The Grabbitt Family freebie list grows

'Sleek, modern, fresh' in Aussie designer Toni Maticevski: 

Bridget, Louise and Francis Abbott on election night

The Abbott family on 7 September 2013

Photograph from The Daily Mail U.K.

It has long been known that Tony Abbott has a penchant for excepting gifts of tailored suits, shirts, ties and sports gear from donors and ‘sponsors’.

Now The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that the women in his family may have their hands out as well……

29 August 2013:

There are plenty of parallels between the Abbott and Obama roadshows. Strong, likeable wife. Tick. Two inspiring daughters. Tick. Skinny suits, white shirts and 365 blue ties. Tick, tick, tick. At the pointy end of his re-election, the President was rarely seen without a jacket and tie. When was the last time you saw Tony in a golf shirt? Or Speedos? Team Abbott should be given gold stars for slickness. With under two weeks to go they're stage-managing the finale with the precision (and wardrobe) of a Kardashian Christmas card.

Like many young Australian women, Bridget and Frances Abbott enjoy getting dressed up, telling Harper's Bazaar magazine that they act as each other's stylists when preparing for their father's events. "We still live at home and it's pretty much an all-girl household most of the time – dad's never there – so we bounce ideas off each other and mum. Sometimes we'll come out in a dress we think is really nice and she'll be like, 'No you wore that out on Saturday night - and you can't wear that to an event!' We do have to be careful of the type of clothes we wear."

Margie Abbott knows how to dress for the klieg light too. At the launch she wore red. Michelle Obama, inauguration ball red. Red that said I stand beside not behind my husband. When Bridget stood on the podium, resplendent in white and said, "I've seen my dad with people from all walks of life – young, old, rich, poor, gay, straight, the frail, the fit, indigenous and migrant – and he treats every single one of them with equal respect" – I believed her. I believed her white blazer.

Fashion can be a potent Kool-Aid and I'm certain that last Sunday night, I'm not the only Australian who took a big sip.

24 May 2014:

Athletic and fresh-faced, sunny and always keen to gossip, at lunch Frances spoke about the fashion designers clamouring to dress her and her sisters.

She said a lot of clothes swapping and borrowing went on among her sisters and that hopeful designers sent items to them via the Prime Minister's Office. ''We don't see [the clothes] because they send them to my dad's office. But [staff] said they've been inundated,'' she said.

She has a good relationship with young designer By Johnny, who sends her and her sisters ''five things a time'', which they send back after wearing, and being photographed in.

The Australian 26 May 2014:

Mr Abbott updated his pecuniary interest register by adding three pages of entries, 23 of which relate to his wife and daughters.

They included tickets to fashion shows and the gift of a dress from designer Johnny Schembri to daughter Bridget, which she kept and paid $20 to the Collector of Public Monies.

The Daily Telegraph 15 October 2013:

Since their father Tony Abbott's appointment as PM, Bridget, 20 Frances, 22 and Louise, 24 Abbott have being thrust into the spotlight and have fast become regulars on the social scene.

When Confidential asked the photogenic twenty-somethings whether they had been inundated with requests from designers to wear their clothes, Bridget said, "a little bit and it is kind of hard to keep up with."

"When people say, "oh we would love you to wear something of ours," if we don't have an opportunity to wear it you feel bad.

"You don't want to be ungrateful and unappreciative but it is so hard to keep on top of it."
Since their dad gained the top job, the girls have aligned themselves with top Australian designers including Toni Matacevski, Nicola Finetti, Willow and Manning and Cartel.

However it is up and coming designer Johnny Schembri, who owns the label by johnny, who has received the tick of approval from the Abbott girls.

UPDATE

Herald Sun 15 June 2014:

A single mum has lost a legal stoush with the Prime Minister’s daughter after Frances Abbott broke the lease at her Melbourne rental property….

The first VCAT member to hear the case, Michael ­Sweeney, was forced to declare he had “dealings with the Prime Minister” and Ms Credlin and excused himself from the hearing.

The matter was eventually heard by Ms Kylea ­Campana.

Ms Abbott told the hearing she did not feel like the property was “safe and secure” as it was advertised.

“I also had my dad and the police check the apartment with me … my dad’s the prime minister,” Ms Abbott told VCAT.

Kevin Hogan, where are you?

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner, 31 May2014:

Country let down

"TRUST me, fisherman," the crocodile said. The fisherman did. The fisherman died.

"Trust us, Australia," Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and their rich pals said. Australia did.

And Australia got a budget of shameful unfairness causing distress and suffering to the unemployed, the elderly, the sick, the students, families, the environment and scientific research.

This electorate is strongly affected.

Kevin Hogan, where are you?

Barbara Fahey

Grafton

Anthony Albanese: "Abuse of power continued over and over again" in the Australian Parliament since Abbott Government sworn in

The fight continues across the Dispatch Box over the contention that the present Speaker in the Australian House of Representatives, Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, is biased and abuses privilege.

Australian House of Representatives Hansard 27 May 2014:

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:11): Madam Speaker, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving forthwith:

That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests…..

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for a ruling as to whether this motion moved by the Leader of the House is in order and whether, in fact, a motion before a motion before the House attempting to demand certain action of a member for referring a matter to the Privileges Committee, or seeking to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee, is, in itself, a breach of privilege and an attack on the right of the member for Watson to raise issues in an appropriate way.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr Albanese: Have you seen the motion, Madam Speaker?

The SPEAKER: Yes, I have.

Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, I read the motion very clearly to the House.

The SPEAKER: And I have a copy of it.

Mr PYNE: The motion did not reflect on the member for Watson attempting to ask the Privileges Committee

to investigate the Speaker. It was a motion to ask him to apologise to you for reflecting on you as Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Correct…..

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:01): Thank you. The substantial issue is that of the Speakership and whether it should be used. The House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear—impartiality of the chair. That is what it is all about.

They raise an issue of whether the member for Watson said, incorrectly apparently, that the office had never been used—and he has apologised for that. He apologised for that at once and he also said sorry twice that that was incorrect. But let us be very clear about where that article comes from. It comes from a response about the abuse of the Lodge and Kirribilli House to raise money for the Liberal Party. That is where it comes from; that is the context of that article.

Should any Speaker, be they McLeay or Bishop or any of them, use the Speaker's office? No, they should not!

That is an appropriate debate for us to have. They then say, 'Well, if you got some of the detail wrong then therefore there should be an apology for that.' But there was false information, with respect, Madam Speaker, given from the chair. You said from the chair during this debate that the independent Speaker was an agreement between Labor and the Greens. It was not—it was not!

Tony Abbott:

… I've always supported an independent speakership …

Press comments from him:

I also want to make it very clear that we discussed the issue of a Westminster style speakership …

Over and over again, those opposite—and the Leader of the House signed, in writing, a document.

This is the day after Sorry Day. The irony of those opposite, who for 10 years could not say sorry to the first Australians, coming in here seeking to move by resolution that the Manager of Opposition Business take certain action.

Have a look at all the quotes they have said. The Leader of the House himself:

… the Leader of the Opposition—

Tony Abbott—

… proposed a Westminster style independent Speaker as early as the early part of this decade, in early 2001.

They were all up for it, allegedly, during that period. They signed an agreement but they walked away from it, of course.

But also, what are they asking for here? The same person, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister who said:

We have never been involved in the business of suppressing free speech …

This attack on my colleague, the member for Watson, is all about, 'How dare he come in here and ask questions on behalf of Australian taxpayers about how much money was raised in the Speaker's office?' the one area of this parliament that should be free from party politics—that should be used in the national interest, that should be used for functions involving foreign guests and that should be used in a bipartisan way in this place.

What you seek to do in doing this is to shut down free speech and debate in this parliament. The fact is that during this very debate, Madam Speaker, the problem is not the member for Watson. The problem is a Speaker who interjects from the chair. The problem is a Speaker who makes partisan decisions. I stand by, and we stand by, all of the comments—with the exception of that factual error that he made—of the member for Watson about the conduct of this parliament because, at the end of the day, it is not about you, Madam Speaker, it is not about the member for Watson, or me or the Leader of the House. It is about how this parliament functions.

The fact is, if you think this parliament has been functioning well since last September then I think you are completely out of touch with what the majority of Australians who watch this parliament see each and every day with this abuse of power continued over and over again by the Leader of the House, who is too immature to hold

that job!

The exchanges recorded in Hansard a day earlier which lead to Anthony Albanese speaking against Leader of the House Christopher Pyne’s motion …….

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:14): Madam Speaker, under standing order 103 I have a question for you in your role as the administrator of parliament. How many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur?

The SPEAKER : I know the member for Watson was late into the parliament at nine o'clock this morning so he probably did not hear the statement I read on that occasion, so I will read it again.

On 15 May 2014, the member for Moreton asked me a question about the display of posters in corridors. Posters had appeared on the outside of doors to several members' suites, and the member had asked that they be taken down. Consistent with the longstanding practice, upheld by successive Speakers, that signs and posters not be permitted in the corridors or on the doors leading off the corridors, the members concerned were asked to take the posters down at my request and they have since been removed. It remains the prerogative of members to place material inside the internal corridor windows of their suites. Also, all members are entitled to use their suites for their own purposes, but of course not for illegal purposes. That is the answer to your question.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 179 of House of Representatives Practice, where it states:

For many purposes the Speaker is in effect 'Minister' for the Department of the House of Representatives and jointly with the President of the Senate is 'Minister' for the Department of Parliamentary Services.

As you would appreciate, ministers are not able to hold political functions in departmental resources. I ask again: how many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur?

The SPEAKER:  I refer the member also to the Practice, which refers quite clearly that the Speaker is in charge of the domain of Parliament House, which was made quite clear from the original time of the Speaker holder back in 1901. I have said that members may use their suites for whatever purposes they see fit, and that includes you, but they may not use them for an illegal purpose. Therefore, it is not the business of either executive government or others to ask members the purposes for which they use their offices. That is the rule.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, in your role as administrator of that department, which then goes to the finances of that department, I ask: how much has the Liberal Party paid on each occasion for the use of the Speaker's dining room for fundraisers and has the ordinary $600 venue hire fee, which applies to all private dining rooms, been among the payments made?

The SPEAKER : I will not engage in debate on the question. I have made the ruling. I have said that members may use their offices for their own purposes.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. In recent days there have been reports that the Speaker has used her Parliament House dining room to hold Liberal Party fundraisers. There is a question as to whether the Speaker or the Liberal Party paid for the use of the Speaker's dining room for these party political functions. I have available for tabling, if it would assist, articles from The Sunday Telegraph, The Sun-Herald, The Sunday Times, the Sunday Canberra Times, The Age and The Australian. I ask the Speaker to investigate whether this constitutes an improper interference with the operations of the House of Representatives such as to require that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation and report.

The SPEAKER: I simply say that the member for Watson is perfectly at liberty under standing order 216 to write to the committee himself, and I recommend that he do so.

Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, House of Representatives Practice indicates that I should first raise the issue with you in the House, which I have now done, and then there is an option for an individual to have ready a motion to move immediately, which under Practice does not require a seconder. Is that the path you wish me to choose?

The SPEAKER: I have said that under standing order 216 you are perfectly entitled—and I am following a ruling made by my predecessor, the member for Chisholm. That is the ruling, so you no longer have the call.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I seek the call.

The SPEAKER: You can seek the call, but I recommend you do precisely as I said.

Mr Burke: I seek the call.

The SPEAKER: You have the call.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

Whether the Speaker's use of her Parliament House dining room for Liberal Party fundraisers constitutes an improper interference with the operation of the House of Representatives.

It has been the case throughout this parliament and previous parliaments that there are venues for hire all around the building. The Speaker's office is not one of them. I do not intend to completely derail the day and derail the parliamentary business of the day. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that you would take the questions in good faith. There was no argument in the questions that I raised. The questions I raised simply sought the same sort of information that the people of Australia are entitled to find out about. When I first heard these allegations, I made the response that I believed that your position would be untenable if it were true because I could not believe, for all the arguments that I have had with the chair, that your office would become outsourced to the Liberal Party as a fundraising venue. For all the arguments we have had, it never occurred to me that partisanship would go to effectively donating a venue to the Liberal Party…..

The SPEAKER interjecting—…..

The SPEAKER (15.35): Before I call the Leader of the House I will say this: the reason I did not say I will take it and reflect upon it is because it does reflect on me. It is far better that you were able to move your motion and deal with it within the parliament in an open way and you have your say—although I find it a bit rough to be lectured on morality from you, Member for Watson. I call the honourable the Leader of the House….

The SPEAKER (15:36): What is the point of order?

Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to reconsider the statement that you made about—

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I have sat here and accepted the words that were said about me. The Leader of the House has the call.

Ms Plibersek: You have questioned his morality and you have engaged in debate when you should not.

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call.

Mr PYNE: You just do not know how to behave, do you member for Rankin, member for Lingiari, Deputy Leader of the Opposition? It is just extraordinary. You have no manners at all.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call.

Mr Bowen: Madam speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: If this is meant to disrupt debate—

Mr Bowen: No it is not.

The SPEAKER: Then I will accept the point of order.

Mr Bowen: I have a point of order on two grounds: firstly, you clearly intervened and participated in the debate; secondly, you clearly reflected on a member of this House. Any one of us would have been asked to withdraw and would have. You should comply, with respect, by the same rules that apply to every other member. Very clearly, you should withdraw that comment.

The SPEAKER: Except me, apparently. The Leader of the House has the call…..

The bad news continues for Abbott Government in latest Newspoll

When the Fearless Leader marches his Coalition troops off a cliff this is what happens........

The Australian 3 June 2014

Click on image to enlarge

Metgasco Limited says it has been cleared of suspicions regarding its shareholders and interests but NSW corruption commission remains silent

According to a Metgasco Limited statement to the Australian Stock Exchange (repeated in a media release) it has; been advised by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) that it will not be proceeding with an inquiry into the Company.  The advice makes it clear that there was no information in the referral to ICAC that was indicative of corrupt conduct.

Unfortunately for this coal seam and tight gas exploration and mining company operating on the New South Wales North Coast, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption would neither confirm nor deny Metgasco’s statement when I contacted the commission yesterday afternoon.

In which Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham informs the NSW Parliament and Metgasco Limited's CEO Peter Henderson writes yet another letter

The political duel continues in ‘The people of the Northern Rivers and political allies versus Coal seam and tight gas exploration company Metgasco Limited and political allies’.

Excerpts from NSW Legislative Council Hansard 15 May 2014:

1838.  Mr Buckingham to move—

1.             That this House notes that:

(a)        the Driller Logs and Well Completion Reports from Metgasco detail numerous alarming failures and environmental damage due to routine poor practice and the inherently risky nature of gas drilling operations,

(b)        at Bowerbird E02 well Metgasco drilled into a river bed with high water flows and the well caved in. It was subsequently abandoned,

(c)        at Corella E01 well the casing stuck and explosive cutters were required to remove the casing, the well was then abandoned,

(d)        at Corella E03 the well caved in due to water inflow at 220 metres,

(e)        following the drilling of Corella P11 Metgasco said: “We were not aware of this shale at 3m from the base, nothing was reported by the geologists from their samples, or from the experts”,

(f)        at Corella P13 380m of drilling string and the 33m borehole assembly were abandoned in the well,

(g)        Corella E17 while flaring at 18psi they noticed the annular was leaking and had to abandon the test,

(h)        at Corella P18 a drill pipe became stuck in the hole and they were unable to clear the blockage,

(i)         at Riflebird E03 the hole collapsed from 16m, there were breakdowns, pipes got stuck and a 6m HQ barrel was left in the hole,

(j)         at Riflebird E5 Metgasco said: “This site is a terrible bloody mess. The pits are still a mess” before the well collapsed at 96m,

(k)        at Riflebird E14 Metgasco’s mud log states that “gas detector not functioning but hydrocarbons can be smelled in the shaker area”,

(l)         at Wayan 01 the top bonnet seals leaked oil in the annular,

(m)      at Cedar Point 1 and NCASI-1R methane was found in the mud and there were well integrity issues,

(n)        the Kingfisher Well  has not been cleaned up properly following 19 drill pipes being ejected into the air due to rising well pressure and loss of casing integrity,

(o)        NSW Trade and Investment have said that Metgasco fracked this well despite knowing it lacked integrity,

(p)        at SCASI-1 gas bubbling was observed in the hole and they had water losses, and

(q)        at SCASI 09 the driller had a seizure.

2.         That this House calls on the Government to immediately cancel all Petroleum Exploration and Production activity in New South Wales pending a thorough investigation of these routine and alarming failures during drilling.

(Notice given 15 May 2014—expires Notice Paper No. 218)

1728. Mr Buckingham to move—

1. That this House notes that:

(a) a recent report by the Australia Institute has discredited coal seam gas industry claims that it is a significant employer,

(b) the report states that: “While the gas industry is relentless in its claims about job creation, the simple fact is that it is a relatively small employer”,

(c) despite inflated industry claims that they created 100,000 jobs in 2012, the actual number reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics is that 9,372 jobs were created in the entire oil and gas industry in that year,

(d) in August 2013, the entire oil and gas industry only employed 0.2 per cent of the Australian workforce, and

(e) this is less than two-thirds of the workforce of hardware retail company Bunnings Warehouse.

2. That this House calls on the Department of Planning to ensure that the economic modelling associated with planning applications is accurate.

(Notice given 18 March 2014—expires Notice Paper No. 207)

Excerpts from coal seam and tight gas exploration company Metgasco Limited’s media release/statement to the Australian Stock Exchange of 29 May 2014:

Metgasco is aware of a number of statements, including some made in the NSW Parliament, that are incorrect and misleading.   Metgasco has written to all Members of the NSW State Parliament refuting these claims and setting out our views relating to the suspension of approval to drill the Rosella E01 exploration well at Bentley…..

Metgasco is aware of a recent letter which seeks to accuse us of unacceptable drilling practices on a number of our wells. The information source for these accusations appears to be well completion reports which can be obtained through the government. We note that these reports are reviewed by government inspectors who have expressed no concern about them. In our opinion, the accusations show that the author has little understanding of the drilling industry or geology. He has misconstrued comments in the well completion reports, taken them out of context and at other times selectively quoted comments. His analysis, which we believe is incorrect and uninformed, could be used in an attempt to damn all oil and gas drilling, the routine drilling required to support coal and mining industries and even the hundreds of thousands of water bores drilled throughout Australia to support agriculture, industry and domestic needs…..  

The Lies Abbott Tells - Part Nineteen

THE LIE BY WAY OF REPEATED DISTORTION

‘‘How can it be unconscionable for this Coalition government to propose a co-payment and it not be unconscionable for the Hawke government when it actually implemented a co-payment in the 1990s? [Tony Abbott quoted in St George & Sutherland Shire Leader, 16 May 2014]

Bob Hawke put a price signal into the system and what was good for Bob Hawke I think is fair enough for me and for this Government. [Tony Abbott quoted on the ABC PM program, 23 May 2014]

“It was actually Bob Hawke who gave us the co-payment (in the past),…If it’s all right for the Hawke government to bring a co-payment in … why isn’t it all right for this government to bring it in, in the Budget?” [Tony Abbott quoted in The Courier Mail, 23 May 2014]

Tony Abbott has urged Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to follow Bob Hawke's lead and support the $7 Medicare co- payment.

Citing the former prime minister's 1991 proposal to slap a $3.50 charge on bulk-billed visits to the doctor, the Prime Minister said Mr Hawke was the "father of the co-payment". [Tony Abbott quoted in The West Australian, 27 May 2014]

“Not only do we have Bob Hawke as the father of the co-payment, we’ve got the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) as the mother of the co-payment. The real authors of the co-payment are over there’’ [Tony Abbott quoted in The Australian, 30 May 2014]

THE FACTS

What Federal Coalition Prime Minister Tony Abbott doesn’t say is that in 1969 the Gorton Coalition Government introduced a new Medical Benefits Scheme which included a co-payment by patients, with a maximum of $5 for any one service. However, there appeared to have been no legal obligation on doctors to charge the common fee (based on the fees most commonly charged for over 1,000 medical services) and it was alleged that costs to patients rose above the Consumer Price Index rate.

Nor does the Prime Minister mention the fact that the Hawke Labor Government’s co-payment was never going to be applied to concessional patients, while his own co-payment regime will be applied to the first ten concessional patient medical services in any year across 70% of the range of all medical services which might be used by these patients.

Absent also is mention of the fact that though the co-payment was policy it was never implemented and, because this payment was so unpopular with Labor MPs, the medical profession and voters, the Act was repealed three short months later.

As the following potted history reveals:

* Under the Hawke Government the HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT 1991 No. 171, 1991 became law by assent on 20 Nov 1991.

* Under this Act concession card holder patients were exempt from the $2.50 co-payment which came into effect on 1 December 1991.

* However, the GP visit co-payment was never actually implemented and the Act was formally repealed by the Keating Government in early March 1992.

* During the period the co-payment was apparently in effect for medical services other than those supplied by GPs, only an estimated 1.8 million individual medical services appeared to attract this co-payment.

* In its 2003-04 Budget (covering a period when Abbott was first Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and then Minister for Health and Ageing) the Howard Government  attempted to re-introduce co-payments for all services with an MBS number provided out of hospital for non-concessional patients, including GP consultations, pathology and diagnostic imaging services and, allowing GP’s to charge a patient ‘gap’ fee up-front to non-concessional patients, provided they agreed to bulk bill all concessional patients. How much that ‘gap’ fee would be was to be decided by the GP. However, the legislation was not passed by Parliament.

As for the Member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, being the mother of the co-payment, on 26 May 2014 The Australian reported:

Asked by The Australian about her role, Ms Macklin told a Melbourne Institute function in Canberra this month that she had argued with the then head of the Department of Finance, Michael Keating, against the co-payment.

“I didn’t agree with it,” she said. “I didn’t agree with it then and I don’t agree with it now.’’

Dr Keating confirmed the debate with Ms Macklin and her opposition. “It’s worth nothing two things: first the Keating government immediately got rid of it; the second thing is … today co-payments in Australia for health are the third highest in the OECD.”