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

[TheRealTMA]

What about the HCoA justices - do they book via some Govt corporate travel

That's not fair . That would exclude me and I dare say @drron

lol. Only "real" Drs allowed. Although Todd Sampson (Director since 2015 Pay since 2017: $1,506,000. Is on TV a lot. Wears t shirts and is the youngest member of the board. Former advertising exec) will still be admitted.

 

[jb747]

As far as I’m concerned, nobody on any government pay cheque should be allowed to accept membership. That means all politicians, judges, anyone.

 

[CaptJCool]

As far as I’m concerned, nobody on any government pay cheque should be allowed to accept membership. That means all politicians, judges, anyone.

But the govt

does not know

how to say No

It’s a lesson they could well learn

Many of my former colleagues In the (Senior) & Executive Levels couldn’t help themselves what with paid for Qantas Club and flexi fares with extra status credits

I don’t think my former Agency has any chairman’s lounge members
I looked up the gift register and none recorded
I’m pretty sure most preferred to drive Sydney-Canberra instead

 

[Seat0B]

Is it nuanced though? Seems a clear distinction between public money vs your own money. The former requires best value.

The nuance comes in when a public official argues that their friend or relative is best value. In the public sector, it’s actually about getting best value by a proper process.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The nuance comes in when a public official argues that their friend or relative is best value. In the public sector, it’s actually about getting best value by a proper process.

Exactly. But still not nuanced. In the public sector you could indeed still give a contr@ct to someone known to you. But the decision must be based - as you say - on best value. Demonstrated by multiple quotes. And ideally, you should excuse yourself from the considerations outright, declaring your conflict of interest and getting your colleagues to do the assessments.

I think the rules are very clear for public sector.

 

[Mr H]

Exactly. But still not nuanced. In the public sector you could indeed still give a contr@ct to someone known to you. But the decision must be based - as you say - on best value. Demonstrated by multiple quotes. And ideally, you should excuse yourself from the considerations outright, declaring your conflict of interest and getting your colleagues to do the assessments.

I think the rules are very clear for public sector.

I'm not seeing that much difference between the public sector and listed companies - in both cases you are using someone else's money and you have an obligation to get best value for them - and to be seen to get best value. If there is a conflict of interest you should normally remove yourself from the process whether in the public or private (listed) sector. There may be very occasional times when a person with a conflict of interest needs to be part of a procurement process (e.g. they are the only available subject matter expert) but the nature of the conflict should be declared and everyone else involved should be careful to probe that conflicted person's contribution to the process.

It is only if it is your money, either as a private citizen or because you own 100% of the company, that you can do as you please.

 

[TheRealTMA]

I'm not seeing that much difference between the public sector and listed companies - in both cases you are using someone else's money and you have an obligation to get best value for them - and to be seen to get best value. If there is a conflict of interest you should normally remove yourself from the process whether in the public or private (listed) sector. There may be very occasional times when a person with a conflict of interest needs to be part of a procurement process (e.g. they are the only available subject matter expert) but the nature of the conflict should be declared and everyone else involved should be careful to probe that conflicted person's contribution to the process.

It is only if it is your money, either as a private citizen or because you own 100% of the company, that you can do as you please.

Well, you only need 51% don’t you?

 

[Mr H]

Well, you only need 51% don’t you?

No. I think if one person has even one share in your company then you have a duty to take reasonable financial decisions that you believe to be in their interests as a shareholder.

 

[Seat0B]

Exactly. But still not nuanced. In the public sector you could indeed still give a contr@ct to someone known to you. But the decision must be based - as you say - on best value. Demonstrated by multiple quotes. And ideally, you should excuse yourself from the considerations outright, declaring your conflict of interest and getting your colleagues to do the assessments.

I think the rules are very clear for public sector.

The general direction of your comments is spot on, but there are more details involved than this in determining value for money and what process is to be followed.
I agree that if people recused themselves when they had a conflict, it would be much, much better.

 

[offshore171]

 

[kookaburra75]

I the same vein as @offshore171 's post

Exclusive! Swish! Ecru napkins! It’s the Qantas Chairperson’s Lounge – is it dodgy AF? | First Dog on the Moon

Who gets in? And does it matter? YOU DECIDE

www.theguardian.com

 

[IrishPete]

As an immigrant, this disappointed but did not surprise me. The tolerance for corruption in Australia is very obvious to an outsider.

Incidentally this isn't okay for private industry either - there is such a thing as Related Party Disclosures which accounting standards require to be completed and submitted, though I don't know if they are made public.

 

[burmans]

As an immigrant, this disappointed but did not surprise me. The tolerance for corruption in Australia is very obvious to an outsider.

Incidentally this isn't okay for private industry either - there is such a thing as Related Party Disclosures which accounting standards require to be completed and submitted, though I don't know if they are made public.

It’s one of the ironies of Australian life, the difference of requirements on corporations and much of the public service vs a few protected species, specifically politicians and judges.

 

[IrishPete]

It’s one of the ironies of Australian life, the difference of requirements on corporations and much of the public service vs a few protected species, specifically politicians and judges.

I was a NSW Councillor for two terms, and the requirements placed on us by NSW government were strict and onerous, but often ignored, especially by candidates and councillors associated with the Labor, National and Liberal parties. Probably because they saw that their MPs and MLCs weren't bound by similar standards. Also the penalties for breach were slow and small. Often the damage had been done and was not reversible (like development consent given to a mate).

I would have been required to declare a gift like Chairman's Lounge membership, or anything beyond a few dollars value, and recuse myself from any decision that might benefit or disadvantage the donor.

 

[Sprucegoose]

I was a NSW Councillor for two terms, and the requirements placed on us by NSW government were strict and onerous, but often ignored, especially by candidates and councillors associated with the Labor, National and Liberal parties. Probably because they saw that their MPs and MLCs weren't bound by similar standards. Also the penalties for breach were slow and small. Often the damage had been done and was not reversible (like development consent given to a mate).

I would have been required to declare a gift like Chairman's Lounge membership, or anything beyond a few dollars value, and recuse myself from any decision that might benefit or disadvantage the donor.

Well penned, IrishPete. The perception of independence and objectivity is often viewed with greater weight than the actual presence of these qualities, to importantly maintain trust, in this case, in our judicial system.

On perception alone, any competent judicial official ought not to be aligned with a commercial gift and this certainly needn't be a public discussion for a self-regulating profession.