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

[Happy Dude]

While I commend their actions and believe the whole Chairman’s Lounge/Beyond Legalised Corruption Centres should be dissolved, I love how they only voluntarily relinquished their CL membership after the huge public outcry and backlash last year. Did they just recently develop a moral compass? This is just a political stunt to build trust with the public and present the <insert name of entity> as politically independent.

What's wrong with doing it for those reasons? Doing it at the time of the investigation would have removed any perception of bias (though it didn't seem to occur to the high court judges either), but now they are two of the best reasons for doing it. It doesn't appear to be a political stunt either, or even a publicised one for that matter. Journo got the 'scoop' from disclosures (in a gifts register presumably). Damned if you do, damned if you don't eh?

 

[Sprucegoose]

This is a welcome and overdue development (screenshot of beginning of article Senior ACCC officials resign en masse from Qantas’ Chairman’s Lounge)


View attachment 428374

Quitting once it hits the press - exposes some hypocrisy.

If they had been acting ethically in the first place, they would never have accepted any commercial invitations.

I thought there were tighter rules on 'gifts' for public servants/officials?

 

[Mr H]

What about building in a parliament house and not a private club

Seriously? Parliament House is the least likely place for opposing politicians to be able to have social chats. They are constantly on show there and the whole building is segregated on party lines.

 

[Warragul]

Seriously? Parliament House is the least likely place for opposing politicians to be able to have social chats. They are constantly on show there and the whole building is segregated on party lines.

They seem to be have amiable and social chats quite often when working on committees which is where a lot of 'grunt' work is done especially behind the scenes. Public hearings can get a bit political (looking at you Senate Estimates). I know of at least one Joint Committee that had a meeting on the Friday after the last sitting day of 2023.

 

[MARTINE]

Seriously? Parliament House is the least likely place for opposing politicians to be able to have social chats. They are constantly on show there and the whole building is segregated on party lines.

There is such a thing as a private room not on show. The CL is not private in so much as the area has pax other than the polis. If they get a private room in CL there is nothing unique about it being located in CL

 

[IrishPete]

Unbelievable that ACCC senior staff had accepted memberships.

This country really is corrupt to the core.

 

[RooFlyer]

Unbelievable that ACCC senior staff had accepted memberships.

This country really is corrupt to the core.

I think that’s a bit harsh. Acceptance of Chairman‘s Lounge membership until the likes of Joe Aston highlighted the issue was just routine and a perk of every senior public servant and others.

I would say good on the ACCC executives for giving it up and interesting that they didn’t make any song and dance or announcement about it. I would’ve hoped that the federal court judges would’ve resigned en mass as soon as the Qantas case came up.

 

[DC3]

This country really is corrupt to the core.

It started with the Rum Corps, I believe (c 1790)

 

[Brissy1]

Unbelievable that ACCC senior staff had accepted memberships.

This country really is corrupt to the core.

Bit harsh. I agree the likes of judges and ACCC chairman shouldn't accept such commercial gifts but I think it's a case of apprehended bias, and not that it would cause actual bias.

 

[DC3]

A hint of CL-envy in some posts, perhaps?

 

[SYD]

It started with the Rum Corps, I believe (c 1790)

I’m still waiting for the musical.

They can start with MacArthur Park….

 

[IrishPete]

It started with the Rum Corps, I believe (c 1790)

It did, and you can see that thread continue right through to the present day.

That anyone could try to justify judges (including High Court judges) and ACCC senior staff accepting this valuable gift annually, tells you how deep it runs. We seem to expect politicians to have their snouts in as many troughs as they can, and that's indicative of the problem too.

As an elected representative I accepted nothing from anyone. People suggesting there is any envy occurring, are speaking volumes about themselves.

Should the head of NACC accept freebies? Well, he probably does. He saw no problem with protecting his mate from the Army Reserves.

 

[DC3]

Loving the conjecture in this thread. We AFFers are such great story-tellers

 

[GDSman]

I think that’s a bit harsh. Acceptance of Chairman‘s Lounge membership until the likes of Joe Aston highlighted the issue was just routine and a perk of every senior public servant and others.

I would say good on the ACCC executives for giving it up and interesting that they didn’t make any song and dance or announcement about it. I would’ve hoped that the federal court judges would’ve resigned en mass as soon as the Qantas case came up.

I find that the more junior the public servant, the more strictly the 'Gifts and Benefits' rules are applied. One rule for some?