Apologies, admissions: how the KPMG hearings ended
BusinessAs Accountants Daily has covered extensively, former and current KPMG executives have been separately grilled on the alleged audit misconduct and whistleblower treatment. At the end, they were brought together for one final attempt to explain the scandals.
As the KPMG audit misconduct scandal raised questions about whether it has eroded trust in the big four accounting firms, senator Deborah O’Neill provided former KPMG Australia partners an opportunity to make commentary on the evidence presented throughout the day at the tail end of last week’s hearing.
While some former partners apologised for the alleged audit misconduct at the scandal-ridden accounting firm, former chief operating officer and expelled partner Eileen Hoggett maintained she “cooperated through all the investigations”.
Hoggett stepped down as COO in early June and announced she would retire from the partnership. However, after Allens uncovered new evidence on her role in the alleged misconduct, she was expelled from the partnership.
During the hearing, it was revealed that she wrote a damning email referring to the confidential documents relating to the Lendlease audit, which were retained in a locker in the KPMG Sydney office.
Hoggett told O’Neill that while she appreciated the firm was disappointed when they found the May 2023 email a couple of weeks ago, she wanted to “reiterate” her cooperation.
She repeated her comments from her testimony earlier in the hearing that she was disappointed the firm did not engage with her to have a discussion about the email even though she “has never had a conduct issue and has no pattern of behaviour”.
“[KPMG Australia CEO John Sams] said that that opportunity was given to me. I want, for the record, to be that the only opportunity was when that was presented to me while I was overseas by Teams in an interview by Allans, but no engagement by the firm,” she said.
Former chairman hopes new leadership can make things right
Former chairman Martin Sheppard defended the “very talented and capable people working hard to try and resolve and get to the nub of the issues”, but ultimately conceded that the process was “clumsy”, and mistakes were made.
“There's been different levels of responsibility assigned and there have been things that have fallen through the cracks and it’s taken much more time,” Sheppard said.
“I apologise for the impact that this has had. As the chair of the firm, I don't carry that responsibility lightly, and I do hope with the new leadership in place, and with the support work that's being done around culture, the commitment around the engagement with the whistleblower to put things right. I genuinely hope that the firm can move forward to restore its place in the Australian capital markets.”
Former national managing partner, audit and assurance, Julian McPherson, apologised to the whistleblower at the centre of the allegations, as well as to clients and partners.
“I’m devastated by what’s happened. I’m sorry,” he told the committee.
Yates refuses to say how much whistleblower is worth
At the hearing, former CEO Andrew Yates said he thought the firm was doing the right thing throughout the investigation process, but said that as soon as it became clear that this was not the case, he stood down as CEO.
O’Neill was not convinced of his contrition, however, and questioned “how sorry” he was, whether he did anything for the whistleblower, how much they are worth, and how much of his salary and departing payout the whistleblower should receive for doing “this amazing job for two years”.
“I’ve not done anything for the whistleblower. I walked out the door of KPMG after 36 years, didn’t say goodbye to anyone,” Yates said.
When O’Neill asked for his recommendations on what the current board should do for the whistleblower, Yates refused to be drawn into it and said it was a matter for the current leadership.
However, O’Neill pressed him again, and said: “You cannot afford to make that statement. You are absolutely intimately involved with it from the very beginning. You are not separate from it.”
Yates said that he did not know what a fair amount is, and added that he thought the settlement amount at the time was fair.
“I believe the firm is doing that. But I'm not going to put a figure on that. They need to work through that.”
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?Make Accountants Daily a preferred news source on Google.