GT protects Chairman's Lounge membership

[neville_nobody]

Here is a Question & Answer from the Legislative Assembly and Council of WA. The thinking is that Airline Clubs have no value as you cannot purchase them and they do not apply to an agency specifically but to the individual.

Question On NoticeNo. 2134 asked in the LegislativeCouncilon14 May 2019byHon Martin Aldridge
Question Directed to the:Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister forCommerce
Minister responding:Hon J.R. Quigley

I refer to exclusive, invitation only clubs operated by Virgin Australia (The Club) and Qantas (Chairman's Lounge), and I ask the Ministera) please identify for each member of your staff, for each member of your immediate family and for each agency under your directioni) the names of those offered membership from either Virgin Australia or Qantas and the date on which such an offer was made;(ii) for each person identified in (i), the date on which an offer was accepted or rejected and the relevant decision by the intended recipient of the membership;(iii) for each person identified in (i), when the membership is expected to expire if accepted; and(iv) the benefits offered with respect to each membership offered and the estimated annual value of those benefits;(b) with respect to Members of Parliament, has the gift received been disclosed in accordance with the Members of Parliament (Financial Interests) Act 1992 for each year in which the gift was accepted;(c) for gifts received by Minister's, has the gift been disclosed to the Chief of Protocol, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and was such notification provided within the 30 days requirement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct;(d) has the Minister declared any conflict of interest or abstained from any Government decision arising from the gift received from Virgin Australia or Qantas; and(e) for each public service officer identified in (a), please outline what gift disclosure and conflict of interest reporting has occurred with respect to each agency?

Answered on 25 June 2019

As the Member would be aware, each of the airlines metioned offer membership of their respective clubs to State and Federal Government Ministers and in some instances Leaders of the Opposition. As was the process in the previous government, the acceptance of airline lounge memberships by a Minister does not represent a conflict of interest.

Question On NoticeNo. 2144 asked in the LegislativeCouncilon14 May 2019byHon Martin Aldridge
I refer to Legislative Council question on notice 2144 and the Minister's reference to Legislative Council question on notice 2134, which provides no answer to the information that I seek and I ask, when does the Minister intend to answer the question or satisfy obligations under section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006?

Question

I refer to Legislative Council question on notice 2135 and the Minister's reference to Legislative Council question on notice 2134, which provides no answer to the information that I seek and I ask, when does the Minister intend to answer the question or satisfy obligations under section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006?

Answered on 29 October 2019

Section 82 of the Financial Management Act 2006 expressly concerns the conduct or operation of an agency. The Member’s original question pertains neither to the conduct nor operation of an agency.

For the Member’s benefit, both the Chairman’s Lounge (QANTAS) and The Club (Virgin) are invitation only memberships. They cannot be purchased, and as such there is no value attached to them. They are an agreement between the airlines and individuals.

Furthermore, memberships are not necessarily offered to Ministers, Directors General or other public servants by virtue of their current positions. Individuals, including Ministers, other Members of Parliament and departmental officials, may also have memberships based on their previous occupations or for reasons outside of their official responsibilities.

If the member has a particular question about one of the approximately 140,000 public servants in Western Australia I suggest he asks a more specific question.

[neville_nobody]

I guess GT can argue that if he is a member of the Chairman's Lounge then it has no value and no influence is sought.

[Paragraph377]

NN said “The thinking is that Airline Clubs have no value as you cannot purchase them and they do not apply to an agency specifically but to the individual”.

There are many ‘gifts’ or ‘favours’ or ‘rewards’ in life that can be awarded to an individual and said favour may not have a quantifiable financial value attached to it. However, that does not necessarily mean that it is morally and ethically acceptable. Example; does the Director of Aviation Safety and his Minister, both being given priveleged CL membership, pass the pub test? HARDLY. It’s the same with Politician payrises. So that they are seen as being ‘honorable and above board’, a ‘remuneration tribunal’ undertakes salary reviews and provides the recommendations. So when a Pollie gets a 20% payrise he says ‘it wasn’t me, the tribunal do that’. Ironic how the tribunal is paid its salaries by the Government and the politicians don’t have to go through enterprise bargaining and lose something, nor do they ever get a ****ty 3% or 1x1x1 deal over three years.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and Australia’s elite have it all worked out meticulously.

[Rated De]

There is more than one way to skin a cat and Australia’s elite have it all worked out meticulously.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "having established what Australia's regulatory, judicial and political elite are, it becomes a simple question of price."

Qantas naturally claim commercial in confidence to protect the reputation of the conflicted.

[Arthur D]

Apart from eviscerating the mans character, seemingly for daring to opine on airline safety (how dare he, a non-pilot....), can anyone here actually prove he is a member of the Chairmans Lounge?

Would hate to think people may going off half - cocked.

[Sunfish]

The membership has no price because it is priceless.

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by Paragraph377

So when a Pollie gets a 20% payrise he says ‘it wasn’t me, the tribunal do that’.

So when in the 47 year history of Remuneration Tribunal decisions have they ever awarded a 20% pay rise?

Originally Posted by Paragraph377

... the politicians don’t have to go through enterprise bargaining and lose something, nor do they ever get a ****ty 3% or 1x1x1 deal over three years.

A ****ty 3%?! For the past three years politicians' pay rises have been an even ****tier 2%! And they face a rather crucial stay-or-go performance review every three or six years called 'elections'.
​​​​​​​

[The name is Porter]

Apart from eviscerating the mans character

The bloke is a ********. By opening his mouth he eviscerates his own character. Listen to his commentary on ANY subject and you'll quickly workout he hasn't got a clue.

[Buster Hyman]

Originally Posted by terminus mos

I don't know how this twit, GT.... GT has zero actual technical qualifications or licenses.

My company's legal department is of the opinion that ...

I'd be curious to hear your legal departments opinion on this thread to be honest...

[BalusKaptan]

This list is b****cks! Air New Zealand is listed as not losing an aircraft. 5 come to mind immediately, Kaimi, Ruapehu, Auckland/Managere x2 and Antarctica.

[Chris2303]

Originally Posted by BalusKaptan

This list is b****cks! Air New Zealand is listed as not losing an aircraft. 5 come to mind immediately, Kaimi, Ruapehu, Auckland/Managere x2 and Antarctica.

Do you mean Kaimai and Auckland/Mangere perhaps?

[BalusKaptan]

Yes, autocorrect just doesn't cut the ice with some of the Kiwi names.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by MickG0105

So when in the 47 year history of Remuneration Tribunal decisions have they ever awarded a 20% pay rise?

In 2012. From APH.gov.au

Percentage increases in the base salary from 1996

Since 1996, the base salary has increased by the following (in actual dollars):

• 7 March 1996—1.6 per cent
• 17 October 1996—1.2 per cent
• 7 December 1999—4.45 per cent, the first stage of a 9.95 per cent two-stage increase
• 1 July 2000—5.5 per cent, the second stage of the 9.95 per cent increase
• 1 July 2000—2.2 per cent by virtue of an adjustment to the PEO Classification Structure
• 1 July 2001—3.9 per cent
• 1 July 2002—3.35 per cent
• 1 July 2003—4 per cent
• 1 July 2004—3.9 per cent
• 1 July 2005—4.1 per cent and
• 1 July 2006—7.01 per cent
• 1 July 2007—6.8 per cent
• 1 October 2009—3.1 per cent
• 1 August 2010—3.8 per cent
• 1 July 2011—3.6 per cent
• 15 March 2012—31.3 per cent
• 1 July 2012—3.0 per cent
• 1 July 2013—2.4 per cent
• 1 July 2014—0 per cent
• 1 January 2016—2.0 per cent
• 1 July 2017—2.0 per cent
• 1 July 2018—2.0 per cent

[plainmaker]

Originally Posted by BalusKaptan

This list is b****cks! Air New Zealand is listed as not losing an aircraft. 5 come to mind immediately, Kaimi, Ruapehu, Auckland/Managere x2 and Antarctica.

If I recall, both Kaimai and Ruapehu were NAC. At least one Auckland one was TEAL (L-188). Apply the same logic to QF - well Tatars lost the odd one as well. And let us not forget the BKK golf course excursion. I tend to take these 'safest airline' statements as BS. It effectively rates a new start airline as optimal, with a 'there but for the grace of god' moment that can happen to any of us. VA should be top of that list also.

Takes another grain of salt.

[Paragraph377]

Pigs in the swill

MickGo105, the figure of 20% may be an embellishment, but after 40 years in operations, executive management and Government, I know what they get. And even if it is 2%, when that is tacked onto a salary of between $250k and $500k, that’s a lot. They receive remuneration from their own business interests and seats that they hold on the boards of private companies also. In recent years they have received payrises, tax cuts, and a raise in their expense allowances. Since 2009 parliamentary salaries have been increasing at an average of 5 percent per year, almost twice as fast as working people’s wages, which have grown at 2.8 per cent by WPI over the same period. Last year politicians received another 2 percent pay rise on the same day that 700,000 low-paid workers had their penalty rates cut for the third year.

Mick, you are entitled to defend your elected mates, but they are still grubs.

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

In 2012. From APH.gov.au

Percentage increases in the base salary from 1996

Since 1996, the base salary has increased by the following (in actual dollars):

• 7 March 1996—1.6 per cent
• 17 October 1996—1.2 per cent
• 7 December 1999—4.45 per cent, the first stage of a 9.95 per cent two-stage increase
• 1 July 2000—5.5 per cent, the second stage of the 9.95 per cent increase
• 1 July 2000—2.2 per cent by virtue of an adjustment to the PEO Classification Structure
• 1 July 2001—3.9 per cent
• 1 July 2002—3.35 per cent
• 1 July 2003—4 per cent
• 1 July 2004—3.9 per cent
• 1 July 2005—4.1 per cent and
• 1 July 2006—7.01 per cent
• 1 July 2007—6.8 per cent
• 1 October 2009—3.1 per cent
• 1 August 2010—3.8 per cent
• 1 July 2011—3.6 per cent
• 15 March 2012—31.3 per cent
• 1 July 2012—3.0 per cent
• 1 July 2013—2.4 per cent
• 1 July 2014—0 per cent
• 1 January 2016—2.0 per cent
• 1 July 2017—2.0 per cent
• 1 July 2018—2.0 per cent

Well spotted. I'm assuming you read the explanation for that one-off large increase.

During the 1980s the MPs’ base salary failed to keep up with inflation resulting in a decline in value in real terms. This was in contrast to the average which kept ahead of inflation and grew, in real terms, at an annual average rate of 0.3 per cent.

As a result the base salary, which had been almost three times the average wage in 1975, was only twice the average wage in 1991. During the 1990s MPs were given increases to their base salary which allowed some catch up with average wages. However, despite this by 2011 the base salary was still only 2.2 times the average wage.

In March 2012 MPs received an increase to their base salary of 31.3 per cent.

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by Paragraph377

And even if it is 2%, when that is tacked onto a salary of between $250k and $500k, that’s a lot.

The base salary for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives is currently $211,250 per annum.

And if 2% being tacked on to a politician's salary of $207,100 (base as at 1 July 2018) is 'a lot' then surely 3% being tacked on to $137,356 (Jetstar wide-body Level 2 FO as at 1 July 2018) is also 'a lot', isn't it?

Originally Posted by Paragraph377

Since 2009 parliamentary salaries have been increasing at an average of 5 percent per year, almost twice as fast as working people’s wages, which have grown at 2.8 per cent by WPI over the same period.

Yes, but that is only because of the one off-2012 wages correction for politicians. Over the past 5 years parliamentary salaries have increased by an average 1.6 per cent per year compared to about 2.3 per cent for everyone else.

Originally Posted by Paragraph377

Mick, you are entitled to defend your elected mates, but they are still grubs.

Elected mates?!! I'm not defending politicians or their wages or their wage increases, I'm simply looking to provide some facts.

[The name is Porter]

In 2012. From APH.gov.au

Percentage increases in the base salary from 1996

Since 1996, the base salary has increased by the following (in actual dollars):

• 7 March 1996—1.6 per cent
• 17 October 1996—1.2 per cent
• 7 December 1999—4.45 per cent, the first stage of a 9.95 per cent two-stage increase
• 1 July 2000—5.5 per cent, the second stage of the 9.95 per cent increase
• 1 July 2000—2.2 per cent by virtue of an adjustment to the PEO Classification Structure
• 1 July 2001—3.9 per cent
• 1 July 2002—3.35 per cent
• 1 July 2003—4 per cent
• 1 July 2004—3.9 per cent
• 1 July 2005—4.1 per cent and
• 1 July 2006—7.01 per cent
• 1 July 2007—6.8 per cent
• 1 October 2009—3.1 per cent
• 1 August 2010—3.8 per cent
• 1 July 2011—3.6 per cent
• 15 March 2012—31.3 per cent
• 1 July 2012—3.0 per cent
• 1 July 2013—2.4 per cent
• 1 July 2014—0 per cent
• 1 January 2016—2.0 per cent
• 1 July 2017—2.0 per cent
• 1 July 2018—2.0 per cent

MickG0105, Boooooommm!!

[The name is Porter]

Yes, but that is only because of the one off-2012 wages correction for politicians. Over the past 5 years parliamentary salaries have increased by an average 1.6 per cent per year compared to about 2.3 per cent for everyone else.

And this absolutely pathetic attempt at a backtrack/justification.

Take the post down, you've made an arseclown of yourself.

Dude, a 2012 payrise that your poor measly 1.6% has compounded on.

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

In 2012. From APH.gov.au

Percentage increases in the base salary from 1996

Since 1996, the base salary has increased by the following (in actual dollars):

• 7 March 1996—1.6 per cent
• 17 October 1996—1.2 per cent
• 7 December 1999—4.45 per cent, the first stage of a 9.95 per cent two-stage increase
• 1 July 2000—5.5 per cent, the second stage of the 9.95 per cent increase
• 1 July 2000—2.2 per cent by virtue of an adjustment to the PEO Classification Structure
• 1 July 2001—3.9 per cent
• 1 July 2002—3.35 per cent
• 1 July 2003—4 per cent
• 1 July 2004—3.9 per cent
• 1 July 2005—4.1 per cent and
• 1 July 2006—7.01 per cent
• 1 July 2007—6.8 per cent
• 1 October 2009—3.1 per cent
• 1 August 2010—3.8 per cent
• 1 July 2011—3.6 per cent
• 15 March 2012—31.3 per cent
• 1 July 2012—3.0 per cent
• 1 July 2013—2.4 per cent
• 1 July 2014—0 per cent
• 1 January 2016—2.0 per cent
• 1 July 2017—2.0 per cent
• 1 July 2018—2.0 per cent

Ahh... published figures.

With increased focus on executive remuneration the C suite moved away from "headline STIP" to LTIP...
A whole bunch of options, dirt cheap awarded for "performance" exercised at an amazingly convenient time.

If politicians in Australia receive no further "fringe and unreported benefits" it would be a world first.

Start with the parliamentary dining rooms, as their most ample guts show the prevalance of..

The actual cost for the these grubs is far more than simple "salary"

Ask Andrew Robb just how lucrative going from Trade Minister with a really well timed exit, securing both a life time pension and a $1,000,000 a year salary working for a company that his amazingly well timed FTA benefited.