Upgrades to Aus Politicians and Family

[dajop]

I've had a company fly me, when a regulator, on their private aircraft. Was that corrupt? Does it help you to know that they flew me to their site to investigate a serious matter. Still corrupt?Besides giving someone something isn't corruption. You're all talking about this FCPA thingy as if giving something is proof in itself. Don't ignore the bit about the giving "being intended to influence". If you can give out stuff without an expectation of favours and it will not be corrupt.

Your scenario is clearly not corrupt as there is well defined, clear and justifiable reason for it, which is OK. I used to deal with regulators a lot, and being a US company we have strict processes in place around approving any form of gift/assistance to government employees. . I think handing out upgrades is more subtle than having an explicit expectation of favours, it would be more about creating a favorable image that could lead to favorable decisions (whether they be policy or purchasing decisions). As I said a fine line, and surely QF's lawyers would be all over it to make sure this is OK (which obviously it is). Personally, I think that if the proportion of upgrades provided to politicians roughly matches the proportion (give or take a little bit) given to frequently flying private citizens it is fine. But if there's huge differences, you've got to wonder why.

 

[whatmeworry]

I bet the politicians have a higher chance of getting an op-up then the regular public.

If the figures were available I bet the pollies would significantly get more op ups then the rest of us!

 

[777]

The key issue here is disclosure. It is a good thing that politicians are obliged to disclose the gifts, perks and benefits they receive and then we are free to debate what, if any, consequences there are of that. If there is no disclosure (and no one publishes it) we couldn't even have the debate.

 

[pagingjoan]

...Interestingly, the database seems to be no longer available, at least not at The Age website.

Database is working for me from The Age link.

 

[coyote25]

The key issue here is disclosure. It is a good thing that politicians are obliged to disclose the gifts, perks and benefits they receive and then we are free to debate what, if any, consequences there are of that. If there is no disclosure (and no one publishes it) we couldn't even have the debate.

Totally agree with you 777. The disclosure keeps it honest.

My feeling is they aren't getting a higher % then frequent flyers going off experiences reported on this forum. Also they included Kevid Rudd's wife who would be high status without him which pushes up the numbers of free upgrades a bit.

 

[medhead]

Your scenario is clearly not corrupt as there is well defined, clear and justifiable reason for it, which is OK. I used to deal with regulators a lot, and being a US company we have strict processes in place around approving any form of gift/assistance to government employees.

Just to go further down the hypothetical path. So that was a one off incident that justified the flight. What about for routine inspections? We would drive for 2.5 days to get to the site, rather than fly on the company aircraft. I think taking the flight would be justified in terms of efficiency of our business. But that was not the prevailing view since we drove there every time. Then there was the issue of staying in the site camp - free food and accommodation. I'd value your opinion.

But I'm also mentioning this to demonstrate how complex the whole question can become. The flight would have been good and it was good to not have to drive 2 hours back to alternative accommodation at night. But I certainly wouldn't do favours because of that, even though it is a significant financial cost. I also enjoyed, in a kind of perverse way, driving dirt tracks for a day or so.

 

[gbh]

I'm not sure that Qantas is exempt from the FCPA:

Activities by an employee within the US are subject to the FCPA. So, if an upgrade were given by a QF employee in the US on, say, an LAX-SYD leg, it would be potentially subject to the FCPA. Now, I think it's unlikely that it would be prosecuted, because it would be hard to prove the element of attempting to influence an official's performance of his/her duties beyond a reasonable doubt. But still, I'm curious whether the upgrade rates are the same out of the US as they are through the rest of the system.

I've had a company fly me, when a regulator, on their private aircraft. Was that corrupt? Does it help you to know that they flew me to their site to investigate a serious matter. Still corrupt?

No, if they were doing it to aid an official investigation, it's defensible. If they were flying you on a personal trip, then hellz, yeah, it's corruption.

I bet the politicians have a higher chance of getting an op-up then the regular public.

Ya think?? I know a few politicians. They almost ALWAYS get offered an upgrade, unless the flight is full. Does that sound like your experience?

The key issue here is disclosure. It is a good thing that politicians are obliged to disclose the gifts, perks and benefits they receive and then we are free to debate what, if any, consequences there are of that. If there is no disclosure (and no one publishes it) we couldn't even have the debate.

I disagree. I don't think disclosure cures it at all, because this kind of "everyone else does it" behaviour attracts no political penalty. This is one of those cases where the interests of the political class as a whole diverge with the interests of everyone else. My belief is that public servants should be held to the highest standards of ethical conduct, and if they don't like it, they should find another career. And it is simply not ethical for a public official to accept valuable favors from anyone.

 

[medhead]

I disagree. I don't think disclosure cures it at all, because this kind of "everyone else does it" behaviour attracts no political penalty. This is one of those cases where the interests of the political class as a whole diverge with the interests of everyone else. My belief is that public servants should be held to the highest standards of ethical conduct, and if they don't like it, they should find another career. And it is simply not ethical for a public official to accept valuable favors from anyone.

Sorry, this is not an "everyone else does it" thing. This is a "X got 1000 upgrades from Y company" now we know and can assess their decisions in relation to that company. It also gives X the opportunity to say no to Y company if they make a corrupt approach, and in fact report the attempted corruption. This is similar in theory to security clearances. In general, they don't care what you do provided they know about it. The threat of revealing a secret for benefit doesn't work if there is no secret.

I'd really value your view of the hypothetical I posted.

 

[dajop]

Just to go further down the hypothetical path. So that was a one off incident that justified the flight. What about for routine inspections? We would drive for 2.5 days to get to the site, rather than fly on the company aircraft. I think taking the flight would be justified in terms of efficiency of our business. But that was not the prevailing view since we drove there every time. Then there was the issue of staying in the site camp - free food and accommodation. I'd value your opinion.But I'm also mentioning this to demonstrate how complex the whole question can become. The flight would have been good and it was good to not have to drive 2 hours back to alternative accommodation at night. But I certainly wouldn't do favours because of that, even though it is a significant financial cost. I also enjoyed, in a kind of perverse way, driving dirt tracks for a day or so.

It seems that with published policies and justification in terms of efficiency the flying should be acceptable. It is in line with user pays approach to regulating these days! Although probably difficult for the company, another option would also to ask the company to invoice the agency for the cost of the passengers that were carried on the aircraft.

I know when dealing with regulators they would refuse a lift in our vehicle for example from a central point an inspection only 20-30 mins away. On one particular occasion when there was federal and state governments involved, as well as some consultants there was a convoy of 7 cars travelling around! Eventually (not in the instance of the convoy though, we agreed it would be acceptable for them to give me a short lift to those inspection sites, much more efficient that way.

Also, I can recall an instance where we were running a seminar the regulator was attending and they asked for an invoice for their share of lunch. As that would be difficult for us administratively, in the end, the university we were working with to hold the seminar agreed to pay for lunch, and as they were not directly interacting with the regulator - and ultimately are government owned themselves - that was acceptable.

You are right it is very complex.

 

[TonyHancock]

If QF doesn't offer status and upgrades to politicians there can be no accusations of bribery and corruption. It really is that simple. Probably harsh and maybe unfair but clear cut. The actions of the few, as in many cases, ruin things for the many. Press reports of politicians with "their snouts in the trough" taint all politicians unfortunately. Remove the "incentive" at source and there is no problem.

It is the way private businesses are going in The UK following the introduction of the UK Bribery Act in 2010. (it came into force on 1st July 2011.)

 

[freepyjamas]

I have nothing to add, except to say the fact that The Honourable Peter Slipper gets regular upgrades makes me hate Qantas a little. I get that they need to schmooze politicians, but surely they can make the odd exception.

 

[777]

Also, all this talk of upgrades misses the elephant in the room: The Chairman's Lounge. I haven't gone through to look but how many pollies disclosed their CL status?

 

[pagingjoan]

Also, all this talk of upgrades misses the elephant in the room: The Chairman's Lounge. I haven't gone through to look but how many pollies disclosed their CL status?

On my quick scan, very few, it seemed!
So that does bring the validity of the upgrade figures into question.

 

[RWJ777]

I think the notion of corruption is too black and white. A better construction is conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest. That is the relevant test. That is, was it a conflict of interest for someone to receive a benefit. This gives rise to a test of what the conflict and interests are -- whether the person receiving the benefit was making decisions or influencing decisions that conflicted with their duty to act impartially.

However, the requirement to act without conflict of interest is not limited to actual conflicts. Public officials are generally required to avoid also both potential and perceived conflicts of interest. This makes the threshold of conflict much lower indeed. In most cases, receiving an upgrade would not be classified as a conflict; whether it is a perceived conflict depends on people's own judgement but I think a reasonable person would say that an MP who makes no decisions about qantas's purchasing or regulatory arrangements is unlikely to be perceived to be conflicted by receiving an upgrade.

 

[harvyk]

So out of a 2 year period, a group of 226 people (who do actually fly frequently, when parli is sitting they would fly in/out of cbr at least once every 2 weeks) had 289 op-ups amoungst them.

That gives an average of a little over 1 upgrade per person over the two year period (yes I realise some have been more lucky in their upgrade rate than others). I'm also pretty sure that AFF as a group would have a higher op-up rate than that.

If op-ups where something dodgy reserved for pollies, which us mear mortals cold never hope to receive, then yes it's a news story. But since all an op-up represents is that a pax needs to be moved around the plane for operational reasons, I can't see why this is news.

 

[amaroo]

Can't see any great number of these jokers leaving QF for another airline anytime soon.

QF have got pollies exactly where they want them.......the irony of MP's & Senators ripping into QF on IR and then head to the airport & line up at the CL trough is one of life's sick jokes!

 

[TonyHancock]

I'm also pretty sure that AFF as a group would have a higher op-up rate than that.

Although we probably have less chance to influence the Qantas Sale Act with our votes.

Yes it is a bit far fetched but better to be squeaky clean these days.

I think 777 hit the nail on the head though. It is CL status that could be perceived as a bribe.

My view of politicians is tainted by the known exploits of a few, so I am probably being unfair on the majority......and boy oh boy what a majority we have here in Australia, with state and federal politicians they are everywhere!!!

 

[harvyk]

I think 777 hit the nail on the head though. It is CL status that could be perceived as a bribe.

I agree, automatic CL membership could be considered a bribe in a way, and it does seem funny to hear them one minute tearing QF apart, and the next minute drinking QF's free booze. But the article was focused on "upgrades" not lounge access or FF tier. Then again, I do believe that the purpose of CL is it is a "gift" to those who may be able to influence QF's bottom line in a way that it could make differences to graphs presented to board meetings.

 

[zachary.august]

So what if politicians get free upgrades! It doesn't cost the tax payer anything. If the issue is bribery then what is stopping VA or anyone else doing the same thing. Finally, on CL, some members of governmental 'rank' get given CL as part of their job which in itself brings preferential operational upgrades and what not.

 

[drron]

So out of a 2 year period, a group of 226 people (who do actually fly frequently, when parli is sitting they would fly in/out of cbr at least once every 2 weeks) had 289 op-ups amoungst them.

That gives an average of a little over 1 upgrade per person over the two year period (yes I realise some have been more lucky in their upgrade rate than others). I'm also pretty sure that AFF as a group would have a higher op-up rate than that.

If op-ups where something dodgy reserved for pollies, which us mear mortals cold never hope to receive, then yes it's a news story. But since all an op-up represents is that a pax needs to be moved around the plane for operational reasons, I can't see why this is news.

Just a couple of things wrong with your maths.First for the pollies it refers to International upgrades.Second Senators dont have to declare anything if it is offered to the majority.

Then of course is the QF gifts of Ipads plus use of their private boxes at sporting events.Not something AFFers generally get.

Plus another recent article-

MORE than 70 federal politicians have failed to disclose a gift of free pay TV worth $1560 annually despite being warned by the gift-giver that it must be declared.

Read more: Foxtel gifts undeclared despite warnings

So can you be confident that all upgrades have been declared?