You can all but guarantee that those sitting near them had no idea of the dinner company they were keeping.
Two of the nation's most powerful judges, quietly dining at a cheap and cheery Canberra establishment.
Who they are is largely irrelevant.
Their jobs, as High Court justices, is to judge cases based on the law of the land. It's their words, not their names, that matter, as the government will again be reminded on Friday.
The highest court in the land will hand down yet another high-profile immigration judgment on Friday. It comes hot on the heels of the now infamous NZYQ case that has caused no shortage of headaches for the government.
Last time, Labor was caught flat-footed after the court suddenly ruled indefinite immigration detention unlawful, prompting the release of more than 150 people.
This case — known as ASF17 — is seeking to piggyback on that and test whether the government can continue to hold non-citizens who are refusing to cooperate with deportation efforts in immigration detention.
The government is more confident about the latter, which it argued in court last month. Privately, it is optimistic it will win.
But even if it loses, it won't be the same as last time.
Even before the court heard the case, the government found itself in a mad dash to rush extraordinary powers through the parliament. Labor wasn't going to be left wanting this time.
The powers it is seeking would make it easier to deport a non-citizen — anyone who does not cooperate with deportation would be committing an offence that carries jail time. The immigration minister would also have the power to effectively ban travel from countries that don't accept involuntary returns of their citizens.
What the court rules on Friday will undoubtedly shape negotiations currently underway between Labor and the Coalition over the proposed powers.
Loading...Away from those negotiations, Albanese has been keen to remind Australians that the separation of powers means there is independence between the courts and parliaments. In other words, that it's them (the courts) not us (the government) that's releasing these people.
Should the government lose on Friday, those comments are sure to be repeated in the coming weeks and months.
A close call with China
Albanese and his government are just days away from hitting their second anniversary in office, and managing Australia's relationship with China was always going to be one of their biggest challenges.
Back at the 2022 election, Australia was entrenched in a trade war with China that dated back to Australia's call for an inquiry into the origins of COVID-19.
The consistent line from Albanese has been that Australia and China should "agree where we can" and "disagree where we must". For him, the focus has been on stabilising Australia's relationship with its largest trading partner.
Signs of that have been clear, with China having dropped all but a few of the sanctions. Navigating this falls into the "agreeing where we can" bucket.
The other bucket got a decent work-out too this week, when it emerged an Australian pilot was forced to take evasive action after a Chinese military jet detonated flares close to a Navy helicopter near South Korea.
China initially lashed Australia, saying they "deliberately flew within close range of China's airspace in a provocative move", only to later change their story and accuse Australia of spying.
LoadingBack in November, Navy personnel were left with minor injuries after a Chinese warship blasted sonar pulses despite being warned Australians were in the water. At the time, Albanese faced fierce criticism from the opposition for failing to address the situation when he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
This time, the Coalition was again demanding Albanese pick up the phone to Xi.
That's not how the PM likes to do business. While at pains to be publicly critical of China, he argues it's not in the national interest for him to carry out diplomacy via a public megaphone.
But it hasn't been lost on the Coalition how quick Albanese was to front the cameras and detail the contents of a call with Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu after the death of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom in Gaza last month.
The PM's busy week of travel
Disputes with China and freed immigration detainees are the last things Labor wants to be talking about just days before the release of its third budget.
The government is all too aware that the economy and living costs are the biggest issues voters want addressed.
It's why the PM was this week barnstorming the country spruiking pre-budget announcements that promise to make life a bit easier for people — be it wiping away HECS debt, setting limits on how that debt is indexed or offering fee-free TAFE to help address critical construction worker shortages.
The government has flagged there will also be greater welfare assistance in a budget that's all but certain to be in surplus for a second consecutive year.
This pre-budget period brings with it no shortage of parlour games about what might, or might not, be in the Treasury books. Guessing the answers is a fool's game and offers little help to the millions of Australians doing it tough. The answers to all the questions will, of course, become clear on Tuesday night.
It's worth remembering that as much as it is an economic statement, at its core the budget is a political document. The budget tells voters what priorities the government has set, the issues it thinks need addressing and its plans for the next year.
The political consequences of this budget are higher than they've ever been for this Labor government, with an election now firmly within sight.
That's why it was so telling where the PM went this week. He headed north, on the hunt for the seats he needs to win in Queensland, before moving west, where he desperately needs to sandbag seats at risk of returning to the Coalition.
A stop in Rockhampton at Beef 2024 came with a slightly unexpected twist, with the AFR's Phil Coorey noting that the PM's press conference was drowned out by show commentary detailing the "really good testicles in size and shape" of the bulls on parade.
Back in the Canberra restaurant, the joy for the judges is when their judgment is revealed, it doesn't bring with it implications for them. They can sleep easy knowing it is for others to deal with the consequences.
Albanese and Chalmers don't have that kind of luxury.