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

[SYD]

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

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 they get access when travelling for leisure too.

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

Yes. There’s a VIP fleet. Not just international! - which is why Turnbull could easily decline CL.

 

[PineappleSkip]

Link to the High Court's 1 page summary of the Judgement (which doesn't go into its reasoning) here.

 

[OZDUCK]

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

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

Dennis Bunnik?

 

[drron]

So CL membership seems to not work with high court judges.

 

[RooFlyer]

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?

Judges recuse themselves from cases all the time. Another judge takes over the case. Simples.

If unavoidable (such as urgent matter), and no-one else available, the judge declares the interest. In extreme cases, if one of the parties isn't happy, the judge can say "well, I'll OK with it, so under the circumstances, I'm going ahead". Again, that's not uncommon - but may open an avenue for appeal.

 

[SYD]

So CL membership seems to not work with high court judges.

Probably close this thread?

 

[MARTINE]

I think who the plus one is - is irrelevant. It (and the cheap airfares for the family) just adds to the depth of the trough into which a snout is placed. All sweeteners and nothing more.
Anyway time to sign off
If one is of the camp nothing affects decision making and a few drinks in CL affecting judgement is a furphy then issues such as whether wives/partners/sons etc becomes relevant.
Others see it differently. My experience is based upon the specialist colleges own code of practice which actually define hospitality, entertainment and gifts and - not negotiable
Both sides of the discussion is valid

 

[RooFlyer]

So CL membership seems to not work with high court judges.

Or - unkindly, may have worked against the giver .

 

[burmans]

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.

This was indeed exactly my thought when I first saw this, kind of along the 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' line.

 

[Pushka]

Dennis Bunnik?

Maybe him too but there's another one.

 

[Pushka]

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.

If spouses are given full access anyway then who do the other pollies gift their membership to? Maybe they don't?

And if he rarely flies Qantas then why does he need CL access anyway?

 

[burmans]

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.

I'm not convinced either but your reply implies the law is black and white, i.e. not contested. There are plenty of examples that this is not true (this is why we have higher courts), so while they may not ignore the law they can be influenced one way or the other.

I'm of the view that you not only need to be impartial, you need to remove any suggestion you may not be (real or imagined). Membership of the CL doesn't sit well for judges any more than it does for politicians.

 

[Pushka]

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?

Ah. Seriously? How on earth do you ascribe old fashioned values when It's because they actually do exactly that. All foreign leaders have their partner accompany them for important world matters. Not always but certainly the last 12 months have shown that to be exactly the case eg Queens funeral and Kings coronation.

 

[justinbrett]

If spouses are given full access anyway then who do the other pollies gift their membership to? Maybe they don't?

And if he rarely flies Qantas then why does he need CL access anyway?

I meant to say +1s are given full access, in most cases, that's spouses.

Who said anything about needing CL access? Most MPs and Senators receive invitations to join both the QF CL and VA Beyond lounge.

Ah. Seriously? How on earth do you ascribe old fashioned values when It's because they actually do exactly that. All foreign leaders have their partner accompany them for important world matters. Not always but certainly the last 12 months have shown that to be exactly the case eg Queens funeral and Kings coronation.

They're not flying QF for occasions like that.

 

[Pushka]

I meant to say +1s are given full access, in most cases, that's spouses.



They're not flying QF for occasions like that.

No true but that wasn't the point I was making just then. Just the assertion that it's somehow old fashioned for partners to accompany their political partners overseas.

 

[justinbrett]

No true but that wasn't the point I was making just then. Just the assertion that it's somehow old fashioned for partners to accompany their political partners overseas.

I took the point to be it's quite old fashioned to think that spouses only travel when they are accompanying their partner. Of course that's not true. Many have commercial/private duties that have nothing to do with politics or their partners.

 

[Pushka]

I took the point to be it's quite old fashioned to think that spouses only travel when they are accompanying their partner. Of course that's not true. Many have commercial/private duties that have nothing to do with politics or their partners.

That's not at all how I took it obviously and if it was then I'd totally agree.

 

[jase05]

So CL membership seems to not work with high court judges.

After today’s decision you would hope that QF strips all CL access off them

 

[Lynda2475]

Ah. Seriously? How on earth do you ascribe old fashioned values when It's because they actually do exactly that. All foreign leaders have their partner accompany them for important world matters. Not always but certainly the last 12 months have shown that to be exactly the case eg Queens funeral and Kings coronation.

So maybe read what I wrote and not what you assumed I did. I said apart from first lady/man who have a hosting role.

That doesn't extend to other MPs.

 

[RooFlyer]

After today’s decision you would hope that QF strips all CL access off them

Well, on past performance (cancelling anyone and anything that crosses them) you'd think that the 'don't come Monday' letters are already in the mail!