Jozef Imrich, name worthy of Kafka, has his finger on the pulse of any irony of interest and shares his findings to keep you in-the-know with the savviest trend setters and infomaniacs.
''I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center.''
-Kurt Vonnegut
Anthony Albanese’s office has fired embattled accounting and advisory firm KPMG, partially blaming “quality” for the brutal move.
The decision to fire KPMG as the internal auditor of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet was linked to performance issues and “external factors” stemming from KPMG senior audit partners misusing corporate clients board documents to try to win work.
Cameron Gifford, who is the deputy secretary of the governance and corporate group at the DPMC, told a Senate estimates hearing that KPMG had been fired as one of two firms contracted for internal audit services.
“We had two different providers … there were differences in terms of the quality and the substance that was being received,” said Mr Gifford, adding that on that basis KPMG had been fired under a specific “convenience” clause, while the other firm, McGrathNicol, was retained.
Cameron Gifford at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Martin Ollman/NewsWire
Greens Senator Barbara Pocock, who had first raised the issue of KPMG being fired as internal auditor, asked Mr Gifford whether KPMG’s services “were inferior?”
But Senator Penny Wong, acting for the prime minister, jumped in before Mr Gifford could explain in more detail what the quality and substance issues he had raised were, declaring Ms Pocock could not tell him how to answer a question.
A subsequent review confirmed KPMG senior auditors improperly accessed and misused confidential board documents and private-sector client data to gain an unfair advantage in winning lucrative audit tenders.
The crisis led to the resignations of top executives including the firm’s chief executive and chairman, head of audit, head of human resources, and general counsel. The firm’s chief operating officer Eileen Hoggett was fired and has taken legal action to uncover more detail about why KPMG took this action.
Ms Hoggett was found to have printed out confidential board documents belonging to one client, Lendlease, to help KPMG’s bid to win the audit work of Westpac, which shared a common director.
Mr Gifford said the shocking revelations were “certainly relevant to our considerations,” to fire KPMG.
Loaded: 0%
00:00 / 00:00
Albanese government spending on consultants reaches record: KPMG a winner
The Albanese government...
more
“We had two internal audit providers, so it was a consideration not just about those external factors that were going on in terms of the incidents in relation to KPMG’s conduct, but also that the services that we were receiving under that contract.”
Earlier this month, the Albanese government extended a ban on KPMG being allowed to bid for any of its new work until the end of February 2027, although this excludes many existing contracts that could be rolled over.
Apart from being fired as its internal auditor, the PM&C still retained KPMG on a $89,1000 contract known as licensing and support for KPMG reporting models.
Securities regulator ASIC has oversight over auditors. It is yet to take any action against anyone at KPMG.
Separately, the Tax Practitioners Board on Tuesday released its annual report where it pointed to its work to “target higher-risk behaviour.”
Although the TPB does not oversee financial auditing, many of its registered tax practitioners and accounting firms offer both audit and consulting services.
If a registered entity breaches ethical or professional standards- even within their broader advisory or corporate practice – the TPB can investigate them under its code of conduct and suspend, cancel, or sanction their tax registration.
TPB chair Peter de Cure said its annual report showed its continued focus on protecting the public while supporting a strong and trusted tax profession.
“Our work is focused on protecting consumers and maintaining confidence in the tax profession and tax system. We seek to achieve this by providing tax practitioners with the guidance and services they need to assist them to meet their professional obligations and by taking strong regulatory action where appropriate,” he said.
Tax Practitioners Board chair Peter de Cure. Picture: Martin Ollman/NCA NewsWire
The TPB has not taken any action against anyone connected to the KPMG scandal, but is currently investigating the firm.
Within the TPB annual report, it was revealed that the regulatory body failed on the measure of compliance effectiveness. Only 7 per cent tax practitioners responded to its survey and of that, only 52 per cent agreed the “TPB’s disciplinary actions effectively deter noncompliance.” The TPB required 73 per cent to achieve its target.
Tax Practitioners Board chairman Peter de Cure has been forced to recuse himself from the body’s investigation into KPMG’s data misuse scandal following his failure to comply with conflict of interest rules.
De Cure, a KPMG partner for nearly 25 years until 2013, put a special conflict management plan in place earlier this month preventing him from discussing the probe with staff or fellow board members, after admitting he failed to declare he was briefed by a KPMG audit partner and called the whistleblower a “disgruntled” employee.
Tax Practitioners Board chairman Peter de Cure has recused himself from the body’s investigation of KPMG. Alex Ellinghausen
The special conflict policy specifies that staff at the regulator communicate any KPMG investigation matters via board member and academic Kerrie Sadiq.
De Cure has told parliament he has no ongoing financial or employment links with KPMG but admitted he has attended multiple KPMG-sponsored lunches and that he sits on three boards that are audited by the firm.
“Mr de Cure is a director of three entities that KPMG provides audit services to,” the Tax Practitioners Board said in a response to parliamentary questions from Greens senator Barbara Pocock.
“From time to time, Mr de Cure has attended audit-related lunches for KPMG audit clients. Mr de Cure has disclosed these attendances to the TPB Board.
“To avoid any perception of conflict, Mr de Cure has in past cases excluded himself from any decision-making in relation to matters connected to KPMG. For the current investigation, Mr de Cure will take the same approach.”
The special conflict policy was created after The Australian Financial Review revealed in July that de Cure had failed to disclose a KPMG briefing on the data misuse scandal and criticised the whistleblower.
De Cure also downplayed the body’s investigation into the data misuse in a parliamentary testimony in June, saying at the time the board was “not at this stage conducting a formal investigation” because the allegations were not related to the provision of tax services.
This came despite the body having already repeatedly used its extensive powers to get information from KPMG – powers only available during formal investigations into potential misconduct.
The body plays a critical role in policing the mostly unregulated big four accounting partnerships because it is the only federal regulator with the power to investigate KPMG as a whole. This made it instrumental in uncovering the PwC tax leaks scandal.
The Tax Practitioners Board told a parliamentary committee investigating the claims that de Cure had adopted the special conflict policy due to the “heightened interest and sensitivity” of the allegations.
“I discussed the matter with the [Tax Practitioners Board secretary Andrew Orme], and I agreed that the best course was to recuse myself from any decision-making in relation to the matter,” de Cure told the committee.
De Cure declined to respond to questions about when he had spoken to the KPMG partner about the scandal or on the details of their discussion. He also declined to respond to queries about whether he’d had any communications with any other KPMG personnel about the scandal.
In response to these queries, the body referred to its response to the parliamentary committee despite this letter not dealing with those specific questions.
A spokeswoman for Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino, who extended de Cure’s position as chairman until 2029 in March, said, “the government [had] full confidence in the board carrying out its functions under the act consistent with their responsibilities and obligations as Commonwealth officials.”
KPMG has been engulfed in a damaging scandal after a whistleblower, a former executive at the firm, claimed audit partners misused confidential client data and leveraged conflicted relationships to win work.
The claims, many of which have been substantiated, and the firm’s mismanagement of them, have led to multiple senior executives leaving KPMG.
Peter de Cure has sought to assure senator Deborah O'Neill that the TPB is carefully managing any potential conflict of interest he may have with the KPMG investigation, given his previous ties to the firm. ..
Responding to a letter sent to him by senator Deborah O’Neill, TPB chair and former KPMG tax partner Peter de Cure has looked to assure the Senate committee conducting the inquiry into KPMG that any perceived conflict of interest arising from his former role as a partner of KPMG “is being managed with due care, transparency and regard to public interest".
De Cure also acknowledged that he previously referred to the KPMG whistleblower as “disgruntled”, and reassured the parliamentary joint committee that he would recuse himself from KPMG investigations.
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.
