CA ANZ seeks legal advice on limited waiver applying to KPMG investigation reports

CA ANZ general council and group executive, corporate assurance, Vanessa Chapman, took the question on notice but said a legal professional privilege claim by KPMG would be “inappropriate”.

In a response sent to the Committee late last week, CA ANZ said that on 11 June, the Professional Conduct Committee of CA ANZ requested from KPMG copies of the correspondence and other documents referred to in a letter from KPMG to CA ANZ in April, along with copies of all investigation or assessment reports and reviews in relation to the whistleblower’s allegations regarding ethics and integrity.

CA ANZ said KPMG responded to the request on 3 July earlier this month and said the investigation reports would be provided, subject to a claim of legal professional privilege and the terms of a limited waiver agreement.

CA ANZ said the Professional Conduct Committee was currently seeking legal advice on the limited waiver.

The issue of professional legal privilege claims has been raised multiple times during the inquiry into the misconduct allegations made against KPMG.

O’Neill previously said that KPMG’s claims of professional legal privilege over investigation documents and other information were "frustrating the Australian Senate" and preventing committee members from getting answers to questions.

“Legal professional privilege is still being claimed over these fundamentally important documents upon which [KPMG] seems to have made [its] decisions to do nothing,” O’Neill said back in June.

Lendlease chief executive Tony Lombardo also said in the June hearing that KPMG had refused to provide copies of the internal and external investigations carried out by KPMG or external advisers involving Lendlease data on the basis of legal professional privilege.

Senator Paul Scarr also accused the big four firm of structuring the investigation into the whistleblower allegations to take advantage of the processes and principles of legal professional privilege from the outset.

“You’re hiding behind legal professional privilege whilst at the same time claiming to be transparent. Do you understand how we might find that quite risible?” Scarr asked KPMG executives in June.

Last week, newly appointed KPMG chief executive John Sams revealed that new evidence in the Allens investigation had substantiated one of the whistleblower’s allegations that client information relating to the Lendlease audit was retained in a locker at KPMG’s Sydney office by Eileen Hoggett, KPMG Australia’s former chief operating officer.

Sams said that while Hoggett had previously denied the allegation, evidence obtained during the investigation had substantiated it.

KPMG disclosed the matter to ASIC, CA ANZ, the Tax Practitioners Board, and the Department of Finance last week.

Sams said the firm had also informed Lendlease of the new evidence, and apologised again for the “serious breach of trust”.

He also told the committee that following the conclusion of the investigation of Allens, KPMG “intends to provide the factual findings report to the Committee”.

Sams said: “I appreciate that this development may raise questions for the Committee. KPMG remains committed to cooperating fully with the Committee’s inquiries and to providing any further information that may assist its work.”