A high-profile public servant whose workplace complaints were given to the Australian Greens to prosecute during Senate estimates has left the Australian Taxation Office.
Former Tax Practitioners Board secretary Michael O’Neill has retired from the Australian Public Service after holding a range of senior roles in the ATO, the TPB, and his final appointment as a temporary special adviser at the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.
O’Neill provided his complaints, in the form the Australian Public Service Commission considered, to Greens Senator Barbara Pocock so she could question officials from the ATO and the TPB about his issues, which stem from allegations that O’Neill made about attempts to frustrate or obstruct the investigation into the PwC Australia tax leaks matter.
A spokesperson for the ACNC confirmed to The Mandarin earlier this week that O’Neill’s temporary advisory role with the ACNC ended on June 30 this year, a role that was characterised by some commentators as sidelining a key figure involved in the investigations of PwC Australia’s breach of confidentiality.
“Mr O’Neill was temporarily supporting the ACNC as a specialist resource during 2025-26,” the spokesperson for the ACNC said.
“He was provided to the ACNC in this role by the Commissioner of Taxation and completed his work on June 30.”
This was confirmed after The Mandarin’s attempt to contact O’Neill directly via his ACNC e-mail, which still had an autoresponse stating that the former TPB secretary was on annual leave in July and that queries should be forwarded to another contact at the ACNC.
The ATO confirmed on Tuesday that O’Neill had retired from the tax office.
O’Neill provided Pocock with complaints about the ATO and the TPB that reflected elements of material previously reported in media outlets such as the Australian Financial Reviewbetween February and June 2024.
Pocock sought to prosecute O’Neill’s complaint through two sessions of estimates while also trying to table the document so the former public servant’s allegations would be revealed in full detail for the first time and reported more broadly by the media.
A document like that would also lack the point of view of those subject to the allegations, and in some cases, named individuals would be unable to respond because privacy and public service laws prohibit disclosure.
The first attempt Pocock made to address allegations in O’Neill’s complaint was to raise it during the appearance at estimates by the Australian Public Service Commission.
APSC officials were unable to discuss details of the complaint because it had been sent to them to be put through a dispute resolution or investigative process by the ATO when received by ATO commissioner Rob Heferen.
Officials argued that the attempted tabling by Pocock could create a precedent that might make such dispute resolution or investigations processes difficult to undertake properly and fairly in the future.
Pocock then asked the APSC on notice to provide an explanation of how O’Neill’s complaint was dealt with by the APSC and the ombud.
“What I’m trying to find out here … is to test the confidence that we can have that Michael O’Neill’s complaint has been dealt with in a robust, appropriate way, and with integrity. That’s where I’m going with this,” Pocock said.
“The matter is not trivial. It’s not a simple complaint by someone who believes they’ve been bullied. This is someone who has held an important leadership position in a regulatory body, and his allegation is that he was interfered with in the execution of his duties as an appointed regulator. So it’s a very serious complaint that he is bringing to our attention.”
Pocock then used the Economics estimates hearing the following day to take the matter further by outlining some of the key claims in the document, including one that alleges that the TPB chair, Peter de Cure, failed to comply with a request from Pocock that O’Neill provide his view of pressures he said he faced during the PwC Australia investigation.
“Mr O’Neill makes five allegations in his complaint. The first of them relates to the action of some APS officers and officials and raises significant concerns about the adherence of those officers to the APS Code of Conduct, and then there are four other issues,” Pocock said
“Firstly, the independence of the TPB and its operation in relation to the PwC matter; secondly, the TPB’s investigations in relation to PwC and Peter John Collins; thirdly, evidence provided at parliamentary hearings and in responses to questions on notice; and, fourthly, the ongoing bullying, harassment, and threats against him as he exercised his powers as the TPB’s CEO and secretary.”
The ATO said that it was unable to deal with questions related to the matter because Heferen had received guidance that the complaint and an outcome of an ombud’s consideration were to be treated as confidential.
Disclosure and discussion, Heferen said, would breach the privacy obligations under the privacy and public service rules, and any discussion of the matters by him would breach the code of conduct because he would fail to protect confidential information.
Pocock then turned to the TPB chair and asked de Cure whether the response to a question on notice prepared by the TPB contravened her request that O’Neill provide an account of his experience dealing with a series of pressures during the PwC Australia confidentiality breach investigation.
The request of O’Neill was made during a February 2024 estimates hearing at which the chair of the TPB was not present, and O’Neill was the most senior person representing the TPB at that hearing.
Pocock asked why a response from O’Neill was not produced and that instead there was a TPB response to that question on notice.
“It specifically said I don’t want an answer from the TPB. I don’t want an answer from the board. I don’t want to read it again. It’s boring. I’m being asked to be quick, but I asked you specifically, given the controversy and the pressure on an investigator in the middle of an investigation — I wanted his account of the events that were indicative of the pressure he felt as an investigator,” Pocock said.
“You said you understood that, and that is not what has happened here. I asked him to prepare it. That’s the Senate asking you to prepare it.”
Pocock asked whether de Cure accepted he misled the Senate in not complying with her request to O’Neill’s version of events.
De Cure said he wanted to consult the TPB’s records before he responded to Pocock’s assertion that he misled the Senate.
The list of complaints will not go away in a hurry because Pocock will pursue the matter once the TPB and de Cure respond to the questions they were asked during October’s Senate estimates.
O’Neill might have recently exited the tax office, but his complaints aired regarding the handling of the PwC Australia tax leaks matter handed over to Pocock will guarantee his seven-year term at the TPB will be the subject of further discussion and debate.
Tom Ravlic is a journalist and author with a deep expertise in accounting, corporate governance and regulatory affairs. He has worked as an accounting academic, policy adviser for one of Australia’s three major accounting bodies, and consulted on the development of accounting curriculum for universities and professional associations.
Allegations of intimidation, derailment, and misleading parliament
A hearing into the Tax Practitioners Board, of all things, turned into high drama for the sector. Plus: EY and Ashurst’s new partners and KPMG’s ongoing exodus.
Welcome to Professional Life, our free weekly newsletter covering the latest news, moves, and partner promotions for consulting and accounting experts. Sign up here to get it direct to your inbox every Wednesday before it appears online.
This week, the TPB chairman tries to explain himself, EY and Ashurst hire new partners, and many more KPMG partners head for the door. Plus, we look at the highly suspect term “dark value”.
De Cure accused of misleading parliament
Tax Practitioners Board Chair Peter de Cure during an earlier Senate estimates hearing. Alex Ellinghausen
What looked like it would be a standard Senate estimates session last week instead delivered high drama with Tax Practitioners Board chairman Peter de Cure accused of misleading the Senate, after his testimony was questioned by the board’s assistant secretary.
De Cure told an estimates committee he did not block former TPB chief executive Michael O’Neill from detailing allegations of intimidation during the PwC tax leaks probe.
O’Neill, who retired from the Australian Taxation Office this year, was instrumental in uncovering the PwC tax leaks scandal involving a partner sharing confidential government information.
Despite this success, he was moved from the board to a lesser role at another regulator last November, disrupting multiple TPB inquiries into PwC.
His still-secret complaint letter (more on that below) centres on allegations that the ATO tried on multiple occasions to sideline or sack him while he investigated PwC’s misuse of confidential government data, including threats that his inquiry was illegal and three unsubstantiated bullying claims.
Greens senator Barbara Pocock questioned de Cure over a February 2024 question on notice that explicitly asked for O’Neill’s personal account of those allegations.
Pocock asked de Cure why he took over the process rather than allowing O’Neill to reply, as requested. “I don’t believe I did take over the process,” he said.
Reminded of parliamentary truthfulness warnings, de Cure maintained he had no “specific recollection” of seeing O’Neill’s submission, adding it was “normal practice” for the board’s chairman, secretary and senior executives to draft responses collectively.
Later in the hearing, Pocock asked assistant secretary Janette Luu whether de Cure had intervened.
Asked who had ordered an answer be drafted in response to the request for O’Neill’s statement, Luu told the committee: “That would have been with Mr de Cure.”
Yet de Cure insisted he had no memory of issuing such an order, saying: “I don’t have a specific recollection of giving a direction … it’s our normal procedure that we will work with our team.”
The senator then accused de Cure of misleading parliament by tabling an answer O’Neill had neither seen nor approved.
“Do you accept that you have misled the Senate in not complying with my request to have Mr O’Neill’s version of events, which he did prepare?” Pocock said.
“You have agreed to supply them to the Senate. They weren’t supplied to the parliament.”
De Cure replied that he would “like to check our records before I answer that question”.
O’Neill alleges attempts to derail PwC probe
Former Tax Practitioners Board chief executive and secretary Michael O’Neill during an earlier Senate estimates hearing. Alex Ellinghausen
The hearing also gave us some never-before-seen detail about O’Neill’s situation.
During the hearing, Pocock described the contents of the letter, material that had not been made public before. She said O’Neill made multiple allegations in his complaint, including:
The full details of the complaint and the outcome “are strictly confidential”, ATO commissioner Rob Heferen told the hearing.
De Cure queried about KPMG, again
Later in the hearing, de Cure again defended his handling of the regulator’s probe into the KPMG audit leaks scandal.
De Cure, a KPMG partner for almost 25 years until 2013, was forced to recuse himself from the investigation after The Australian Financial Review revealed in July that he had failed to disclose a briefing from the firm on the scandal and his criticism of the whistleblower.
The big four accounting partnerships are mostly unregulated, and the TPB 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.
Asked about the KPMG briefing, de Cure said: “I received a phone call from a KPMG partner who is the audit partner of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, in my capacity as chair of the Royal Flying Doctor Service.”
The KPMG audit partner told de Cure, “‘I’m just ringing to assure you that this is not affecting our services in Adelaide’. And I said to him, ‘Look, this is an unfortunate set of circumstances, but we shouldn’t be having this conversation’.”
This conversation, which directly related to an active TPB investigation, was never declared to the TPB board nor the executive.
Pocock then pressed de Cure on why he had referred to the whistleblower as a “disgruntled” employee.
De Cure said the comment was made at the end of a board meeting, and he was “just discussing the surrounding circumstances” with another board member.
“It was at a stage where KPMG had publicly acknowledged that they had made errors in the way that they’d handled this, and we were talking about how things got to this point,” he said.
“And I made the remark in the context that these things generally don’t get this far if the complaining person isn’t somehow disgruntled.
“Now, that was not an expression of any judgement as to whether the complainant’s grievances were genuine, legitimate, and ... it did not include any judgment or any indication that [the] person’s honesty was in question.”
That’s quite the explanation.
Another way of reading the comment is that it downplays the importance of the whistleblower’s disclosures by criticising them personally.
Recall, de Cure has previously downplayed the KPMG investigation, telling parliament in June that the board was “not at this stage conducting a formal investigation” because the allegations were unrelated to tax services.
Yet at the time, the board had already used its extensive powers to demand information from KPMG – powers available only during formal investigations into potential misconduct.
Pocock and Labor senator Deborah O’Neill were unimpressed.
“[The whistleblower] lost their job,” Pocock said. “They paid an enormous price, as whistleblowers always do, almost invariably, and they were characterised as ‘disgruntled’.
“That was a clear narrative, and it’s a common narrative for whistleblowers … it is a real concern to me that that has occurred, and I think it is a terrible disservice to the whistleblower.”
O’Neill added: “I think the whistleblower was ‘insightful’, not ‘disgruntled’.
“When I made my speech on the 30th of March [about the KPMG audit leaks matter], I didn’t do so lightly. That was a serious consideration by a senator of the Australian Parliament, and it took three months for you to come to a decision that I think accords with public standards.”
Pocock also noted that people “take their tone from their regulator”.
“I mean, it shocks me, and it’s not appropriate for you as a regulator to speak like that,” he said.
This professional life
Sally Davitt performs in TransPerfections at the annual Law Rocks! competition at Oxford Art Factory in Sydney. Oscar Colman
HKA partner Sally Davitt performed on drums in the band TransPerfections at the annual Law Rocks! charity event held in Sydney last Thursday.
In full indoor-sunglasses mode, Davitt says it was her annual chance to act famous while raising funds for children’s hospice Bear Cottage and the charity work of St Candice’s church.
“For 364 days a year I try very hard to look like a serious forensic accountant,” she says. “So it’s fun for one day a year to look like a serious rock star.”
The band performed classics including By the Way by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Shut Up and Dance by Walk the Moon and Am I Ever Going to See Your Face Again by the Angels.
Professional moves
The latest professional services promotions, moves and profiles.
Liz Bryant, Chris Foster, Lisa Dobbin, Yu Zhai.
At KPMG, meanwhile, the wave of partner departures continues. While some former partners are keeping their next moves private, several have joined rival consulting firms or key organisations.
Guy Holland, Bee Levett, Karyn Mercer, Jamie Burns.
Ex-partners moving to other companies:
Others departing include: former partner (and ex-Royal Australian Air Force Officer) Bee Levett, former commercial advisory and transactions partner Hannah Potts, former partner and head of future alliances Luke Drummond, former deal advisory and infrastructure partner Rebecca Sinclair, and former consulting partner Lisa Jenkinson.
Latest news
#REF!
A regular look at the words and phrases professionals love to use, and what they’re really saying.
Dark value
Use: “BCG Institute estimates that this change could unlock as much as $US140 billion ($201 billion) in annual ‘dark value’ – value that exists in virtually every industry due to inefficiencies in the supply and demand of capital, goods, and services.”
– Boston Consulting Group report: Is AI Computing Power Becoming a Commodity?
Meaning: Value waiting to be extracted.
What it probably means: Value that could be extracted – with the help of a consultant.
The alternative: The figure is derived by calculating the “dark value index” of a sector based “complexity drivers” and fragility drivers”. Whatever that means. The term itself is designed to make executives feel like they are leaving money on the table if they don’t hire an adviser. Avoid.
We hope you enjoyed this edition of Professional Life – sign up for free here to get it direct to your inbox every Wednesday before it appears online.
Cheers,
Ed.
Connect: edmundtadros@afr.com.au and LinkedIn.
Find out the inside scoop about Accenture, Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PwC and McKinsey. Sign up to our weekly Professional Life newsletter.
