The High Court has exposed secret members of Qantas’ exclusive Chairman’s Lounge amid a landmark case over the sacking of 1700 workers.
The High Court has revealed every current judge is a member of Qantas’ secretive Chairman’s Lounge, an invitation-only club that offers its members free champagne, steak dinners and cocktails on demand.
As the High Court prepares to hand down its judgment in a landmark case regarding the long-running battle between Qantas and the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) over the sacking of 1,700 ground staff at the height of the pandemic, a spokesman has confirmed the issue was raised and cleared with the parties involved.
Described as “the most exclusive club in the country” the invitation only airport club is famed as part of Qantas’ “soft power” diplomacy with political leaders, judges, current and former prime ministers and senior public servants invited to enter the door discretely marked “private” at the Qantas lounge.
The discrete golden door within the Qantas lounge leads to the ultra-exclusive Chairman’s Lounge. Picture: Supplied.
It is believed some federal court judges are also members.
The Federal Court is set to separately consider the ACCC’s claim that Qantas continued selling tickets to 8,000 “ghost flights” even after they had been cancelled.
A spokesperson for the High Court said the parties involved in the current matter were all aware of the Chairman’s club membership and “no objection was raised”.
“Each of the Justices is a member of the Chairman’s Lounge,’’ the spokesperson said.
“The parties to the Qantas matter presently before the Court (and in which judgment is being delivered to tomorrow) were informed of this fact prior to the hearing and no objection was raised.
“Membership is declared on the Justices’ register of gifts (they are required to declare gifts over $200).”
Separate to the High Court controversy, one legal source described the membership of the Qantas Club by multiple members of the judiciary as “a ticking time bomb” that should be publicly declared.
Another senior lawyer speculated that it had not been raised as an issue because membership of the exclusive club by judges was “considered natural like oxygen”.
Speaking generally about the issue, former Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy KC said judges should always declare such membership and can’t just “shove it under the carpet”.
“I personally think it should be declared if you’re in a case involving Qantas and you’re the recipient of benefits such as other exclusive membership offered by Qantas,’’ he told news.com.au.
Former Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy KC said the free, luxury memberships should be declared. Picture: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas.
“I would think that as a matter of propriety, a judge should declare that membership and have it out in the open. I can’t imagine that the people in the litigation would ask the judges to disqualify themselves, but I think it should be out in the open.”
“If you own shares in the company it’s the same sort of thing although shares are a more substantial financial involvement. You can’t just shove it under the carpet.
“I don’t imagine a litigant would actually take that point, unless they were insane. I think practically it’s not going to make a difference. But in theory, it’s the same problem as owning shares in a company that’s before you as a litigant.”
Geoffrey Watson SC, a former counsel assisting ICAC and the Police Integrity Commission and a Lecturer in Ethics, Law and Justice at the University of Technology Sydney, said it should be declared as the High Court justices have declared it.
“It would be better if a judge who received any kind of gift from an outside source declared that so that it was transparent,’’ he said.
“If it was the case that the giver was a litigant or potential litigant, then of course it should be declared. The gift in this instance is from a known repeated litigant in the federal court system. So, of course, it should be declared.”
The food on offer in the Chairman’s Lounge for free for judges and politicians and invited CEOs include a free steak dinner and a gin and tonic and salt and pepper squid.
Former counsel assisting ICAC, Georffrey Watson SC, says the gift of member should ‘of course’ be public knowledge. Picture: Supplied
“Part of the wankiness, as well as the secret doors, is the fact you could ask for absolutely anything, even if it’s not on the menu, and it will be cooked pretty quickly, just for you,” one regular visitor told the Australian Financial Review.
Former Qantas Group chief executive Alan Joyce has described the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge as “probably the most exclusive club in the country”, Membership is “strictly confidential.”
Membership can sometimes confer on travellers flight upgrades, including being upgraded to business class without having to pay for frequent flyer points.
News.com.au is not aware whether or not any judges have been offered free flight upgrades or not and does not suggest they were, only that Chairman’s Club members have been offered upgrades in the past.
Alan Joyce himself has described the lounge as ‘probably the most exclusive club in the country’. Picture: News Corp.
Membership of the Chairman’s Lounge is for a period of two years, renewed entirely at Qantas’ discretion. No fees are charged and your partner, or another guest, is allowed in with you and no correspondence will be entered into over disputes.
The Federal Court’s gifts and benefits register for public servants also lists Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership of several public servants including CEO and Principal Registrar David Pringle.
It also declares Chairman’s Club membership for the President of the National Native Title Tribunal.
This register is published in accordance with the Australian Public Service Commission’s Guidance for Agency Heads – Gifts and Benefits.
The Federal Court is required to maintain and publish on its website a register of any gifts and benefits accepted which are valued over $A100 (excluding GST) – but it does not appear to list any federal court judges.
Some guides to judicial conduct raise concerns about the provision of gifts.
For example, the The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated (“AIJA”) states it is necessary to draw a distinction between accepting gifts in a personal capacity unrelated to judicial office and gifts which in some way relate, or might appear to relate, to judicial office.
“It is only in the latter category that acceptance of gifts or other benefits needs careful consideration,’’ it states.
“Some benefits which may well be legitimate marketing or promotional activities may nevertheless cause difficulties. Refusal of such a benefit may seem churlish or even offensive if it imputes or implies improper motives, but the short answer is that there is no good reason why judges should receive free benefits that others have to pay for.”
Separately, the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated states that a judge cannot be a member of a club or society that engages in unlawful or invidious discrimination.”
“The principle is easily stated, but not easy to apply,’’ the document states.
“In making a decision about membership a judge should be mindful of the message that sends to judicial colleagues and to the public.”
Qantas refuses to discuss who is in the Chairman’s Club and declined to detail whether High Court judges were all automatically members.
“I’m afraid we don’t comment on the Chairman’s Lounge,’’ a spokeswoman said.
Leave a Reply