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

[MARTINE]

I for one don't see why a judge would need CL. Most people wouldn't know who they are from a bar of soap so it's not like they need "protection" from the public prior to getting on a plane. QF giving them CL can only be seen as an attempt to curry favour. Therefore, it's very reasonable to be surprised and shocked to learn of their CL membership.

I find this fascinating
In my past life when I consulted a lot in Canberra (flying red roo as per company protocol) ~ you could not so much as provide a cupcake to a Commonwealth minion in a business meeting for fear of ‘conflict’ ‘ unfair advantage’. I did sometimes (as a total nobody) get to go into CL with pax far more important than me. What a surprise - all the senior heads mingling and happy and feasting away….. I couldn’t see the appeal really but the cognitive dissonance was laughable

 

[SeatBackForward]

You mean like when unions or individuals take their cases to the high court?

Well that's worked out nicely for QF then hasn't it.

But when QF courts the CEO/CFO of organisation and sweetens them up with CL membership so that organisations uses QF for their flights. That makes sense. But what organisations do these judges organise travel for? their immediate staffers - which I imagine is trivial compared to other organisations.

 

[Ade]

limit any opportunity for interference or bias or preference

Could it be possible that the judges who are in CL believe that they have the self-discipline (is that the right word?) to be impartial? Or think in their minds that "I know that QF has given me access to CL, but when it comes to discharging my duties as a judge, I'm confident that I will be objective and impartial. I can do this" ?

Not saying that them having this thought is going to be taken at face value though ...

 

[AustraliaPoochie]

They could of course decline the invite.

 

[MARTINE]

They could of course decline the invite.

Even Ms Thorpe didn’t do that….

 

[Happy Dude]

I find this fascinating
In my past life when I consulted a lot in Canberra (flying red roo as per company protocol) ~ you could not so much as provide a cupcake to a Commonwealth minion in a business meeting for fear of ‘conflict’ ‘ unfair advantage’. I did sometimes (as a total nobody) get to go into CL with pax far more important than me. What a surprise - all the senior heads mingling and happy and feasting away….. I couldn’t see the appeal really but the cognitive dissonance was laughable

Lol tell me about it. Dunno about cupcakes, but I cannot even buy them a cup of coffee while explaining the reasons they should give me work. Although more commonly now work is outsourced and I have to schmooze them., but they're less inclined to give me time so no-one wants to have coffee with me it seems. Might have to up the bribe.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Why is anyone surprised here?

I know this looks like a cynical shot, but I wonder if the judges have access to VA's equivalent of CL. If they don't, I'm sure that if VA had the same or similar strength that QF did, they would have such membership.

Most if not all of the politicians, viz. decision makers, that could make material decisions about and/or affecting Qantas all have CL membership, including those who denounce the airline and/or Joyce. Why are we having this kind of shock realisation now?

The bold above is an important point.

 

[Seat0B]

Could it be possible that the judges who are in CL believe that they have the self-discipline (is that the right word?) to be impartial? Or think in their minds that "I know that QF has given me access to CL, but when it comes to discharging my duties as a judge, I'm confident that I will be objective and impartial. I can do this" ?

Not saying that them having this thought is going to be taken at face value though ...

Which is the line of argument used by a former premier of NSW in relation to her ability to separate her relationship from her work as Treasurer in allocating grants. ICAC found her corrupt. The person with the actual or perceived conflict of interest is probably not best placed to decide if they have a conflict - they are most likely to say they can keep things separate, although most people don’t seem to believe that.

 

[Quickstatus]

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

One rule for some another rule for others

Spirit of Australia?
Not the one I am familiar with.

There is the High Court of Appeals

Sometimes the HCoA sits with 3 justices. If so then any appeal (if allowed) would be to the Full Bench??

 

[Quickstatus]

There is the High Court of Appeals

Sometimes the HCoA sits with 3 justices. If so then any appeal would be to the Full Bench??

 

[RichardMEL]

Oh goodness this is so bad - at the VERY least the optics let alone potential conflict of interest and possible influence on judgements. Of course, judgements needs to be backed up by solid law when making pronouncements, so you'd think that would override any personal bias, but it's truly mind blowing that this is even a thing. It certainly LOOKS like attempted manipulation of the judicial system if one wants to take the most extreme and cynical view.

As queried above, why would judges even need CL or have a reason to be given it (apart from the very cynical one of courting influence by Joyce & Co).

I do find it interesting that we do have people like Lidia Thorpe and the Vic Premier Daniel Andrews are also members. Do they actually use it? I have no idea.

Also, according to a report I heard on the radio, many (at least in Vic) *ARE* also member's of VA's The Club equivalent... not that makes it that much better but clearly both of the carriers are doing it. I guess Bonza offer a happy meal at maccas...

The thing I find kind of funny about the CL as concept is the idea to keep the CIP's and the like away from the hoi polloi before flights, but if they're flying QF and using the CL (or VA/The Club) they then walk through the terminal, go through the gate and board the plane to their destination like anyone else so the beloved public still know they're there. Now sure, I do also understand the CL and like is for the movers and shakers to schmooze, network and the like (just like many high end restaurants and spots in any particular city) and that's probably the main aim. I do a bit funny though though.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

For the nth time it’s not called the chairman’s lounge. It’s called Dick Goyder’s lounge as he is the current chairman.

They could of course decline the invite.

Not possible the status was automatically confered to them with reports of them being given free upgrades given their stats

Lol tell me about it. Dunno about cupcakes, but I cannot even buy them a cup of coffee while explaining the reasons they should give me work

yes but would it be acceptable guesting them into a lounge when travelling with them? Technically you aren’t spending any money and for many QF lounges an argument could be made that any perceived benefits would be minimal at best (QF Club at HBA anyone?)

Which isthe line of argument used by a former premier of NSW in relation to her ability to separate her relationship from her work as Treasurer in allocating grants. ICAC found her corrupt.

That’s a gross mischaracterization of what happened to Gladys B the former Prime Minister of NSW. ICAC found her seriously corrupt - there’s a difference. It would be like calling someone who robbed a Brinks truck filled with tax payers money a petty thief.

 

[Quickstatus]

they then walk through the terminal, go through the gate and board the plane to their destination like anyone else so the beloved public still know they're there

...in their mind??

I'll bet very few of the public will actually give a toss...- they prefer celebrities and influencers and those on the Bachelor or Married at First sight...

 

[UP4014]

Go here for disclosure, each state has one as well but I'm sure some are tucked away.

Register of Members' Interests – 47th Parliament

Register

www.aph.gov.au

 

[Happy Dude]

As queried above, why would judges even need CL or have a reason to be given it (apart from the very cynical one of courting influence by Joyce & Co).

Cynical? Nah, perfectly logical. Especially for QF who seem to spend a lot of time in court. Just good forward planning really.

 

[Quickstatus]

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.

 

[RichardMEL]

Well if they're all CL members and would have to recuse themselves then who would hear cases?! How would that even work?

*smh*

 

[Seat0B]

That’s a gross mischaracterization of what happened to Gladys B the former Prime Minister of NSW. ICAC found her seriously corrupt - there’s a difference. It would be like calling someone who robbed a Brinks truck filled with tax payers money a petty thief.

To avoid flame wars, I will not comment further on this other than to say you should read the ICAC reports and transcripts before dismissing her own words that she always felt she was perfectly capable of separating her relationship and its obligations with those of her roles as Treasurer and Premier. ICAC most certainly disagreed with her in making findings she acted corruptly.

edit typo

 

[MARTINE]

 

[Quickstatus]

Well if they're all CL members and would have to recuse themselves then who would hear cases?! How would that even work

Simply resign the memberships?