KPMG rainmaker exits as Labor flags radical reform to big four firms

Partners were told last week that their pay for the 2027 financial year would be down by 13 per cent, or 6 per cent for more junior ones, but many believe the drop will be closer to 30 per cent 

KPMG rainmaker exits as Labor flags radical reform to big four firms

The corporate regulator may be given the power to police and impose hefty fines on the scandal-plagued accounting sector under new federal government plans, as KPMG suffered a further blow to its senior ranks with the exit of eight top partners.

A Treasury position paper into the regulation of auditing and consulting firms, released by Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino, said there was “strong and compelling evidence” that the big four firms needed tougher regulation, given the recent scandal at KPMG, where a whistleblower alleged that the firm’s auditors had misused client data from some of the country’s biggest companies, and had used inside information to win auditing work.

The big four face sweeping new regulation. Bethany Rae

“In recent years, we have seen behaviour from some large accounting, auditing and consulting firms in Australia that is not fair and honest,” said Mulino.

“This has undermined trust in the firms themselves and raised broader questions about the resilience of the frameworks meant to uphold market integrity.

“It is time to return trust and integrity so that the government, taxpayers and other businesses can rely on the services of large accounting, auditing and consulting firms.”

The KPMG scandal has already claimed the scalps of many senior executives, with the departure of chief executive Andrew Yates, chairman Martin Sheppard and three senior auditors – Eileen Hoggett, Paul Rogers and Julian McPherson – after the whistleblower’s concerns became public when they were read into federal parliament by Labor senator Deborah O’Neill in March.

Now eight partners are headed for the door, including Evan Rawstron, who managed more than $100 million in contracts and was once touted as a likely senior leader. He is leaving to join a UK boutique firm.

Rawstron led one of KPMG’s biggest profit centres as partner in charge of its government, healthcare and infrastructure consulting arm.

The KPMG scandal and the threat of tougher regulation come three years after the PwC tax leaks scandal, which involved partners at the firm sharing confidential government data.

The scandal led to the partial break-up of the group, and hundreds of partners and thousands of staff departing.

The sector is currently regulated by a mix of federal and state-based bodies, with the Tax Practitioners Board the only regulator with the power to investigate the firm.

If the sector were brought under the remit of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, that body could be empowered to investigate and impose hefty fines on firms.

Treasury recommended that fines be imposed on accounting firms considered a “significant global entity” with more than $1 billion in turnover. This would capture the big four partnerships: PwC, EY, Deloitte and KPMG.

It would mean the firms, which all generate more than $2 billion in annual revenue, could be subject to fines of more than $200 million.

The Albanese government is also considering imposing mandatory audit terms, similar to those in the United Kingdom – a move that the sector has strenuously pushed against – and capping partnership numbers.

Treasury says ASIC could license and fine audit firms, including giving it the ability to strip a firm of registration if a single partner failed a “fit and proper” test.

Treasury also flagged proposals to manage conflicts of interest that might interfere with auditor independence.

That the conflict could be particularly acute when the culture of the consulting division was allowed to “dominate the overarching culture of the firm, and this culture may be at odds with an auditor’s role in challenging management and client perspectives”, said Treasury.

Governance standards ‘lacking’

It flagged options to reduce this conflict risk, including: banning audit firms from offering non-audit services to audit clients; forcing the firm to create a separate management structure between its audit and non-audit divisions; and, radically, forcing the firm to separate into audit-only and non-audit firms.

Treasury found governance standards lacking at the big four firms and said there was “a strong case for reforms that incentivise improved governance standards”.

Its suggestions included new “minimum governance structures” for the large partnerships with independent directors and new legal duties for key personnel.

Other ideas included limiting partnerships to 400 people in line with law firms, or requiring companies to obtain audit services only from an authorised audit company – a company structure, policed by ASIC, that has stricter rules than a partnership.

Treasury also wants to mandate that ASIC commit to a minimum level of audit quality inspection, including publishing its findings.

The corporate regulator has backed away from an earlier, stricter regime of audit inspections, and abandoned publishing individual firm results for the largest firms.

Treasury also flagged forcing companies to disclose how long they have kept the same auditor and introducing mandatory auditor tendering after 10 years and audit firm rotation after 20 years, following similar rules in the European Union and the UK.

Treasury will accept submissions about its recommendations until August 12.

The government is separately conducting a review of whistleblowing laws, while the Department of Finance is investigating KPMG’s culture and ethics.

The Albanese government had been reluctant to impose more regulation upon the big four following law and procurement changes made after the PwC leaks tax scandal, and it has taken more than two years to publish the Treasury position paper.

The paper is the result of an earlier Treasury consultation, which closed in mid-2024, and followed a parliamentary inquiry that made 40 recommendations to reform the sector.

In February, the federal government published a six-page response to the parliamentary inquiry that highlighted changes already made, including tighter procurement rules, increased penalties for tax adviser misconduct, and the strengthening of its accounting and auditing advisory bodies.

The Australian Financial Review flagged in mid-2025 that Treasury wanted to hand ASIC the power to punish big audit and consulting firms for the first time, as part of a crackdown on the sector.

Partner exodus

A summary of dozens of responses to the consultation process, published by the Financial Review in March, found the big four partnerships were effectively unregulated. It supported giving ASIC the power to sanction firms, as opposed to individuals.

The departure of KPMG’s senior consulting partner Evan Rawstron, reinforces fears among partners at that firm that government sector work could dry up beyond a self-imposed three-month ban on bidding for new work while the federal Department of Finance investigates the firm’s ethics and culture.

Another seven partners are resigning from or have quit the consulting business, worsening the hit of the audit leaks scandal on KPMG’s bottom line.

KPMG could not confirm the departures, given the number of partner movements that typically come at the end of the financial year. However, the Financial Review understands that many of these departures are because of the firm’s botched handling of the scandal.

The resignations are the first senior losses over the saga, excluding forced exits. However, dozens of partners and senior staff, especially those based in Canberra, have been seeking alternative work for months.

KPMG International even imposed a block on partners leaving this month amid concerns of an exodus during peak audit season.

Partners were told last week that their pay for the 2027 financial year would be down by 13 per cent, or 6 per cent for more junior ones, but many believe the drop will be closer to 30 per cent.

A mass departure of senior partners would further sting, given the lucrative “retirement scheme” that grants long-serving partners a one-off payment worth about a year’s pay.

The amount is based on a partner’s past five years’ earnings, and some are keen to leave before this amount is affected by the scandal’s hit on earnings.

Internally, there is also frustration about the generosity of the policy, as it means those who stay will effectively subsidise the payouts of partners who leave.

RELATED

• KPMG audit leaks

KPMG’s ‘10-hour masterclass in how not to respond to a crisis’

• Big four consultants

Two years of secrecy: Big four accounting firms still skirt oversight

Find out the inside scoop about Accenture, Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PwC and McKinsey. Sign up to our weekly Professional Life newsletter.

Edmund Tadros leads our coverage of the professional services sector. He is based in our Sydney newsroom.Email Edmund at edmundtadros@afr.com.au

Hannah Wootton is a Rear Window columnist, based in Melbourne. Connect with Hannah on Twitter. Email Hannah at hannah.wootton@afr.com

Leaks, lawyers and a whistleblower: how did KPMG’s failings emerge

Leaks, lawyers and a whistleblower: how did KPMG’s failings emerge – and could more have been done? A parliamentary inquiry heard claims from one former employee that partners pursued ‘revenue growth at all costs’

KPMG partners leaked client information and mishandled the whistleblower who raised the alarm, an inquiry has heard. Top global and Australian managers, three law firms and government regulators all missed the signs.

The firm has admitted unethical internal leaks but initially refused to hand over its investigations to regulators. Its London-headquartered international arm has issued a general apology but denied responsibility.

So, how did the failings come to light – and could more have been done?

Exclusive: KPMG takes $1.3m to teach public servants ethics

“Invoking the threat of ‘terrorism’ is a powerful tool for states who wish to demonise and disincentivise opposition” — and it’s a tool the Trump administration is abusing, argues Jessica Wolfendale

Tesla Launches New Model Of Explosions. “What’s different about the XP is that they’ve actually borrowed some of the same technology used by SpaceX, incorporating it as well as a whole slew of other safety features that are basically non-existent

Inside Intelligence Agencies, a Fight Over Building a Master List of Spies

Philip James Roper, 47, is a former member of the ATO's excise investigation branch now alleged to have provided confidential intelligence to people involved in Victoria's illegal tobacco industry

Inside Intelligence Agencies, a Fight Over Building a Master List of Spies

The clash reflects increasing skepticism of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which has been willing to pursue President Trump’s priorities.

By Devlin Barrett and Julian E. Barnes reported from Washington, and William K. Rashbaum from New 

The Trump administration is demanding that American intelligence officials turn over the names of all foreign espionage targets, including suspected spies and potential recruits, to create a master list that some officials fear will be misused or compromise operations, according to people familiar with the matter.

The effort by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has intensified in recent months, frustrating counterparts at the F.B.I. and C.I.A., who are skeptical of the claims that a master list is necessary to avoid inadvertent conflicts between agencies and to better track foreign intelligence threats in real time. The office was established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks to streamline coordination among the intelligence agencies.

Senior counterintelligence officials at the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. have so far resisted those demands, the people familiar with the matter said, and the effort has been mostly unsuccessful. Officials still cannot agree on the most basic details, including how a list of what are known as foreign intelligence threat actors would be created, maintained and kept secure, the people said.

The clash also reflects the strained relationship between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the F.B.I. and C.I.A. after the former director, Tulsi Gabbard, pursued the president’s priorities, including slashing the office’s work force and scrutinizing allegations of election fraud based on flimsy or unfounded claims. With Bill Pulte, a housing official who has no prior intelligence experience, serving as acting director, officials are increasingly wary of how the office might handle such secrets.

For the F.B.I., such a master list of espionage targets would include those the bureau wants to investigate and perhaps someday arrest. For the C.I.A., it would include a significant number of potential assets.

Some current and former intelligence officials fear that assembling identifying details about some of the most sensitive cases may fatally compromise long-running intelligence investigations and operations. The identities of those targets are carefully protected secrets, walled off from most personnel even inside their own agencies.

Asked for comment, an F.B.I. spokesman said the bureau was working with other intelligence agencies “to open the books for the American people in historic ways,” part of what he characterized as a broader push for transparency under its director, Kash Patel.

The C.I.A. declined to comment. An official from Mr. Pulte’s office, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that it was simply following a directive President Trump had issued in his first term, National Security Presidential Memorandum 7. The effort to oversee collaboration and information sharing, the official said, is mandated by the law that created the office and will improve intelligence work.

ADVERTISEMENT

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

The government’s definition of foreign intelligence threat actors is deliberately broad, and includes far more than just traditional spies and intelligence service officers from foreign countries. The term usually also encompasses international criminal groups, hackers or foreign corporations and entities, and some of the internal disagreements center on which people should or should not be on such a master list.

Proponents of the plan envision something similar to a watch list for terrorist suspects, one that would allow the U.S. to track their locations around the world in real time by having a host of other agencies sharing information constantly and flagging travel and other movements. To veteran spy hunters, the practical realities of such a program could greatly increase the risk of tipping off the people under investigation, particularly for those who are trained by foreign intelligence services to notice signs of surveillance or investigative interest, according to current and former officials.

Another hurdle is that some of the relevant information has been obtained under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and that information is tightly restricted and not meant to be shared.

Trump administration officials have interpreted National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 to mean that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence should have full access to some of the most sensitive counterintelligence targeting.

Under the directive, Mr. Trump ordered federal agencies to “lawfully identify, integrate and make available thorough, accurate and timely national security threat actor information.”

The memorandum also instructs agency chiefs to “maintain and make available evaluated national security threat actor information” within “relevant” secure systems.

But concerns about how the Office of the Director of National Intelligence might handle such information have only mounted now that it is being led by Mr. Pulte, a Trump loyalist who has shown a willingness to please the president. Mr. Trump has signaled that he wants the agency to aggressively pursue his unfounded claims of fraud in the 2020 election that he lost, and has encouraged his administration to investigate election results that he does not like, such as in the California primary earlier this month.

To date, the disagreement has played out behind closed doors, as officials spar over how much, if at all, to submit to the demands, these people said. Former officials said the effort under Ms. Gabbard was part of a push to exercise oversight over the various parts of the sprawling intelligence community. The reluctance by the F.B.I. and C.I.A., former officials said, showed their longstanding rejection of attempts to oversee their covert or secret programs.

Some officials said they hoped Mr. Pulte would abandon the effort.

Devlin Barrett covers the Justice Department and the F.B.I. for The Times.

William K. Rashbaum is a Times reporter covering municipal and political corruption, the courts and broader law enforcement topics in New York.

Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.

A version of this article appears in print on June 30, 2026, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Agencies Balk At Master List Of Every Spy. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

---

The Latest on the Trump Administration

---

• Warsh Changing the Fed: Just over a month into his job as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh has embraced some conventions while signaling seismic shifts ahead.

• Billion-Dollar Mining Deal: An agreement between the U.S. and Kazakhstan has given a group of American investors with ties to the president and the commerce secretary access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten.

• White House Pressure Campaign: Behind the scenes, the Trump White House went to extensive lengths to advance its theory of executive power, potentially giving the president remarkable leeway to install loyalists at nearly every echelon of government.

• New ICE Director: The president said he was nominating Lance Schroyer, an adviser to Markwayne Mullin, the D.H.S. secretary, to lead the high-profile agency.

• Informants for the Trump Administration: President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico has pushed back against U.S. investigations into Mexican politicians. Now some politicians want to cooperate.