Sky News host Peta Credlin has criticised Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after it emerged he used a parliamentary allowance to bill taxpayers more than $2,500 to fly his wife and adult son to Canberra for Budget night, arguing the pair should have covered their own travel costs.
Peta Credlin has criticised Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for billing taxpayers to fly his wife and adult son to Canberra for Budget night, arguing the family should have paid their own way. Speaking on News24 on Thursday, Credlin said she was stunned by revelations, first reported by the Daily Mail, that Albanese had used a parliamentary family reunion allowance to fund flights for his wife, Jodie Haydon, and their 25-year-old son, Nathan, from Sydney for the May Budget. Both Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers have faced criticism after taxpayers were charged more than $4,200 combined to fly family members to Canberra for the occasion, despite those relatives holding well-paid professional roles.
The expense claims
According to expense records, Albanese claimed A$2,591.32 for return flights for Haydon and Nathan between Sydney and Canberra, covering travel from 12 to 14 May. Each one-way fare cost $647.83, with taxpayers covering both the outbound and return legs of the journey for both family members.
The claims were made under Australia’s Parliamentary Business Resources (PBR) framework, which permits eligible MPs to claim certain travel expenses for family members in specific circumstances, including family reunion travel. Parliamentary expense claims of this kind are overseen by the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA), which audits claims made by MPs and publishes expenditure records as part of efforts to improve transparency. At the time of reporting, there was no suggestion that Albanese’s claims breached parliamentary rules; the criticism has instead centred on whether the spending represented an appropriate use of taxpayer money.
Nathan Albanese works in the institutional banking division of Commonwealth Bank, while Haydon has worked as a senior executive in the banking sector, having held a senior position at Teachers Mutual Bank as of May 2025.
Credlin’s criticism
Credlin questioned why taxpayers should be responsible for covering the cost of travel for financially independent family members. “It looks like he used a family reunion provision to bring his adult son down to Canberra for the Budget,” she said. “Now, I think this is pretty extraordinary. The son is 25, as I understand it. He’s working now. Why on earth are taxpayers paying for this?”
Sky News contributor James Morrow echoed her concerns, arguing the revelations would frustrate Australians already grappling with cost-of-living pressures. “Well, I have absolutely no idea. But as a taxpayer, this is the sort of thing that absolutely infuriates me,” he said. “Every month when I get paid, and everyone else who’s a PAYG taxpayer gets paid, the government takes a huge chunk of your money and says, ‘Well, we need it for all these important things.’ And apparently, one of those important things includes flying the 25-year-old son of the Prime Minister down to Canberra.”
Morrow argued that either Albanese or his son should have covered the cost of the flights themselves. “Canberra is not the most expensive flight in the world,” he said. “Why can’t the Prime Minister put his own hand in his own pocket, or Nathan put his own hand in his own pocket, and pay for a ticket down to Canberra?”
Wider context
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has faced similar scrutiny after also claiming taxpayer-funded travel expenses for family members to attend Budget week in Canberra. Supporters of the existing system have pointed out that family travel entitlements have existed under successive Australian governments, with MPs from both major parties making use of them over many years.
Even so, critics argue that while such claims may fall within parliamentary rules, they raise broader questions about the appropriate use of taxpayer-funded entitlements, particularly at a time when Australian households continue to face elevated housing costs, food prices and utility bills. The controversy has reignited debate over whether parliamentary expense rules should be tightened, particularly in relation to travel claims involving adult children who are financially independent.
