AUSTRALIANS accept that elected representatives must travel to represent their communities. They also expect that public resources are used for parliamentary business in a way that represents value for money and serves the electorate broadly.
IPEA records show that on 28 March 2025, Dr Anne Webster MP for Mallee electorate claimed $7615 for “non-commercial airline or non-air travel expense” between Melbourne (Essendon Airport) and Stawell, recorded as parliamentary duties.
Dr Webster has publicly described the event she attended that day at Ben Duxson’s farm in Kanya as a town-hall style meeting opposing Labor’s renewables and transmission policies, including projects such as VNI West, involving Coalition shadow ministers and local farmers concerned about those plans.
What is relevant and has not been widely acknowledged is that this meeting was not open to all constituents.
Attendance was limited to those opposed to VNI West, and the location was not publicly advertised.
As a result, only one side of a highly contested community debate was present.
There is nothing improper about advocating for constituents or opposing government policy. However, it is reasonable to ask whether taxpayers should be funding expensive non-commercial flights to selectively convened political advocacy events, rather than travel to open forums accessible to the full electorate.
A right of reply may argue that the travel complied with the rules and that Dr Webster was representing local concerns. That may be so. But compliance does not resolve the question of judgement or value for money, particularly where public funds support engagement with only a subset of constituents.
The issue is not legality or entitlement. It is whether public money was used in a way that reflects fairness, transparency, and reasonable cost; standards taxpayers are entitled to expect.
