High Court reveals every current judge is a member of Qantas' Chairman's Lounge

[RichardMEL]

Well, getting an invite is quite separate to being a member. I've been invited (by QF) into the CL twice .. and while many call me a member (of a different sort ) I'm about as far from CL material as it comes. So perhaps LT isn't a member if she was just invited in (but she sure seems pleased with herself!)

 

[justinbrett]

NSW government employees are not permitted to receive FF points or SCs when flying for work, because this is seen as receiving a perk at the taxpeyer's expense.

Travel and Transport Policy

A whole-of-government framework for official travel and transport taken by public officials using public money.

info.buy.nsw.gov.au

But this doesn't apply to NSW Govt MPs, and apparently not to Federal MPs, Judges, etc...

I guess the ban only applies to low-ranked workers, and it's fine for the senior/big earners to get the banned perks, because of course they're not in a position to allow this benefit to affect the interaction between government and business

Where does that policy say you can’t earn SCs?

It reads to me to be identical to the commonwealth policy.

 

[offshore171]

Didn't NSW lose another premier over a single bottle of wine?

 

[RichardMEL]

Simply resign the memberships?

Perhaps but there would still be the view that they may still have a conflict of interest I would think? It's all very messy imo.

 

[Quickstatus]

@MARTINE
any chance making the picture a thumbnail

 

[justinbrett]

Well, getting an invite is quite separate to being a member. I've been invited (by QF) into the CL twice .. and while many call me a member (of a different sort ) I'm about as far from CL material as it comes. So perhaps LT isn't a member if she was just invited in (but she sure seems pleased with herself!)

She’s a member. She’s declared it in the interests register.

You need an invitation from QF to become a member.

 

[RichardMEL]

She’s a member. She’s declared it in the interests register.

You need an invitation from QF to become a member.

OK then. I wasn't entirely sure. Just going on the comment from the pic.

Seems to go against LT's rage against the old world institutions manta, but hey what would I know

 

[justinbrett]

OK then. I wasn't entirely sure. Just going on the comment from the pic.

Seems to go against LT's rage against the old world institutions manta, but hey what would I know

Most MPs and Senators get invites to both the QF and VA lounges (whether they accept is another question).

 

[drron]

So their was a reason why Australia should have kept appeals to the Privy Council. Maybe at least for cases involving QF and probably VA. I doubt that Rex and Bonza could offer much inducement.

 

[MARTINE]

Are the HCoA justices going to make a disclaimer of CL membership in their judgement
I suspect not.

Everytime we publish a peer reviewed article we have to disclose any pecuniary interests within the published paper which may be related to the subject in question.

@Quickstatus - do not forgot the banning of those pesky pens with the drug name on them let alone a sticky note

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I am satisfied judges are able to set aside any consideration of airline membership from their duties when hearing cases. Their professional reputation should trump any fear of loss of membership!

If it were true that judges had to be absolutely impartial… should they also be banned from voting? A liberal party voting judge might be more inclined to side with tough labour laws than a labour-voting judge?

We need to draw the line somewhere, I’m not sure membership of the CL is it?

 

[RooFlyer]

According to the article, the membership was declared to each of the parties, I think before the case commenced, and each of the parties said they were satisfied with that. I’m not sure that they had much choice given that all the judges are members. And with that disclosure, I think this situation is okay.

I am satisfied judges are able to set aside any consideration of airline membership from their duties when hearing cases. Their professional reputation should trump any fear of loss of membership!

Of course it’s not just actual bias, but the possible perception of bias which could taint a decision if the situation isn’t handled correctly, which, by the sound of it, it was.

 

[SheikYerbouti]

Where does that policy say you can’t earn SCs?

This bit.... "must not be used for personal travel or other personal benefits."
Then each Dept will have their own policy using the government-wide one as a reference:

Examples:

https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/gallery/files/pdf/gipa/gifts_policy.pdf

 

[TheRealTMA]

It’s a wonder that all the “elite” can fit into the small CLs. Must Tardis like spaces!

 

[justinbrett]

This bit.... "must not be used for personal travel or other personal benefits."
Then each Dept will have their own policy using the government-wide one as a reference:

Examples:

https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/gallery/files/pdf/gipa/gifts_policy.pdf

It's talking about frequent flyer points

The full quote:
Airline loyalty points accrued from official travel must be used to pay for official travel. They must not be used for personal travel or other personal benefits.

It is the same policy as the Commonwealth (set by the Department of Finance). There is no entitlement to Frequent Flyer points. Status credits are entitled to be earnt.

The NSW policy goes on to say:
The Ministers’ Office Handbook states airline, car or hotel loyalty schemes or lounge memberships may be accepted by ministers or their staff but are not to influence travel decisions.

Once again, this looks to be identical to the Commonwealth policy.

 

[MARTINE]

The NSW policy goes on to say:
The Ministers’ Office Handbook states airline, car or hotel loyalty schemes or lounge memberships may be accepted by ministers or their staff but are not to influence travel decisions.

Yes
Not to influence you in any way…
Remember in the words of Bill Clinton try but don’t inhale

 

[PineappleSkip]

There is the High Court of Appeals... I'm going to guess all the judges on that panel are also CL members??

Depending on its nature a matter may beheard by a single judge (e.g. a special leave application) or multiple judges (e.g. a constitutional case heard by all seven). However the judges are all selected from the same seven.

There is a security rationale for chairmans lounge membership for very senior officials, and high court justices rank up there with senior cabinet ministers [Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger]. You can bet the justices will have protective security arrangements in place, and you can also bet there won't be anything public about that.

It is the same policy as the Commonwealth (set by the Department of Finance). There is no entitlement to Frequent Flyer points. Status credits are entitled to be earnt.

I remember in ancient days we had to keep a running tally of personal points and official points. The then Finance Department started making arrangements to suppress points accrual as part of corporate airfares about 15 or so years ago. The guidelines now are that if officials earn points inadvertently they are required to request the airline to rescind them.

IIRC the rationale for accruing status credits was that if say you had to travel a lot it was probably reasonable for you to sit in the lounge. However status credit accrual, lounge access etc, is not a permissible reason to select an airline.

Cheers skip

 

[justinbrett]

IIRC the rationale for accruing status credits was that if say you had to travel a lot it was probably reasonable for you to sit in the lounge. However status credit accrual, lounge access etc, is not a permissible reason to select an airline.

Yes, the previous policy is that the Commonwealth would pay for lounge membership if you could demonstrate you travelled enough for it to be value for money.

Then they worked out if you travelled enough you'd earn the status credits to get it for free, so that policy was removed.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Rationally it makes sense that such people do have access to a quieter area of the airport, away from (generally speaking) the "public".

However I think the biggest issue with the CL now is that (1) everyone knows it exists and (2) no one knows who is a member. It's fine to say that a panel of high court justices are members, and it's fine to say that they are entitled to/should have it. And it's even fine that those conflicts are declared to potentially prejudiced parties prior to a case and all agree prior to proceeding.

But I might put it to you, in the context of the case regarding the workers being put out to pasture illegally - what if the Union was unhappy with the conflicts stated? If every justice is a member of the CL, and they receive and believe legal advice that it is a conflict, what then?

I personally believe the solution is pretty obvious, and that is the membership of anyone in public office in receipt of a CL membership be named. OK you can argue this is unfair, but guess what - this is the fault of Qantas. You cannot for one second have me believe they invite justices of the High Court of Australia because they want to offer them the best hospitality in Australian transport out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[justinbrett]

Rationally it makes sense that such people do have access to a quieter area of the airport, away from (generally speaking) the "public".

However I think the biggest issue with the CL now is that (1) everyone knows it exists and (2) no one knows who is a member. It's fine to say that a panel of high court justices are members, and it's fine to say that they are entitled to/should have it. And it's even fine that those conflicts are declared to potentially prejudiced parties prior to a case and all agree prior to proceeding.

But I might put it to you, in the context of the case regarding the workers being put out to pasture illegally - what if the Union was unhappy with the conflicts stated? If every justice is a member of the CL, and they receive and believe legal advice that it is a conflict, what then?

I personally believe the solution is pretty obvious, and that is the membership of anyone in public office in receipt of a CL membership be named. OK you can argue this is unfair, but guess what - this is the fault of Qantas. You cannot for one second have me believe they invite justices of the High Court of Australia because they want to offer them the best hospitality in Australian transport out of the goodness of their hearts.

All but one of the Senate Committee grilling Alan Joyce are CL members (with Tony Sheldon being the exception - he was invited but he declined) - this was disclosed during the hearing. I'm not sure how anybody watching that could argue any of the members were bought off.

It's a bit of an insult to suggest that the most senior judiciaries in the land, whose entire profession is based on impartiality, could be bought off by an airline lounge. I imagine that's why none of the parties had an issue with it.

The Federal Court has a gifts register just like the MPs do, the onus is on the official to declare the gift, not the commercial provider - as it should be. Qantas is just one of many providers offering "gifts" to such officials.