Mr ELFERINK - 1999-10-21
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Syd Stirling, made allegations in this House in August involving a Darwin accounting firm. I understand he has since had to apologise in parliament over some of these allegations. Can the Chief Minister shed any further light on the withdrawal and apology Labor’s deputy opposition leader has had to make over these allegations?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is worth putting on the public record, because I have a responsibility to the firm that contacted me - certainly a greater responsibility than the member for Nhulunbuy has shown - in clearing up the ...
Mr Stirling: It’s a pity you didn’t show the same interest for the constituents at Lake Evella who were ripped off!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: … and showing the sort of clarity that the situation requires. It is also worth noting that this episode demonstrates why the government treats with a great deal of suspicion papers which are waved around on that side on the House, purporting wrongdoing in various shapes or forms, until we have an opportunity to examine the facts of the situation. Too cutely and too often, the opposition has pulled out a piece of paper and claimed a wrong doing in a certain area, using the coward’s castle of this parliament to run allegations whether they be against then government or others, and then at a later date withdrawn those allegations in the dark of the night because they’ve been forced to do so.
It is also interesting that it is the member for Nhulunbuy who takes the very high moral ground on some of these issues - a member who earns $140 000 a year and lives in a Housing Commission house in Nhulunbuy. His leader seems to think that is morally okay, although only because of the politics of the situation she might have to get him to move out. Yet the same person and the same leader are quite happy to support this sort of allegation being run in this House.
On 17 August, the member for Nhulunbuy made allegations with regard to the way auditing was conducted at the Ngadunggay Resource Centre. In making those allegations he referred to the lack of application to their duty of Cleanthous & Deo to act as the grant control of that organisation for 3 months. In the course of that adjournment debate, he also made comment about an office car, the purchase of which was never shown on the quarterly financial report submitted to ATSIC, nor picked up by the auditors, De Castro & Sullivan.
The substance of the allegations in that adjournment debate was that at the very least those accounting firms were remiss. But in fact the allegations, if one reads them in context, were that they were negligent.
In response to that adjournment debate I received a letter from the firm De Castro & Sullivan to me with regard to the incorrect statement in Hansard about their firm. I have an obligation to that firm to read that letter into the Hansard for the record:
Dear Chief Minister,
My partner, Wally De Castro, and I set up this chartered accounting practice early in 1994. We have steadily built up this firm and taken great pride in the professional services we deliver to our clients.
We are subject to a strict quality-control practice-review program overseen by the Institute of CharteredAccountants, and we observe the required professional standards and requirements imposed upon our profession to ensure that we provide a high-quality service.
You will understand our annoyance, therefore, regarding an incorrect and misleading statement about De Castro & Sullivan that was recently made in parliament, which could easily have been avoided by way of a simple check.
I enclose a copy of a letter I have sent to Mr Syd Stirling. Its contents are self-explanatory. I am writing to you because of my concern that Mr Stirling has made an incorrect, misleading and damaging statement in parliament about this firm without any attempt at first clarifying the matter with me.
Thankfully, certain individuals who have recently become aware of Mr Stirling’s statement in parliament have drawn this matter to my attention, including an officer from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.
Now I find myself in the ludicrous situation where I have to set the public record straight in relation to Mr Stirling’s faux pas. The questions begs as to why Mr Stirling did not check his information before making his incorrect and misleading statement. One quick telephone call to me, that is all it would have taken.
I find it disgraceful that a politician can stand up in parliament and abuse parliamentary privilege by making such a false statement, and to hell with the consequences. I would, therefore, appreciate it if you could take the following action. Table this matter in parliament. Rectify this matter for the public record, Hansard, and clear the name of the De Castro & Sullivan by making Mr Stirling withdraw his incorrect and misleading statement, or admit it was an error. Advise the elected member that in future he should at least try and double-check the validity of details given to him before making such an incorrect, misleading and damaging statement to parliament, particularly when concerning professional firms.
I wrote to Mr Stirling and I said:
Dear Mr Stirling
Recently Mr Mervyn Sullivan from De Castro & Sullivan, chartered accountants, wrote to me in relation to a statement referring to De Castro & Sullivan that you made in the August sittings of the Legislative Assembly. Prima facie, it would seem that Messrs De Castro & Sullivan have good reason to be upset by the comments you made in relation to their involvement in an audit for the Ngadunggay Homelands Resource Centre Aboriginal Incorporation.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition says we should dismiss this as we have important things to discuss.
Mr Stirling: I straightened the record. Where were you?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: This is about morality.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling: It’s already done.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Nhulunbuy. One more outburst and you’re out for an hour.
Mr BURKE: This is about morality, ethics, doing the work, checking the facts before you use the coward’s castle of parliament to make allegations against professional firms.
I went on to say:
I believe that you should, as requested, set the record straight and I would be pleased if you would advise me what course of action you propose to rectify the position.
There was no answer from Mr Stirling.
Mr Stirling: Why should I write to you? I rang Mr Sullivan.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under standing order 240A the member for Nhulunbuy will leave the Chamber for one hour.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Nhulunbuy that he is to leave the Chamber.
Mr BURKE: On 12 October, last week, Mr Stirling made his apology. This is the substance of the apology:
On 3 September [referring to his searching for the facts after he had made the allegations in the House] I wrote to Mr Sullivan to say: ‘As I undertook to you on the phone [this is after Mr Sullivan give him one hell of a rocket] I will place the contents of your letter on the public record and clarify that I do not consider your firm to be responsible for the very serious situation which has arisen at Ngadunggay. I will forward a copy of my October speech to you and invite you to make any further comment on this matter’.
He then went on to tell the House:
I am happy to correct and clarify this matter on the public record. De Castro & Sullivan have complied with the auditing requirements. They are engaged to audit annual financial statements, not ATSIC quarterly reports, and I am happy to straighten that matter out.
After I raised this matter in parliament I spoke with Mr Sonny Deo of Cleanthous & Deo for some 50 minutes by phone. I was less than convinced by his responses to the different allegations that I had raised.
‘Correct and clarify’ is not an apology, in my opinion.
With regard to Cleanthous & Deo, I probably will receive a letter from them along similar lines to the one that I received from De Castro & Sullivan …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The best part of 8 or 9 minutes has been taken up by this rubbish. I think the Chief Minister should avoid rambling on.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I ask the Chief Minister to wind it up as quickly as possible.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, this is very important because the member for Nhulunbuy is a subordinate of the Leader of the Opposition. She has the responsibility to ensure that what is put in this House has some sort of substance and that the members who purport to do that have some sort of morals and ethics in the way they conduct their business.
What we are seeing is just another example of the way the Leader of the Opposition is quite prepared to support the member for Nhulunbuy earning $140 000 and living in a Housing Commission house. She thinks that is morally okay and is only prepared to make him leave the house because it may become a political issue. Yet at the same time ...
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Mr Speaker! We have been through this 3 times. The Chief Minister is deliberately misusing Question Time. We have had it clarified. We want to get on with Question Time. I think he has taken long enough.
Mr SPEAKER: I just ruled on that. There is no point of order. But I ask the Chief Minister to wind it up. We have been going on this answer for 11 minutes.
Mr BURKE: The quick response is this: The Leader of the Opposition said last night she can fix certain things with regard to native title. Start with the little things!
Ms Martin: One story in Canberra, one in here.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is also treading on very dangerous ground.
Mr BURKE: Start with the little things, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay.
Mrs HICKEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I draw your attention to standing order 67, which is digression from subject. I think the Chief Minister has roamed far and wide on this. He is not addressing the subject of the dorothy dixer that was asked by his lackey.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Chief Minister is responding to interjection. I ask you to keep the interjections down and we’ll find answers are over a little more quickly.
Mr BURKE: My advice to the Leader of the Opposition is, if you’re going to fix things, start with the little things. Start with basic honesty. Start with basic research. Don’t use the coward’s castle of parliament to run allegations against professional firms in the hope of getting yourself a headline in your own electorate.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is worth putting on the public record, because I have a responsibility to the firm that contacted me - certainly a greater responsibility than the member for Nhulunbuy has shown - in clearing up the ...
Mr Stirling: It’s a pity you didn’t show the same interest for the constituents at Lake Evella who were ripped off!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: … and showing the sort of clarity that the situation requires. It is also worth noting that this episode demonstrates why the government treats with a great deal of suspicion papers which are waved around on that side on the House, purporting wrongdoing in various shapes or forms, until we have an opportunity to examine the facts of the situation. Too cutely and too often, the opposition has pulled out a piece of paper and claimed a wrong doing in a certain area, using the coward’s castle of this parliament to run allegations whether they be against then government or others, and then at a later date withdrawn those allegations in the dark of the night because they’ve been forced to do so.
It is also interesting that it is the member for Nhulunbuy who takes the very high moral ground on some of these issues - a member who earns $140 000 a year and lives in a Housing Commission house in Nhulunbuy. His leader seems to think that is morally okay, although only because of the politics of the situation she might have to get him to move out. Yet the same person and the same leader are quite happy to support this sort of allegation being run in this House.
On 17 August, the member for Nhulunbuy made allegations with regard to the way auditing was conducted at the Ngadunggay Resource Centre. In making those allegations he referred to the lack of application to their duty of Cleanthous & Deo to act as the grant control of that organisation for 3 months. In the course of that adjournment debate, he also made comment about an office car, the purchase of which was never shown on the quarterly financial report submitted to ATSIC, nor picked up by the auditors, De Castro & Sullivan.
The substance of the allegations in that adjournment debate was that at the very least those accounting firms were remiss. But in fact the allegations, if one reads them in context, were that they were negligent.
In response to that adjournment debate I received a letter from the firm De Castro & Sullivan to me with regard to the incorrect statement in Hansard about their firm. I have an obligation to that firm to read that letter into the Hansard for the record:
Dear Chief Minister,
My partner, Wally De Castro, and I set up this chartered accounting practice early in 1994. We have steadily built up this firm and taken great pride in the professional services we deliver to our clients.
We are subject to a strict quality-control practice-review program overseen by the Institute of CharteredAccountants, and we observe the required professional standards and requirements imposed upon our profession to ensure that we provide a high-quality service.
You will understand our annoyance, therefore, regarding an incorrect and misleading statement about De Castro & Sullivan that was recently made in parliament, which could easily have been avoided by way of a simple check.
I enclose a copy of a letter I have sent to Mr Syd Stirling. Its contents are self-explanatory. I am writing to you because of my concern that Mr Stirling has made an incorrect, misleading and damaging statement in parliament about this firm without any attempt at first clarifying the matter with me.
Thankfully, certain individuals who have recently become aware of Mr Stirling’s statement in parliament have drawn this matter to my attention, including an officer from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.
Now I find myself in the ludicrous situation where I have to set the public record straight in relation to Mr Stirling’s faux pas. The questions begs as to why Mr Stirling did not check his information before making his incorrect and misleading statement. One quick telephone call to me, that is all it would have taken.
I find it disgraceful that a politician can stand up in parliament and abuse parliamentary privilege by making such a false statement, and to hell with the consequences. I would, therefore, appreciate it if you could take the following action. Table this matter in parliament. Rectify this matter for the public record, Hansard, and clear the name of the De Castro & Sullivan by making Mr Stirling withdraw his incorrect and misleading statement, or admit it was an error. Advise the elected member that in future he should at least try and double-check the validity of details given to him before making such an incorrect, misleading and damaging statement to parliament, particularly when concerning professional firms.
I wrote to Mr Stirling and I said:
Dear Mr Stirling
Recently Mr Mervyn Sullivan from De Castro & Sullivan, chartered accountants, wrote to me in relation to a statement referring to De Castro & Sullivan that you made in the August sittings of the Legislative Assembly. Prima facie, it would seem that Messrs De Castro & Sullivan have good reason to be upset by the comments you made in relation to their involvement in an audit for the Ngadunggay Homelands Resource Centre Aboriginal Incorporation.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition says we should dismiss this as we have important things to discuss.
Mr Stirling: I straightened the record. Where were you?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: This is about morality.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling: It’s already done.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Nhulunbuy. One more outburst and you’re out for an hour.
Mr BURKE: This is about morality, ethics, doing the work, checking the facts before you use the coward’s castle of parliament to make allegations against professional firms.
I went on to say:
I believe that you should, as requested, set the record straight and I would be pleased if you would advise me what course of action you propose to rectify the position.
There was no answer from Mr Stirling.
Mr Stirling: Why should I write to you? I rang Mr Sullivan.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under standing order 240A the member for Nhulunbuy will leave the Chamber for one hour.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Nhulunbuy that he is to leave the Chamber.
Mr BURKE: On 12 October, last week, Mr Stirling made his apology. This is the substance of the apology:
On 3 September [referring to his searching for the facts after he had made the allegations in the House] I wrote to Mr Sullivan to say: ‘As I undertook to you on the phone [this is after Mr Sullivan give him one hell of a rocket] I will place the contents of your letter on the public record and clarify that I do not consider your firm to be responsible for the very serious situation which has arisen at Ngadunggay. I will forward a copy of my October speech to you and invite you to make any further comment on this matter’.
He then went on to tell the House:
I am happy to correct and clarify this matter on the public record. De Castro & Sullivan have complied with the auditing requirements. They are engaged to audit annual financial statements, not ATSIC quarterly reports, and I am happy to straighten that matter out.
After I raised this matter in parliament I spoke with Mr Sonny Deo of Cleanthous & Deo for some 50 minutes by phone. I was less than convinced by his responses to the different allegations that I had raised.
‘Correct and clarify’ is not an apology, in my opinion.
With regard to Cleanthous & Deo, I probably will receive a letter from them along similar lines to the one that I received from De Castro & Sullivan …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The best part of 8 or 9 minutes has been taken up by this rubbish. I think the Chief Minister should avoid rambling on.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I ask the Chief Minister to wind it up as quickly as possible.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, this is very important because the member for Nhulunbuy is a subordinate of the Leader of the Opposition. She has the responsibility to ensure that what is put in this House has some sort of substance and that the members who purport to do that have some sort of morals and ethics in the way they conduct their business.
What we are seeing is just another example of the way the Leader of the Opposition is quite prepared to support the member for Nhulunbuy earning $140 000 and living in a Housing Commission house. She thinks that is morally okay and is only prepared to make him leave the house because it may become a political issue. Yet at the same time ...
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Mr Speaker! We have been through this 3 times. The Chief Minister is deliberately misusing Question Time. We have had it clarified. We want to get on with Question Time. I think he has taken long enough.
Mr SPEAKER: I just ruled on that. There is no point of order. But I ask the Chief Minister to wind it up. We have been going on this answer for 11 minutes.
Mr BURKE: The quick response is this: The Leader of the Opposition said last night she can fix certain things with regard to native title. Start with the little things!
Ms Martin: One story in Canberra, one in here.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is also treading on very dangerous ground.
Mr BURKE: Start with the little things, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay.
Mrs HICKEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I draw your attention to standing order 67, which is digression from subject. I think the Chief Minister has roamed far and wide on this. He is not addressing the subject of the dorothy dixer that was asked by his lackey.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Chief Minister is responding to interjection. I ask you to keep the interjections down and we’ll find answers are over a little more quickly.
Mr BURKE: My advice to the Leader of the Opposition is, if you’re going to fix things, start with the little things. Start with basic honesty. Start with basic research. Don’t use the coward’s castle of parliament to run allegations against professional firms in the hope of getting yourself a headline in your own electorate.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016