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

[Quickstatus]

but may open an avenue for appeal

No avenue when the Full Bench rules (well of coursethere is impeachment in Parliament but ......)

somehow old fashioned for partners to accompany their political partners

Sure, but we all love a freebie.

---

---

---

 

[Pushka]

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.

This is what you wrote
Quite old fashioned to assume that MPs partners are ladies/men of leisure just following their partner around on official business


Your second paragraph appeared as a comment of public funding.

 

[RooFlyer]

No avenue when the Full Bench rules (well of coursethere is impeachment in Parliament but ......)

I was speaking generally (I thought obvious?)

 

[Mr H]

Dennis Bunnik?

In all his videos he makes great play about using the F lounge based on his OWE status - so I doubt he has/had CL.

 

[Seat0B]

You may be satisfied of this but there is plenty of evidence of unconscious bias even when those showing that bias are absolutely convinced of their impartiality. That’s why so many government departments have a rule against this, not necessarily because you would show partiality but but you also must remove any possibility of partiality.

…or even the appearance of partiality.

Edit to add:And to @kangarooflyer88, there is usually a materiality test - so no 10c would not be material. However to avoid arguments about what is or is not material, many public sector organisations adopt a zero threshold - which is why, as noted upthread, you can’t buy your public sector client so much as a cup cake or a coffee. I’d say judges should probably adopt a zero threshold too.

 

[jase05]

In all his videos he makes great play about using the F lounge based on his OWE status - so I doubt he has/had CL.

Have spoken with Dennis a couple of times and he commented that he doesn’t have CL access.

 

[Mr H]

Have spoken with Dennis a couple of times and he commented that he doesn’t have CL access.

He strikes me as the kind of man who would not hide CL membership if he had it.

 

[Seat0B]

Or - unkindly, may have worked against the giver .

Biting the hand that feeds you

 

[Happy Dude]

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

Wouldn't that only reinforce the notion that membership was bestowed for back-scratching purposes?

"Dear High Court Judge,

Fat lot of good you were. Your CL membership is revoked.

Yours sincerely......"

 

[offshore171]

Plenty of calls now for a full spill of the board.

It would appear the CL may be about to lose the 'C'

 

[jrfsp]

Plenty of calls now for a full spill of the board.

It would appear the CL may be about to lose the 'C'

The shareholders also need to step up and vote accordingly at the upcoming AGM.

 

[offshore171]

The shareholders also need to step up and vote accordingly at the upcoming AGM.

It may not take that long if large institutional investors add to the calls for a spill.

 

[Mr H]

It would appear the CL may be about to lose the 'C'

I had a work colleague whose father was Chairman of a multi-national company and he had CL membership. My colleague told me that when she was young, she thought it was called Chairman's lounge because it was a facility for company chairmen. She hadn't realised it was anything to do with the Qantas Chairman.

 

[Quickstatus]

Plenty of calls now for a full spill of the board

Including the Managing Director?

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Another data point - I see the High Court has upheld that Qantas workers were illegally fired in 2020 in contravention of the Fair Work Act:

Qantas illegally fired 1,700 workers during pandemic - top court

The Australian airline has been embroiled in several scandals since the pandemic began.

www.bbc.com

This seems to suggest that membership in Dick Goyder's lounge does not seem to impact their decisions, at least in this instance.

 

[burmans]

Well, cynically I’d suggest that soft influence only really works when it’s covert! In the current environment it’s anything but and even if any of these judges had been subtly influenced now’s a pretty dumb time to show it. Hence, if anything, in the current environment you’d be inclined to side against Qantas not with it. Not suggesting that any judges have been influenced, just that if there were there’s a pretty good reason to refrain from showing that partiality at the present time.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Well, cynically I’d suggest that soft influence only really works when it’s covert! In the current environment it’s anything but and even if any of these judges had been subtly influenced now’s a pretty dumb time to show it.

I would think with judges they have complete immunity against Qantas. Whatever decision they make it will have no impact on the perks they receive. After all, would Qantas want to rescind any benefits now given they will soon be on the hook for a half a billion dollars worth of fines due to the ACCC investigation into them selling phantom flights. And even if the judges rule against QF on this case, it still wouldn't make sense for QF to rescind anything since again, these judges will keep receiving more cases where they have to rule on QF matters (i.e. the class action lawsuit against QF relating to COVID credits). Being a large organization and Australia's most hated airline means they will be in the limelight of courts for the foreseeable future and so they wouldn't want to do anything to "screw" over judges even if they rule against them.

-RooFlyer88

 

[SeatBackForward]

It may not take that long if large institutional investors add to the calls for a spill.

Why on earth would Institutional Investors suggest this? Their company has just pulled of a masterstroke of profitability. These investors are not the victims or the ones suffering here..

 

[RooFlyer]

Why on earth would Institutional Investors suggest this? Their company has just pulled of a masterstroke of profitability. These investors are not the victims or the ones suffering here..

The investors have already banked the past profit (or anticipate doing so - I think the share-buy-back has to be approved??) and now look forward - to see if the current Board is adequate for the next phase, which is looking rather more rocky than the past year. And the shareholders certainly will be, if not suffering, then enjoying themselves much less, because of the Board commissions or omissions. Look at the share price.

I can't see the instos being in on a 'spill', but I can see them suggesting to the Chair that he needs an exit timetable, maybe along with a couple of Board members.

 

[VPS]

Maybe him too but there's another one.

Is it not in the public domain and is that why you aren't naming them. The only other high profile one would be PH