Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise once again in this place to talk about the disturbing breach of trust which was perpetrated not just by Mr Peter-John Collins of PwC but, according to the evidence that we have, by almost 50 senior members of the firm PwC International.

It has been a year since I first began asking questions in the late evening of estimates on 15 February 2023 about the breach of Australia's confidential information which occurred, and I discovered that the Australian government's plans to crackdown on multinational tax avoidance had been shared over email not just to parties within Australia, but to those around the world as part of the PwC international conglomerate. In the year since that time, our country has laid witness to the grotesque greed, the ethical apathy and the leadership failure. This has allowed not just PwC to manifestly fail in their ethical and regulatory obligations, but this incident has seen the largest firms within the audit and consulting sector all face a renewed and more strident level of scrutiny.

Along with my colleagues from across the parliament, and through the diligent efforts of the media, we have prosecuted these issues and brought the scale of misconduct in this sector to light. In contrast, while the consulting sector, and PwC in particular, seem eager to talk a big game with regard to their supposed desire to reform, the truth continues to tell a different story indeed. Just today it was revealed through the work of Edmund Tadros at the Financial Review that there is an explicit agreement between PwC Global and PwC Australia. Simultaneously a conglomerate and a franchise, this agreement apparently enables the global firm to actively intervene in the affairs of the Australian firm when the internationals determine that the PwC franchise has brought the global brand into disrepute.

This agreement, which has become public in the last 72 hours, enabled the global firm to oust Australian Kristin Stubbins. She is the person who acted as the interim CEO after the resignation of Mr Tom Seymour, also CEO of PwC Australia, who followed in the steps of his predecessor, Mr Luke Sayers, now CEO of Sayers group, who oversaw the ethical and cultural failure of PwC Australia for the period from 2012 and through this tawdry tale. PwC clearly inserted their own trusted actor—his name is Mr Kevin Burrowes—to repair the image of their discredited international PwC brand. They sought to stem the problem here domestically but it seems predominantly on the global stage.

Now I would wholeheartedly agree that the actions of Mr Peter-John Collins and those others directly involved with the tax leak scandal brought not just the firm but the entire profession into severe disrepute. I would, however, argue that this is the primary issue at hand. What seems clear, given Mr Burrowes' explicit installation in PwC, is that he is part of a strategy to protect the firm's global brand. Secondary to that come any changes to culture and practice or ethical standards in the Australian context.

The international dimension of the tax leak scandal is also an issue of deep concern. As the internal PwC emails released by the Senate show clearly, senior members of the PwC firm across the globe knowingly received and planned to utilise Australia's confidential information. PwC and CEO Kevin Burrowes have repeatedly claimed they're simply unable to access and provide the Linklaters legal report, which chronicles this international collusion. But, given the clear and explicit insertion of Mr Burrowes as an actor of the global brand, it appears that his evidence about not being able to access that Linklaters report on the tax scandal is nothing more than a convenient piece of legalistic positioning.

For the now PwC Australia CEO to come before the Senate and withhold relevant details surrounding his own insertion into PwC Australia is not merely an oversight but a direct obfuscation. This is a sector in deep need of reform. The Switkowski report refers to the factors which enabled confidential misuse of government information. (Time expired)