Parliamentary Entitlements: Travel, Staff, and the Perks Taxpayers Fund
By Direct Democracy
The Fox Guarding the Henhouse
Imagine your employer asked you to set your own salary, decide how many staff you needed, and approve your own expense claims - with minimal scrutiny and almost no consequences for getting it wrong. That's roughly the situation Australian politicians enjoy when it comes to parliamentary entitlements.
Every year, federal and state MPs collectively claim hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded allowances, travel benefits, staff budgets, and office expenses. Some of it is entirely legitimate. Much of it is deeply questionable. And the system that governs it was designed by the very people who benefit from it.
What Are Parliamentary Entitlements, Exactly?
At the federal level, parliamentary entitlements cover a broad range of perks beyond base salary. As of 2024, a federal backbencher earns a base salary of $217,060 per year. But that's just the start. On top of that, MPs can access:
- Travelling allowances of up to $399 per night when away from home on parliamentary business
- Privately-plated vehicle allowances or fully-funded cars
- Charter flights for travel in remote electorates
- Staffing budgets - each MP receives funding for around four to six electorate and ministerial staff, with senior ministers commanding far larger offices
- Office and communication budgets for printing, postage, and IT
- Study and inter-parliamentary travel - overseas trips funded by taxpayers
- Post-separation benefits, including ongoing travel entitlements for former Prime Ministers and long-serving members
The Department of Finance reports that total parliamentary expenses - including staff, travel, and office costs - run into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. In 2022–23, the published figures showed electorate allowances, travel, and staffing for federal MPs totalled well over $300 million when all components were combined across both chambers.
The Scandals That Made Headlines
The entitlements system has produced a steady stream of controversies across both major parties - proof that this isn't an ideological problem, it's a structural one.
On the Coalition side, former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop's infamous 2015 helicopter trip from Melbourne to Geelong - a 90-kilometre journey claimed as a work-related travel expense - cost taxpayers $5,227 and triggered a national furore. Bishop eventually repaid the amount and resigned as Speaker, but only after weeks of defending the claim as within the rules.
On the Labor side, then-Health Minister Mark Butler and several colleagues faced scrutiny in the early 2010s over travel claims connected to union events. Multiple Labor MPs have also been caught claiming travel to attend party fundraisers under parliamentary business provisions.
The pattern is consistent: both major parties exploit vague rules, repay money only when caught, and then return to a system they have every incentive to keep vague.
Why Does the System Persist?
The blunt answer is that the people who would change the rules are the people who benefit from keeping them loose. Consider the structural problems:
| Problem | Effect |
|---|---|
| MPs vote on their own remuneration framework | Incentive to keep entitlements generous |
| Rules are deliberately broad ('parliamentary business') | Easy to justify almost any expense |
| Independent oversight is limited and reactive | Abuses are only caught after the fact |
| Repayment without penalty is standard practice | No real deterrent to overclaiming |
| Media cycles move on quickly | Political cost is temporary |
The Remuneration Tribunal sets base salaries, which provides some arm's-length independence. But the broader entitlements framework - the travel rules, the office budgets, the staffing allocations - remains substantially self-regulated by the parliament itself.
Reforms have been promised repeatedly. After the Bishop scandal, the Abbott government commissioned a review and tightened some definitions. After further controversies, the Turnbull government established the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA) in 2017. IPEA publishes expense data and provides some advisory oversight - but it cannot compel repayment and has no real enforcement power. It's transparency without teeth.
Who Actually Bears the Cost?
The cost falls on every Australian taxpayer, but the burden is felt most acutely by those who receive the least in return. A nurse working double shifts, a small business owner paying quarterly BAS, a young renter stretching their budget - they're all contributing to a system that rewards political insiders with generous travel budgets and comfortable post-parliamentary perks.
Meanwhile, public services face constant pressure. Hospital waiting lists grow. Housing affordability deteriorates. NDIS funding is endlessly debated. And yet the political class consistently finds the entitlements framework too hard to reform in any meaningful way.
What Would Voters Actually Choose?
This is where the question becomes genuinely interesting. Poll after poll shows Australians are deeply cynical about politician pay and perks. A 2023 Resolve Political Monitor survey found that trust in federal parliament sat at historic lows, with expenses and accountability consistently cited as key grievances.
If ordinary Australians - not parliamentarians - were voting directly on how the entitlements system should work, the outcome would almost certainly look very different:
- Stricter definitions of 'parliamentary business' for travel claims
- Independent enforcement with real repayment and penalty powers
- Transparent, real-time public reporting of all expenses
- Abolition of post-separation travel perks for former members
- Staffing budgets tied to electorate size and workload, not seniority
None of these ideas are radical. Most of them exist in comparable democracies. But they require the consent of the people who benefit from the current system - and that consent has never been forthcoming.
This Is Exactly Why Direct Democracy Matters
The entitlements scandal isn't really about helicopters or hotel rooms. It's about a fundamental conflict of interest baked into the heart of representative democracy: we ask politicians to make decisions about their own conditions, and then we act surprised when those decisions consistently favour politicians.
At Direct Democracy, we believe the people most affected by a policy - taxpayers - should have a direct say in setting it. Our model puts policy decisions in the hands of members, with elected representatives obligated to vote according to member instructions. On an issue like parliamentary entitlements, that means the community sets the rules, not the beneficiaries.
The current system persists not because Australians support it, but because Australians have never been given a genuine mechanism to change it. We think it's time they did.
Want to have a real say on issues like this one? Take our policy quiz to see where you stand, or join Direct Democracy today and start voting on the policies that matter to you. Real accountability starts when real people have real power - not just at election time, but every day.
[Join Direct Democracy →](https://directdemocracy.com.au/join)