Former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds has repaid nearly $8,800 in parliamentary expenses after her partner claimed family reunion allowances to visit his son in Melbourne while en route to meet her in Canberra.
Reynolds accepted the ruling of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA) but initially disputed their decision, stating that her partner’s visits to his son – her stepson – were necessary following “high profile (and false) 2021 workplace allegations made against me”, seemingly referencing her long-running court dispute with former staffer Brittany Higgins.
The IPEA, which administers political spending and travel, published several recent reviews into parliamentarians’ expenses last week. Labor MP Louise Miller-Frost repaid over $4,100 after traveling to Perth with her husband days before a committee hearing, while Liberal senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price repaid $387 after blaming an “oversight” for claiming an extra day of travel allowance.
Reynolds, a former defence minister who left parliament at the May 2025 federal election, was required to repay $8,778.01 after three trips her partner took between Perth, Melbourne and Canberra in May and June 2025.
In a statement to Guardian Australia, Reynolds confirmed she repaid the amount, which included a 25% penalty loading. “At the time of undertaking the travel I believed it was within the rules. IPEA took a different view which I accept,” she said.
In a September 2025 email to Reynolds, the IPEA raised concerns that on each occasion, her partner “appears to have stayed for two nights in Melbourne without you, before joining you in Canberra”, adding that “there are no provisions in the legislation for personal stopovers when travelling for family reunion purposes”.
The IPEA found that the three trips between Perth and Melbourne were not “to accompany or join Ms Reynolds” but instead “for the predominant purpose, as stated by Ms Reynolds in her correspondence, of spending time with their son.” The authority stated that family travel entitlements were for “spending time and facilitating family life with the member, not broader family”, ruling all three trips to Melbourne did not meet the guidelines. However, it found that the subsequent travel from Melbourne to Canberra was consistent with the legislation.
Parliamentarians are entitled to “family reunion” travel benefits, allowing close family members to join them on occasion when traveling away from home – for example, to Canberra for parliament sittings or other locations for committee hearings. IPEA advice states that a spouse or nominee is entitled to the equivalent of nine business class return airfares from their home city to Canberra, plus an additional three business return airfares outside Canberra. Such travel is permitted only if the family member is traveling to accompany or join the parliamentarian.
In correspondence to the IPEA, also published in the review, Reynolds stated that her partner traveled to join her in Canberra “via stopovers in Melbourne to see and stay with his son … my (de facto) stepson”. She wrote: “As [redacted] is my partner’s son and an integral member of our family, I believe that [her partner] stopping over in Melbourne on his way to Canberra was clearly to facilitate our family life and therefore meets requirement (c) of the Regulations. Given my work commitments I was not always able to take the time to do so on my way to Canberra. However, we believed it was important for [her partner] to do so.” She added that this was particularly important given the “high profile (and false) 2021 workplace allegations made against me (and subsequently [redacted]). They were highly traumatic for all our family members and [her partner] and I were concerned to ensure that [her stepson] and his sister were ok and that our family unit remained strong.”
Guardian Australia asked Reynolds if this was a reference to her various court proceedings related to former employee Higgins, who was ruled to have defamed her ex-boss when she accused Reynolds of mishandling her rape allegation. Reynolds did not immediately respond.
The IPEA, in a letter to Reynolds, wrote that her partner was allowed to travel between Perth and Canberra but that travel rules do not “make provision for breaks in the journey or ‘stopovers’”.
Reynolds responded that “it did not cost the taxpayer any extra to make the stopover”, asking for a review and later calling the IPEA’s position “patently ridiculous”. She wrote: “[Her partner] travelled to Canberra to be reunited with me and there was no additional cost to the taxpayer. Even if there had been, surely what would be repayable should be any cost difference with the direct flight from Perth to Canberra (which can be more expensive).”
Miller-Frost repaid $4,183 after traveling to Perth with her husband in January 2023, three days before a committee hearing. In correspondence to IPEA, the Labor MP said she traveled earlier to “acclimatise” to “the significant time difference between Adelaide and Perth”, stating she was “exhausted” after a busy 2022. She did not claim travel allowance for the extra days before the hearing, but IPEA ruled she should only have traveled on the day of, or before, her parliamentary business began. She repaid the cost of the airfares, with a 25% penalty loading.
