Article: Public Servants Spent $1 Million More on Flights During Double Qantas Status Credits

[significance]

Also, in relation to APS travelling allowances, in most entities, the traveller just gets an allowance for meals, usually paid in advance, and does NOT have to substantiate how or even if they spent the allowance. They get the money regardless. There may be some organisations that have a more traditional acquittal style process for travelling allowances, and many do require their contractors to claim in reimbursement supported by receipts up to the APS allowance, but for most employees, they just get the money, straight to their bank account, in advance.

Is that true? In both the public service agencies that I have worked for and the entirely unrelated department that my husband works for, we have been given corporate credit cards and required to substantiate every expense with a tax invoice or statutory declaration. No travel allowance, but we can spend on meals and accommodation up to the ATO reasonable benefit limits as long as it is all fully documented.

Domestically, yes we're in economy. Unless you're senior executive level.

Internationally, too, in the agencies that I have worked for. Including most senior executives. I flew to the US and back last year: cheapest economy fare from three quotes all the way.

 

[justinbrett]

Is that true? In both the public service agencies that I have worked for and the entirely unrelated department that my husband works for, we have been given corporate credit cards and required to substantiate every expense with a tax invoice or statutory declaration. No travel allowance.

In Defence, in most cases expenses must be charged to the Defence Travel Card, but you don’t need receipts as the card records enough info. If you use cash you need receipts.

There are some situations, such as group travel (exercises) or removals where you are paid the full amount and don’t need receipts.

However for most uniformed personnel, they are accommodated on bases and eat at service messes so allowances only really cover travel days, with just a small incidental allowance when away from home. Allowances are much larger if accommodated off base but that’s not the norm (for O4s and below)

 

[kangarooflyer88]

One other point about WoAG is that it's my understanding that the government has preferred relationships with a few key carriers (i.e. Qantas Group, Virgin, BA, etc.) with negotiated discounts on fares. Fare enough. But what if you still nonetheless find a better fare on an airline that is not part of WoAG? Would it not be in the best interest to minimize the use of the government's money on flights by booking flights on airlines outside the WoAG? Indeed, the policy acknowledges that this is acceptable. What if, aside from the better price (and perhaps better routing) there is a personal benefit in that it will help you get closer to earning lifetime United status as the flight is operated by United Airlines?

What about other travel items like accommodations? Suppose you hold a hotel discount membership like Accor+ and are finding rates with Accor+ that are way cheaper than even what you are finding with CTM and the negotiated rates they have (this by the way has happened to me before). Would it be inappropriate to book outside the official CTM channel even though you could be saving considerable money on accommodation (even though you may stand to benefit in keeping your Accor+Platinum status by staying at an Accor property)?

If you travel enough for business and leisure, eventually you do realize that these elite statuses are beneficial. And it is silly to leave these benefits on the table, particularly if you ultimately will be booking with one of these chains anyways.

Personally, I think it would have been more prudent to continue to pay for lounge access for frequent or senior travellers (however defined) and preclude status credits along with FF points on WoAG travel - but they didn't ask me during policy development . YMMV.

The problem that I see with paid lounge access is that it ties you down to a particular airline. For instance, holding a Qantas Club membership means you have to be flying Qantas or a OneWorld partner. Whereas with things like status credits, well you can easily accumulate status across multiple airlines if you are strategic in how you book, at which point you'll be certain to have priority access irrespective of airline flown.

 

[Seat0B]

Is that true? In both the public service agencies that I have worked for and the entirely unrelated department that my husband works for, we have been given corporate credit cards and required to substantiate every expense with a tax invoice or statutory declaration. No travel allowance, but we can spend on meals and accommodation up to the ATO reasonable benefit limits as long as it is all fully documented.

In Defence, in most cases expenses must be charged to the Defence Travel Card, but you don’t need receipts as the card records enough info. If you use cash you need receipts.

There are some situations, such as group travel (exercises) or removals where you are paid the full amount and don’t need receipts.

Yes, as I said, different Departments have different rules about receipts or not. And it seems that things have changed from pre-payment of allowances, now that Travel Card seems to be more sorted out - anyone remember the Defence Diners Club debacle .

I've been a contractor for a few years, so absolutely bow to those with more recent direct employee experience.

 

[justinbrett]

One other point about WoAG is that it's my understanding that the government has preferred relationships with a few key carriers (i.e. Qantas Group, Virgin, BA, etc.) with negotiated discounts on fares. Fare enough. But what if you still nonetheless find a better fare on an airline that is not part of WoAG? Would it not be in the best interest to minimize the use of the government's money on flights by booking flights on airlines outside the WoAG? Indeed, the policy acknowledges that this is acceptable. What if, aside from the better price (and perhaps better routing) there is a personal benefit in that it will help you get closer to earning lifetime United status as the flight is operated by United Airlines?

What about other travel items like accommodations? Suppose you hold a hotel discount membership like Accor+ and are finding rates with Accor+ that are way cheaper than even what you are finding with CTM and the negotiated rates they have (this by the way has happened to me before). Would it be inappropriate to book outside the official CTM channel even though you could be saving considerable money on accommodation (even though you may stand to benefit in keeping your Accor+Platinum status by staying at an Accor property)?

If you travel enough for business and leisure, eventually you do realize that these elite statuses are beneficial. And it is silly to leave these benefits on the table, particularly if you ultimately will be booking with one of these chains anyways.


The problem that I see with paid lounge access is that it ties you down to a particular airline. For instance, holding a Qantas Club membership means you have to be flying Qantas or a OneWorld partner. Whereas with things like status credits, well you can easily accumulate status across multiple airlines if you are strategic in how you book, at which point you'll be certain to have priority access irrespective of airline flown.

For domestic WoAG has all the carriers. For international it’s a corporate travel agent that can access any fare.

For accomodation it’s a different contract, AOT, but you can book outside this for certain reasons. AOT can be significantly cheaper than any public rate.

 

[Seat0B]

One other point about WoAG is that it's my understanding that the government has preferred relationships with a few key carriers (i.e. Qantas Group, Virgin, BA, etc.) with negotiated discounts on fares. Fare enough. But what if you still nonetheless find a better fare on an airline that is not part of WoAG?

The airline panel has 18 participants, so it's more than just a few.

And unless you cannot get to your destination on one of those airlines, use of WoAG contract is compulsory for airline travel most government entities.

"In accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs), participation in the Arrangements is mandatory for non-corporate Commonwealth entities (NCEs). Corporate Commonwealth entities (CCEs), Commonwealth Companies (CCs) and other Authorised Organisations can elect to participate in the Arrangements with the agreement of Finance." Direct quote from Travel Arrragement landing page.

About the Travel Arrangements | Department of Finance

The key objectives of the Arrangements are to:

www.finance.gov.au

So as I said, I and many others may well agree with the points you and others on this thread are making. The policy certainly does result in some stupid situations. But there are no real out clauses in this policy.

And re my earlier comments about TA, seems that Travel Card became mandatory around2023 - although some Depts adopted earlier, so thank you to those who have updated my knowledge.

 

[significance]

And re my earlier comments about TA, seems that Travel Card became mandatory around2023 - although some Depts adopted earlier, so thank you to those who have updated my knowledge.

I’m not sure what a Travel Card is. My agency just uses corporate credit cards (Visa). It’s been so for the 7 years that I have been with my current agency and was the same for the 15 years that I was with my previous agency. Both non APS public service agencies, but both still falling under WoAG travel rules.

 

[clifford]

Just as well I retired from the Public Service (and everywhere else, in 2000).

But before that, travel arrangements and reimbursement were much more civilised.

 

[justinbrett]

But before that, travel arrangements and reimbursement were much more civilised.

It has been enhanced.