Bowen says Turnbull-era travel expenses rules changed to simplify them, despite criticism they became broader

2025-12-13 01:47

Cabinet minister Chris Bowen says Turnbull-era rules about travel expenses for politicians were changed by the Albanese government before the federal election to simplify them, despite criticism of the subsequent broad wording.

In announcing an overhaul of the home batteries subsidy scheme, Bowen was asked about reporting in the Daily Telegraph that the federal government quietly changed the rules to make it easier for politicians to claim taxpayer-funded flights and accommodation prior to the federal election.

The report said the special minister of state, Don Farrell, issued a determination on 12 February expanding the definition of “party political duties” as defined by the Turnbull government as formal meetings of political parties (including a meeting of the party executive, a committee or a subcommittee) and party conferences.

Sign up: AU Breaking News email

The updated wording in the Parliamentary Business Resources (Parliamentary Business) Determination 2025, updated earlier this year, now includes “developing policies, proposals and plans and engaging in related activities including when the policies, proposals and plans may be used by the member or a member’s political party or group in the context of a federal election”.

Bowen said the change was “simply a clarification of the rules to make them simpler” and the rules “do change from time to time”.

“There was no change to what is allowed or not allowed,” he said. “Those changes … were made so that people are surer when they’re booking their travel as to whether it was covered or not.”

On Friday, Guardian Australia revealed Farrell charged taxpayers more than $2,200 to travel to Canberra on the same weekend he attended a press gallery journalist’s wedding, describing the reason for the trip as official duties.

Travel entitlements have come under intense scrutiny in this month after Nine newspapers reported that Anika Wells’ family went on a skiing trip to Thredbo in June using taxpayer-funded family reunion entitlements while the minister was there for an official event.

Anthony Albanese defended his decision to sign off on a $100,000 trip to New York City for Wells and two others to spruik Australia’s social media ban to global leaders at the UN general assembly.

The attorney general, Michelle Rowland, confirmed this week that she had joined Wells in referring her travel expenses to an independent audit.

Bowen said the self-referral of two Labor ministers indicated “they are very comfortable in full scrutiny” but added their expense claims weren’t an isolated incident.

“Let’s not, with all due respect, pretend that Don Farrell, Anika Wells [and] Michelle Rowland are the only people who’ve used the family reunion benefit,” he said.

“Of course taxpayers have high expectations as they should, as they must for the use of taxpayers money,” he said. “And that’s why the prime minister is getting some independent advice.”

Asked whether the broad entitlements “seem fair” to taxpayers, Bowen said “staff work very hard” on both sides of parliament and it was part of the job to travel around the country.

“It’s important that people have clarity with the rules and those rules were clarified and are being assessed by the watchdog,” he said.

“That’s a good thing. I think the prime minister has done the right thing to get that advice on family expenses.

“I understand why the rules say that with members of parliament travelling long distances and a long time away from their families, some form of family reunion support is appropriate.”

After days of incorrectly suggesting the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Agency set the rules, the prime minister confirmed this week that he had asked the watchdog to provide advice on overhauling travel perks for MPs, opening the door to changes.

The government and the parliament are responsible for the laws and regulations which set the allowances, not the independent agency.

Farrell has been approached for comment.

Original Source
Back