A federal politician complained of discrimination because he was banned from employing his wife in his office but would not be prohibited from employing a mistress.



Documents released under freedom of information (FOI) laws show Ian Macdonald, a Liberal National party senator for Queensland, described the Abbott-era rule against employing spouses or immediate family members as “intolerable”.

The same bundle of documents shows numerous other political figures wrote to the finance department to question moves to curb the scheme that entitles them to free domestic flights after they have left parliament.

The former West Australian MP Wilson Tuckey was particularly forthright, demanding to know how the government could acquire his property “without just terms as required under section 51 (xxxi) of the constitution” – the section that rose to prominence in the Australian comedy film, The Castle.

Expenses of Australian politicians for January to June 2015 Read more

Macdonald’s letter, sent in September 2014 but released under FOI this week, criticised “the non-payment of my wife for work which she does work in my office”.

“What I find intolerable is that because my wife happens to be married to me, she is unable to be paid for the work which she continues to do for me,” Macdonald told the head of the finance department in a letter first published by Crikey.



“I reiterate that if rather than my wife, I was employing a mistress, that would be in order. It appears that simply because my wife is married to me she is precluded from receiving payment from her work.”

In the letter, Macdonald said his wife worked five or six days a week when the senator was in Canberra yet was paid for only two. It is understood she still works full-time during parliamentary sitting weeks but is not receiving any payment.

The senator described his wife as a “most trusted and valuable employee” and the “employee of longest standing with the greatest corporate knowledge”.

Macdonald said on Thursday the issue was yet to be resolved. “She continues to do the work but doesn’t get paid; how fair is that? She does the work and she does it well,” he told Guardian Australia.

The Department of Finance’s entitlements handbook says senators and members cannot employ a spouse, de facto partner, child, parent or sibling under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984.



The then special minister of state, Michael Ronaldson, announced the restrictions along with a crackdown on politicians’ travel entitlements shortly after the 2013 election, saying the “employment of family members may not be consistent with good, merit-based employment practices”.

The government subsequently used its 2014 budget to declare it would wind back gold pass entitlements because “we all must contribute” to fiscal repair. The life gold pass scheme entitles eligible former MPs to travel within Australia at taxpayer expense for the rest of their lives, albeit with caps on the number of flights each year.

The FOI documents show the decision to rein in the scheme caused a stir.

While many former MPs wrote to the finance department’s entitlements management branch with simple factual queries about the impact, some took the opportunity to sharply criticise the decision.

Tuckey, who had publicly raised the spectre of a high court challenge, told the department he was seeking legal advice. He sought an explanation of “the grounds upon which my property of the gold pass which I obtained after 18 years of my 30 in parliament can be acquired by the government without just terms compensation”.

Ian Macphee, a former Fraser government immigration minister, wrote: “I am sure that it is not the department’s fault but I am surprised at this decision as this entitlement was part of my superannuation – given that the income earned as a minister was half what I would have earned as a lawyer at that time. I look forward to more detail from you.”

The former Howard government defence minister Brendan Nelson thanked the department for its information but added: “I was a minister and opposition leader who left the parliament after 14 May 2008, does that still make me intelligible [sic]?”

The FOI applicant, Evelyn Doyle, published the details of her request on the Right to Know website. The documents released by the department did not include its responses to the queries.