Is Qantas’ invite-only Chairman’s Club on the nose? Judge for yourself

One of the great insights of the exploding pinata that is Qantas was the revelation the super-rich have private planes, but the super-influential have Chairman’s Club membership.

It was F. Scott Fitzgerald who once observed that the rich “are different from you and me,” and if you believe the story, Ernest Hemingway supposedly retorted, “Yes, they have more money.”

One of the great insights of the exploding Pinata that is Qantas was the revelation that the super rich might have private planes but the super influential have Qantas Chairman’s Club membership.

Consider Exhibit A.

This week, we learned that every current High Court judge is a member of Qantas’ secretive Chairman’s Lounge, an invitation-only club that offers its members free champagne, steak dinners and flight upgrades.

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.

Think about it for a minute. Qantas is an enthusiastic litigant and many judges are on the soft lighting and cocktail list. There’s no suggestion they would be influenced, and Qantas wasn’t ultimately successful in its bid before the court this week, but what about how it looks to average Australians? It just doesn’t really pass the pub test.

Described as “the most exclusive club in the country”, the Chairman’s Club is invitation-only. Pictured: Qantas Lounge at Sydney Airport. Supplied.

A spokesperson for the High Court said the parties involved in the recent TWU 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).”

So there you have it. Nothing to see here. Or is there?

Some lawyers think so.

Of course, it’s easy to think if you’re a member that there’s not much in the membership. One MP this week claimed she wouldn’t be cowered by some “stale peanuts”, a shocking slur on the glamour of the Chairman’s Lounge.

I was snuck in once by a Labor MP who is now the Treasurer. That one visit behind the gold doors was enough for me to see there were no peanuts in the Chairman’s Lounge – organic macadamias perhaps, but no peanuts.

“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.

There were no peanuts in the Chairman’s Lounge. Pictured: Qantas Lounge at Sydney Airport. Supplied

But is it a matter of no great consequence? The High Court judges seem to think so. Given they are all members, what on earth would they do if a litigant objected?

One legal source described the membership of the Qantas Club by multiple members of the judiciary as “a ticking time bomb”.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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.”

One legal source described the membership of the Qantas Club by multiple members of the judiciary as “a ticking time bomb”. Pictured: Qantas Lounge at Sydney Airport. Supplied

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.”

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”.

Some guides to judicial conduct raise concerns about the provision of gifts.

For example, the The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated 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.”