Accountants ‘dismayed’ by professional bodies, senator says
CA ANZ's wrongful acceptance of PwC partners' resignation exposed 'flaws' in the TPB and professional bodies information sharing processes.
***UPDATED**** CA ANZ has since said it has "no record of direct communication from the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) informing it about the finding and order against Mr Peter John Collins or PwC, other than what was made available publicly on 23 January." CA ANZ added it is conducting an "extensive search of all communications channels with the TPB."
In a Senate hearing on Thursday, CA ANZ was criticised for wrongfully accepting the resignation of a former PwC partner before beginning disciplinary proceedings. The mistake was partly attributed to a failure of co-regulation between the TPB and the professional accounting body.
“We’ve heard evidence from the accounting professional bodies, all of them, saying that accountants across the country are very dismayed by their professional organisations’ lack of taking action on clear misdemeanours," said Senator Barbara Pocock.
"I think a lot of them, and I certainly, need to look to the leadership of CA ANZ,” she added.
As a partner at PwC, Mr Collins leaked confidential information from the ATO and Treasury and was subjected to an investigation by the TPB. Though Mr Collins informed CA ANZ of the investigation against him, the agency failed to 'flag' his membership before allowing him to resign.
Under CA ANZ by-laws, which members have since voted to change, the body was prevented from investigating former members, including Mr Collins.
In a letter to the joint committees, CA ANZ chief executive Ainslie van Onselen admitted the body had been informed that Mr Collins was under investigation by the TPB before accepting his resignation despite earlier telling the committees otherwise.
Mr Collins had failed to make use of the body's formal notification system, instead notifying the CA ANZ via a 'generic email.' Mr Collins forwarded this initial email to Ms van Onselen on Sunday evening.
“It remains true that at the time of the resignation there were no flags on Mr Collins’ record,” wrote Ms van Onselen.
“However, since providing our evidence it has come to my attention that Mr Collins had disclosed he was subject to an investigation from the TPB via an informal channel.”
CA ANZ said all members are made aware of the correct notification procedure when becoming a member and that relevant information is available on its website.
Senator Deborah O’Neill said the failure to flag Mr Collins’ record at CA ANZ was “gamed to provide him with a quiet cover.” Senator Barbara Pocock said it was “particularly disappointing” that Ms van Onselen’s letter focused on human error and “allocates responsibility to staff.”
On Thursday, only two days after Ms van Onselen informed the joint committees of CA ANZ’s mistake, the TPB was grilled over the co-regulatory approach it employs alongside professional associations.
Senator Deborah O’Neill said the timeline presented in Ms van Onselen’s letter was “of great concern...It’s not just a failure at the point where the interaction with Mr Collins occurred, it’s a long failure over a period of time in which there should have been much greater awareness."
"It sounds like [the professional associations] need a rocket under them," she concluded.
While TPB CEO secretary Michael O'Neill acknowledged the lapse in time between TPB opening its investigation of Mr Collins and CA ANZ being notified raised “governance questions,” he assured that the professional association would have been notified when TPB issued its board sanction.
When asked whether the TPB had inquired with CA ANZ as to whether more professionals might have escaped being flagged by CA ANZ, TPB CEO secretary Michael O'Neill said the professional body had refused to do so on the grounds it would require a breach of CA ANZ by-laws.
CA ANZ cannot share details of ongoing review cases until it reaches the end of its disciplinary process, said Mr O'Neill, adding in certain cases this would not be allowed even upon the closing of a case. When asked what he made of those rules, Mr O'Neill said they "don't give us the transparency that is proposed."
Until it reaches the end of its disciplinary process, said Mr O'Neill, adding in certain cases this would not be allowed even upon the closing of a case. When asked what he made of those rules, Mr O'Neill said they "don't give us the transparency that is proposed."
