Travel entitlements for MPs’ families will be wound back on advice of expenses watchdog, Anthony Albanese says | Australian politicians’ expenses

The prime minister has announced travel entitlements for the families of parliamentarians will be wound back, after the government sought advice from the expenses watchdog.

Anthony Albanese confirmed he had received advice from the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA) on the weekend of 13 December, and has subsequently written to the Remuneration Tribunal to review and put in place the new rules.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

That advice was sought after ministers including Anika Wells, Don Farrell and Michelle Rowland were forced to defend claims of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded travel entitlements to bring family to events such as the Australian Open and major NRL and AFL matches.

“I do not have the power at a stroke of a pen, to change entitlements. The [remuneration] tribunal had the power, and we have written to the remuneration tribunal,” Albanese told a press conference on Tuesday.

“We have recommended a number of changes as a result of the consideration by the independent parliamentary expenses authority.”

The current rules under family reunification entitlements state that parliamentarians may claim the equivalent of nine business class flights to bring their spouses to Canberra, and up to three business class flights to travel between their home and another location within Australia.

Under the new rules, parliamentarians will be limited to claiming travel expenses for their partners to travel between their home and Canberra, and to travel within their electorate if an MP, or their state if a senator. Spouses and family members will only be allowed to travel via economy class.

Spouses and family members will no longer be eligible for travel between their home and another location in Australia.

The current rules allow unlimited travel for senior office holders, including government ministers, the opposition leader and deputy opposition leader, who are allowed to bring their spouses almost anywhere, with no cap on costs. Spouses of senior office holders can travel with, or even without a minister, if they have been invited to an “engagement” in their “capacity as the spouse of a senior office holder”.

The new rules would seek to curb these entitlements.

“We would restrict travel to events where … the spouse or partner has got an invitation as part of the official invitation to the senior office holder, and that the events are connected with the senior office holders portfolio, that is, if you’re environment minister connected to the environment,” Albanese said.

The prime minister said he had written to the remuneration tribunal to ensure parents of young children would not be disadvantaged. The remuneration tribunal will next meet in January to consider the changes.

Albanese was pressed on whether the rule changes would see any more MPs refer themselves to IPEA. He said the process, which will see the rules considered by the remuneration tribunal, has been “at arm’s length”.

On Tuesday, Rowland said she has repaid thousands in public expenses she claimed for a trip which included time on a family holiday in Perth.

At the height of the expenses and travel spending saga earlier this month, Rowland said she had received advice from the parliamentary expenses watchdog that “a portion of the family reunion travel expenses were outside the guidelines”, relating to a trip she’d taken to Western Australia in July 2023, at the total cost of $22,000.

Rowland’s office said she had undertaken at least 10 official engagements during the trip, which also included her flying family members to join her there.

“I received advice from the Independent Authority that a portion of that, for one use two and a half years ago, was outside the guidelines. So, I sought advice on that and repaid that amount,” Rowland told ABC radio.

“The full figure will be publicly released in time. It was around $10,000. Again, I point out this is the point of IPEA. We sought advice so that that could be acted on, and that was.”