AFR Article - Joe Aston goes BAM!

[CaptJCool]

I honestly don't understand the angst. Almost nobody that has membership has earned it. What if it was the PM'S.wife or the PM'S ex wife, or his girlfriend/lover or his butler or his grandfather.. What difference does it make. A huge storm in a teacup

And who do you expect to do anything about it. It's not public money, it's not against the law, it is exactly the same as all the other freebie memberships.

Only if it’s a mistress or sugar daddy and then it’s hurricane like storms

 

[kpc]

I honestly don't understand the angst. Almost nobody that has membership has earned it. What if it was the PM'S.wife or the PM'S ex wife, or his girlfriend/lover or his butler or his grandfather.. What difference does it make. A huge storm in a teacup

And who do you expect to do anything about it. It's not public money, it's not against the law, it is exactly the same as all the other freebie memberships.

In the public health sector, we are not allowed to accept a drug company pen but you think the above is OK ? I have stated previously, I consider membership of the CL as a blatant bribery attempt!

 

[RooFlyer]

I honestly don't understand the angst. Almost nobody that has membership has earned it. What if it was the PM'S.wife or the PM'S ex wife, or his girlfriend/lover or his butler or his grandfather.. What difference does it make. A huge storm in a teacup

And who do you expect to do anything about it. It's not public money, it's not against the law, it is exactly the same as all the other freebie memberships.

To put it bluntly, it’s about a company granting favours and privileges to a section of the community ( pollies) who have the power to regulate it and it’s competition . And when you’re talking about being the opposition spokesman for transport ( potential minister) and then the Prime Minister it should be a big deal, legality not.

imagine if a health company gave the health minister privileges such as CL does ( Free wining and dining),

if you can’t see this issue here, I suggest you read the book and it’s entirety.

 

[p--and--t]

In the public health sector, we are not allowed to accept a drug company pen but you think the above is OK ? I have stated previously, I consider membership of the CL as a blatant bribery attempt!

Yep same as Beyond Club same as lots same as First lounge to get to you buy more expensive tickets - and?????

Not everything in life is fair. I'm not up for huffing and puffing about it getting heart murmurs over it or salivating over the next piece of gossip.

It's a perk for selected hand picked freeloaders. Nothing more or less and one freeloader is the same as another

 

[justinbrett]

To put it bluntly, it’s about a company granting favours and privileges to a section of the community ( pollies) who have the power to regulate it and it’s competition . And when you’re talking about being the opposition spokesman for transport ( potential minister) and then the Prime Minister it should be a big deal, legality not.

imagine if a health company gave the health minister privileges such as CL does ( Free wining and dining),

if you can’t see this issue here, I suggest you read the book and it’s entirety.

Bridget McKenzie gave an interview today, again declaring her CL membership, saying she has no problem with the perk as long as MPs declare it and don’t let it influence their work. It certainly hasn’t stopped her criticism of Qantas. CL is offered to all MPs which I think is a good system, and I believe the same is offered by VA with Beyond (Funny I rarely if ever hear JA talk about that).

Corruption, if it’s there, is on the government side, and is up to them to regulate it. You’re free to report it here if you believe it’s happening.

 

[dylarr]

I requested this book a few months ago at my local library so I'm #1 of #13 on the reserve list - looking forward to reading it. The number of people who have reserved it has jumped up quite a bit over the last day with the additional publicity - there was only 4 on the list a week ago.

I also read the Peter Harbison book which was quite flattering towards AJ. Always good to get different perspectives.

 

[RooFlyer]

Yep same as Beyond Club same as lots same as First lounge to get to you buy more expensive tickets - and?????

and ... you get a governmental decision that is favourable to the company and not so good for the public. (cough QR blocked from additional competition with QF cough). That’s the problem.

And if it happens with the Beyond lounge or any other airline perks and then I’m sure there’s a book in that too. But we all know that the Chairmans lounge is a much much greater perk than Beyond and is used by very many more public servants and politicians. Then, the prospect of undue influence becomes more real and Joe Aston has made a good case of it happening.

And again, other industries like mining and health can’t get away with giving perks time and time again to politicians. Gina Rheinhart only has to look sideways at a politicians and it’s on the front page of the newspapers. But because it’s an airline lounge and flight upgrades and vaguely declared (sometimes) for some reason it’s okay for some.

 

[justinbrett]

But because it’s an airline lounge and flight upgrades and vaguely declared (sometimes) for some reason it’s okay for some.

Feel free to run for parliament and get the laws changed, but as both sides of government support it and it’s within the current law, I think you’ll be out of luck.

I think you could call it a conflict of interest, not corruption, and the former is permitted - as long as it’s declared and managed.

Considering Bridget McKenzie still has her membership I think your argument falls flat. Either way you need to take this up with the government, not Qantas.

My comments relate specifically to the CL, and not other cosy relationships certain MPs may maintain with certain airline execs. That’s completely independent of the CL.

 

[RooFlyer]

Feel free to run for parliament and get the laws changed, but as both sides of government support it and it’s within the current law, I think you’ll be out of luck.

Agreed.

I think you could call it a conflict of interest, not corruption, and the former is permitted - as long as it’s declared and managed.

You think? And then read Ashton’s descriptions of how the declarations were made or not made.

Considering Bridget McKenzie still has her membership I think your argument falls flat

Huh? do you think this is party political? I’ve been referring to government above and the PM in as much as that’s the topic of Joe Aston's column and this thread.

 

[justinbrett]

Huh? do you think this is party political? I’ve been referring to government above and the PM in as much as that’s the topic of Joe Aston's column and this thread.

No I think you missed my point completely.

If Qantas gives CL membership to MP1 and MP2, MP1 blocks Qatar’s request and MP2 maintains a public campaign against Qantas and calling for senate inquiries…

CL is not the problem. MP1 is the problem.

 

[Jacques Vert]

And who do you expect to do anything about it. It's not public money, it's not against the law, it is exactly the same as all the other freebie memberships.

Well, it could be against the law. As I posted in another thread...

The ICAC NSW has this to say about conflicts of interest:

Conflicts of interest
Citizens rightly expect that public officials, or their close connections and associates, should never be in a position to obtain an undue personal benefit as a result of the public official doing their job. This reflects the view that public office is held for the public good, not the purposes or benefits of the officeholder...

...A conflict of interest exists when a reasonable person might perceive that a public official’s personal interest(s) could be favoured over their public duties.

Under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act (2022) (the NACC Act):
‘…an act (or failure to act) by a public official could be improper because it:
• involves an undeclared or unmanaged conflict of interest…’

Where a public official engages in an “improper” act or omission in their official capacity, it is considered an ‘…abuse of office…’; and abuse of office is one of the ‘…4 types of corrupt conduct under the NACC Act’.

While failing to declare or manage the situation may, depending on the circumstances, be considered improper and an abuse of office (and therefore corrupt conduct), to my mind the conflict of interest remains whether it is declared or not.

Furthermore, whilst I acknowledge that selective quoting risks taking someone's words out of context, I note that according the UK's Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors:

In recent years, anti-bribery and corruption legislation has been introduced across a number of different countries including the UK, US, France and Germany, highlighting that the receiving of gifts or hospitality could amount to a bribe where intended to induce someone to behave in a certain manner. (Emphasis added)

Is the Chairman's Lounge '...intended to induce someone to behave in a certain manner...' or to provide a quiet environment for the upper echelons of business and government to discuss matters of mutual interest? What, if anything, does QF expect to gain in return by offering complimentary membership of the Chairman’s Lounge? Does VA expect something in return for complimentary membership of the Beyond Lounge?

Having worked for government agencies, I note that those public servants at lower levels of the organisation are not allowed to accept gifts and may be subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal, while those at the top of the tree (those who make the rules) often exempt themselves from that same level of scrutiny.

 

[RooFlyer]

CL is not the problem. MP1 is the problem.

That really sounds like the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

( apologies for the somewhat violent analogy but it is a common phrase used to defend certain behaviours. But that which enables bad behaviours is part of the problem as much as the perpetrator.)

Perks and privileges given to politicians who either now or in the future have the capacity to regulate the giver and make decisions to their benefit and competitors detriment should not be allowed, full stop. The fact that it can’t be quantified, is probably quite common and is unable to be regulated does not change that simple fact.

if anyone thinks any political donation or favour is done out of the goodness of the giver's heart without some form of quid pro quo expected sometime - I mean you’ve got to be kidding.

 

[cove]

I would just like to see the ATO taxing the recipients for the value they are receiving in the CL.

 

[justinbrett]

That really sounds like the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

( apologies for the somewhat violent analogy but it is a common phrase used to defend certain behaviours. But that which enables bad behaviours is part of the problem as much as the perpetrator.)

Perks and privileges given to politicians who either now or in the future have the capacity to regulate the giver and make decisions to their benefit and competitors detriment should not be allowed, full stop. The fact that it can’t be quantified, is probably quite common and is unable to be regulated does not change that simple fact.

if anyone thinks any political donation or favour is done out of the goodness of the giver's heart without some form of quid pro quo expected sometime - I mean you’ve got to be kidding.

Well until you ban political donations and lobbying then I’d say your focus on QF’s CL is - what’s your term? - red herring?

If you want to stop corruption (if you believe it exists) you regulate and legislate against it. I realise this is an aviation forum so the focus is on aviation, but you’d probably find more fertile ground for corruption allocations in the areas of government contracts.

You don’t do it vendor by vendor. That’s putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

 

[p--and--t]

intended to induce someone to behave in a certain manner

Well on that example, I expect AFFs to start a thread complaining about DSC offers from the airlines as these may induce employees to book travel at times and classes that benefit them more than the company they work for.

 

[p--and--t]

In the public health sector, we are not allowed to accept a drug company pen

Really. I have four friends and my partner in the medical industry for nearly 40 years and where you work I can only assume must be a special place. We are often throwing away yet both pen, travel bag, pad, mug or water bottle given as advertising by various companies in the industry. I am sure none of these people are influenced in their roles one iota from the said items given to them.

It may be only my definition but I see these as attempted inducements. When the recipient changes their behaviour as a result is when things go awry and deserve condemnation

 

[Jacques Vert]

Well on that example, I expect AFFs to start a thread complaining about DSC offers from the airlines as these may induce employees to book travel at times and classes that benefit them more than the company they work for.

Not only DSC offers but status, lounges, etc. With a private company it is up to that company to decide to what extent those things are acceptable and they may be consider them a benefit that will help atttract and retain good employees.

With public money, it is an entirely different situation IMO. And Govt agencies do have policies regarding BFOD etc., although these can be skirted around in many instances.

 

[kpc]

Really. I have four friends and my partner in the medical industry for nearly 40 years and where you work I can only assume must be a special place. We are often throwing away yet both pen, travel bag, pad, mug or water bottle given as advertising by various companies in the industry. I am sure none of these people are influenced in their roles one iota from the said items given to them.

It may be only my definition but I see these as attempted inducements. When the recipient changes their behaviour as a result is when things go awry and deserve condemnation

I suggest your 4 friends and partner should read the Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct:
www.medicinesaustralia.com.au/code/about-the-code/#:~:text=Medicines%20Australia's%20Code%20of%20Conduct,and%20the%20Therapeutic%20Goods%20Act

 

[p--and--t]

I suggest your 4 friends and partner should read the Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct:
www.medicinesaustralia.com.au/code/about-the-code/#:~:text=Medicines%20Australia's%20Code%20of%20Conduct,and%20the%20Therapeutic%20Goods%20Act

There are myriad of products in the medical industry that are not pharmaceuticals and not covered by that code

 

[justinbrett]

I don’t think Qantas is a drug…