Federal Transport Minister King Earns lifetime QF Platinum membership

[justinbrett]

My view is that its a potential conflict of interest while she is the Transport Minister.

Getting a benefit, or have the ability to get a benefit from an entity, whether earned of gifted, while being that entity's regulator most definitely IS a conflict of interest.

Lets look at this scenario: Minister has earned an stream of benefits for life from an airline. Airline gets into difficulties, requires Federal assistance. If Minister doesn't assist, airline may fold and lifetime benefits will be foregone. That decision creates a conflict of interest. It doesn't have to be in a sinister or corrupt way, but it is a conflict of interest. Ministers (or parliamentarians in general) should not allow themselves to get into a position of a conflict of interest.

Its happened. Possible remedy? Minister writes to Qantas asking them to suspend her QC membership, so she gets no benefit from it, while she is Minister (or in the Cabinet, I would say). Also should suspend her CL membership, but we know that's not going to happen. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but would acknowledge the conflict of interest and demonstrate an attempt to mitigate it.

Goodness knows, she'll travel business everywhere, so its not as if she's going to lose anything except maybe Flounge access while travelling business, but some sacrifices need to be made ...

Why stop at her?

The foreign minister has declared QR upgrades on the gifts register.

Anyone in cabinet can influence policy - arguably anyone in shadow cabinet can too when the sitting government has a slim majority.

And why stop at LTP? Shouldn’t it be all status? Why was WP/P1 OK but the outrage is over LTP?

There’s an argument to be made over CL, but bog standard status that has the most objective test is not the thing we should be chasing. Considering they hold CL, status is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Why stop at her?

The foreign minister has declared QR upgrades on the gifts register.

Anyone in cabinet can influence policy - arguably anyone in shadow cabinet can too when the sitting government has a slim majority.

And why stop at LTP? Shouldn’t it be all status? Why was WP/P1 OK but the outrage is over LTP?

There’s an argument to be made over CL, but bog standard status that has the most objective test is not the thing we should be chasing. Considering they hold CL, status is pretty much irrelevant.

Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese both declared their QF LTP in 2022. I don’t recall seeing very much in the media about either at the time.
Maybe I didn’t look hard enough?

 

[sudoer]

Possible remedy? Minister writes to Qantas asking them to suspend her QC membership, so she gets no benefit from it, while she is Minister (or in the Cabinet, I would say). Also should suspend her CL membership, but we know that's not going to happen.

Suspending King's P1 benefits while she's in cabinet doesn't remove the conflict of interest if she's keeping CL. And regardless of how her membership is treated while she is a minister, having an LTP parachute is still a problem.

Would we feel any differently about King holding LTP if it was through self-funded flying or a prior career in corporate?

 

[SYD]

Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese both declared their QF LTP in 2022. I don’t recall seeing very much in the media about either at the time.
Maybe I didn’t look hard enough?

There was nothing to see even though they were probably declaring long after achieving LTP.

The outrage appears to be because she’s the Minister. What if she already had LTP before becoming Minister?

I’m personally not a fan of her performance as Minister but this really is a storm in a tea cup.

Throwing in the DBS Pensions is a Red Herring as well. Pollies had a decent super scheme a) to attract talent (yes, people of means could run for office and not be disadvantaged, and b) have something to fall back on given they can be “sacked” by the voters at the next election with zero redundancy payout. But you had to at least a min number of years to qualify.

 

[RooFlyer]

Why stop at her?

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.

There’s an argument to be made over CL, but bog standard status that has the most objective test is not the thing we should be chasing. Considering they hold CL, status is pretty much irrelevant.

We don't have to not 'chase' this issue while 'chasing' others'. And I think we agree that CL should be suspended while Minister. Just try to mitigate any potential conflicts.

I don’t recall seeing very much in the media about either at the time.
Maybe I didn’t look hard enough?

They weren't the public face of the government's pretty blatant favouritism of Qantas over QR in the QR additional flights thing. Although the PM did eventually get some heat.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

A conflict of interest doesn't arise merely because there is some connection between a stake holder and a decision maker.

The potential conflict of interest arises where the decision maker could potentially benefit - or lose - from their decisions.
In an example others have used, it is a conflict of interest for a decision maker to own shares in a company potentially affected by their decisions.
The value of their share portfolio could be affected by the impact of their decisions on the company.
Of course most government decisions directly or indirectly impact many companies.
That is why, in some countries, MPs are completely banned from owning any shares.

However, frequent flyer status is not like owning shares.

The potential for a conflict of interest absolutely exists with CL membership, because it is discretionary.
QF could choose to reward or punish a decision maker by granting or withholding CL membership, based on their decisions.
This could, or could be seen to, unfairly influence their decision making.
In my view, the government should buy all MPs QC membership and ban them from the CL.
I also think MPs should only be eligible for upgrades on the same basis as regular passengers.

However LTP is not discretionary, it is earned based on transparent criteria.
I don't see the potential for QF to reward or punish the minister as a result.
So there is no potential or actual conflict of interest.

As to whether there is an apparent conflict ...
I have no idea - or interest in - whether or not it passes the pub test.
I prefer wine bars or brasseries.

 

[drron]

Suspending King's P1 benefits while she's in cabinet doesn't remove the conflict of interest if she's keeping CL. And regardless of how her membership is treated while she is a minister, having an LTP parachute is still a problem.

Would we feel any differently about King holding LTP if it was through self-funded flying or a prior career in corporate?

No. It’s still a conflict of interest

 

[Jacques Vert]

One could make an argument that politicians should not be allowed to join, accept or retain , membership of any loyalty programs whatsoever (not even buy 10 coffees, get one free at their local cafe). Having worked in a govt agency at one point in my life, I was not even allowed to keep a biro (probably worth less than $2) that was given to me as a thank you for going above and beyond .

Rather than this current beat-up, the thing that annoys me is that there are often more generous rules for those at the top of an organisation than for those in the lower ranks. Hypothetically, would a junior public servant be allowed to accept a CL invitation and then choose to fly QF? (Yes, I realise it would never happen but I'm sure it would not be allowed.)

I remember the ICAC released a corruption prevention report many, many years ago in relation to travel allowances in the NSW Govt sector. One of the most telling points was that the judiciary took a much more beneficial interpretation of justifiable travel expenses for themselves than they would accept for their staff who accompanied them on their travels.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

One could make an argument that politicians should not be allowed to join, accept or retain , membership of any loyalty programs whatsoever (not even buy 10 coffees, get one free at their local cafe). Having worked in a govt agency at one point in my life, I was not even allowed to keep a biro (probably worth less than $2) that was given to me as a thank you for going above and beyond .

Rather than this current beat-up, the thing that annoys me is that there are often more generous rules for those at the top of an organisation than for those in the lower ranks. Hypothetically, would a junior public servant be allowed to accept a CL invitation and then choose to fly QF? (Yes, I realise it would never happen but I'm sure it would not be allowed.)

I remember the ICAC released a corruption prevention report many, many years ago in relation to travel allowances in the NSW Govt sector. One of the most telling points was that the judiciary took a much more beneficial interpretation of justifiable travel expenses for themselves than they would accept for their staff who accompanied them on their travels.

But the benefits of status probably represent some value for taxpayers. Do we want MPs standing in long check in queues? Or their staff waiting hours to get through to the call centre? Or paying extra for a bag? Or a seat up front? All of those benefits save time and money for taxpayers.

Drawing the ‘conflict of interest’ to the extreme, are we saying the Treasurer and Finance Minister shouldn’t be making any decisions about the financial or banking industry if they hold an account that bears interest?

Ultimately the transport minister isn’t making these decisions in isolation… she has cabinet colleagues who aren’t LTP, and is answerable to the electorate.

 

[Happy Trails]

I'm not too exercised by this affair, but please spare us the guff about the 'hard slog' and the 'weekly commute' to Canberra when they convene on average only 17 weeks per year.

 

[drron]

One could make an argument that politicians should not be allowed to join, accept or retain , membership of any loyalty programs whatsoever (not even buy 10 coffees, get one free at their local cafe). Having worked in a govt agency at one point in my life, I was not even allowed to keep a biro (probably worth less than $2) that was given to me as a thank you for going above and beyond .

Rather than this current beat-up, the thing that annoys me is that there are often more generous rules for those at the top of an organisation than for those in the lower ranks. Hypothetically, would a junior public servant be allowed to accept a CL invitation and then choose to fly QF? (Yes, I realise it would never happen but I'm sure it would not be allowed.)

I remember the ICAC released a corruption prevention report many, many years ago in relation to travel allowances in the NSW Govt sector. One of the most telling points was that the judiciary took a much more beneficial interpretation of justifiable travel expenses for themselves than they would accept for their staff who accompanied them on their travels.

And in 2004when Costello ended the defined benefit plan a group of judges appealed to the High Court and naturally won the right to keep their defined benefits., Now that is a conflict of interest.

The one fact that maybe relevant was in 2023 when AJ said that he didn’t have to pay back anything to the Government it was the Treasurer that agreed not the Transport Minister who may have recused herself.

A conflict of interest doesn’t depend on whether the apparent conflict is legal or not. However it must be reported which the Minister has done. That though doesn’t mean that the conflict has been resolved.

 

[Jacques Vert]

But the benefits of status probably represent some value for taxpayers. Do we want MPs standing in long check in queues? Or their staff waiting hours to get through to the call centre? Or paying extra for a bag? Or a seat up front? All of those benefits save time and money for taxpayers.

I didn't say I supported the idea of a total ban on being a member of loyalty programs, just that the argument can be made. I agree that there can be benefits for the employer/taxpayer; in fact, I once wrote a submission that our regional managers should be provided QF Club membership for similar reasons to those you list. I guess the question is, do those benefits (to the country in this case) outweigh the risks from the attached conflict of interest? And what is the public's perception (the pub test))?

It's a case of where do we draw the line; in the case of politicians, that line needs to be drawn at a very high level IMHO).

 

[muppet]

One could make an argument that politicians should not be allowed to join, accept or retain , membership of any loyalty programs whatsoever (not even buy 10 coffees, get one free at their local cafe). Having worked in a govt agency at one point in my life, I was not even allowed to keep a biro (probably worth less than $2) that was given to me as a thank you for going above and beyond .

Rather than this current beat-up, the thing that annoys me is that there are often more generous rules for those at the top of an organisation than for those in the lower ranks. Hypothetically, would a junior public servant be allowed to accept a CL invitation and then choose to fly QF? (Yes, I realise it would never happen but I'm sure it would not be allowed.)

This is a worthy consideration comparing the rules that apply to public service and politicians which are very different.

However, the public don’t get an opportunity to sack public servants every three years. In fact they have substantial protections, so with that come substantial restraints on their behaviour.

The media is trying to make something out of this, the voters will get a say soon enough.

 

[Captain Halliday]

Do we want MPs standing in long check in queues? Or their staff waiting hours to get through to the call centre? Or paying extra for a bag? Or a seat up front? All of those benefits save time and money for taxpayers.

Yes.

This gives them the perspective of what all Australians endure. Including those without privilege.

I suspect if their privately funded holiday was disrupted by an airline SNAFU and they had to wait on hold to be rebooked or battle the airline for months for a refund or compensation, then we’d be a lot closer to EU style regulation and compensation.

 

[Princess Fiona]

There are many people who have attained lifetime memberships (mainly Gold and a tiny proportion Platinum) on QF courtesy of a mix of employer funded travel and own funds. Myself included.

Some of those citing conflict of interest for the minister on this thread may even be in the same category with respect to their employer and alleged conflict of interest in their own attainment of lifetime status.

My personal view is that the media coverage on this is way off and not actually looking at LT status objectively. I doubt there would be many even medium term federal MPs who aren’t LTG.

 

[dajop]

The other thing, if Qantas were in serious financial trouble and a government came to the rescue is it "Oh I've got to save my LTP" that would be the factor that would push them into saving the airline? I suspect electoral pressure might outrank that influence.

 

[Melburnian1]

There are many people who have attained lifetime memberships (mainly Gold and a tiny proportion Platinum) on QF courtesy of a mix of employer funded travel and own funds. Myself included.

So what?

You and I are not the Federal Minister for Transport, who given her portfolio responsibilities must be above board and importantly, must be "seen" to be above board.

 

[Melburnian1]

I suspect electoral pressure might outrank that influence.

Whether true or not, that doesn't excuse her poor behaviour in gleefully accepting these perks from a company for which she at times has decision making power over.

By the way, she represents what most would regard as a safe Labor seat. While "perhaps" 2028 may be at least slightly different, she's never been under threat politically from losing her seat since 2001, when she entered Federal Parliament.