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

[Lynda2475]

That’s why so many government departments have a rule against this

Sorry which government departments have banned airline lounge and CL memberships? None in Australia that I am aware of.

Some State and Federal departments ban earning of airline points on business funded trips (no such limit on personal travel), but allow SCs to be kept that's how Penny Wong already has lifetime Platinum.

And the GBE's like NBN even allow staff to earn points.

The High Courts role is to interpret the law and apply to the matter, they have to explain the ruling wrt to laws as they exist, they cant just ignore legislation and give QF or any other defendant a free ride because they got lounge access.

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?

A case against a car manufacturer what if they have ever driven or traveled in that brand of car? Personally own and favour a competitor?

A case against a church - do we need to ban all judges of faith? Or are the athiests biased in another way?

You can find a potential conflict for any case.

Their CL holdings were publicly disclosed long before the current furore, the judges haven't been caught ought doing something illegal or hidden. The public have access to look up these registers for judges and politicians ; obviously never bothered before - even though people were reminded of such when senator Wong accepted her LTP.

CL membership is known, other potential biases without a paper trail unable to be identified.

If you truly think being offered or visiting a CL renders an individual incapable of logical reasoning and considering facts in evidence then lobby to have then reject it.

Private clubs are not to my understanding illegal - and you will likely find they are members of many that advantage the privileged.

Does it pass the pub test, possibly not, its it going to determine the result of the case, doubtful.

Let's just wait for the result and the reasoning provided.

 

[KSC]

It is an interesting debate if nothing else.

Having had a career in medicine we were basically TOLD we could never be impartial - even if we thought we were - accepting a branded pad of sticky notes and bad pizza from a drug company. Codes of practice and many (not unreasonable) constraints were applied. We were highly trained specialists - but our clinical judgement would be compromised.
So thats that.

On that background and my later experience at the corporate/pub sector interface - I reached the conclusion inducements should be banned for all who have power to make decisions that favor -or not - the supplier of the inducement.

If it makes ‘ no difference ‘ why offer it?

Advertising/marketing 101 - of course it makes a difference. Look up the research.

If sacrosanct security enclaves are required for high court judges /politicians the fed govt can build them at airports surveilled by AFP and the instant coffee and last weeks biscuits can be made freely available.

I doubt QF is doing a public service by CL lounge to meet such requests.

Steak, squid, pavalova and a lovely drop of Grange is in order to optimise security on domestic flights.

 

[MARTINE]

Sorry which government departments have banned airline lounge and CL memberships? None in Australia that I am aware of.

Some State and Federal departments ban earning of airline points on business trips (no such limit on personal travel), but allow SCs to be kept that's how Penny Wong already has lifetime Platinum.

And the GBE's like NBN even allow staff to earn points.

The High Courts role is to interpret the law and apply to the matter, they have to explain the ruling wrt to laws as they exist, they cant just ignore legislation and give QF or any other defendant a free ride because they got lounge access.

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?

A case against a car manufacturer what if they have ever driven or traveled in that brand of car? Personally own and favour a competitor?

Their CL holdings were publicly disclosed long before the current furore, the judges haven't been caught ought doing something illegal or hidden. The public have access to look up these registers for judges and politicians ; obviously never bothered before - even though people were reminded of such when senator Wong accepted her LTP.

If you truly think being offered or visiting a CL renders an individual incapable of logical reasoning and considering facts in evidence then lobby to have then reject it. Private clubs are not to my understanding illegal - and you will likely find they are members of many that advantage the privileged.

Let's just wait for the result and the reasoning provided.

Except said judges paid for their cars, bought their insurance - they were not gifted

 

[Lynda2475]

But the argument some here are making it is the use/acceptance of CL that makes them biased where as those that reject are not, although one could argue that is just biased the other way.

Paying for something doesn't necessarily remove unconscious bias. Similarly life experiences impart bias.

It isn't as simple as some here make out.

You can love a product but still recognise when the company that provides it has done wrong.

Reading some of the comments here, the facts of the case don't seem to matter, at all apparently CL overrides all reason.

 

[Must...Fly!]

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'm not suggesting that. However what I am suggesting is that is exactly what the Chairperson and CEO of Qantas set out to do, however slim the chances of it actually swaying influence.

 

[MARTINE]

But the argument some here are making it is is the use/acceptance of CL tgat makes them biased (where as those that reject are not, although one could argue that is just biased the other way). Paying for something doesn't necessarily remove unconscious bias.

It isn't as simple as some here make out.

You can love a product but still recognise when the company that provides it has done wrong.

Reading some of the comments here, facts of the case don't seem to matter, apparently CL overrides all.

I do understand where you are coming from as we all assume as intelligent people we would make the right decisions in our area of expertise/sphere of influence based on facts alone….
Putting aside that
— the public rightly expects accountability from politicians and the public service.
Even in private sector conflict of interest regulations apply to prevent corrupt practices sabotaging a business.
There is a line to be drawn if a direct outcome which favors you over someone else can occur due to an inducement.
I am more concerned about politicians (and their sons) as there are manifest outcomes by favorable relationships. Re the judges if they are making decisions on a business who has provided a gift ie CL and the case is QF - if declared and accepted by all parties thats that.

 

[eastwest101]

Alan did nothing out of the goodness of his heart. Perhaps they can remain totally impartial, but in offering it at all there would be the hope that it might make a slight difference.

Yeah - I agree with you that, as naive as it sounds, most people would trust that High Court Judges could remain impartial despite the benefit offered by airlines, but as others have mentioned, previous politicians have also tried to argue that with varying degrees of success. Its very difficult to quantify the level of benefit provided directly with any decision in this case but the optics of this are very yucky due to the fact that nearly all the decision-makers and regulators are CL members, complete regulatory capture. The optics are terrible and will directly contribute to the public disdain for unelected and elected officials/public servants and their staff which is corrosive to the implicit trust between all levels of government, its institutions, laws & justice system, and its citizen's trust in these institutions.

The argument for privacy and security concerns of politicians, judges, and senior public servants are a different matter. If security is the issue then its a public official security matter and that is what taxpayers' money is for, and it's not like airports aren't secure places already for all passengers. The privacy excuse is risible, it is a benefit received by people paid for by the public purse who have wide regulatory/legislative oversight powers, if it's good enough to persecute a premier for gift of 1 bottle of wine then, I think transparency about who receives what benefits/gifts is not too much of a stretch in the areas of transparency/accountability in the regulation or court hearings relating to an airline.

 

[justinbrett]

Alan did nothing out of the goodness of his heart. Perhaps they can remain totally impartial, but in offering it at all there would be the hope that it might make a slight difference.

If that's the case, he should get his money back for the senators who grilled him the other week, all but one were CL members (Tony Sheldon) - or the half of the house of reps that keep asking the government questions about Qantas & Qatar.

 

[RooFlyer]

Its a pretty simple concept.

If you have accepted gifts from someone/an organisation involved to a decision you make that may affect them positively or adversely, you DO have a conflict of interest.

That conflict is mitigated by declaring the conflict, or the association, up front to all parties involved.

The parties should be able to say if they are satisfied with the disclosed relationship - if they are not, then the decision-maker should recuse themselves.

 

[Must...Fly!]

If that's the case, he should get his money back for the senators who grilled him the other week, all but one were CL members (Tony Sheldon) - or the half of the house of reps that keep asking the government questions about Qantas & Qatar.

And would you believe it, these senators are actually accountable to the public in this country. It should surprise no one they launched off when the heat came on.

How many were having a good crack at Qantas in committees before this storm over the Qatar flights, I wonder?

 

[Must...Fly!]

I'm not suggesting that. However what I am suggesting is that is exactly what the Chairperson and CEO of Qantas set out to do, however slim the chances of it actually swaying influence.

Further to this, shareholders should have a real issue with the granting of these memberships if they are currying zero favour.

As should paying customers. Some decisions Joyce made were hard but ultimately I can understand why they were considered necessary. However, most decisions Joyce made were targeting the bottom line for the sake of the bottom line. How much money do you think Qantas really saves by restricting guests in to the QP to travelling individuals for example? Let's not even start with trying to speak to someone in the phone who knows what they're doing.

Meanwhile in the Chairman's Lounge...just giving high quality food and drink away for...nothing...? Doesn't quite make sense, does it?

 

[justinbrett]

Considering this is a case between Qantas and the Unions, I think you'll find it is the Unions that have the greater potential for influence - not to say they do (just the potential). Two retiring judges last year were both former members of the ALP (Reeves & Duncan).

And would you believe it, these senators are actually accountable to the public in this country. It should surprise no one they launched off when the heat came on.

How many were having a good crack at Qantas in committees before this storm over the Qatar flights, I wonder?

I don't disagree but it works both ways, the other side were having a good go when the baggage handler dispute first emerged.

I think it's fair to say no amount of CL memberships help QF if there's a point to be made.

Meanwhile in the Chairman's Lounge...just giving high quality food and drink away for...nothing...? Doesn't quite make sense, does it?

It's not a lounge just for public officials, there are plenty of commercial members. The government is the largest customer of Qantas - and VA gives the same access to its lounges as well. Believe it or not they both compete for government business.

I'm not saying there isn't soft power at work, but to say it's given away for nothing is not correct.

 

[Bayside Flyer]

Exactly. I believe, I'd not know someone of repute sitting next to me, unless I have seen them before or read about them in the news. Even then, it is highly unlikely that the average Joe would be able to recognize them. So why the secrecy and why shying away from the general public and seek solace in the CL? I could be wrong, but what do they think they are doing that warrants not mingling with gen pop?

I remember seeing (and speaking) to Evonne Cawley (Goolagong) in the J lounge in BNE once and my wife saw and spoke with Hazel Hawke, neither seemed to be bothered about being in a J Lounge Vs CL

 

[Must...Fly!]

Two retiring judges last year were both former members of the ALP (Reeves & Duncan).

I bet they were very much current members of the CL, though.

 

[Danger]

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 notice in these declarations of lounge memberships from Virgin and Qantas that the value is listed as N/A. Doesn't this technically mean that they don't need to declare since its value is immaterial? I mean where do they draw the line? If I'm at court and head to the vending machine to pick up a snickers bar and notice a judge struggling to find a dime to feed the machine and put one of my dimes in the machine for him does that need to be declared? If so how would it be declared: 10 cents towards the purchase of a $3 snickers bar from the Hornsby High Court vending machine.

-RooFlyer88

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

 

[justinbrett]

I bet they were very much current members of the CL, though.

Who - as you said in a previous post - were "accountable to the public" and therefore could do their job whilst still being impartial.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Most people wouldn't know who they are from a bar of soap

Agree but I also do think those who would know them are the ones you need to watch out for.

Paradoxically, I'd bet a Venn diagram of such people with CL memberships would have quite the overlap.

How was it referred to in the ABC article the other day? A place where the elite get whatever they want? One wonders...

think it's fair to say no amount of CL memberships help QF if there's a point to be made.

Yes but again you're glossing over the whole point, which is to ensure that there is no point to be made in the first place.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Who - as you said in a previous post - were "accountable to the public" and therefore could do their job whilst still being impartial.

Could you let me know when I next vote on the composition of the court? I don't recall having done it in the past.

You might want to check Section 72 of the constitution if you're unsure.

This topic is about Chairman's Lounge membership being gifted to High Court Justices, continues references to the senate and/or senators are simply trying to shift the goal posts.

 

[Lynda2475]

There is a line to be drawn if a direct outcome which favors you over someone else can occur due to an inducement.

Yes that is called bribery.

But to prove the line has to be direct and material enough to have sufficient influence.

I'm not convinced a pre flight meal and drink in a private lounge is that powerful. How often are they flying QF and using CL vs Virgins The Club or other lounges?

Will they completely ignore the law and filed evidence because of a CL visit, unlikely.

When a department/company is deciding travel policy the discount pricing and flexibility for changes are main consideration. IME as an employee you can't book direct with airline or hotel, corporate travel agencies (portal or phone) are used to process all bookings to enforce policy compliance and ensure credits used for untaken flights are used by other staff before booking new ones.

Will removing CL see them cease to fly QF domestically and suddenly go Rex? Not if schedule and coverage is a factor which it is. Even without CL they still have OW or Virgin status.

Plenty here have a bias for/against various airlines based on their experience flying them. I would be sure most (probably all) judges would have flown QF as a paid customer long before being appointed to the High Court or any bench.

 

[justinbrett]

Yes but again you're glossing over the whole point, which is to ensure that there is no point to be made in the first place.

Well it's not working, plenty of points are being made. On all sides.

CL membership didn't help in the initial outcome of this case either.

Could you let me know when I next vote on the composition of the court? I don't recall having done it in the past.

You might want to check Section 72 of the constitution if you're unsure.

This topic is about Chairman's Lounge membership being gifted to High Court Justices, continues references to the senate and/or senators are simply trying to shift the goal posts.

I was referring to when they were elected officials.

MPs don't have to be impartial, yet both sides have shown they're not afraid to throw QF under the bus when it comes to it.

Judges do have to be impartial, and have far more potential for bias in any number of factors that influence any number of cases. How many federal court cases involve Qantas?