TPB managing conflict of interest issues ‘appropriately’, chair tells inquiry

In his 21 July letter, he said that soon after becoming aware of the matter, he initially considered avoiding all engagement “of any type with the matter”.

“I came to the view that I had no conflict of interest that would require me to take this step,” he said.

Further, de Cure told O’Neill that following recusing himself from KPMG investigations on 29 June, he discussed with the secretary and adopted a formal conflict management plan after consulting with the board and secretary.

Previous reports said that de Cure did not declare to the TPB that a KPMG audit partner spoke to him about the scandal; despite this, in his letter, he said that he believed that he mentioned this to the board but did not formally raise it and hence was “not recorded in the Minutes of a meeting”.

De Cure’s letter was in response to a letter sent to de Cure by O’Neill on 10 July, which read: “The committee seeks any further information and documentation, including but not limited to meeting notes, strategic management plans and board statements, that may give comfort to the committee that your conflict of interest is being and will be effectively managed now and into the future until the TPB’s investigations and involvement in these matters is fully resolved.”

“The committee notes its expectation that your conflict management processes and practices meet the highest level of integrity and that they will be declared and observed in an ongoing and publicly transparent manner,” O’Neill’s letter read.

“I have recused myself from any involvement in the current KPMG investigation. I have adopted a formal conflict management plan in relation to this matter. This plan clearly sets out steps taken to ensure that I take no part in the TPB’s investigation or decision-making in relation to the matter,” de Cure said in his letter.

“I have no ongoing financial interest in KPMG, and I provide no services to KPMG. I have not been a partner at KPMG since 30 June 2012 (i.e. 14 years ago), and I have not had any type of employment with KPMG since 30 June 2013 (i.e. 13 years ago). I do not have a personal relationship with any of the people subject to the allegations.”

“I have not made any statement that dismisses or downplays the allegations made by the whistleblower. I note that KPMG’s own admission is that the allegations have been accepted.”

Within his conflict management plan dated 7 July 2026, de Cure recused himself from the investigation in the capacity of committing to not discuss the investigation in any way with TPB staff or board members, he said that where practical and appropriate, he will “refer any KPMG related questions to relevant TPВ personnel”, he has appointed the secretary or an assistant secretary communicating with Board member Kerrie Sadiq if the TPB staff want to engage in any matters concerning the investigation.

Further, he committed to “not participate in the discussion and will leave the meeting for the Discussion,” if the matter needs to be discussed at a board meeting or committee meeting.

“I will not engage with KPMG on this issue (including in the context of my other professional commitments), and if KPMG seeks to engage with me on this, I will notify the Board.”

“I trust this response, together with the enclosed conflict management plan, provides the Committee with the assurance it was seeking,” de Cure’s letter read.