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

[SheikYerbouti]

Consider a case against insurance industry or an insurer, it is likely all the judges would also have car, home, health insurance - should they also have to recuse themselves then? What if their superfund held shares in such?

So my wife is a partner of a big firm, and to avoid any potential/perceived conflict, our family is not allowed to have bank accounts/loans/products with a couple of institutions, because her firm is their auditor...

I don't have a problem with this. It's not hard to work around.

 

[SheikYerbouti]

It's talking about frequent flyer points

As I said, each Dept then has its own policy. From the one I linked: Employees should not accept any offer of frequent flyer points, shopping points, or any otherpoints/rewards in their role as an FRNSW employee.

ANY other points/rewards. Our professional standards dept has confirmed that this includes SCs.

 

[offshore171]

I think it means that a value is hard to define or quantify, not that it has no value at all.

A good accounting analysis would be able to put a monetary value on it with a few assumptions documented.

But maybe a question to the forum, what monetary value would you estimate CL membership worth per annum?

It provides:

Highest FF redemption priority
Highest upgrade prioity
Highest lounge access with full dining service
Highest FF earn rate
Luggage allowances
Probably some other undocumented "soft" benefits

I know some members here will pay $2-3000 on "status runs" to retain Platinum, so that gives some guidance as to perceived monetary value.

I'd suggest a value of around $7-10K. Certainly this is a large gift to judges and politicians, which probably doesn't pass the smell test. What do others think?

 

[MARTINE]

Okay lets all assume CL membership has no influence on decision making. Its not a potential conflict of interest scenario - just a nice thing if you can get it.
To overcome perceived CofI

…CL ( or its equivalent in other airlines) is now a paid scenario.

Public servants/politicians apply - their application and reasons for/against acceptance by chairman are on public record .

Publicly listed companies - ditto shareholders

Private individuals who are chosen - stay private.

Post automatically merged: Sep 13, 2023

So my wife is a partner of a big firm, and to avoid any potential/perceived conflict, our family is not allowed to have bank accounts/loans/products with a couple of institutions, because her firm is their auditor...

I don't have a problem with this. It's not hard to work around.

Agree
Any large listed company I consulted with had restrictions on share trading etc

 

[justinbrett]

As I said, each Dept then has its own policy. From the one I linked: Employees should not accept any offer of frequent flyer points, shopping points, or any otherpoints/rewards in their role as an FRNSW employee.

ANY other points/rewards. Our professional standards dept has confirmed that this includes SCs.

That's unfortunate, because the wider NSW policy says you can participate in loyalty programs and accept free lounge membership. That says SCs to me.

 

[Pushka]

Senator McKenzie et al may rue the day the went after Nathan Albanese's membership. How the senator and some of her colleagues think it's perfectly appropriate for them to have chairman's lounge membership but it's somehow an abomination that the junior Albanese has one is beyond me. My guess is Nathan's ability in his role to positively influence outcomes for Qantas pales in comparison what politicians can do. The main thing the focus on his membership has done has been to shine a light on the benefit offered to a select few. If stories like High Court judges being members continue, there will be growing pressure on politicians to turn in their black cards.



I think it means that a value is hard to define or quantify, not that it has no value at all.

How can you even compare the membership of sitting Federal Members with someone’s son who is granted membership just because they are someone’s son.

 

[MARTINE]

What exactly is the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, and how do you join?

There’s much more to the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge than just free canapes and champagne. Here’s how to become a member and what’s on offer once you’re inside.

www.afr.com

This AFR article from 23/8 (before AJ s departure) has some amazing insights from QF
Particularly like the ‘soft’ approach of asking politicians where they the family may like to travel next year and cheaper fares appear like magic


Well worth a read but not sure AJ would have done so if he could predict what would happen in a week….

 

[justinbrett]

How can you even compare the membership of sitting Federal Members with someone’s son who is granted membership just because they are someone’s son.

If MPs can select a +1, is it so different to select your son instead of your then non-existent partner?

The PM was divorced and only met his current girlfriend two years ago.

 

[SheikYerbouti]

How can you even compare the membership of sitting Federal Members with someone’s son who is granted membership just because they are someone’s son.

You know that spouses have CL membership too, right? Jenny Morrison had membership. Where were the complaints about that?

Malcolm Turnbull refused CL membership to avoid perceptions of conflict.

Flying high: How politicians travel in style

Qantas and Virgin provide MPs and senators with access to luxury airport lounges and flight upgrades. But at what cost. Open Politics tallies up the freebies being dished out by Australia’s domestic carriers and foreign airlines.

openpolitics.au

https://www.thetourismnews.com.au/nationalheadlines/qantas-chairmans-club-priceless-gift-to-mps/

 

[RooFlyer]

How the senator and some of her colleagues think it's perfectly appropriate for them to have chairman's lounge membership but it's somehow an abomination that the junior Albanese has one is beyond me. My guess is Nathan's ability in his role to positively influence outcomes for Qantas pales in comparison what politicians can do.

The issue with the son's membership isn't that the son might influence anything but obviously the fact that under what we understand to be the qualification for Chairman's Lounge 'membership', the son wouldn't go anywhere near qualifying. So, why was he given membership? Obviously because who his father is.

Qantas has done the Prime Minister a favour - in the case of the son, nothing to do with public figure privacy, or security or a big customer of the airline. A favour pure and simple. Of all the CL 'favours for influence' optics, this is probably the worst kind.

 

[SpudOz]

Hmmmm….there might be a few letters going out shortly rescinding access to the CL..lol

 

[SYD]

Oh well, the High Court has unanimously ruled against QF.

 

[Lynda2475]

So my wife is a partner of a big firm, and to avoid any potential/perceived conflict, our family is not allowed to have bank accounts/loans/products with a couple of institutions, because her firm is their auditor...

I don't have a problem with this. It's not hard to work around.

In your wife's case her income is being paid in part by the firm she is responsible for auditing and she has inside information wrt to investing etc (possible insider trading) so is prudent policy.

Noting she will still have an opinion and possible unconscious bias towards said firms based on her audit dealings, which in due course may influence her decision to bid/accept future work, or become a customer should she lose their audit business in future.

Just pointing out the challenges for a judge is a little different. They never knows what future cases may arise. Do they have to go uninsured because AMP or NRMA may be prosecuted at sometime in the future? Or do they have to change insurer when a case is launched and will that erase unconscious bias they a ll ready hold? What if it's an industry class action affecting all insurers in a given category?

 

[brokenagain]

Excellent result. Goyder and Hudson should be packing up their desks and following Joyce out the door. Especially Hudson, she would have been just as involved as Joyce in this decision. New people are desperately needed in Head Office.

 

[Lynda2475]

Oh well, the High Court has unanimously ruled against QF.

Proving CL access not significant enough to bypass judicial process which requires an analysis of the laws in place at the time of the incident being investigated.

Unions can also have much undue influence.

 

[Pushka]

You know that spouses have CL membership too, right? Jenny Morrison had membership. Where were the complaints about that?

Malcolm Turnbull refused CL membership to avoid perceptions of conflict.

Flying high: How politicians travel in style

Qantas and Virgin provide MPs and senators with access to luxury airport lounges and flight upgrades. But at what cost. Open Politics tallies up the freebies being dished out by Australia’s domestic carriers and foreign airlines.

openpolitics.au

https://www.thetourismnews.com.au/nationalheadlines/qantas-chairmans-club-priceless-gift-to-mps/

I don't have an issue with partners having memberships. They would likely accompany their partners on official and other business.

Post automatically merged: Sep 13, 2023

Hmmmm….there might be a few letters going out shortly rescinding access to the CL..lol

One prominent TA in SA has already had their privilege removed - not quite sure when - they love Qatar and SQ and are always promoting them

 

[Pushka]

If MPs can select a +1, is it so different to select your son instead of your then non-existent partner?

The PM was divorced and only met his current girlfriend two years ago.

Because their plus one would likely accompany them on travel related to being the PM or Federal member. Their children? Not really.

 

[justinbrett]

Because their plus one would likely accompany them on travel related to being the PM or Federal member. Their children? Not really.

The PM rarely flies QF

With the current topic aside, if I was divorced and offered something that others could bring their partner to, I'd be pretty upset that I couldn't bring someone else of my choice. That's quite discriminatory.

Spouses are given full membership in their own right, they don't need to be travelling with the MP.

 

[Lynda2475]

Because their plus one would likely accompany them on travel related to being the PM or Federal member. Their children? Not really.

Quite old fashioned to assume that MPs partners are ladies/men of leisure just following their partner around on official business.

Personally don't see why tax players should pay for MP partner travel, fist lady/man aside which may have an official host role, other MPs partners need not tag along to what are essentially business meetings unless on their own dime.

Didn't Rudd's wife run a business and earn more than he did as PM? Likely qualified in her own right.

I'm sure MPs and their partners get lounge access when travelling for leisure too.

I could be wrong but for official international business the PM flies on a RAAF operated jet?

 

[jrfsp]

The PM rarely flies QF

With the current topic aside, if I was divorced and offered something that others could bring their partner to, I'd be pretty upset that I couldn't bring someone else of my choice. That's quite discriminatory.

Spouses are given full membership in their own right, they don't need to be travelling with the MP.

Indeed - its no different to Plat1 members being able to gift plat to whoever they want.

If thats a perk of CL then so be it. If anything id imagine Albos son will make much less use of his membership than many +1s