KPMG chair apologises for labelling whistleblower allegations as false

In an email sent to O'Neill on Saturday, Ebeid said he was sorry for his previous statements and for describing the firm's process for investigating the allegations as thorough when there were obvious gaps in its investigations.

"Events since have shown that neither was true, and that the concerns you raised on the whistleblower's behalf have helped uncover serious wrongdoing and I can only thank you for that," said Ebeid.

"Furthermore, suggesting to my colleagues that I could personally present the firm's position to you was an inappropriate way to think about engaging with you or with the Parliament, and I apologise for that too. Clearly I did not have all the facts when I wrote that email, and my thought at the time in wanting to meet with you was to share what I knew. I thought I was being helpful."

Obeid conceded that his previous email to O'Neill had been "naive, embarrassing and wrong on every level".

He also apologised for waiting so long before directly apologising to O'Neill.

"I should have written when the firm and I had a greater understanding of the facts, and I am sorry it has taken me this long," said Ebeid.

O'Neill said her concerns about the emails from Ebeid were not personal and that she was primarily concerned with the quality of audits being produced by the big four firms.

"My particular purpose in leading this inquiry is ensuring the $4.5 trillion in Australian superannuation is in no way compromised by a lack of professionalism and integrity in the audit sector, about which I have been concerned for some time," said O'Neill.

The apology from Ebeid coincides with the release of several documents produced by law firms Ashurst and Allens by the Inquiry this week, with the inquiry stating that the documents were published on the basis of compelling public interest.

Following O'Neill's airing of the whistleblower’s allegations in the Senate, KPMG provided assurances to the committee that the firm had responded in good faith by undertaking comprehensive internal and external investigations.

The Ashurst and Allens processes were central to the claim that KPMG had undertaken comprehensive internal and external investigations. Further, KPMG used the Ashurst and Allens processes to assert that the bulk of the whistleblower’s allegations were ultimately found to be "unsubstantiated".

In June, the committee exercised its power to order KPMG to produce the documents produced by Ashurst and Allens, as they were central to KPMG’s response to the whistleblower's claims.

KPMG provided the documents to the committee in June but requested that the documents be received confidentially on the basis of legal professional privilege.

"The committee has carefully considered whether, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to now publish the documents. The Senate does not accept claims of legal professional privilege as a fetter on the Senate’s powers to require the production of documents or to publish documents," the committee said.

"However, the committee notes the importance of legal professional privilege. Documents which are subject to legal professional privilege should only by published by a Senate committee where there is a compelling public interest case to do so."

The committee also noted that it provided KPMG with every opportunity to publish the documents itself.

"KPMG has been free to do so. It has chosen not to," it said.