Joyce ‘retires’ early 👍
I might well be wrong, but I suspect the golden era of the Chairman’s Lounge may well be in its twilight.
There are very awkward questions for people in public realms to answer. And let’s face it - they can comfortably afford such travel out of their own pocket, so why should they need such extravagance?
Barry O’Farrell resigned as the Premier of NSW over the gift of a single bottle of Penfolds Grange. Value - maybe $1500. In that context, the fabled Chairman’s Lounge invite could very quickly become quite the poisoned chalice…
The following 7 users liked this post by V-Jet:
It's an interesting conundrum. The High Court judges declare they are the beneficiaries of some Qantas largesse, which leads to a perceived conflict of interest for them in presiding over a controversy involving Qantas. So far, so good. But ...
What say you, parties? Well, what choice did they have? The only solution to the perceived conflict of interest ground would be to request that the judges with the perceived conflict of interest not sit on the court hearing the appeal. But that's all of them...
What say you, parties? Well, what choice did they have? The only solution to the perceived conflict of interest ground would be to request that the judges with the perceived conflict of interest not sit on the court hearing the appeal. But that's all of them...
The Chairmans lounge starting to look like a Freemasons "Gold club". Headed up, until a few days ago, by one of the greatest white collar criminals in Australian history, still nothing will be done........
"Well quite! Pass me another water biscuit with goose liver pâté, my good man. This Château Lafite tastes even better when it's on the house".
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 12th Sep 2023 at 09:35.
Well, in theory, yes. But all 7 judges of the High Court have accepted the largesse. That's why I said the circumstances presented quite a conundrum for the parties, and may explain why they didn't object to the matter proceeding. There's no one and no court left to hear the appeal.
The following users liked this post:
Barry O’Farrell resigned as the Premier of NSW over the gift of a single bottle of Penfolds Grange. Value - maybe $1500. In that context, the fabled Chairman’s Lounge invite could very quickly become quite the poisoned chalice…
Wilkie came up with the only reasonable argument (though feeble IMHO) this afternoon - and that was if it was that important, no one would be criticising Qf, and as they are, Ipso facto, it doesn’t affect opinion.
I would suggest that Qf has escaped criticism for so long for a number of reasons, but the Lounge certainly helps. Further, the argument completely collapses when reversed. If very expensive to set up, maintain and operate Lounges aren’t of intrinsic value to Qantas/management - why do they exist at all? Membership is NOT a function of money spent (although Joyce stated that’s VERY recently changed - we’ve only got his word on that) it’s handed out for ‘free’ to some people who rarely fly at all. Why? Why doesn’t every FF get it? Or everyone??
If CL access isn’t worth more than Farry O’Barrels Grange - each year - I’ll eat one of those disgusting poofy hats Elaine made us wear.
When you live....
It's recorded in the section: "Gifts valued at more than $750 received from official sources, or at more than $300 where
received from other than official sources." or "Any sponsored travel or hospitality received where the value of the sponsored travel or hospitality exceeds $300"
So, to quote Private Eye, "that's all right then".
But logically, anyone currently in a role where there is a conflict between their day job (Minister for Transport, Shadow Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Regions & of course the PM and the Opposition leader) should not as a matter of good practice maintain the membership. There's a fundamental oxymoron that says if Qantas want you in the Chairmans Lounge then they have a reason for that and, if you're a public servant or working for or on behalf of the public service then you shouldn't accept membership as it's a conflict of interest that its been offered to you.
There is no reason for the High Court Justices to be members - they would be frequent business class travellers for sure - but ask what differentiates them from your typical senior business type who flies weekly business around the country or the world? At the very least, the day Qantas lodged their appeal, all seven should have resigned from the CL (except they shouldn't have been in there in the first place). Now we have a complete perversion of justice - especially if the TWU loses - the court will lose serious credibility on the basis that there was a perceived conflict of interest. Irrespective of if the conflict exists or not.
The following 4 users liked this post by UnderneathTheRadar:
How interesting that in a country like Australia the only court that seems devoid of corruption is the court of public opinion. These blokes need to be called out and their corruption, ahemmm sorry, CL membership made public.
I find it amusing that this is now only becoming public knowledge the day before the judgement. Could this be because the howls before the case would have been extremely uncomfortable for both the judges and the government? The old saying do as I say not as I do.
dragon man asked:
I'd make that a definite YES.
NSW ICAC has this to say about accepting hospitality giving rise to Conflict of Interest:
ICAC then says this about disclosure of an interest to affected and interested parties as a method of managing that COI:
From that, and from a layman’s point of view, it appears to me that any judge who is involved with the QF case and who holds a CL membership probably had a COI problem, and that even if the membership WAS disclosed, given the widespread publicity surrounding QF, there was still potential for a sufficient level of bias to make additional management options advisable by the respective judges, e.g., publicly renouncing their CL memberships.
Could this be because the howls before the case would have been extremely uncomfortable for both the judges and the government?
NSW ICAC has this to say about accepting hospitality giving rise to Conflict of Interest:
The relationship that arises from accepting hospitality is very sensitive because of perceptions about the effect of hospitality. It is common for people to believe that hospitality is offered to public officials in order to influence them. In addition, your gifts policy should proscribe the acceptance of frequent small gifts that create the perception that a relationship has arisen with the gift-giver. This is particularly the case when the public official deals with the entity that is connected to the provision of hospitality.
Generally, informing affected and interested parties about a COI should not be relied on as the only way of managing a COI. It is common for managers and affected staff to underestimate the level of bias that can still arise from a COI. Consequently, additional management options are advisable.
From that, and from a layman’s point of view, it appears to me that any judge who is involved with the QF case and who holds a CL membership probably had a COI problem, and that even if the membership WAS disclosed, given the widespread publicity surrounding QF, there was still potential for a sufficient level of bias to make additional management options advisable by the respective judges, e.g., publicly renouncing their CL memberships.
Last edited by SIUYA; 12th Sep 2023 at 23:19.
I have to say that I'm very surprised that any High Court judges have accepted the Qantas CL largesse. But it appears they all have. I have not heard any reports of insistence on payment, out of the judges' remuneration packages, of the proper costs of the use of the CL.
I don't reckon that renouncing CL membership would 'undo' the effects - actual or perceived - of the largesse already received. But as I said earlier, the conundrum here is that there would be no High Court judges left to hear matters involving Qantas.
An odd aspect of the public sector is the pervasive view that the mere act of declaring a conflict of interest obviates the problem. I've seen senior public officials blandly tell a Parliamentary committee that it was OK for Bob to continue to be on the evaluation panel for a government tender process because Bob had declared that he is an employee of one of the tenderers. Memo to senior public officials: No, it's not OK for Bob to have any involvement in the evaluation of those tenders. The members of the evaluation panel should be prohibited from having any further contact with Bob, except in accordance with the Contact Officer provisions of the tender. If the process has already been tainted by Bob's involvement, the process should be terminated and restarted by people who are competent and free of conflicts.
I don't reckon that renouncing CL membership would 'undo' the effects - actual or perceived - of the largesse already received. But as I said earlier, the conundrum here is that there would be no High Court judges left to hear matters involving Qantas.
An odd aspect of the public sector is the pervasive view that the mere act of declaring a conflict of interest obviates the problem. I've seen senior public officials blandly tell a Parliamentary committee that it was OK for Bob to continue to be on the evaluation panel for a government tender process because Bob had declared that he is an employee of one of the tenderers. Memo to senior public officials: No, it's not OK for Bob to have any involvement in the evaluation of those tenders. The members of the evaluation panel should be prohibited from having any further contact with Bob, except in accordance with the Contact Officer provisions of the tender. If the process has already been tainted by Bob's involvement, the process should be terminated and restarted by people who are competent and free of conflicts.
The following 4 users liked this post by Lead Balloon: