Source : THE AGE NEWS
Welcome to our live blog of the parliamentary joint committee public hearing into the KPMG whistleblower scandal in Canberra.
Pocock: “Ethics have fallen at the first hurdle where confidential information had the possibility of generating income. Do you agree with that?”
van Onselen: “I do agree, it’s a basic principle of ethics to not breach your client confidentiality.”
Liberal Senator Paul Scarr: “What hope do we have if you’re getting such poor leadership, poor leadership to the new generation coming through the profession, who are meant to be carrying that flame of trust in terms of audit responsibilities.”
“(And) this poor whistleblower. Who’s acting for them? Who’s representing them? Where’s their legal protection? Who’s in their corner trying to navigate through this process? They’re just left adrift.”
Liberal Senator Paul Scarr: “This is systemic failure in terms of regulating this important profession. Do you agree?”
van Onselen, from CA ANZ: “I don’t agree that there’s been systemic failure.”
Liberal senator Paul Scarr: “I put it to you Ms Onselen that CAANZ has failed”
“We’re sitting here in 2026 and again, one of the top four firms. I don’t know how many members you’ve got from KPMG as part of CAANZ. Chief Executive Officer gone, Head of Audit and Assurance gone, Chief Operating Officer demoted, senior audit partner (demoted) the lead partner in Westpac.
It’s failed, hasn’t it, Ms Onselen?”
O’Neill settles the hearing after robust exchanges with van Onselen.
“If you want to put further matters to speak on public record, you can do that after this inquiry, but do not speak over senators and members, and make sure that you answer the question that you’re asked.”
Chapman has explained the limits of the powers available to the accounting body. “CA ANZ doesn’t have the ability to ban a firm as a whole, participation in the scheme is at the individual member level, and so there are a number of members at KPMG,” she tells the committee.
Pocock is probing CA ANZ on the controversial TAHE contract, which involved KPMG: “So, CA ANZ didn’t seek evidence from parties outside KPMG as part of that investigation, is that correct?”
CA ANZ’s Vanessa Chapman: “I’m restricted in what I can say about the particular matter, but the PCC [professional conduct committee] did make inquiries and received a range of information.”
Senator Barabara Pocock: “What’s wrong? What’s broken in the system that we have repetitive behaviour like this? … What’s wrong with penalty? What’s wrong with the consequences? What’s wrong with our regulation that a large company like this, on the public record fined once, comes back again?”
“There may be consequences, but they are not deterring the behaviour from what we have seen.”
After the whistleblower allegations were made public in March, KPMG boss Yates contacted van Onselen: “We were informed that there was no basis to the allegations.”
O’Neill: “He says, don’t worry, it was a whistleblower matter, and we’ve investigated it. There’s nothing to see here?”
Van Onselen: “Mr Yates and KPMG are very well informed about their disclosure obligations.”
When she found out, van Onselen says she was deeply unhappy. “What I think it says in relation to the individuals involved who were partners of KPMG is extremely serious conduct, and I’m disgusted by it. It’s basic 101 … in terms of ethics, principles,” she says.
“Every young lawyer and every young accountant in the country has it drummed into them to respect your client’s confidentiality.”
