Time to compel PwC to cough up, says Pocock
By Tom Ravlic
September 20, 2024
PwC Australia should be compelled to provide documents to Parliament so that there is greater transparency about who and what was involved in the tax leaks scandal, according to Senator Barbara Pocock.
“PwC has been stonewalling the Senate, and now the PJC inquiry, with its continued refusal to respond to requests for documents and information,” the Greens senator said.
“Parliament has the power to compel documents from witnesses and can apply very hefty penalties including prison terms for extreme cases. I think we’ve reached the point now where these remedies need to be considered.”
PwC Australia and its global network have refused to provide documents voluntarily — sometimes more than once — to the parliamentary joint committee on corporations and financial services, which is inquiring into the behaviour and regulation of professional services firms.
Pocock’s call for the use of the Senate’s full powers of compulsion in the case of PwC Australia follows similar statements for the firm to cooperate more fully from Treasurer Jim Chalmers and shadow assistant treasurer Luke Howarth.
A key reason for Parliament’s frustration, Pocock said, was there was still a lack of clarity about who was involved in the tax leaks scandal overseas.
“The Australian people are being hoodwinked here by a global firm that helped some of the biggest tech companies on the planet undermine our multinational tax laws,” she said.
“This behaviour must have consequences, and we need to hold PwC accountable for their actions.
“PwC has been very clear in declaring its refusal to voluntarily provide documents to the current parliamentary inquiry, meaning it’s time to get serious about compelling them to cooperate.”
Chalmers said the government expects entities to comply with requests from parliamentary committees. Howarth has also been adamant the firm should provide the documents required for a holistic understanding of the tax leak saga.
The Parliament has power to compel witnesses to appear by summons if they do not want to appear voluntarily. It can also order the production of documents.
Failure to do either when a parliamentary committee makes what is known as a “lawful order” of a committee could be deemed a contempt of the Senate — an act that obstructs its ability to do its work – and be subject to a sanction of six months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $5,000 for a person or $25,000 for a corporation.
A committee’s power is limited to summoning a person to attend or ordering the production of documents, but it must report a failure of an individual or entity to cooperate to get a ruling of contempt.
Pocock, Chalmers and Howarth’s call for the firm to comply with requests to produce documents for the current inquiry follows the firm’s recent claims of confidentiality on a suite of documents requested by Coalition Senator Paul Scarr.
Scarr asked for a services agreement struck between PwC’s global network and PwC Australia’s chief executive officer Kevin Burrowes that resulted in Burrowes pocketing $1.2 million from the international firm on top of the $2.8 million that he gets as an Australian firm partner.
That document was requested by Scarr so that the committee could establish Burrowes’ relationship with the global firm, and how his role for the global firm interacts with the Australian practice for which he is chief executive officer.
Scarr has argued that Burrowes has a conflict of interest because the local practice of which he is CEO is under a supervised remediation process being overseen by the international firm from which he is also receiving remuneration.
PwC Australia said in a response to Scarr that it provided a list of tasks Burrowes undertakes for the global firm in other responses to the committee uploaded earlier this year.
“The services arrangement which was the subject of Senator Scarr’s request is subject to confidentiality arrangements which would preclude them being provided to the committee on a voluntary basis,” the firm’s response says.
The firm has also argued against the provision of the global review done by global legal firm Linklaters into how confidential information was circulated across the global network. It has also refused to provide internal governance documents that set out the rules network firms such as Australia agree to operate under.
A PwC Australia spokesperson said the firm continues to cooperate with all parliamentary, regulatory and investigative bodies.
READ MORE:
