[Gazza]

I think the real issue here is that there is an “appearance of impropriety”

In my former job I would frequently deal with low and middle level civil servants (both State and Federal). If I invited them to meet me for lunch or asked them to join me for a round of golf they always made sure that they payed their way out of their own pocket. The concern was “the appearance of impropriety” not the actual occurrence.

There is currently some media coverage on this issue regarding Australian defense purchasing policy.

At the end of the day if it is good enough for low and middle level civil servants the Alexander Downers and Kim Beazley’s of this world should have to meet the same standards.

Gazza

[JohnK]

I started this stupid article off and have read most responses.

CL should not be a perk of being in parliament and should not be offered to anyone in the public service for any number of reasons. Public servants receive enough questionable benefits.

Does the word bribe mean anything to anyone!!!!

[NM]

Originally Posted by JohnK

I started this stupid article off and have read most responses.

CL should not be a perk of being in parliament and should not be offered to anyone in the public service for any number of reasons. Public servants receive enough questionable benefits.

Does the word bribe mean anything to anyone!!!!

I beg to offer a different opinion. Qantas are free to offer CL membership to anyone they choose - politicians, public servants, corporate high-fliers, even me if they so choose.

However, I can see justification for the public service and Parliament having a policy whereby their members and staff are not permitted to accept such an offer.

[Gazza]

Can I say AWB???????

Incidentally all involved should remember this the next time they rail against "tinpot 3rd world corrupt goverments wasting our aid money on perks for the big boys"

Gazza

[JohnK]

Originally Posted by NM

However, I can see justification for the public service and Parliament having a policy whereby their members and staff are not permitted to accept such an offer.

Sorry NM you have used the words I meant to say.

Qantas or anyone else for that matter can offer anything they like but people in a public service should not accept what is offered.

[Mal]

I think the CL membership is just one perk out of many offered to those in power.

Do I see others complaining about an alleged offer a few years ago of free return F tickets so pollies could see how good a certain airline was (and I'm not talking about Qantas here!)?

They would probably all have top tier hotel loyalty cards comp'd. Does that change the way they do things and policy decisions?

Some perks as a public servant are deserved and warranted as normal practice in business relationships. However, I do think that politicians should be avoiding anything that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. CL membership I think is a conflict of interest due to the free upgrades etc that Qantas provides and the massive amount of political decisions that they make that affect Qantas.