
Peter Dutton's taxpayer-funded flight to ‘long lunch' on Noosa River was investigated by expenses watchdog
The expenses watchdog launched an investigation into then-home affairs minister Peter Dutton's use of a taxpayer-funded flight to attend a 'long lunch' on a luxury island on the Noosa River in 2019, internal documents reveal.
Dutton billed taxpayers $465 for a flight from Sydney to Maroochydore on 19 July 2019, the same day he was to appear alongside the then-Queensland opposition leader, Deb Frecklington, as a special guest at a private event on Makepeace Island, a resort island part-owned by Richard Branson.
The invitation to the event, seen by Guardian Australia, describes it as an 'exclusive long lunch on Makepeace Island with special guests Hon. Peter Dutton MP, minister for home affairs, and [redacted]'.
Guests were ferried to the private island from the Noosa marina at 12pm, returning at either 4pm or 4.45pm. The drive from the Sunshine Coast airport – where Dutton landed – to the Noosa marina takes about 30 minutes.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The investigation found that Dutton's use of expenses was within the rules, and Guardian Australia is not suggesting otherwise. The rules state that parliamentarians are required to use expenses in good faith, 'for the dominant purpose of conducting parliamentary business' and in a way that achieves 'value for money'.
Documents obtained under freedom of information by the Guardian and former freelance journalist William Summers show the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Ipea), which oversees MPs' expense claims, conducted a preliminary assessment of Dutton's travel following Guardian's reporting in 2021.
The preliminary assessment concluded that Dutton had used parliamentary business resources for the trip and recommended that a more thorough investigation, known as an assurance review, be conducted.
The documents show the full review was completed six months later, on 9 September 2021, and determined that Dutton's expense claim was in accordance with the rules.
That was because the invitation to the event 'addressed the Minister as Minister for Home Affairs' and 'the Minister was an invited guest to the 'Long Lunch on Makepeace Island' event, which he attend in his official capacity as a Minister'.
This made the trip parliamentary business and entitled Dutton to claim travel in association with it, the watchdog ruled. It found he had not used taxpayer funds 'for his travel from Maroochydore to Makepeace Island or from Makepeace Island to his home base of Brisbane'.
'On the basis of the assessment conducted, IPEA has concluded the travel was for parliamentary business as defined in Schedule 4(b) of the Determination, as the Minister was an invited guest to the 'Long Lunch on Makepeace Island' event, which he attend in his official capacity as a Minister,' the watchdog ruled.
Ipea declined to comment further on its ruling.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
There was little other indication from Dutton's social media accounts of him attending community events in or near Maroochydore at the time. On 19 July 2019 he posted a video filmed in the outer Brisbane suburb of Ironbark Gully, which is in his electorate of Dickson, 100km from Maroochydore. It featured an RSL sub-branch president, whom he hailed as one of 'Dickson's heroes'.
The website for Makespeace Island describes it as a 'private luxury resort home, set on an exclusive-use island and nestled in the tranquil waters of the Noosa River'. The island is used for corporate retreats and functions, among other things.
For those staying overnight, a master villa attracts a nightly rate of $19,950 for eight guests.
Anthony Whealy, a former New South Wales supreme court judge and current chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, said the expenses system needed review.
He said it allowed a grey area for MPs to claim travel in circumstances the public would not always accept as fair.
'I think the public demand that these sorts of systems be shaken up every now and again because clearly they're not satisfactory,' Whealy said.
'There's always this grey area where integrity is being threatened. That's because people slot their behaviour into systems and rules without those systems being examined closely enough.'
Dutton's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Fabian Picardo
We have reached this position as a unified British family determined to find a solution worthy of our people

South Wales Argus
a day ago
- South Wales Argus
Diesel clothing advert banned for objectifying Katie Price
The ad, which appeared on the Guardian news website on March 26, included an image of Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that the ad objectified and sexualised women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin. The banned Diesel ad featuring Katie Price (ASA/PA) Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called 'The Houseguests', which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry by reflecting a wide range of body types. It believed the ad was compliant with the advertising rules but said it removed the ad from the Guardian website. The brand said Price was 46 years old and had a body type that was not usually included in high fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models was between 16 and 23. Diesel believed the image was a 'celebration of Ms Price's sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising', and 'showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag'. Diesel added that Price was 'well-known for her exaggerated appearance and larger-than-life personality and her large lips and breasts formed part of her curated public image', and this 'exaggerated, eccentric and altered appearance' formed part of the creativity of the campaign. Finally, Diesel said although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the ad on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again because it did not consider it complied with their policies. Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price's breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. The ASA said: 'While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. 'We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.' The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin, and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis. The watchdog ruled that the ad must not appear again, adding: 'We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.' Diesel said: 'Diesel's latest Houseguests campaign continues its tradition of challenging norms and embracing individuality. A key image features model Katie Price, 46, showcasing a body type rarely seen in high fashion, proving that women of all shapes and ages deserve representation. The photo celebrates confidence and empowerment without objectification. 'Shared in over 100 countries, it has not received any regulatory complaints, highlighting Diesel's commitment to respectful, inclusive storytelling.'


Glasgow Times
a day ago
- Glasgow Times
Diesel clothing advert banned for objectifying Katie Price
The ad, which appeared on the Guardian news website on March 26, included an image of Price wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 13 complaints that the ad objectified and sexualised women and featured a model who appeared to be unhealthily thin. The banned Diesel ad featuring Katie Price (ASA/PA) Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called 'The Houseguests', which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry by reflecting a wide range of body types. It believed the ad was compliant with the advertising rules but said it removed the ad from the Guardian website. The brand said Price was 46 years old and had a body type that was not usually included in high fashion campaigns, explaining that the average age for editorial models was between 16 and 23. Diesel believed the image was a 'celebration of Ms Price's sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising', and 'showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag'. Diesel added that Price was 'well-known for her exaggerated appearance and larger-than-life personality and her large lips and breasts formed part of her curated public image', and this 'exaggerated, eccentric and altered appearance' formed part of the creativity of the campaign. Finally, Diesel said although Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. The Guardian said it received a complaint directly about the ad on April 4 and blocked it from appearing again because it did not consider it complied with their policies. Partly upholding the complaints, the ASA said the bikini only partially covered Price's breasts, and it considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. The ASA said: 'While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. 'We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.' The ASA did not uphold complaints about Price appearing to be unhealthily thin, and concluded that the ad was not irresponsible on that basis. The watchdog ruled that the ad must not appear again, adding: 'We told Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.' Diesel said: 'Diesel's latest Houseguests campaign continues its tradition of challenging norms and embracing individuality. A key image features model Katie Price, 46, showcasing a body type rarely seen in high fashion, proving that women of all shapes and ages deserve representation. The photo celebrates confidence and empowerment without objectification. 'Shared in over 100 countries, it has not received any regulatory complaints, highlighting Diesel's commitment to respectful, inclusive storytelling.'