Linda Reynolds repays nearly $9,000 after partner billed taxpayers to visit son in Melbourne | Australian politicians’ expenses
Former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has been reimbursed nearly $8,800 in parliamentary expenses after her husband claimed family reunification allowance to visit his son in Melbourne while she was on her way to meet him in Canberra.
Reynolds accepted the decision by the Independent Parliamentary Expenditures Authority (IPEA) but initially challenged the ruling, saying visits to his partner’s son, his stepson, were necessary after “high-profile (and false) workplace allegations made against me in 2021”, apparently referring to his long-running court dispute with former employee Brittany Higgins.
IPEA, which governs the use of political spending and travel, last week It was published A series of recent reviews of parliamentarians’ spending. Labor MP Louise Miller-Frost was refunded more than $4,100 after traveling to Perth with her husband just days before the committee hearing, while Liberal senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was refunded more than $387 after blaming “snooping” by claiming an extra day’s travel allowance.
Reynolds, the former defense minister who left parliament in the May 2025 federal election, was required to repay $8,778.01 after his partner made three trips between Perth, Melbourne and Canberra in May and June 2025.
In a statement to Guardian Australia, Reynolds said he had repaid the amount, which included a 25% penalty.
“When I went on the trip I believed it was compliant. IPEA had a different view and I accept that,” he said.
In an email to Reynolds in September 2025, IPEA expressed concern, noting that on each occasion his partner “appeared to have spent two nights without you in Melbourne before joining you in Canberra”, adding: “there is no provision in the legislation for personal breaks when traveling for family reunion purposes”.
In its review, published online, IPEA found that the three trips between Perth and Melbourne were “not for the purpose of accompanying or joining Ms Reynolds”, but rather “for the predominant purpose of spending time with her sons, as Ms Reynolds stated in her correspondence”.
IPEA said family travel rights were “not for the extended family but to spend time with the member and facilitate family life” and ruled that all three trips to Melbourne did not comply with the rules. However, it was later determined that the trip from Melbourne to Canberra was legal.
Parliamentarians are entitled to “family reunification” travel allowances, which allow immediate family members to join them from time to time when they are away from home; for example, to Canberra for a parliamentary session or elsewhere for committee hearings. IPEA recommendation It states that a spouse or nominee is entitled to the equivalent of nine business class roundtrip airfares from his or her city to Canberra and an additional three business class roundtrip airfares outside Canberra.
“Family reunion” travel is only permitted if the family member is traveling to accompany or join the MP.
In correspondence to IPEA, also published in the review, Reynolds stated that his partner had traveled to join him in Canberra, “with a stopover in Melbourne to see his son and stay with my (de facto) stepson”.
“Like [redacted] I believe that he is my wife’s son and an integral member of our family. [her partner] Stopping at Melbourne on the way to Canberra was clearly to facilitate our family life and therefore meets condition (c) of the Regulations. Given the work I was doing, I didn’t always have time for that when I was traveling to Canberra. But we believed it was important. [her partner] to do this,” Reynolds wrote.
“This was especially important given the high-profile (and false) workplace allegations made against me in 2021 (and subsequent [redacted]). These were very traumatic for all our family members and [her partner] and I was interested in providing [her stepson] and said his sister was fine and our family unit remained strong.”
Guardian Australia asked Reynolds if this was a reference to various court proceedings involving her former employee Higgins, who was ruled to have defamed her former boss when she accused Reynolds of mishandling a rape allegation. Reynolds did not immediately respond.
In a letter to Reynolds, IPEA wrote that his partner was allowed to travel between Perth and Canberra but the travel rules “do not make provision for breaks or ‘stopovers’ in the journey”.
The senator responded by saying there was “no extra cost to the taxpayer to give the taxpayer a break,” requested a review, and later called IPEA’s position “patently absurd.”
“[Her partner] He traveled to Canberra to reunite with me at no additional cost to the taxpayer. “Even if there were, any cost difference would surely be refunded on a direct flight from Perth to Canberra (which may be more expensive),” Reynolds wrote.
Miller-Frost repaid $4,183 after traveling to Perth with her husband in January 2023, three days before the committee hearing. In correspondence to IPEA, the Labor MP said he was traveling earlier to “get used to” the “significant time difference between Adelaide and Perth”, saying he was “tired” after a busy 2022.
The Labor MP did not claim travel allowance for the extra days before the hearing, but IPEA ruled he should only travel on or before the day parliamentary business begins. He refunded the flight tickets with a 25 percent penalty.
