CHAPMAN, Ms Vanessa, Group Executive, General Counsel and Corporate Assurance, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand KELLY, Ms Grace, Chair, Disciplinary Tribunal, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand PETERSEN, Ms Sarah, Board Chair, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand van ONSELEN, Ms Ainslie, Chief Executive Officer, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand [08:55] CHAIR: Welcome. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you all. Can I thank you for your cooperation with the committee. You have sent us quite a tranche of information, and you have asked for the committee to keep that confidential in the way that we always do. We take those requests seriously. We have considered your request, and we wish you the best in your endeavours in the disciplinary matters that are on foot. We will not be releasing any of your confidential material, but thank you for it nonetheless. I also thank you for your opening statement. I wonder if you might take us through the timeline, Ms van Onselen. When did CA ANZ first know there was an issue at all? Ms van Onselen : Thank your for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. I would like to start by saying , on behalf of CA ANZ, that we are very deeply disappointed and frustrated as these allegations that are before the committee are at the heart of trust in audit. Confidentiality of client documents is non-negotiable under APES 110, and unauthorised access to Lendlease documents is particularly concerning. It's basic professional principle. If you access something you shouldn't, you should fix it immediately and not use it to your advantage. I'll give an update to the committee, if I may, in terms of where we are at with our investigation. The independent professional conduct committee is progressing 12 active investigations, including three initiated from self-disclosures of files opened on named individuals from 24 March onwards. We are also doing academic integrity investigations as a result of QPR, a targeted quality practice review, in respect to academic integrity matters at KPMG that occurred in 2025. In relation to— CHAIR: Before you go on, just for clarity, are there two tracks of inquiry that relate to KPMG? The first is a tranche of 12 matters, and the second is relating to academic integrity. That's the testing, but there are two parts to that, aren't there? Ms van Onselen : Yes. Post the 2022 KPMG academic matter that was bought to our attention through the PCAOB and our QPR, the professional conduct committee instigated, as part of that, a targeted quality practice review in relation to academic integrity. One of those QPRs occurred in December 2025. In terms of timeline, to your original question, in or about November 2025 was when we were fully aware of a number of instances of the unauthorised use of artificial intelligence in internal tests at KPMG, which is an academic integrity matter. Immediately we took an active and interventionist approach, opened files and started an investigation. CHAIR: Okay. Let's be really clear that that's not the matter that we are really looking at today, but it does go to the cultural practice, and we see a repetition of cheating using AI in the gap between 2022, where there was actual cheating on ethics tests, and 2025. Ms van Onselen : That's correct. CHAIR: Great. If you could go back to the 12 matters, that would be good. Ms van Onselen : In your speech on 24 March, for completeness, you referenced academic integrity, so I wanted to cover that off as well. We have 21 self-disclosures with respect to that academic integrity matter. CHAIR: When did the self-reporting by three partners occur? Ms van Onselen : That occurred, I believe, on or about 14 April 2026. I'll just check with my colleague. Ms Chapman : Sorry, can I just correct that? I believe that the self-disclosures were lodged around 16 April this year. CHAIR: For clarity, with regard to the matters that have just been discussed with the leaders of Lendlease, on exactly what date did you know there was an issue with this whistleblower formally? You write in your letter about some communications and you were sort of backtracking to find out if that was them. Tell me, what day did KPMG absolutely reveal what was going on to you? When did you really find out about it? Ms van Onselen : It was post your Senate speech on 24 March, Senator, on or about 14 April 2025. Ms Chapman : 2026. Ms van Onselen : 2026, sorry. CHAIR: If I can go to that speech on 24 March, I think you indicate it was the next day that you had a meeting with Mr Andrew Yates; is that correct? Ms van Onselen : I received a text message from Mr Andrew Yates on or about 24 March, requesting a telephone conversation. That telephone conversation with Mr Yates occurred on 25 March with my colleague Ms Chapman present as well. CHAIR: For clarity, did you know about the Lendlease theft of documents before my speech on 24 March? Ms van Onselen : No, we did not. CHAIR: Had there been any disclosures at all before my speech? Ms van Onselen : No. CHAIR: Had you had any communications from the office of the general counsel or any senior people at KPMG in any way, at any point of time, about the matters that are now for discussion today as a result of the whistleblower's information provided to this committee? Ms Chapman : No. Ms van Onselen : No. CHAIR: We have heard, just this morning, that there was a discussion on 25 May with Lendlease about a potential whistleblower matter. 'Can we catch up and talk about it?' Does it concern you that Mr Yates didn't bother to call you? Ms van Onselen : Yes, it does. CHAIR: What does that say about the culture of KPMG? Ms Chapman : What do I think it says in relation to the individuals involved who were partners at KPMG? It's extremely serious conduct, and I'm disgusted by it. It's basic 101 stuff. In terms of ethics principles, confidentiality of documents is 101. I had an instance myself when I was a junior lawyer. I was doing discovery of documents. In that discovery at my opponent's solicitor's residence or business, there were documents in there that were confidential. Every young lawyer and every young accountant in the country has it drummed into them to respect your client's confidentiality. In that instance, what I did was close the file. You immediately walk out, you speak up and you rectify it. What you don't do is take advantage of it. CHAIR: We're going to hear a bit more about speaking up. I think we've had a lot more cover-up than speak up, I'm afraid. Mr Buchholz has got a couple of clarifying questions, a couple of points to make, that are important. Mr BUCHHOLZ: Just to your point about your disgust—I take that and I hear it—in your opinion, have the penalties that we have seen dealt to some in KPMG and not to others been harsh enough? Ms van Onselen : In respect to which matters? Mr BUCHHOLZ: Some have been demoted, some have lost their jobs, while others have stayed. CHAIR: Rogers. Mr BUCHHOLZ: Yes. There are partners who are still in place who had full knowledge of this. Are the remedies—the description of how these guys have tried to manage it—appropriate, or would you like to see things go further? Ms van Onselen : Our independent professional conduct committee is actively investigating these matters as we speak, and the folders that we have provided to the Senate—I thank you for the production notice which enabled us to provide those documents—indicate where we're at with the status of our investigation. We will keep the committee informed. CHAIR: I will just observe—and I think we'll do this a few times through the day—that there are very good people in every industry, and I'm sure that there are good people within KPMG. But the reality is KPMG is a partnership. Every partner is jointly and severally liable, and I hope to come to that very shortly, but let me just keep going. Even if you're a good person, if these partners have done this—and now we know as a matter of fact that they have acted in profoundly unprofessional, unethical ways at a leadership level—every other partner is therefore liable and attached to that behaviour. That's how a partnership operates. You don't get to be a good person and hang around with a bad person and not have any interaction. You're in an ecosystem where they're connected. Ms van Onselen : Several and joint liability—yes. CHAIR: That's exactly what it means. You're all in it together. No matter how good you might be, if one of your partners does something wrong, you are attached to that failure. Is that correct? Ms van Onselen : That's broadly correct. Under the Partnership Act, there are some defences for people who are partners who can make out the defence of absolutely no knowing involvement. But your principle is correct. To the extent that a liability attaches to a firm, it attaches to all partners at that time. Mr BUCHHOLZ: We're concentrating on the misappropriation—the terrible stuff, the naughty stuff. In your investigations, will any consideration be given to the whistleblower who actually came forward, and is there any duty of care to their mental health, their financial status, their state of mind? Ms Chapman : Perhaps I can answer that. I think it's really important, first of all, to recognise that Chartered Accountants is not part of the statutory whistleblower reporting framework under the Corporations Act. A whistleblower, potentially, to preserve their whistleblower protections, must ensure that their disclosures are made to eligible recipients and not disclosed outside of that reporting framework. Obviously, we have now become aware of these allegations, particularly the really serious allegations around the misuse of confidential information and the potentially broader ethical challenges around integrity, professional behaviour, auditor independence and a range of related matters. CHAIR: That's some list. Ms Chapman : It is a list. The Professional Conduct Committee will undertake its role as the independent investigator, and we'll look at all of those allegations. Under the Corporations Act, the responsibility for the administration of the whistleblower protection provisions rests with ASIC, and the power to make findings about violations of the whistleblower protection provisions rests with the courts. The Professional Conduct Committee, as a professional disciplinary body, cannot make a finding about whether or not whistleblower protection laws have been violated. However, if such a finding is made by a court, it can act on those findings, or, if there are admissions made, then it can act on the basis of those admissions and potentially make findings around professional behaviour and other ethical provisions. I might just stop very briefly there, Chair, if I may. Our Disciplinary Tribunal chair is here with us today. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Professional Conduct Committee are entirely separate and distinct, and it would be very unfortunate if any of the matters that the PCC is currently investigating were to be derailed because of some suggestion or allegation that the tribunal is somehow compromised or that Ms Grace Kelly needs to recuse herself because she is privy to some of these discussions and some of these pieces of information that would not otherwise be brought to her attention. So I'd just be mindful that, in our discussions today, I'm still canvassing what I would call the theoretical possibilities as opposed to the practical investigation outcomes. CHAIR: I will just go back to some communications. Ms van Onselen, is it correct that you had a telephone meeting— Ms van Onselen : Yes, it's correct. CHAIR: with your general counsel and Mr Andrew Yates, the then CEO, who provided information about the steps the firm had taken to determine whether whistleblower reports it had received from a former employee were substantiated? Was the person called a whistleblower in your conversations of the day? Ms Chapman : While Ainslie is looking for the note, on 25 March, Mr Yates asked for a call with Ainslie and me, and, during that particular call, we were given the assurance that the allegations had been thoroughly investigated and were all entirely unsubstantiated. It was acknowledged that there had been a number of investigations underway and that at the core of the allegations were the allegations that there was a whistleblower who had been treated badly, that the firm had done nothing and that there were client related claims, which law firms that had been engaged had found to be unsubstantiated. That was 25 March. CHAIR: So, on that day, you're alerted to, 'Yes, there's been a whistleblower who's been talking to us.' Mr Yates didn't tell you that he'd advised Lendlease about this a year before? Ms Chapman : No. CHAIR: He did advise you that they'd thoroughly investigated this matter through two legal companies. Do you know what those legal companies were? Did he tell you at the time? Ms van Onselen : That was not disclosed at the time. CHAIR: Now it's come to light that they were Ashurst and Allens. Were those described to you as investigations or legal advice or external advice? How were they characterised in the conversation with you on that day, Ms van Onselen? Ms van Onselen : If I may, there was a holding statement issued by KPMG on that day that also informed our understanding, and they were described as investigations. It also said that KPMG had contacted the clients named in the Senate. That was the same day, 25 March. CHAIR: What documents did you ask for or receive from KPMG to verify those assertions? Ms van Onselen : At this stage, we were informed that there was no basis to the allegations and that they had been unsubstantiated— CHAIR: And you just took Mr Yates's word for it? Ms Chapman : The Professional Conduct Committee team—the conduct team—were made aware of the Senate speech immediately, and they commenced— CHAIR: That's a separate process. What I want to understand is this. You're on a phone call, and Mr Yates is only talking to you because of the speech I made the night before. You open a conversation with him. You say, 'What's going on, Andrew?'—I'm sure it's something like that—and he says: 'Don't worry; it was a whistleblower matter, and we've investigated it. There's nothing to see here.' Ms van Onselen : Mr Yates and KPMG are very well informed about their disclosure obligations in instances of wrongdoing or where there are sanctions— CHAIR: That's not what I'm asking you, Ms van Onselen. I'm trying to understand the tenor of the conversation, because, if he told you whatever it is that made him later resign at the end of May and accept responsibility, I wonder what was going on when he had the first conversation with you. He had that knowledge at that point in time. He'd already known about the whistleblower for at least a year, in my view, or longer. What did he say to you? And did you say: 'Oh, great, Andrew, I'm so glad you sorted it out with Allens and Ashurst. No problem—we'll put it onto our disciplinary committee'? Or did you say: 'This is pretty serious. Show me the documents; show me your investigation. I don't want to be caught out on this. This is serious, Andrew'? Did you ask him a question directly, like that, in that way? Ms van Onselen : As it pertains to a whistleblower matter, we are constrained in the information that we can— CHAIR: I'm not asking you about your internal processes. Mr Yates calls you and says, 'Hey, we've got a problem.' Did you say: 'What did you do? Show me the money'? Or did you just go: 'Okay, Andrew, that's fine. Thanks very much—lovely chatting'? Ms van Onselen : No. Ms Chapman : Not at all. During the conversation, we said, 'This is extraordinary.' These— CHAIR: 'Extraordinary'? It certainly is. Ms Chapman : named individuals— CHAIR: He named individuals? Ms Chapman : No. There were named individuals in the Senate. Those are allegations that Mr Yates knew— CHAIR: I named the individuals. Ms Chapman : Correct—would need to be properly investigated, which is not an executive function but is a Professional Conduct Committee function. CHAIR: But he told you they'd already investigated it? Ms Chapman : Irrelevant. The Professional Conduct Committee can commence an investigation on the basis of the information irrespective of work— CHAIR: But they need information. Ms Chapman : Correct, and they will— CHAIR: Ms Chapman, did you ask Mr Yates at any point in time to provide you with the documents on which he relied in asserting to you that there was 'nothing to see here'? Ms Chapman : I believe that the senior investigators within the conduct function wrote to KPMG on 31 March requesting all relevant information. CHAIR: And did they receive it? Ms Chapman: I believe they've received information. It's a question— CHAIR: Have they received the documents upon which Mr Yates relied when he sought to convince you that there was nothing to see. He referred to 'investigations'. Have your responsible members of the CA ANZ structure received the reports from Ashurst and Allens on which Mr Yates's assertions that there's 'nothing to see here' rest? Ms Chapman : I don't believe so. Everything that we have received is in zip folder 1, which is the confidential documents. There was a letter, I believe, from KPMG to the Professional Conduct Committee, outlining the steps they had taken in respect to the allegations, and they had individualised in an appendix a table in those 20 or so allegations. That is before the committee. Everything we have here is before the committee. CHAIR: Your disciplinary committee has asked for the reports. Ms Chapman : It would have asked for all information— CHAIR: And has not received them. Has KPMG made a legal and professional privilege secrecy claim to your entity, CA ANZ? Ms Chapman : I'm not aware of that—and that would be inappropriate. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Please take it on notice. Senator Pocock. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I just want to clarify something first up, in relation to cheating on exams. We have two chapters before us. There's some confusion at times about which we're talking about. What do we call the first chapter? We'll call it 'the 2022'. Do you want to put a year on it? PCAOB in the US fined KPMG Australia $615,000 for multiple breaches of exam cheating. When was that? Ms Chapman : So that's 2022. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: So let's call that the '2022 cheating chapter'. The latest chapter, which you are currently investigating, was in 2025. Ms Chapman : 2025. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: And you are now pursuing— Ms van Onselen : Sorry, Senator—pertaining to matters from 2023 to 2024. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: For ordinary people out there who think exam cheating is a pretty bad idea and would discourage it in their children or themselves, we've got two rounds, one of which had a massive fine for multiple people, and two years later—even less—we have another round. What's wrong with our system, where that happens? Could you just give me a brief assessment of your view. Ms van Onselen : Any type of academic integrity issue is extremely concerning. It's why we included it in our professional conduct review in 2022. We specifically put academic integrity in respect to our CA program. This was in relation to internal tests of KPMG—open book-type assessments, as I understand. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I'm going to ask you to be brief in your answer. Ms van Onselen : Absolutely. In that context, we take an active and interventionist approach. And when matters come to our attention, in relation to academic integrity—in this case, it came out of the quality practice review that the Professional Conduct Committee had ordered in relation specifically to academic integrity. It was through that PCC QPR review that we—that is, the entity—were informed that there were a number of internal sanctions by KPMG to its employees in relation to AI. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: So what's wrong? What's broken in the system that we have repetitive behaviour like this? Why is it reoccurring? What's wrong with the penalty? What's wrong with the consequences? What's wrong with our regulation that a large company like this, on the public record, fined once, comes back again? What are your reflections on what's wrong here, briefly? Ms Chapman : The scale is quite different. The 2022 PCAOB issue was about over a thousand people. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Does the scale exonerate that it's smaller in the second round? Ms Chapman : In this last round, I think the firm had been able to show that it had some detective controls and it was able to identify 50 or so people—or 60, I can't remember the exact number—who had used artificial intelligence in one of their internal tests. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Including the senior partner. Ms Chapman : And obviously that's improper. So there were sanctions, and the firm put their consequences process into train. I think consequences are really important and I think accountability is really important. One of the things we've been very focused on, with not just the firms but with the membership as a whole, is accountability is both an internal and an external process. As members of an accounting organisation, members who are sanctioned by their firm for an integrity related matter are required to self-disclose that to the PCC, and that is a separate part of the organisation. I think that's really important. And they do need to go through a process of owning up to what they've done. For a member who holds a statutory registration, they also need to understand that that has consequences in terms of a referral to ASIC or to another regulator. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: My point is, Ms Chapman, that there may be consequences, but they are not deterring the behaviour from what we have seen. I want to move along. CHAIR: Senator Pocock, just before we move on to your next line of questioning—I'll come back to you—we've been around this roundabout once before with another set of letters from the alphabet, PwC, which saw the resignation of Mr Tom Seymour as the CEO. He went through all the processes that you're describing to us. He's not allowed to practise. He suffered penalties. They sound very serious when you put them in that way. In reality, having taken home millions and millions of dollars in even his last year as the CEO, what was the fine that your body imposed on the CEO of PwC who had to resign? How much did he pay? Ms van Onselen : It was in the order of about $25,000, I believe, and also costs, which was more than what the TPB issued, which was zero fines. So we did more than any of the government regulators did in relation to this, with respect. We also named and shamed him. CHAIR: Senator Pocock did ask you what the problem is. Is the scale of fines a problem? When somebody's taking home 3.2, 3.5, 4.7, 2.8—they take home so much money. We've had Mr Burrowes, the current CEO, forget—oops—$1.2 million that he's getting from the international part of his salary. When they earn that much money, $25,000—which is life changing to a single mother who hasn't got a roof over her head—is absolutely useless and nothing to these people. Is that a problem that needs redress, Ms van Onselen? Ms van Onselen : Yes, it is, and it's an issue that the government can address. This was raised. We provided our legal advice back in 2023 to this committee, showing that, as a private membership body, we are not able to invoke punitive fines or penalties— CHAIR: Yes, we know. It's on the record. Ms van Onselen : so we are limited to the scope that we have. CHAIR: People have high expectations of what you can do, but there's very little that you seem able to do. I want to go back to Senator Pocock. Ms van Onselen : They absolutely do, which is why, in our Going Further road map, that we ask the government to clarify— Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I will go on. Thank you. CHAIR: If you want to put things on the record, please—you'll get the transcript, add them in. But I want to get to senators. Ms van Onselen : I want to table our Going Further road map. CHAIR: Senator Pocock. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Ms van Onselen, I want to go to KPMG's behaviour over time and your engagement with KPMG. A whistleblower in the KPMG—first, let me clarify. On what date was the current KPMG whistleblower first in touch with CA ANZ? Ms van Onselen : We don't know whether that whistleblower has been in touch with us at all. We did have, as we indicated in our letter to you of 2 May, I believe, an anonymous email sender in relation to a media report regarding artificial intelligence academic integrity issues at KPMG. We were already investigating that matter. There were no other details specified at that point. No allegations in respect to breach of confidentiality or in respect to audit independence has been raised with us with an anonymous sender or otherwise. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Could you provide documents showing the receipt of the complaint, the first anonymous KPMG complaint, and any internal assessment that you undertook in relation to that? That's a complaint you've received. How did you respond? Was there any decision to investigate or not investigate any consideration of disciplinary referral? I'll ask you to take that on notice. Ms van Onselen : We have provided the response to that, in a letter of 5 June—I'm sorry, 12 June. We indicated the summary of the anonymous email, dated 3 December. But due to part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act, we are unable to provide that particular email. It didn't constitute a complaint. There were no specifics in relation to it that we were able to pursue in any event. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I want to go to another KPMG issue and look at some historic material here. Ms Chapman, Professor Brendan Lyon met with CA ANZ representatives, including you, and raised concerns about KPMG conduct directly some time back. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : Yes, it is. Mr Lyon met with me and another one of my CA ANZ colleagues in, I believe, August 2023, and he did indicate that he'd had a pretty awful time when he was working at KPMG. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: So those concerns included allegations related to KPMG leadership, including Mr Yates; Mr Low; Ms Capon; the new CEO as of today, Stanley Stavros; and the now global CEO, Gary Wingrove, among others. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : I don't recall him mentioning any names other than Andrew Yates and Gary Wingrove. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Could you check your notes on that? Ms Chapman : I don't believe I took notes at that meeting. I had another colleague with me. We were generally discussing some of Mr Lyon's concerns around the way the CA ANZ disciplinary process works and how it is important, if a member or a person—a member of the public—wants to make a complaint, they can do so through to the PCC and provide all relevant information. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: But that meeting including allegations. CA ANZ did not commence a disciplinary investigation into the broader KPMG executive leadership arising from those concerns. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : I don't believe there was a specific investigation into allegations or what the media reporting was around the behaviours of senior leaders at KPMG, no. That's correct. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Can you provide to us your meeting records of that meeting with Professor Lyon, as well as all internal assessments, processes and procedures that followed from that, any records on who decided the scope, pace and ultimate findings of the investigation—in short, all records showing your investigation of the TAHE matter. Ms Chapman, you told this committee in March this year that, after five years, your investigation of KPMG involvement in the whole TAHE affair had concluded with no findings of any breach of ethics. Do you remember that? Ms Chapman : I do. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: That investigation relates to a single member. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : Yes, that's correct. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Your investigation did not extend to all senior KPMG executives involved in the TAHE matter. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : That's correct, yes. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: The New South Wales Auditor-General publicly criticised KPMG's conduct in relation to TAHE. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : My recollection is that the New South Wales Auditor-General—Ms Crawford, I believe—criticised the government agencies for leaving the management of conflicts of interest to KPMG. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: The Public Accountability Committee in New South Wales made findings about KPMG's manifest conflicts and treatment of Mr Lyon—correct? Ms Chapman : I didn't read that particular report. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Those findings included criticism of conflicts and disclosure. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : Again, I didn't read that particular report. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: They included criticism of the handling of government information. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : I'd have to check that report. I don't recall. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: They also include criticism of the quality and independence of KPMG's work for NSW Treasury. Is it also true that the secretary of transport of New South Wales testified that KPMG's actions put public safety at risk in the rail system? Is that correct? Ms Chapman : I don't recall that particular piece of evidence, but I do recall there being some quite different perspectives between Transport and Treasury at the time. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: The secretary of transport's view is on the public record. CA ANZ did not interview Professor Lyon as part of its five-year investigation; is that correct? Ms Chapman : Prior to the amendments— Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I'm just asking for a yes or no. Ms Chapman : They couldn't. The by-laws required at the time that allegations and investigations be undertaken by reference to interviews with the complainant, or a complainant, or the member concerned. Post the by-law amendments in 2023, the PCC has the ability now to request information from any member and from third parties about a particular investigation. So it's a much broader set of investigation powers. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Is it the case that, prior to 2023, the PCC could not interview the complainant? Ms Chapman : Yes, I could interview a complainant, but there wasn't a complainant in that particular matter. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: And why did you not interview Professor Lyon, then? Ms Chapman : He was not a complainant. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: But he was part of the evidence base. Why did you not interview him? Ms Chapman : I believe that—as I said at the time—he was neither a complainant nor a member and therefore not a person who could be asked to provide information. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: CA ANZ did not interview Mr Rodd Staples, the former secretary of Transport for NSW, as part of that investigation either. Is that correct—yes or no? Ms Chapman : I'm not aware of the details of the investigation file in particular. As I said, the PCC processes are a matter for it in its inquiries. The decisions that it undertakes are a matter for the PCC. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: So CA ANZ didn't seek evidence from parties outside KPMG as part of that investigation? Is that correct? Ms Chapman : I'm restricted in what I can say about the particular matter, but the PCC did make inquiries and received a range of information. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Did you include people from parties outside KPMG? This is important to us as a committee because we are trying to get to the bottom of a pattern of behaviour here, and your answers are very important to us. So can you confirm—did you seek information from parties outside KPMG in relation to that matter—TAHE? Ms Chapman : As I said on 20 March, in the TAHE matter, it was ultimately determined that there was no case to answer— Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I know that. Ms Chapman : On that basis, there's a limit to what I can say in this forum or in any forum about that particular matter. I'm happy to take it on notice and to come back to you with information— Senator BARBARA POCOCK: That would be good. Ms Chapman : subject to the consent. CHAIR: Last question, please. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I'm on a line here; I just want to finish it. CHAIR: Can I just stop for a second and indicate that there are questions, and we will ask if you can stay a little longer to just proceed with those questions. That will delay our break before we take evidence from KPMG. Senator Pocock. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Thanks, Chair. I appreciate the accommodation. Why did CA ANZ not investigate Andrew Yates, Gary Wingrove, James Hunter and other senior leaders who were directly hands on in the TAHE matter? Ms Chapman : I believe none of those were engagement partners in the TAHE matter. However, the question you ask is one for the PCC, and I'm happy to take that on notice and bring that back to you. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Thank you. I've got further questions. CHAIR: Will you be able to put those on notice, Senator Pocock? Senator BARBARA POCOCK: They'll take me just a few minutes. CHAIR: If you can think about cutting them shorter, I'm going to go to Ms Lawrence for a quick line of questions, and then I'll come to Senator Scarr, and then I'll come back to you. Ms LAWRENCE: I too would just like to pull back a little bit and try to not look at each of the things we're focused on in relation to KPMG as events in isolation but try to understand whether there's a broader pattern of system failure, culture failure and so on. Ms van Onselen, in 2021, when the KPMG board was considering Mr Andrew Yates for the CEO role, did CA ANZ have any active red flags or investigations into the audit division he led, specifically regarding the 2018 Star casino risk reports? As I understand it, he was then the national managing partner for the audit through the 2018-21 period, which oversaw the division responsible for the Star casino, culminating in the ignoring of money-laundering red flags. Did you have any active red flags or investigations underway at that point? Ms van Onselen : I don't believe so, but I would need to take that on notice to check with our conduct team, who has oversight of that. Ms LAWRENCE: Are you aware of whether there was any probative review at the time of the Star casino's audit failures when they first occurred in 2018? Had there been, would Mr Yates have met the fit-and-proper threshold for membership, let alone becoming CEO of KPMG? Ms van Onselen : I'd have to take that on notice. There have been no PCC findings or investigations in relation to that matter that I'm aware of. Ms LAWRENCE: Did CA ANZ initiate any investigations? Ms Chapman : We'd have to take that on notice. Did you say 2018? Ms LAWRENCE: To 2021. Ms van Onselen : We take an active and interventionist approach. We take complaints from complainants, which can include government. We also review adverse court findings or adverse media and will open and investigate those matters, as well as self-disclosures. In that instance, I'm not personally aware of any particular adverse findings made in relation to those matters or self-disclosures. If there were any, we would have investigated. But I'll need to take that on notice just to be— Ms LAWRENCE: Sure. In 2024, you told the chair, Senator O'Neill, that CA ANZ was monitoring the Paladin matter, where, again, there was the issue around the auditing by KPMG of the wrong company. Again, Mr Yates is the common denominator here. I'm just trying to understand there. Given we're now dealing with a failure admitted by KPMG around a rigour deficit, will CA ANZ now move to suspend KPMG's participation in the Professional Standards Scheme until a full independent audit of their culture is completed? Ms Chapman : CA ANZ doesn't have the ability to ban a firm as a whole. Participation in the scheme is at the individual member level. There are a number of members at KPMG, all of whom are considered to be participants in the scheme. What we have got—and I'll pass to Ainslie to detail the approach we're taking in terms of assessing the firms and their audit divisions, particularly their compliance with confidentiality and other ethical standards—is a targeted review that's being conducted over the next quarter, through to 30 September 2026. It is important to recognise that, as Ainslie has said, when there are matters that are raised either in the media or through court or regulator decisions, they are looked at. I do believe that the PCC looked at the Paladin matter and made inquiries and it was confirmed that the engagement was in fact in line with the firm's representations, which were that it actually did a financial strength assessment on the entity that it had been directed to undertake that on. Ms LAWRENCE: Referring back to Senator Pocock's line of questioning, as I understand it, CA ANZ failed to find professional misconduct in the TAHE matter, despite KPMG later admitting to complexities and mistakes. Does CA ANZ's definition of integrity allow for a partner to be pressured into changing a $10 billion budget report without it breaching your code of ethics? Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Good question. Ms van Onselen : This is why in 2024, in our Going further report, we urgently asked the government to clarify ASIC's jurisdiction to regulate audit firms and to amend legislation in the Corporations Act— Ms LAWRENCE: But you have your own code of conduct. Ms van Onselen : To clarify, the enforceability of audit— Ms LAWRENCE: We'll speak to ASIC later this afternoon— CHAIR: We're going to stop for a second. Ms van Onselen : At a firm-wide level— CHAIR: Ms van Onselen, do not speak for the moment. There is a direct question that has been asked by Ms Lawrence. She will ask you for further information if she wishes it. If you want to put further matters on the public record, you can do that after this inquiry. But do not speak over the senators and members, and make sure that you answer the question that you're asked. Can you restate your question, Ms Lawrence, and can you answer this question, Ms van Onselen. Ms LAWRENCE: Thank you. Does CA ANZ's definition of integrity allow for a partner to be pressured into changing a $10 billion budget report without it being a breach of your code of ethics? Ms van Onselen : If there was— Ms LAWRENCE: Yes or no? We don't have time for—you can add additional information, but yes or no? Ms van Onselen : If there's an evidence base to find that with a judicial process—or a quasi-judicial process, in terms of our conduct and disciplinary framework—then that would be a breach of integrity. At this stage, though, we have no evidence to substantiate what you're saying. In relation to audit firms, which I think is the wider context of your question, that rests with ASIC. That is why we have asked continuously for the Corporations Act to be amended so that ASIC can regulate firms. We are a private membership body with a contract with the individual—the member—and we can only activate complaints when they are received. The government is more than welcome to give us complaints, and we will review them and investigate them using natural justice processes. We will provide an active and interventionist approach to those matters, which is why, combined, we have done more findings and sanctions than the TPB, the Tax Practitioners Board, and the Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board year on year. We do take a very active— Ms LAWRENCE: We've got to throw back to some other questions— Ms van Onselen : and interventionist approach in matters that come to our attention. Ms LAWRENCE: Can I just come up at a very high level— CHAIR: Ms van Onselen, I've asked you—I'm reminding you—not to speak over the senators and members. We are short on time. Ms Lawrence, last question. Ms LAWRENCE: As a quasi-regulator, you have over a decade of red flags that have been well reported through the media. That still enabled a person who was the head of an audit division responsible for these things—be it Star casinos, Paladin, TAHE or now Lendlease—to ascend to CEO. Throughout that entire decade, CA ANZ had no red flags or initiation of investigations or self-reporting that enabled you to demonstrate assurance that the leadership was acting with integrity throughout that period. We've seen systemic failures across just those four examples. Yet CA ANZ is completely comfortable that there's no change required within your own processes and accountability? Ms van Onselen : We have information-sharing powers with other regulators such as the TPB and ASIC. None of those were brought to our attention. If they had been, we would have taken an active and interventionist approach and opened matters— Ms LAWRENCE: But you do have powers of investigation under your own— Ms van Onselen: and investigated those. CHAIR: Senator Scarr. Senator SCARR: CA ANZ has failed, hasn't it? I'm sitting here looking at a situation where we've seen what happened at PwC at the highest levels. We're not talking about junior practitioners; we're talking about managing partners, lead audit partners, people with great responsibilities as stewards of the profession, as keepers of the flame of that trust which you spoke about, Ms van Onselen. We had those awful revelations in relation to PwC, and now I'm sitting here looking at KPMG. We have the chief executive officer gone; head of audit gone; chief operating officer demoted, sanctioned in their capacity as a Westpac auditor; lead audit partner for Lendlease removed from that audit, sanctioned; and the lead audit partner of Westpac sanctioned—again, leaders of the profession. I'm left here to reflect that CA ANZ has failed if you have senior members of the profession who are your members—senior members bringing on the next generation—and these egregious breaches are occurring, and they're only disclosed because Senator O'Neill and this committee— Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Years after the event. Senator SCARR: years after the event took evidence from a whistleblower and used parliamentary privilege to put them in the public light. I'm putting it to you, Ms van Onselen, that CA ANZ has failed. Ms van Onselen : CA ANZ has done everything within its bylaw powers. In 2022 we went to our members and we reviewed those bylaws and had them strengthened. We increased fines fivefold. We introduced mandatory ethics training. Senator SCARR: In 2022? Ms van Onselen : Yes, in 2022, and our members voted overwhelmingly so. Senator SCARR: Ms van Onselen, what has happened? Sorry, I'll finish my question. We're sitting here in 2026 and, again, here is one of the top four firms. I don't know how many members you've got from KPMG as part of CA ANZ, but we have the chief executive officer gone; head of audit and assurance gone; chief operating officer demoted; senior audit partner sanctioned, including on the Westpac audit—the lead partner in Westpac. It's failed, hasn't it? Ms van Onselen : I think the allegations are extremely concerning, and when we have a complaint— Senator SCARR: I'm talking about the system, right? Let me finish. You've been very vigorous in offering comments whilst we've been asking questions. I participated in this committee when we were looking at the audit and assurance profession. I disagreed with some of the recommendations of the committee in that respect. CHAIR: You had reservations. Senator SCARR: It was a unanimous report. I had some reservations. I'm now sitting here reflecting on the fact that, even with your bylaw changes in 2022, the system's failed. Ms Chapman : Well, what is extraordinary to me is that, at the time these events apparently occurred in late 2023, we had a PJC inquiry into this very matter. We had a Senate inquiry into this very matter. We had PwC investigations underway in relation to somewhat similar issues. That, to me, suggests that it's broader than CA ANZ and it's broader than any single entity. Senator SCARR: Ms Chapman, these are your members. Ms Chapman : I agree. Senator SCARR: These are your members—your membership organisation. There should be a revolution in the streets. Every accountant is doing the right thing as a member of CA ANZ. I feel for them. I want to get to the junior members. Ms van Onselen, you made some important points in your opening, but there should be a revolution in the streets. This has failed. It is systemic failure in terms of regulating this important profession. Do you agree? Ms Chapman : I don't agree that there's been systemic failure. What I do agree with is that this matter has come to light. There have been admissions made. On the basis of the things that came to light on 24 March, there have been admissions made, and there are matters and investigations underway, as well as ASIC— Senator SCARR: We're running out of time. I'll have a question for Ms van Onselen, but, Ms Chapman, you gave us that great preamble about everything that was going on and how extraordinary it was that we were in this situation with KPMG after everything that happened with PwC. Then you said that you don't think there has been systemic failure, because you're conducting an investigation. It's not about the investigation; it's about the fact that there are past investigations where CEOs and managing partners are all paid out. They leave—whatever—and the caravan moves on and the same thing happens. From my perspective, that's systemic failure. But I want to ask you, Ms van Onselen, about the younger members of the profession. You made a point about your training as a young lawyer—that is, in that training, inculcation, when there's an inadvertent disclosure, you act and you act immediately. What really troubles me about this—well, one of the things; there are many things—is you've got so many senior members of the profession. I mean, they're at the top of the totem pole. They should be the leaders. They are the leaders of the profession. I read in documentation from KPMG when there was the 'intentional'—it wasn't inadvertent. It was not like your situation, Ms van Onselen, when you inadvertently saw a document; it was intentionally going out and cherrypicking a document from your client's confidential board papers to use it for another purpose, a collateral purpose. It was intentional; it wasn't inadvertent. At the same time, I'm reading here that when Mr Rogers and Ms Lawry—apparently involved in another audit—were actually accessing this document inappropriately, there were other members of KPMG staff there, and presumably they were junior members. They were non-partners. They were looking for ethical guidance from seniors in the profession. CHAIR: Well, they got guidance. Senator SCARR: What hope do we have— CHAIR: Is it ethical? Senator SCARR: if you're giving such poor leadership to the new generation coming through the profession, who are meant to be carrying forward that flame of trust in terms of audit responsibilities? Ms van Onselen : We saw from the report in relation to PwC what happens when profit is put over ethics. We saw that very clearly. You and I had a conversation back in October '23 about whistleblower protections for junior auditors— Senator SCARR: Correct. Ms van Onselen : and the urgent reforms that were required. I've been looking at the exchange we had. It was almost identical to what we're looking at at the moment, except perhaps not so junior, about why the ASIC Act and Corporations Act must urgently be— CHAIR: So, do you endorse that the Corporations Act must urgently be— Ms van Onselen : I'm answering. CHAIR: Do you endorse whistleblower reforms? Ms van Onselen : Yes, absolutely. That was in clause 5.4 of our growing further roadmap provided to this committee in 2024 and discussed in October 2023. Senator SCARR: I remember that. This committee has been passionate about protecting whistleblowers. You recognise the fact this whistleblower has done everything right, from what I saw. When we were initially contacted by this whistleblower, the quality of the disclosure just shone out to this committee, so that decision was made collectively under the leadership of Senator O'Neill to make that disclosure, right? But this poor whistleblower—who's acting for them? Who's representing them? Where's their legal protection? Who's in their corner trying to navigate through this process? They're just left adrift, notwithstanding the fact that their disclosures have been materially in the public interest. Would you agree with that? Ms van Onselen : It's deeply disappointing. That's why urgent reforms are required. We welcome Assistant Treasurer Mulino's recent announcement to review those whistleblower reforms that are required. This committee has done some great work. Of the 10 recommendations made in your 2020 interim findings in relation to the improvement of audit quality, nine have not yet been implemented. We would implore the government to implement those nine reforms. CHAIR: What about the 40 in the other report? I think they're important as well. Ms van Onselen : There are many of those that we are— CHAIR: Back to you, Senator Pocock. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I want to ask Ms Peterson some questions, but, just before I do, you've belled the sin of PwC's greed trumping ethics in the use of confidential information to chase money. It is exactly the same sin for which we are now back here in relation to KPMG. Ethics have fallen at the first hurdle where confidential information had the possibility of generating income. Do you agree with that? Ms van Onselen : I do agree. It's a basic principle of ethics to not breach your client confidentiality. It is 101. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I'm with my colleague here. CA ANZ has failed to hold the profession and the most senior levels of the profession to a high standard of professional behaviour. You are asking the government to implement recommendations that are clearly on the public record through two very resource intensive inquiries through this parliament. So let's not come back here again. But there are really significant questions here for you as the professional body. And I want to come to you, Ms Peterson. CA ANZ has had contact now through multiple whistleblowers with material issues across several areas of KPMG conduct—exams, the TAHE matter and now, through the current whistleblower, the matter in relation to confidential information. CA ANZ is responsible for maintaining those professional standards, including investigations—not just an obligation of your charter or bylaws but an obligation of your professional standards scheme; correct? Ms Peterson : Correct. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Repeated failures by CA ANZ to act on credible misconduct allegations constitute a failure of professional oversight. Is that right? Ms Peterson : No, I don't agree with that. We have over 140,000 members, and a large number of those members behave professionally, ethically and with integrity and very high professional standards. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: And they must be out there today tearing their hair out watching this. Senator SCARR: This is the leadership. These are the leaders of your profession. Ms LAWRENCE: And even the others have told us they're not self-reporting. So how can you actually give us the assurance that they're all acting so ethically if the very senior people who are leading by example are not self-reporting? Ms Peterson : I agree that the alleged misconduct would fall short of what we would expect as CA ANZ, as would all of our members. When you make a commitment to become a chartered accountant, ethics and ethical behaviour are one of the first commitments that you make, and they're the first set of training that you undertake. So our members expect us to— CHAIR: It's like that gets chucked out the window as you start on the gravy train, when you want money. Senator Pocock's question— Senator SCARR: You use the phrase 'fall short'—'They have fallen short'—as if there's some aspiration up here and you got to 90 per cent of it. Why? That is exactly the phrase that KPMG has used in many of its public statements. It refers to 'falling short'. Can I suggest to you that perhaps the better phrase would be 'egregious breach'? CHAIR: 'Failure'. Senator SCARR: Would you accept that? Ms van Onselen : If you read our transparency report, published in December and provided to this committee in March, to answer your question, Ms Lawrence, the number of self-disclosures has rapidly increased over the last few years, which we are pleased by, in terms of self-disclosing conduct or sanctions. But, when we have evidence, we actively pursue it, and— Senator SCARR: That wasn't my question— Ms van Onselen : we have done over 700— Senator SCARR: Sorry; please don't speak over me, Ms van Onselen, with respect. My question to Ms Peterson—what triggered me—was about her use of the phrase 'fall short', which is exactly the same phrase that KPMG used. So I'm asking you, Ms Peterson, do you accept that perhaps a better phrase is 'alleged egregious breaches'? Ms Peterson : We are deeply concerned and disappointed by these allegations— CHAIR: The language gap is obvious. We will go back to you, Senator Pocock. Senator Pocock has the call. Ms Peterson : I can actually answer the question. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Yes, 'falling short' does not catch it. Ms Peterson : I agree, and you'll see— CHAIR: Senator Pocock has the call. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Ms Peterson, clearly, CA ANZ is concerned about the 'falling short'—a serious failure well beyond falling short. Professor Lyon—I want to go back to him—is challenging your professional standards liability scheme in the Supreme Court in New South Wales as an individual and in the public interest. Are you aware of that case? Ms Peterson : Yes, I am. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Are you aware that Professor Lyon is seeking a protective costs order given the public interest in the fitness and legality of your schemes application to the big four? The argument here is that the big four have a massive advantage through their participation in this scheme, which gives a massive and very cheap protection to a very large body of consultants. Ms Peterson, will CA ANZ be opposing Professor Lyons's protective costs order application, or do you admit that such an examination is clearly in the public interest? Ms Peterson : I'll pass that question to my general counsel, please. Ms Chapman : On behalf of the organisation, I can say that CA ANZ will be defending against that application, and we don't agree with the tenor of the summons that has been filed, but we acknowledge the right of any individual to bring proceedings in a court. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: My question was: will you be opposing— Ms Chapman : We will be opposing the application. CHAIR: Thank you. To close off, I wanted to ask a question about APES 110. You're familiar with this weighty document. It's a critical document, isn't it, in terms of the professional standards? And it's the one with which every auditor has to comply? Ms Chapman : It is; absolutely. Through ASA 102, the independent standards within APES 110 are made statutorily binding on auditors in the conduct of an audit. CHAIR: For the nonlawyers, 'statutorily binding' means exactly what, Ms Chapman? Ms Chapman : It can be enforced by ASIC or another person under civil law. CHAIR: If ASIC has oversight of that person? Ms Chapman : Yes. As a registered company auditor or as a holder of a statutory registration, ASIC would certainly have that power. CHAIR: We are dealing with three disclosures from people who are of that status and involved with ASIC as well. Can I draw your attention to 'How to use the code'? There's a series of descriptions in the early pages, up to page 7, and it points out that there are parts of this document that are in bold type. I want to take you to R114.2, which is under subsection 114 in terms of confidentiality. R114.2 says: Subject to paragraph AUST R114.3, a Member shall not: (a) Disclose Confidential Information acquired in the course of professional and business relationships … It's very clear. That is a breach of the code. Ms Chapman : Correct. CHAIR: Whether it has a material impact and whether the information is used or not used in some way are entirely irrelevant. The code is breached the minute somebody has disclosed confidential information acquired in the course of professional and business relationships. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : Correct—unless an exception applies or unless the client has consented. CHAIR: In the case of Lendlease, confidential information was acquired, and the client didn't even know until my speech in the Senate. Is that a breach of R114.2 in the APES 110 code? Ms Chapman : Again, working on the assumption that the PCC has to undergo a proper process to make that finding— CHAIR: I'm not asking about them; I'm just asking you. Ms Chapman : I would say yes. Absolutely. CHAIR: The second point of R114.2 says that a member shall not 'use confidential information acquired in the course of professional and business relationships for the advantage of the member, the firm, the employing organisation or a third party'. Members shall not do that either, shall they? Ms Chapman : It's a very clear commandment. CHAIR: Except we have seen that that occurred. The third point of R114.2 says that members shall not 'use or disclose any Confidential Information, either acquired or received in the course of a professional or business relationship, after that relationship has ended'. Ms Chapman : Correct. CHAIR: That has been breached. Ms Chapman : I'm not sure if the relationship has ended. Again, that's a factual matrix, but this is entirely clear and entirely basic. As Ainslie has said, this is one-zero-one. Client confidentiality is at the heart of professional service provision. Client confidentiality is foundational. It is foundational to trust in audit and to trust in professional services. The client confidentiality provisions in APES 110, as you said, are really explicit and they are unambiguous. Where there is a right to use some professional experience it's really clearly intended to apply not to specific client confidential information but to an understanding of the sector. So, for example, if I take you through to 114.4— CHAIR: I'll get you to put that on notice because we're well over time. Ms Chapman : Okay. Thank you. CHAIR: Finally, has Mr Yates self-disclosed to CA ANZ? Ms Chapman : As I said before, under our bylaws, I can't tell you who has disclosed— CHAIR: We'll ask Mr Yates. Ms Chapman : but there is an investigation file on Mr Yates. CHAIR: That's helpful. Has Mr McPherson disclosed? You can't tell me. Is there an investigation file on Mr Julian McPherson? Ms Chapman : Yes, there is. CHAIR: With regard to your evidence to me earlier in this session, Ms van Onselen, when I asked you when you had heard about the whistleblower matter for the first time, you said it was after my speech in the Senate on 24 March 2026. Can I ask you to have a really good think? Was there an occasion before that where, in a conversation with Mr Yates, he alluded to a whistleblower matter? Because you do see these people on a rather regular basis. Ms van Onselen : Yes, Senator. He suggested that in the text, I believe, of 14 April— CHAIR: Of which year? Ms van Onselen : Of 2026. Ms Chapman : It was the 25 March text. Ms van Onselen : Sorry. The 25 March text alluded to a whistleblower matter that he had referenced last year— CHAIR: Let's get the dates right, because there's a lot of confusion here about who not when. On 25 March, he alluded to what? Ms van Onselen : A whistleblower matter, or WB matter, that he'd referred to last year. The only meeting— CHAIR: Hold on. This year, he tells you that he referred to a whistleblower matter to you in 2025. Is that correct? Ms van Onselen : Correct. In a text, yes. CHAIR: So when Mr Yates— Ms van Onselen : However, I have no notes or record of any whistleblower matter being referred by Mr Yates to me in 2025 or otherwise. We had a meeting on, I believe, 18 December where the academic integrity, artificial intelligence matters came— CHAIR: Not my matter. I'm trying to be really clear about the whistleblower. The whistleblower's active. This thing's happening in 2023-24. In 2025, Mr Yates says to you, 'We've got a whistleblower matter going on.' What was your response to that? You can't recall, is that correct? Ms van Onselen : We had a telephone conversation with Mr Yates that day. CHAIR: No, no. I'm talking about 2025. Ms van Onselen : There was no whistleblower matter that he raised with me, other than in relation to— CHAIR: What's the 'last year' reference then, in that text? Ms van Onselen : I have checked my records for 2025. The only meeting I had with him was on 18 December, individually as a KPMG person. CHAIR: Why is he saying, then, the whistleblower matter that he discussed with you, or he referred to, which occurred in 2025— Ms van Onselen : In discussion with my colleague Vanessa Chapman after that phone call, we took it to be the anonymous sender of the email in early December in relation to artificial intelligence, academic integrity matters, which was the only matter. It was also raised in your speech. CHAIR: But you have two other items in your letter to us. Between July and November, a whistleblower approached you. You believe that, on 5 March, looking at the same address of 2025, there was another attempt by the whistleblower. Let me be clear: July and November 2023, you get some information from a KPMG whistleblower who says, 'I think I've got some things I need to talk to you about.' When the person does that, do they have to sign a contract with you that they will agree to your structures? Do they have to disclose their name? Ms Chapman : No. I was corresponding with that person in 2023. The initial contact was to request some information about making a complaint under the bylaws on an anonymous or pseudonymous basis. I explained that our bylaws don't allow for formal complaints to be initiated on an anonymous basis, and that's because a complainant has rights under our bylaws to see copies of all of the documents that a member might provide— CHAIR: That's a frustration to the whistleblower because they couldn't—as early as July 2023, the whistleblower was reaching out to CA ANZ but could not engage with you because of your current bylaws. Ms Chapman : But we did say that, if there were any information that they wanted to provide on an anonymous basis and they felt that they had adequate protection to do so, they could provide that through to— CHAIR: And we're going to come to protection in the course of the day, because this whistleblower has worked very, very hard to try and get protections and has been told no at every door. The first no, I would put to you, is because of your processes—established for good reason, I'm sure. But, in July 2023, that was the first approach by the whistleblower, who then approached you again in November 2023 and again in March 2025—same whistleblower. Ms Chapman : The challenge, I think— CHAIR: Sorry, I need an answer to that question. Ms Chapman : They didn't actually raise any specific issues. CHAIR: No, they didn't, but they approached you, and they sought information about whistleblowing, and they sought to provide you with information, some of which we expect is the matter that is now public record and was discussed with Lendlease. The committee is running over time, and I will indicate that this is an initial hearing. We may have to call you back to consider further. Thank you very much for your attendance today and for your cooperation with the committee. Proceedings suspended from 10 : 04 to 10 : 16 .