆
bemused
He appears to have wheeled and dealed himself into every position has has taken on.
I wonder just how much Christian compassion he has – it appears to be none – disgraceful!
[Can I suggest that you now head each of your posts with a subject line, to avoid such confusion in the future?]
Alternatively people could just ignore Mod Lib’s baiting.
If the conversations amongst pollies’ staffers bear any resemblance to the arguments here, the last few days must have been “interesting”. 🙂
Mod Lib. I will check the FBT Act when I get a chance and get back to you with a view!
[zoomster
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 11:48 am | PERMALINK
ModLib
We know that. It was another example of how you obsfucate.
The other day we were having a conversation here about JFK’s assassination.
If I had plonked in to the middle that discussion a comment about the trajectory of a bullet fired from a certain elevation, without specifically saying that was in reference to JFK’s assassination, then I would quite rightly expect that people would assume that my comment was still relevant to that discussion.
You say yours wasn’t – that you just happened to have a little thought bubble about claimable expenses in the middle of a discussion about MPs’ claimable expenses, but it had nothing to do with the discussion about claimable expenses.]]
The discussion was about wedding expenses and MPs claiming for them and how ridiculous it was. I made a comment about there being a way that NSW Health employees COULD claim for them as an interesting anecdote in that discussion.
I did not at any stage use it as an excuse for the MPs as you claimed I did. As I was able to use the original post, all can see that I never made any such connection (you see how good it is to be able to find the post????? 🙂 ).
[You can see why it confused people, who are silly enough to read posts in context.]
I can see how people who jump to conclusions to attach me, end up with egg on their faces, yes.
[Can I suggest that you now head each of your posts with a subject line, to avoid such confusion in the future?]
Sure, you can suggest it. Just as I can reject it, and I do.
[236
confessions
Can I suggest that you now head each of your posts with a subject line, to avoid such confusion in the future?
Alternatively people could just ignore Mod Lib’s baiting.]
…..beautiful morning on the west coast, confessions…
Hmmmm….here longer than expected but still no response from psyclaw.
Quel surprise!
Well, definitely off now…..Good day bludgeroonies!
lizzie
I have been a staffer for three ALP pollies and we always got on well most of the time.
Let me add that we were too busy to have long winded conversations we were far too busy particularly when it came to State issues.
ML
[I did not at any stage use it as an excuse for the MPs as you claimed I did.]
Where?
You’ve been hanging around too long, Mod, that’s why you’re off.
[The Treasurer also confirmed the Coalition would need to lift Australia’s debt limit, from $300 billion, to “prevent Australia breaching the debt limit before Christmas”. Parliament is due to return in mid-November.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/coalition-plans-new-budget-rules-to-lay-credible-path-to-surplus-and-tackle-debt/story-fn59nsif-1226739057879#sthash.Bp71T6Zr.dpuf ]
Well there’s a surprise. All the pre-election ranting about ballooning debt, with Hockey demanding Labor recall parliament before it raised the debt ceiling (so the coalition could vote against it), now walked back on like so many other things now they’re in govt.
Post #227
DN
Clever retort!
briefly:
Phailin’s wind speeds were fractionally lower than forecast when it hit the coast.
Still quite powerful though.
The High Court will shortly provide a little guidance on the work/non-work dichotomy in the context of a bit of nooky induced injuries while on a work conference.
[Kathy Lette @KathyLette 13m
After British expenses scandal, any Oz politician who was stupid enough to rort their expenses, has obviously taken an IQ test – and failed.]