Federal Transport Minister King Earns lifetime QF Platinum membership

[Melburnian1]

But also I don’t think a self reported item that has clear criteria that is available to any member of the public is something high on the priority list in tackling that influence.

Much to my dislike because I like to see shareholdings in Australian companies encouraged, Federal (and State) Ministers are not allowed to directly own shares (although there's not a prohibition on other family members doing so).

You don't seem to understand we're not dealing with 'any member of the public', but someone who as a Minister can make decisions that benefit company X, or company QF. Comparisons with you and I are irrelevant.

Parliamentarians love freebies. Behind closed doors, this is often an extremely valued part of the occupation.

 

[aikman]

I don't actually believe that she will make a decision against the interests of Australia just to protect the value of her LTP.

Or at least I hope not.

But the fact that she can, is the problem.

I don't think it is fair to remove her LTP when she has earned it but I don't know what the solution is to remove the conflict.

 

[transpactraveller]

If only the media and Australians cared about some of the real problems in this country as much as they care about a minister earning LTP.

 

[MooTime]

I don't actually believe that she will make a decision against the interests of Australia just to protect the value of her LTP.

Or at least I hope not.

But the fact that she can, is the problem.

I don't think it is fair to remove her LTP when she has earned it but I don't know what the solution is to remove the conflict.

Hand in her CL membership like many did year or so ago.

That goes some way, but it's human nature, you help help those who help you, to what degree & if it bends the law is one's choice.

It all smells a little, but she earnt it, the SCs that is & no matter who paid, end of story.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't actually believe that she will make a decision against the interests of Australia just to protect the value of her LTP.

Or at least I hope not.

But the fact that she can, is the problem.

I don't think it is fair to remove her LTP when she has earned it but I don't know what the solution is to remove the conflict.

The only thing she could do to protect her LTP would be to stop Qantas leaving oneworld, or to block Qantas removing first class lounges. Neither of which she’s likely to be able to influence as they’re not legislative issues.

The general viability of Qantas as a major employer - and any protections which are afforded Qantas in that capacity - are outside the Minister’s sole responsibility and would be taken by the government and parliament.

 

[Jacques Vert]

The real issue is whether pollies and public servants should be allowed to earn SCs, something the Finance Dept confirmed not so long ago. If government fares came without SCs, then any status a politician earns would be paid for out of their own pocket.

There could still be a conflict of interest but to a far lesser extent .

Personally, I'm more concerned about conflicts of interest with department heads than Ministers. Ministers come and go, department heads remain long term. And who really makes the decisions?

 

[justinbrett]

I don't - but this thread is about Minister King and Qantas.

I don't think the Minister for Mines or Resources would continue to directly control their BHP shares (for example) while they are Minister - I think they go into a blind trust (if that's the right term? ). Avoids the appearance of a conflict, but the Minister retains the shares for when they leave the Ministry (or Cabinet). Pretty much a directly analagous situation to my suggesting that Minister King asks Qantas to suspend her LTP (and CL) membership while Minister/Cabinet. As I said before - imperfect, but if the shares thing applies, I don't see why the status thing shouldn't.

How in any way is being a status holder analogous to being a shareholder?

A shareholder has the interests of the company itself, maximum profit and dividends, for personal benefit.

A status holder is a customer - things like increased competition and stricter regulations which improve the benefit of customers (and the wider travelling public) which will usually cost the company profit. These are competing positions. As elite status holders we want more reward seats, cheaper fares, more perks - these cost the airline money.

The CL is a different story but this is not what this thread is about.

 

[CaptJCool]

She has earned it by following the procurement rules of the Department of Finance WHICH allows J fares for Parliamentarians who paid for these airfares from taxpayer funds (ipea.gov.au)

And earlier commentary that people earn status based on a mix of “business-funded” and self-funded fares, is the reality of status like LTG/LTP

 

[aikman]

The only thing she could do to protect her LTP would be to stop Qantas leaving oneworld, or to block Qantas removing first class lounges. Neither of which she’s likely to be able to influence as they’re not legislative issues

Couldn't she block foreign airlines from operating to, from and within Australia? More competition might harm Qantas. If there is no longer a Qantas during her retirement years then her LTP will be worth nothing.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Couldn't she block foreign airlines from operating to, from and within Australia? More competition might harm Qantas. If there is no longer a Qantas during her retirement years then her LTP will be worth nothing.

That wouldn’t be a decision of the transport minister in isolation, unilaterally making policy. So her LTP is u likely to be a factor.

Collectively… all the MPs having CL might give QF a favourable hearing!