Submission calls for balanced, transparent TPB suspension framework

Rather, it said that stronger regulatory powers must be matched by stronger safeguards, including clearer evidentiary standards, independent assurance and neutral public disclosures. 

Speaking to Accountants Daily, Seeto discussed the need for greater clarity on how interim suspensions are publicly disclosed. 

“Any public register entry or client disclosure should clearly state that the suspension is interim, precautionary in nature, subject to review rights, and should not be interpreted as a final finding of misconduct,” Seeto said. 

“The issue is not whether the TPB should act quickly where risk exists; the issue is ensuring that public disclosures accurately distinguish between a preliminary regulatory response and a concluded finding.

“That distinction is important to procedural fairness, public confidence and the legitimacy of the sanctions framework.” 

The submission also pointed to the risk of regulatory error, and said the framework should account for the possibility that preliminary decisions may later change. 

The TPB should maintain a documented record of the evidence relied upon, the assumptions considered and any bias or conflict checks undertaken before imposing an interim suspension, the submission said.

The submission also called for independent review or audit of suspension decisions to assess whether safeguards are operating effectively. 

These measures would help minimise lasting reputational harm while strengthening transparency, accountability, and public trust in the TPB’s expanded powers, it said.

Seeto was asked what should happen to the public record if an interim suspension is later overturned or not followed by a sanction, to which he said the same principle of transparency should apply when an interim suspension is resolved.

“If the framework requires active disclosure when an interim suspension is imposed, there should be an equivalent mechanism for corrective disclosure where the suspension is later overturned, withdrawn, expires without further action, or is not followed by a final sanction,” he said. 

“In my view, the public record should not simply remove the earlier information and move on. 

“There should be a clear notation explaining the outcome, together with an appropriate period of corrective disclosure so that the public record reflects the full regulatory history rather than only the adverse action.

“This is not about compensation – it is about maintaining an accurate public record and demonstrating that the regulatory system is capable of correcting itself when preliminary decisions are ultimately not sustained.”

Seeto also called for greater transparency about the outcomes of interim suspensions, and said public confidence depended not only on explaining why a suspension was imposed but also on what happened afterwards when no final sanction follows. 

“To ensure public confidence in the system, where the interim suspension is not followed by a formal final sanction, the TPB should disclose to the public the reasons why a final sanction did not eventuate,” he said. 

“This disclosure may be done on an annual basis in the TPB Annual Report or on the TPB website.” 

Treasury will close submissions on 14 August.