EXCLUSIVE: Senior government executive Andrew Kirkman advocated for a pay rise for Darwin Waterfront Corporation CEO Alastair Shields, despite various conflicts of interest and while he was acting head public servant, six months before the DWC hired Mr Kirkman’s wife for an unadvertised role on a hefty pay packet, a secret government memo obtained by the NT Independent has revealed.
The ‘ministerial’ document shows Mr Kirkman was acting chief executive of the Department of Chief Minister and Cabinet last year when he recommended giving Mr Shields – a close personal friend – the substantial pay raise.
Mr Kirkman was also a board member of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation at the time.
The revelation contained in the secret memo has elicited deep concern from Mr Kirkman and Mr Shields, who have threatened the NT Independent with legal action for publishing this article.
The memo shows Mr Kirkman wrote to then-chief minister Eva Lawler on April 16, 2024 in his temporary role as acting head public servant, stating he was seeking approval from her to “amend the terms and conditions of [Mr Shields’] employment to clarify that Mr Shields’ salary is to be the equivalent of an ECO3.2 salary”.
Mr Shields only works two days a week as chief executive of the waterfront corporation and has been in the role since 2017. The pay rise saw his salary jump from $100,000 to $116,000, plus super, for the part-time gig, which was prorated from the top band of the Executive Contract Officer 3 range of $269,000 to $296,000.
Mr Shields also takes home $65,000 a year as chair of the Australasia Railway Corporation, another publicly-funded body that Mr Kirkman also sits on the board of.
An acting departmental CEO advocating for anyone’s pay rise is in contrast to standard government protocol that an acting chief executive should hold the line while in the role and not advocate for pay rises for individual staff members, public service sources said.
Mr Kirkman said in the briefing to the minister that Mr Shields “provides high level support and leadership to the deputy CEO [Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro’s husband Sam Burke], who operationally leads the organisation”.
The bottom of the memo to Ms Lawler included a hand-written note from Mr Kirkman stating: “Noting my conflict of interest as board member of the DWC. Would be dealt with by the exec remuneration panel if not covered by the DWC Act”.
It is unclear what body Mr Kirkman was referring to as there is no online government record of an “executive remuneration panel” for public servants, although Mr Shields contended it is “well established and known within government”. The DWC Act contains the terms of employment for Mr Shields as CEO.
It appears Ms Lawler did not review the position or refer the matter to the “remuneration panel” before accepting Mr Kirkman’s recommendation when she approved the pay rise the next day.
Less than six months after Mr Shields’ increased salary was approved, the Darwin Waterfront Corporation hired Susan Kirkman as acting chief financial officer and to undertake a “strategic review of corporate services” for the organisation, as the NT Independent first reported last month.
The Office of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption has repeatedly issued statements to public servants informing them of the nature of conflicts of interest and that disclosing one is not effectively managing the conflict.
The recent ICAC investigation into former police commissioner Michael Murphy’s mismanagement of a conflict of interest reiterated that point.
“It is not enough for a public officer to regard themselves as not being influenced by their personal interest,” ICAC delegate Patricia Kelly wrote in the Operation Apollo report.
“A public officer has a conflict of interest when a fair and reasonable person could perceive them as having one.”
Mr Kirkman and Mr Shields denied any wrongdoing and threatened legal action against the NT Independent if it published this article.
“I strongly refute any inference of wrongdoing in respect to this matter,” Mr Kirkman said in an email.
“I do not intend to comment on confidential remuneration matters, other than to say that I have never approved a remuneration increase for Mr Shields.
“Should any report include an inference of wrongdoing on my part, I will be forced to take legal action.”
The NT Independent is not suggesting Mr Kirkman approved the pay increase, but the memo shows he recommended it to the then-chief minister while acting chief executive and she approved it the next day without going through a review of the role.
Mr Shields also denied any wrongdoing and “demanded” that this masthead “immediately cease and desist from making any further inquiries that suggest misconduct” and also “stop making statements that suggest misconduct”, adding he would “have no choice but to pursue all available legal remedies to protect my reputation and that of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation”.
“My remuneration as CEO is determined by the relevant Minister in accordance with the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act 2005,” he said in an email.
“I have had no involvement whatsoever with the current determination of my remuneration.
“I strongly object to the assertions in your questions that there was any mismanaged conflict of interest or corruption concerning the determination of my remuneration, or that there is any link whatsoever between my remuneration and the appointment of any member of staff of the Corporation. These assertions are categorically false, and any publication of such allegations would be highly defamatory.”
Mr Shields and Mr Kirkman were sent the details of this article in an effort to provide them an additional opportunity to specifically state what they felt was inaccurate. Hours later, Mr Shields had a lawyer demand the NT Independent refrain from publishing based on claims of “false imputations”.
The NT Independent then provided that lawyer an additional 24-hours to specifically point to any inaccuracies.
The lawyer pointed to slight issues with the wording of the article and reiterated that “if the proposed article is published, we anticipate instructions to take legal action against you without delay”, based on “imputations against the good character and professionalism of Mr Shields” and that if the article was published, “is likely to cause damage to the hard-earned excellent reputation of Mr Shields both on a personal and professional level”.
Susan Kirkman also mates with Alastair Shields, hired amid potential undisclosed conflicts of interest
Susan Kirkman was hired by DWC in early October to undertake a “strategic review of corporate services”, which also included acting as chief financial officer after the corporation claimed an “unsuccessful” recruitment process failed to attract suitable candidates for the CFO role a month earlier.
The position Ms Kirkman was ultimately awarded was not publicly advertised and is understood to have come with a larger pay package than what was advertised for the lesser role.
Mr Shields said last month that Andrew Kirkman as a DWC board member declared the conflict of interest in the hiring of his wife last October and “left the room for a board discussion on this matter”, but Mr Shields appeared not have disclosed his own conflict of interest in that hiring, given that he and the Kirkmans are close friends and were neighbours for many years.
Mr Shields claimed last month that he had no conflict of interest in the hiring of Ms Kirkman, while stating that he had worked with her “over many years” and that he was “in a position to recommend her appointment to the corporation” due to his “personal experience of her professional skills”.
His lawyer suggested on Thursday that Mr Shields was not a “close personal friend” of “Mrs Kirkman” and that their relationship was “no more than what might be expected of two professionals who have worked together in various roles over many years”.
Government reports show Ms Kirkman worked under or with Mr Shields at the same departments and agencies he led, including Tourism and Culture, the Department of Trade, Business and Innovation, and the NT Racing and Wagering Commission – where they are both current board members – as well as being involved in different associations together.
Mr Shields said on Tuesday that Ms Kirkman has since left the role at the Waterfront and was only “temporarily assisting the corporation”.
The NT Independent is not suggesting any illegal or improper conduct on the part of Mr Kirkman and Mr Shields, however the government memo raises issues that are in the public interest to be investigated.
The NT Independent stands behind the facts reported in this article.
The Damn NT Independent Strikes again!
This is more proof that the actions of the Territory fat cats are very questionable and that tax payers money is there to be sqandered.
Congratulations to the Chief Minister for not clearing house when she won the election! She shuffled problematic CEO’s around instead of firing them and kept the ALP Labor Apparatus intact in the NTG! Those chickens will come home to roost!
On a unrelated matter, I am writing this from the outside tables of the Hotel Darwin, I can hear a distinct shreeking from the 5th floor of the white building next door…..
I will contribute funding if legal action is pursued against the independent
Ill contribute to a Gofund me campaign as I am sure as many Territorians will!
Ironically will Territorians be paying the legal fees for the other team? Or will that be the longsuffering rate payers of the waterfront?
As my old grannie used to say: a fool and his money are easily parted.
to @Antonio MAZZA
HOPEFULLY!!!
BJM, you may find it enlightening to view Parliament house as a collection of friends and ongoing favors, as opposed to blue team vs red team.
Why does Kirkman always seem to be involved in controversies. It seems the whole of the public services management has become a cesspool of deals for mates
It’s high time that some contracts were not renewed. Does anyone ever review performance of executives or attach KPI’s to their roles?
2006 DWC Act should be rescinded.
If you need anymore proof of dodgy deals just ask the Waterfront Wharf 1 & 2 Toga apartment owners who are fleeced by the secretive Darwin Waterfront Corporation Board who allegedly money launder $31 million annually through different bank accounts including 2015/16 Parkside ( B5) Sterling Management Services. I was 2015/16 Parkside BCC Secretary & because I questioned fake charges & accounts, insurance kickbacks I was targeted by the Darwin DPP as retribution, many Freemasons (white, stale, male) networked predators. There will be more to be exposed one would assume. How come DWC GM SAM BURKE & CEO ALASTAIR SHIELDS go on holidays together at tax-payer expense: five trips together, is this a bit weird? Are they having a bromance?
Nice bit of misandry and racism there Jane, not for the first time.
Fabulous insight Jane, a lot of developers in Darwin have always wondered how the waterfront deal was arrived to ! And then Toga…..simply walked away…..
Ok, we all agree it’s really stinky, a pungent stink methinks!
So I trust we are all, having those chats spreading the word given that now, as Territorians with all these revelations, we have front row seats to the greatest poor show on earth!
May l suggest that if a public officer or anyone really, acted out of good conscience and compliance would not the simple strategy be to respond, in a manner that puts to bed any doubt!!
Both of the male humans mentioned in this article did not respond as above, instead they appear to have defensively sort legal representation, which l trust is at their personal expense, save as to increasing the NT debt further!
I trust Mr Kirkman recalls the manner in which his mentions, in the Maria Rust, case were received by the presiding Federal judge!
I would normally copy and paste the judges findings but lm busy painting!
Keep well, Your One Nation senate candidate, a candidate, if elected WILL sort this NT SHIT SHOW out- federally!
Ticks, getting bigger and fatter, sucking the blood from and feeding off a government host comes to mind with this article.
As a quick LOL: in our experience with friends of ours, when lawyers use terms such as “highly defamatory” then you should call their bluff. Well done NTI.
When both of them bring lawyers to threaten you then you know you’re on to something. *waves at lawyers reading this.
We liken their ‘threats not to publish’ to the kids movie called Monsters Inc. The monsters look and appear scary but when you actually challenge them they run away in the opposite direction often in tears.
Top tip: if you need to send threatening letters using exaggerated terms such as “highly defamatory” and “hard-earned excellent reputation of Mr Shields” then we think you have no case. It’s a classic lawyer template letter sent in order to try to stop certain information becoming public.
Big corporations and Russian oligarchs use them all the time against investigative journalists. Convicted rapist and serial sex offender Harvey Weinstein used them a lot too.
Substitute ‘highly’ for other adverbs of degree and have a laugh: really defamatory, very defamatory, extremely defamatory, more than usual defamatory, super defamatory, extraordinarily defamatory.
If you really believe you have a case for defamation and you are confident that a prolonged and expensive legal case including an extensive discovery process where all your secret emails, texts, conversation notes and witness statements made by those around you will be released into a public court case for more public consumption will not damage your position any more, then simply file papers at the court and serve the opposing party forthwith.
While your lawyer is enriching him/herself and pandering to your bruised ego at the same time by drafting more “highly defamatory” letters have a read at Ben Roberts-Smith’s public court file:
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/ben-roberts-smith
If you are not serving proceedings and instead are sending ‘scary Monsters Inc’ letters then you don’t have a case and should be mocked for doing so accordingly. We think you’re bluffing and obviously so do NTI.
Leaving the ego sideshow, we focus back on the important stuff:
These guys and the money that they’re all creaming off the NT budget, y’know that healthy budget with a huge surplus where everyone shares in the wealth for the common good? That budget…..it is disgusting, again. No doubt, Greg Shamahan and his “mastery of the public service” will have been called in to assess the fallout and to help arrange the damage control spin to follow.
However, we will say this: the top layers of NT Government is stuffed full of these kinds of people. They are appointed and supported by both 2 main parties.
We predict that current ALP dummies will stand by and say nothing, mainly because of their recent track record.
The CLP will stand by and do nothing because they want this kind of thing to be common practice as it’s some of their people and partners who are being unfairly enriched by these behaviours.
The real hard working public servants underneath continue to be shit on but feel helpless to do anything to change how the system has been set up to enrich the Kirkmans of the world while enslaving them as lower level employees to a life of high prices and low job satisfaction.
This kind of behaviour from these kinds of people, and we include Lawler etc in this, are the expected products of a sick system. It is no surprise.
Anyone at this level in NT Government knows whoever is in charge: Lawler one year, Finocchiaro the next, that nothing will change. They have immunity and when that is threatened they lash out with laughable lawyers’ letters.
Lia will try to use it as yet another “educational tool” for our hardworking Super-dooper excellent at business executive level employees and our highly Attorney highly General will highly spout more of her Clockwork Orange gobbledygook while doing highly nothing about it.
AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE IF WE ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO.
So, we find ourselves back at Square One again to ask the same question. What can we do about it?
This is a systemic issue. Powerful vested interests do not want it to Change at all. They love it just as it is for obvious reasons.
It is going to be an interesting fight for Change:
The powerful and unfairly enriched long term public servants, supported and enabled by their political friends who have the power to Change things but choose not to on one side.
Versus
The new politicians and a new party promising to purge all Government agencies and departments of this kind of behaviour and anyone caught doing it. And yes, that includes Greg Shamahan and all like him. New Acts of Parliament, new statutes of limitations, new (sorry, actual) levels of accountability and transparency, brand new prosecutions of previous Government employees, a new, cheaper and much more open Freedom Of Information Act so citizens and journalists can see more about what Government is doing and saying, senior Government employees losing their access to free Government lawyers and legal advice when they are doing the wrong thing, etc.
Primary school students understand helping your mates and family in secret is a ‘conflict’. If long serving ‘bureaucraps’ like these guys can’t see it (or won’t see it) then that alone will be enough to relieve them of their highly excellent salary packages and highly increased Super balances.
Remember: they are only doing what they know they can get away with. This has been accepted behaviour for many years with zero desire from our elected politicians so far to Change the organisational culture here in the NT.
We’re only going to get the Change we want when we Change the culture of the system. This won’t happen with the current selection of ALP and CLP people in power. They have clearly shown us where their attention lies and it is not on changing anything about the cancer that is eating away at the body of good governance and has been for years.
When a new political party comes in to Change and fix this, to begin the cure, the purge, using a multi-pronged approach to Government tick control, you will start to see their effective strategies working: the ticks, feeding and getting fatter off their host, will fall off and be eradicated providing a sustained and systemic effect. Preventative tick control mechanisms will be put in place, a completely new way in the NT to do Government to keep the host healthy.
No more Ticks. No more Ticks. No more Ticks.
Dearest Sir Angel,
If I didn’t know better I would say you too are legally trained; like the curiosity of Lady Wistledown’s identity you now have my attention (with humble reverence of course). I too know most of these players and have seen and heard first hand what they are like (and with whom they lunch).
Your comments with respect to our learned friends “legal drafting” was so accurate I laughed, a rather rare occurrence given the current state of the NT.
May the angels watch over both you and the NTI.
With respect and regards,
Lady Darwinian
So what’s new??? Mates looking after mates, been going on for years.
So do we just shrug and accept it and wave good bye to all that money?
Does anyone in a position of authority and presumed ethical standards not know what conflicts of interest are? The Territory needs to seriously review corporate practices across the board.
They’re playing dumb (exceptionally well we might add).
Of course they know, they just don’t care and they also know that when caught, no one in either the ALP or the CLP will do anything about it.
CompLeted Protected.
In the old Darwin days someone would have just punched him out.Scum
It’s pretty out of date to judge someone by whether they are’full blood’ or not. You could read a bit of Australian history. I’ll leave it at that.
Section 5F (1) of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act (NT) states “a public sector office must do the following: (a) carry out the officer’s duties as follows (i) objectively, impartially, professionally and with integrity.
Section 5F (d) of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act (NT) states “avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal or other interests and duties as a public sector officer.
Former NT Commissioner for Public Employment Mr Graham Symons on 14 December 2011 in a former Employment Instruction Number 12 – Code of Conduct – in Number 7.1 – states pursuant to section 16 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act (NT) [PSEMA] states –
“7.1. In order to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the Northern Territory Public Sector, a Public Sector Officer must exhibit and be seen to exhibit the highest ethical standards in carrying out his or her duties, and must pursue, and be seen to pursue, the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory”.