Federal Transport Minister King Earns lifetime QF Platinum membership

[sevenfourtyseven]

Get's hammered in the press for being transparent.

Surely there are plenty of politicians with at least LTG. Have they declared their 'gifts'?

 

[aikman]

The distinction is ‘automatic’ vs a proactive gift.

I don't think it matters. A conflict of interest, perceived or real, exists regardless.

 

[Jacques Vert]

Status is automatic, no option to decline.

Not if you don't sign up to the program.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Not if you don't sign up to the program.

True, but it would be a waste of taxpayer money if benefits weren’t being used and had to be paid for over and above the standard fare.

 

[desafinado74]

What a terrible look for a transport minister. It has conflict of interest written all over it. No wonder QF always get favourable decisions from the Australian government.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What a terrible look for a transport minister. It has conflict of interest written all over it. No wonder QF always get favourable decisions from the Australian government.

Need to read the article in full.. or rather don’t believe the article

The reporting has been atrocious on this.

The MP attained top tier after 25 years of weekly commuting to Canberra.

This wasn’t ‘gifted’ to her.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

99.9% of passengers flying for their employer cannot single handedly influence Qantas' bottom line like the transport minister can.

A more powerful Qantas might build more F lounges. That would suit a LTP very nicely.

Then we should all welcome the fact that the Minister has attained lifetime WP.
Now she has all the benefits she could wish for, regardless of any decisions she might take.
If anything, this makes her less vulnerable to undue influence or corruption.

The relevant comparison is with CL which is gifted at the whim of QF.
If the Minister had not earned WP status, and was entirely dependent on CL for benefits, she would be more vulnerable.
There would be a real risk that she could, consciously or subconsciously, be anxious that QF might revoke her CL status.
This would be a potential disincentive to make any decision adverse to QF.

Bref, (in English, to cut to the chase), perhaps the Minister will be less likely to block increased flights by QR in future!

What a terrible look for a transport minister. It has conflict of interest written all over it. No wonder QF always get favourable decisions from the Australian government.

As above, unlike CL, WP is earned and not granted at a whim.
So if there were any potential conflict of interest, it has now been resolved.

 

[MooTime]

So a huge hypothetical is MP King say opened the door to rival airlines or whatever to hinder Qantas, there's zero chance Qantas can take away the LTP right?

Cos once you have attained LTP your in a very comfortable posi, CL better but hey comfy you are.

 

[craney]

How long till she gets LifeTime Status on Virgin as well or does she have that already?

Get's hammered in the press for being transparent.

Surely there are plenty of politicians with at least LTG. Have they declared their 'gifts'?

Many have declared "lounge membership" with no further detail. I reckon for many that would represent LTG (or LTP), and for those declaring CL they probably also have a LT level to fall back to. Minister King is being hammered in the media and on social media for being more detailed in her declaration than I suspect many of her parliamentarian colleagues have been.

 

[Melburnian1]

I don't think it matters. A conflict of interest, perceived or real, exists regardless.

The 'AFR' featured a lengthy article that became available last night, so is in today's paper.

It is paywalled so I can't provide a link that instantly works.

In part, the article says:

Is that the important thing? That she fulfilled her obligations to update her gifts register? Shall we throw a party and perform the slowest of claps?
King makes policy and regulates all aviation. Declaring and being “transparent” about the lifetime benefit from the industry’s largest participant is actually wholly unimportant. Accepting it is.
This fatuous suggestion is something like, well, it can’t be a bribe if it’s out in the open. Variation of the classic George Costanza trap: it’s not a lie if you believe it.


Since this column pointed this out on Monday afternoon, tabloid media and talkback radio have been running it red-hot. Regular punters hate this stuff. To say nothing of the Qantas lifers who paid their way into the platinum tier. Mugs!

Later, the article states:

Whenever it does come, she’s locked in a gold-plated retirement.

King has been the Labor MP for Ballarat since 2001. She’s one of only five remaining politicians who qualify for the defined benefit pension scheme, which provides for retired MPs to be paid up to 75 per cent of their salary until they die.
The scheme didn’t pass the pub test and was scrapped by John Howard in 2004, but grandfathered for those in parliament. The MPs remaining are King, Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Bob Katter and Anthony Albanese.
King certainly worked hard, slogging to Canberra (and wherever else) for the job. But she never once picked up the cost of the flights that qualified her for the rarefied air of the lifetime Qantas platinum card. Taxpayers did.
In retirement, the former transport minister will be sitting flush in the first-class lounge on her way to Paris, or New York (or wherever else). Who’ll be paying for it?

 

[craney]

She’s one of only five remaining politicians who qualify for the defined benefit pension scheme, which provides for retired MPs to be paid up to 75 per cent of their salary until they die.

Nice of them to also hit her over the head for joining the compulsory super scheme that existed when she got her job.

 

[Melburnian1]

Nice of them to also hit her over the head for joining the compulsory super scheme that existed when she got her job.

Given defined benefit schemes applying to very long serving Parliamentarians are much more generous than current schemes, all the more reason why she should not accept this 'extra' as above.

As @drron said, it's pretty simple: what she's done does not pass the pub test.

 

[dajop]

This is outrageous! Backroom deals? Fine. Pay for access lobbying? Fine. Campaign donations? Fine fine fine. Gifting a plane? Fine.

We the people are generally naive and innocent to sort of rubbish that goes on behind closed doors and they keep that out of the news by being outraged by more minor indiscretions like this.

The media run on outrage and have long since jumped the shark.

I’m all for holding politicians to account, many of which are deeply suspicious in how they are influenced by the rich (people and corporations) .
But in the confected outrage and pick a side media campaigning by the mainstream media the real issues of which there are many get lost in the noise.

 

[sevenfourtyseven]

Imagine the uproar when somebody adds 'Club Jetstar' as a gift on their register of interests!

 

[MooTime]

Imagine the uproar when somebody adds 'Club Jetstar' as a gift on their register of interests!

The $300 limit cuts that exclusive Club Jetstar out of the equation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

King certainly worked hard, slogging to Canberra (and wherever else) for the job. But she never once picked up the cost of the flights that qualified her for the rarefied air of the lifetime Qantas platinum card. Taxpayers did.

Getting to Canberra, as a politician, is part of our democratic process. It’s not a benefit or a perk, it’s a requirement.

If taxpayers didn’t foot the bill, what would we be left with?
(a) representatives that can’t afford to fly to canberra
(b) only able to elect members who can afford to pay their own airfares? So we could only elect wealthy people?
(c) we’d have to increase the salary of politicians so they could afford to fly to Canberra

If we went down path (c), added an extra $100k to salaries for MPs who live outside canberra, and the MPs then used their own money to fly, would you still think it unfair if they got LTG or LTP, now that it’s out of their own salary?

If we went down (c), we’d have politicians flying on published airfares, unable to take advantage of group/government deals. Is that value for money?

In retirement, the former transport minister will be sitting flush in the first-class lounge on her way to Paris, or New York (or wherever else). Who’ll be paying for it?

The retired MP will be paying for it out of their own pocket. They’re also going to be funding the lounge benefits with the higher airfares they pay to fly oneworld airlines.

Given many of our superannuation accounts probably have shares in Qantas, keeping high value clients spending on our product is probably a good thing!

Given defined benefit schemes applying to very long serving Parliamentarians are much more generous than current schemes, all the more reason why she should not accept this 'extra' as above.

As @drron said, it's pretty simple: what she's done does not pass the pub test.

Is suspect DrRon’s comments were made without realising this was attained through BIS flying. Many MP are probably lifetime silver of gold by now. And some will get to LTP.

 

[drron]

This is a definite example of a conflict of interest An example I know of is that of an alderman who had shares in a Super. Fund. When a company whose shares were in that fund came before Council for a decision she had to recuse herself from the decision.
And as the previous sup arrangements for politicians it was an almighty rort. I stood for a seat in Canberra and I asked my accountant how much would I have to contribute to my super fund he said at least 140%.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This is a definite example of a conflict of interest An example I know of is that of an alderman who had shares in a Super. Fund. When a company whose shares were in that fund came before Council for a decision she had to recuse herself from the decision.
And as the previous sup arrangements for politicians it was an almighty rort. I stood for a seat in Canberra and I asked my accountant how much would I have to contribute to my super fund he said at least 140%.

Conflict of interest suggests someone stands to gain, personally, from a decision.

That’s absolutely the case in your example of the alderman.

I can’t see any correlation here with attaining status.

CL… that’s a bit more murky!

But ultimately the conflict of interest is managed by the electorate, and accountability through parliament.

Now she has LTP that removes potential conflict as it can’t be taken away and won’t influence a decision.