CHAPMAN, Ms Vanessa, Group Executive, General Counsel and Corporate Assurance, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand MAGAREY, Mrs Geraldine, Group Executive, Policy and International, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand OGDEN, Mr Damian, Group Executive, Advocacy, Public and Government Affairs, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand van ONSELEN, Mrs Ainslie, Chief Executive Officer, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand Committee met at 09:02 CHAIR ( Senator O'Neill ): Welcome. I declare open this hearing of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the oversight of ASIC, the Takeovers Panel and the corporations legislation. I begin today by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, and I pay my respects their elders past and present. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here today. The committee will be conducting today's hearing in person and via videoconference. These are public proceedings, being streamed live via the parliament's website, and a Hansard transcript is being made. I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence to the committee they're protected by parliamentary privilege. It's unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee, and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It's also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence. Witnesses also have a right to request to be heard in camera. If a witness objects to answering a question, they should state the ground upon which the objection is made, and the committee will determine whether it will insist on an answer, having regard to the ground which is claimed. If the committee determines to insist on an answer, a witness may request that the answer be given in camera. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you all. I thank you for your cooperation with the secretariat in providing documents in the form requested by the committee for us to undertake our work, which arises out of the recommendation of the F&PA committee and our statutory obligations and the breadth of that mandate with regard to corporations. Over to you, Mrs van Onselen, for an opening statement. Mrs van Onselen : Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today. In addition to being the CEO of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, I'm also the chair of Chartered Accountants Worldwide, a board member of the Global Accounting Alliance, a technical adviser to the International Federation of Accountants as CA ANZ's representative, a commissioner of the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, and a member of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment. I'm joined by Vanessa Chapman, who is responsible for professional standards, with oversight of our disciplinary function, and also CA ANZ's Professional Standards Scheme, as well as by Damian Ogden and Geraldine Magery. I'd like to cover the following items, particularly for the newer members of the committee: first, a brief background into who CA ANZ is and what we do; second, our observations on the benefits and parameters of professional standards schemes; third, the role of affiliates in our membership base; fourth, an overview of our conduct and disciplinary system; and, finally, the steps CA ANZ has taken to strengthen the profession in recent years. Chartered Accountants ANZ is a private, not-for-profit membership body created by royal charter, representing more than 140,000 finance professionals across Australia, New Zealand and globally. Our reason for being is straightforward but significant: to safeguard the technical competence and ethical standards of the profession in the public interest. We are an educator, a standard setter, a member services organisation and a co-regulator within a broader regulatory framework. While we do not have statutory powers, we operate under our by-laws and have a substantial conduct and disciplinary framework. Today we've been invited to discuss the oversight of the professional standards regime, which CA ANZ belongs to. The fundamental aim of professional standards legislation is consumer protection. Those are not just my words; they come directly from an independent academic report titled Benefits of professional standards schemes, authored by Dr Breakey, Dr Cooper and Professor Charles Sampford, of Griffith University. Professional standard laws were introduced following the insurance crises of the 1990s and early 2000s, when professional indemnity insurance became unaffordable and in some cases unavailable. These laws assure consumers that professionals who belong to associations like ours meet high standards and are subject to strong protections. Chartered Accountants ANZ's Professional Standards Scheme commenced in 1997. It is one of 18 approved schemes across professions such as law, valuation and building surveying. Our scheme applies to around 30,000 of our 140,000 members who work in public practice in Australia. It includes two liability caps, $75 million and $20 million, depending on the services provided. These caps are set through careful analysis of claims data and independent actuarial advice to ensure that consumers remain appropriately protected. Our current scheme runs until 2030, subject to annual reporting to the Professional Standards Councils. This reporting is captured in our annual professional standards report. The 2024 report has been provided to this committee. The 2025 report, for calendar year 2025, is due to the PSC on 31 March 2026, once it is approved and signed off by our board. We can provide a copy to the committee once submitted. In the meantime, we have provided a draft copy of the 2025 highlights and continuous improvement initiatives. Importantly, our professional standards framework also aligns with the requirements of the International Federation of Accountants, which has assessed our approach as meeting its highest level of compliance. This leads me to my third point. Some members of the committee have expressed interest in our affiliate members. These are non-CA principals or partners in chartered accounting firms with signing authority. To be eligible to be an affiliate, they must meet defined education and experience requirements such as holding a degree. They must have completed both our affiliates and public practice programs and comply and adhere to the CA ANZ Code of Ethics. Fewer than two per cent of our 140,000 members are affiliates, but including them in our scheme means more professionals can be held to higher standards, extending protection to more consumers. I'd now like to briefly turn to my fourth point, which is an overview of our conduct and disciplinary system. Complaints are handled by an independent professional conduct committee and, where required, referred to a disciplinary tribunal and/or an appeals tribunal. These bodies are made of senior professionals, including accountants, lawyers and ethicists. The tribunal has the power to impose fines of up to $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for practice entities, in addition to suspension or expulsion from membership. Between December 2024, the time since we last provided data to the committee, and December 2025, the Professional Conduct Committee received 707 complaints and resolved 710 matters. More than two-thirds of those matters rose from self-reporting and proactive monitoring by CA ANZ, including in large firms, reflecting our active and interventionist approach to regulation. Over 2024 and 2025, we implemented a major reform program under our Going Further road map to modernise our regulatory framework and strengthen accountability even more. Our members voted to change our by-laws, expanding our disciplinary powers, increasing fines and the ability to investigate former members. We refocused our disciplinary system to prioritise serious misconduct and resolve high-risk matters and streamlined our complaint handling to be more proportionate and effective. Ethical standards were lifted across the membership by embedding the Chartered Accountants commitment into annual renewal and increasing mandatory ethics CPD. We strengthened quality assurance by expanding risk based quality reviews, particularly for large firms, with a focus on emerging areas such as AI, and we moved from self-attestation to active verification using data and automation to identify risk and drive enforcement action where it matters most. Our strengthened framework is having an impact, but, like every profession, there will always be those who fall short. When that happens, we have a robust system in place to respond firmly and fairly in the interests of the public and the profession. In closing, I want to acknowledge the majority the large majority of our members, who work diligently, ethically and professionally every day. They expect strong standards, credible enforcement and public confidence in their profession, and so do we. My colleagues and I welcome the committee's questions. Thank you. CHAIR: Thank you very much. I propose to ask a series of questions at the beginning and then to rotate the call, initially in 15-minute blocks. There's quite a degree of interest in evidence from you this morning. I acknowledge members from ASIC, including Commissioner O'Rourke in the room, who is listening to this. One of the committee's concerns is regulatory gaps and knowledge gaps across the sector, so part of fleshing out in our second hearing with you is the landscape there. So we appreciate ASIC being here to hear the evidence this morning. Given that level of interest, we may need you a little longer than is indicated. I hope that you will be able to accommodate that. They're nodding very nicely. Thank you very much. I think that means yes. We appreciate that as well. Thank you for your opening statement. If it's possible for someone to provide that to the secretariat, I'm sure some of the colleagues would appreciate being able to visibly interrogate it. Mrs van Onselen : I believe we emailed it this morning. CHAIR: Wonderful. Thank you. We might get copies here in the room and distribute it to members of the committee. I'm going to go to a particular matter just to flesh out the shape of some of the challenges that that remain. Could you please clarify your rules for investigating members or former members given that you changed your by-laws after the Peter-John Collins fiasco? Perhaps this might be a Ms Chapman question. Ms Chapman : I'm very happy to take that question. Yes, you're right. The by-laws were amended as a result of our Professional Conduct Framework Review to establish a former-member jurisdiction. Those rules are operative now, and we currently have 13 concluded former-member matters and five which are currently on foot, for a total of 18 former-member matters which have been taken in Australia since those rules were introduced. CHAIR: Thank you. That's quite helpful here. What circumstances must exist for a person to be investigated? Ms Chapman : As a former member? CHAIR: Yes. Ms Chapman : The circumstances are the same regardless of whether a member is a current member or a former member. The intention with the former member jurisdiction is to consider misconduct or conduct that is of such egregiousness that the member might have faced suspension or termination had they remained in membership. The processes for assessing those matters are the same regardless of whether the member is a former or current member. CHAIR: This is to prevent the what I might call the old-fashioned gentleman's agreement in which, if you retire or resign and walk away, there'll be no black mark against you as you leave the profession, which I understand was the longstanding practice. Ms Chapman : Precisely—well, whether or not that was practice, it was certainly a possibility. Mrs van Onselen : In New Zealand, we've always had the ability to investigate former members, and the benefit of the Professional Conduct Framework Review we did in 2021-2022, which had the independent oversight of Dennis Cowdroy KC was that it identified that opportunity for us to ensure consistency between the jurisdictions. Therefore, we asked our members to vote for and had an overwhelmingly supportive vote in favour of not only that change but also increasing fines and other process improvements to our conduct and disciplinary frameworks. CHAIR: Thank you. So it's correct that they could cease being a member but any transgression that took place while they were a member could still be pursued by you? Ms Chapman : Correct. CHAIR: And that continues to be your practice now? Ms Chapman : Correct. CHAIR: Are you aware of the case of Mr Ryan O'Shea? Ms Chapman : Yes, we are. CHAIR: In the ASIC media release on 24 October 2025, we find that Mr Ryan O'Shea had his registration as a company auditor cancelled by the CADB for failing to carry out his duties properly. CADB also found him not to be a fit or proper person to remain a company auditor. Would you agree that this seems to be a serious adverse finding against him in the auditing profession? Ms Chapman : Yes. Indeed, the CADB decisions over the last five years would indicate the cancellation of registrations of a number of registered company auditors. Where those auditors are members of Chartered Accountants, there have been disciplinary decisions made. It generally is the case that there's a time lag between the CADB finding and the decision being made through the Chartered Accountants disciplinary process, because it's not an automatic or ipso facto outcome. There has to be an investigation and an assessment. CHAIR: Right. Do you know whether Mr O'Shea was a member of CA ANZ at the time this action was taken against him? Ms Chapman : I'm not aware. I believe he was or is for that decision in October 2025. I would just note that, normally, our observation is that, for the decision—for example, in the case of other registered company auditors—there's generally about six months between the CADB decision and the disciplinary tribunal decisions at the Chartered Accountants level. Mrs van Onselen : One of the benefits of the Professional Conduct Framework Review, and our Going Further road map, is improved information sharing within our co-regulatory space. Obviously, there are other regulators—TPB, ASIC—as well as us as a private membership body. So that has improved over the last few years, which is pleasing to see. CHAIR: That's all helpful information. Could I clarify, for my understanding, if Mr O'Shea was or is currently a member of CA ANZ? What is his status? Ms Chapman : I would have to take that on notice just to check. He was certainly a member of chartered accountants at the time of the CADB decision of October 2025. CHAIR: So he's definitely been one of yours? Ms Chapman : Correct. CHAIR: We wanted to clarify that. That's good. I'm now tabling a document which Mr O'Shea appears to have signed. He used the CA ANZ logo as part of that process. I've got copies for you if you wish to see them. Mrs van Onselen : Is there a date stamp for when he used the logo? CHAIR: It's for the year ended 30 June 2023. The document is dated 28 March 2024—which does suggest that he was potentially still a CA ANZ member at that point. Can I ask you to flick to the final page of the document. That logo, down in the bottom right-hand corner, is your insignia. It's only to be used by people who are members of your association. Ms Chapman : Correct. CHAIR: So he was still potentially a member of CA ANZ at that point. Is it disappointing to you to discover that a CA ANZ member has been subject to regulatory action by CADB? Ms Chapman : It's always disappointing to hear of members who are subject to disciplinary action by another regulator. CHAIR: Referencing our discussion earlier about your capacity to undertake further action, what is the action that CA ANZ is currently undertaking with regard to Mr O'Shea? Ms Chapman : Given the focus of this committee's inquiry is on the large firms, I don't have that information to hand right now. I am aware of the matter. I have the understanding that Mr O'Shea is a member and that that decision of the CADB is of interest to our professional conduct committee, but I'm not entirely aware of the progress of that matter. I can take that on notice and provide that advice to this committee. CHAIR: If somebody could find out when he was a member and when he ceased to be a member, that would be very helpful for some questions I have today. Even the fact that you've indicated that there could be a time lag between the decision by CADB—which is a very robust disciplinary body—and your response is of some concern. In that six-month period of time, a person who has been found not suitable for the profession, continuing to operate under your CA logo, can do a lot of damage. That's a fair statement. Ms Chapman : The CADB decision was to cancel Mr O'Shea's registration as a registered company auditor. His ability to continue to do audits ceased at that time. Our disciplinary process cannot impact registration or statutory registrations. Those are matters that the statutory regulators oversee. The ability for a member who has been stripped of their statutory registration to continue to do audits is heavily confined. CHAIR: Thank you for your response, Ms Chapman. I would indicate that Mr O'Shea's case clearly has attracted considerable attention, including in Accountants Daily—which I'm sure that you would be reading and keeping across. So I'm presuming that you do attend to matters like this. When you see something like this, when you hear of somebody being struck off, what is your automatic response? How do you ensure that you're picking this information up? Do you look at professional associations and try to work out if the person has had a history as a chartered accountant, as in this case? Ms Chapman : Our conduct team monitor regulator decisions and are aware of CADB referrals and decisions as they are made. Typically—and I say this because there is a separation of powers and our disciplinary bodies are independent and so they take action on the basis of their own inquiries and investigations—where a member has been suspended or had an adverse finding made about their business conduct by another regulator or by a court in a matter of a civil proceeding then that will raise a presumption in favour of an investigation and in favour of a similar type of outcome. For example, if a member has been suspended or had their registration terminated by a statutory regulator then that would be grounds for suspension of membership of Chartered Accountants. Mrs van Onselen : We take an active and interventionist approach in our conduct and disciplinary frameworks. We monitor things like adverse findings in court judgements and adverse findings made by other regulators. In that case, the CADB would have or should have informed us that he was a member. As I understand it, in this particular case, the decision was made by the CADB—which I will just point out has made 25 decisions in 15 years. He was not a member at the time of the decision. He resigned in March 2024, so post the date of the 28 March 2024 advice that you have provided or financial report. CHAIR: I'm tabling two documents. One is the article from Accounts Daily by Emma Partis dated 28 October 2025. The statement there, to give shape to what was found, was: The board determined that O'Shea had continuously failed to investigate the companies' related party investments, including GCPF's investments in 15 property developments which totalled $93 million in the 2023 financial year, five of which were related to GCPF's directors. So we're not talking about something on a small scale. He may not be one of the big six—and we will get to that—but it just goes to show that there is significant financial impact from people who are travelling around the country and doing their business with a CA sticker attached to what they purport to be able to do and are entitled to do. The second document I want to table is the current registration with the TPB for Mr O'Shea, which my office printed off yesterday. I note that even as of yesterday he was still registered as a tax agent. In fact, he was listed as being a member of the IPA, who will be joining us a little later today. When did Mr O'Shea, colourful figure that he is, cease being a member of CA ANZ? Mrs van Onselen : He ceased being a member of CA ANZ in March 2024. CHAIR: I'm just trying to flush out a timeline here. Mrs van Onselen : It was post our former member by-law changes. So as a former member we are able to investigate him. I am just confirming whether we are investigating him. I assume we are. It depends on the timing of the by-law changes which came into effect. CHAIR: So March 2024 is technically when you ceased to have a formal relationship with Mr O'Shea. Mrs van Onselen : Correct. CHAIR: I'm going to table another document. All of these are available in the public— Mrs van Onselen : Chair, if I may, his registration as a tax agent is a matter between CADB and the information-sharing powers with the Tax Practitioners Board. His registration in that capacity sits with the TPB. CHAIR: Thank you for the clarification. I think this goes to my initial comments about where the gaps lie and the risk to public good and proper governance in the sector when somebody is clearly operating in a profoundly unethical way. Just to stress that point I am going to table another document, which is the Gol Gol Preschool Association Incorporated report. On 25 February 2025, Mr O'Shea appears to sign off on an audit as a chartered accountant. His membership of the IPA is shown in the bottom right-hand corner of the back page. Could Mr O'Shea be a member of both organisations at the same time? Mrs van Onselen : Yes, he can. It would be inappropriate for him to use his CA designation in this capacity that I'm seeing in relation to a financial report dated 25 February 2025 when he had ceased membership as of March 2024. CHAIR: He ceased membership with you. CADB has already had some determinations around him. Yet he is now able to use the IPA insignia as a verification of his qualifications. Is that of concern to you, Mrs van Onselen? Mrs van Onselen : Yes, it is. In the event that he's also using his CA designation, we do have a process and procedures in place. It happens from time to time that former members erroneously use their designation, and we normally will provide either a cease-and-desist letter or some other process. CHAIR: Do you want to speak to that? I think we did cover a little in the last hearing communication between the different entities. But I find this demonstration of continuing practice given he's moved from you and is known to CADB but is still able to operate troubling. This is a smaller entity than the last one that we were talking about, but still. Mrs van Onselen : Presumably the IPA should have done or did do a 'fit and proper person' assessment. The IPA is being heard later today, so I'll leave that for them to answer. CHAIR: I ask the question on behalf of ordinary Australians, many whom when looking around wouldn't know that 'accountant' is not a protected term. So that's the first risk. The second risk is when they hear 'chartered accountant'. They might not have too much to do with it, but somehow it's got credibility, like the big four in lights across the country—'Chartered accountants; they're the good ones. IPA and CPA are special accountants. They are ethical people.' Mrs van Onselen : It very much is a trusted designation, yes. CHAIR: How can the Senate and the people of Australia trust the self-regulation that currently operates within the sector when we have these examples of such profoundly egregious behaviour? Ms Chapman : Whenever we find or become aware of former members who are not entitled to use the 'chartered accountant' designation using it, we do write to them and ask them to cease and desist. It is, I would suggest, misleading and deceptive for an individual to use a designation that they're not entitled to use. I would also suggest that clients who are affected or who have relied upon a designation when choosing a professional would be entitled to take action. It's not appropriate. We do occasionally come across individuals, former members, who continue to use their designation and we take that very seriously. The term 'chartered' is a protected term under our corporations legislation. It's not a term that can be used without authorisation or by just anyone. So we are very conscious of protecting that. CHAIR: It seems to be extraordinarily poorly policed. There are gaps wider than the span of the Harbour Bridge between different entities that should be overseeing this. This is not a safe operating system as it exists. It may have served its purposes in another time, but I think this case in particular just shows the glaring gaps that continue to exist. For fullness, I'm just going to table an additional document, which is the media release from CADB about exactly what happened with Mr O'Shea. For clarity for committee members, it says: Mr O'Shea admitted that he had failed to perform adequately and property the duties of an auditor, that he was not a fit and proper person to remain registered and that his registration as an auditor ought to be cancelled. With that knowledge, with that document in the public domain, the man continued to practice as an accountant and undertake audits. It's a very big problem that needs more resolution to serve our national interest. 'll rotate the call now. I understand, Senator Scarr, that you have some questions, and then I'll come to you, Senator Pocock—15-minute blocks. Senator SCARR: Just in relation to this case of Mr O'Shea, is there any communication between CA ANZ and IPA on these sorts of matters? Ms Chapman : Certainly. In terms of the communication between the CA ANZ disciplinary bodies and third parties, when matters are considered and adverse findings or decisions are made by the CA ANZ disciplinary bodies, a decision is taken around communicating or notifying third parties of the outcomes. Where the member holds a dual registration with another professional body, such as CPA or IPA, or holds a statutory registration—whether that's with the TPB or ASIC or any other body—then there is capacity, and those bodies, as interested persons, are notified of outcomes. We have seen recently our PCC taking a much earlier notification approach, notifying third parties on receipt of complaints, so that those who are interested—whether it's other professional bodies or regulators—have early information available to them about the investigations underway. Senator SCARR: Would you agree with the general proposition that, if someone is found not to be a fit and proper person to be a registered auditor and recognised as such, then they're likely not to be a fit and proper person to be a tax agent or to hold any other professional designation relating to the accounting and finance industry? Ms Chapman : That's a rebuttable presumption. I think, in the case of professional disciplinary proceedings, it's always important to provide procedural fairness and give individuals an opportunity to address or provide additional information which might be relevant to that particular question. But my observation is that, where CADB, the TPB or another regulator has formed a view about fitness and propriety, then it's reasonably appropriate for that to be a common or shared finding. And the TPB would certainly be interested in this. Senator SCARR: That comes back to the point I think the chair was making about this effluxion of time between different processes commencing and concluding, and the time it takes for all the relevant players or stakeholders in the ecosystem to complete their deliberations. Where you've got a pretty strong finding in relation to someone's status as an auditor and they're found not to be a fit and proper person, what's the nature of the investigation that CA ANZ undertakes? Do you go back and consider all the evidence de novo, from the start, or is there a presumption that the technical finding, if I can put it that way, has been substantiated and now it's a question of how you respond to that disciplinary finding that's already been made? Ms Chapman : We don't do a de novo. The by-laws provide that it is an offence for a member to have had an adverse finding made against them by another regulator. As I said, there is a principle of professional disciplinary jurisprudence, which is that there is a requirement that the member be given an opportunity to adduce additional evidence or an explanation that may be relevant to a sanction that is applied. However, it's a prima facie offence. As part of our PCFR in 2022-23, we introduced expedition provisions into our by-laws to enable those matters to be dealt with in a far more efficient and expeditious way, and we have seen those proceedings used a number of times to expedite findings in relation to members who have had findings similar to Mr O'Shea's. Senator SCARR: Okay. You say 'expedite'. How quickly can you actually deal with the matter? Do you have any statistics or insight you can give us about expedited cases with respect to how quickly those processes are completed? Ms Chapman : On average, most matters under our ordinary processes are concluded within four to nine months, with some taking slightly longer if they're a little more complex or if they require some sort of adjournment. Because of the expedited proceedings, the process is quite curtailed. My understanding—and I'll need to check this with my head of conduct—is that those matters can be dealt with within four to six months. Senator SCARR: It's still quite a bit of time, isn't it, given that someone's already gone through what would have been the extensive disciplinary process, they've had the benefit of natural justice, there's been deliberation with respect to the evidence and a finding has been made? Can you understand the perception that perhaps matters need to be dealt with even more quickly or that there needs to be some sort of interim suspension process or something to try and protect the public from further conduct by the individuals and protect the public from them holding themselves out and using CA ANZ, if I can say it that way, as a sort of fig leaf to cover their egregious misconduct? Ms Chapman : Certainly. You're absolutely right. We do have an interim suspension procedure, which can be used to suspend a member within 21 to 28 days. We need to provide notice to the member and an opportunity to respond, but it is a shorter timeframe for enabling an interim suspension of a member. Senator SCARR: Was that used in the case of Mr O'Shea, or had he ceased to be a member by that time? Ms Chapman: I understand he'd ceased to be a member in March 2024, so, at the time of the decision of the CADB in October 2025, he had already ceased to be a member. As I said, I will need to take some advice from the independent professional conduct committee about the information that they have available to them about Mr O'Shea's conduct. It's not entirely clear to me from this media release when the conduct giving rise to the CADB referral took place. Mrs van Onselen : In the APSR, the Australian Professional Standards Report, for 2024 and the highlights for 2025, which we've provided to the committee, we reference the continuous improvements that we've made in the conduct and disciplinary framework. Notably, for example, the disciplinary system was sharpened by introducing a formal prioritisation framework that elevates serious conduct and expedites pathways that materially reduce time to outcome for high-risk cases. Complaint handling was modernised by embedding alternative dispute resolution as well to resolve lower level matters quickly and fairly while preserving investigative capacity for complex and serious misconduct. Senator SCARR: Do you have any examples of the expedited process actually being used in practice? Can you demonstrate to the committee that there have been cases where the improvements you've referred to, which make sense to me, have actually been used in practice to protect the public from people who perhaps shouldn't be providing the services we're discussing? Ms Chapman : Yes, we have, and we've provided details in our 2024 APSR about the impact of the expedited procedures on the throughput of the program. I will provide that. CHAIR: Could you draw our attention to what page that's on, please. Mrs van Onselen : On page 32, we give some complaint resolution timeframes. Senator SCARR: So you do. Mrs van Onselen : To that point, we look to resolve matters as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible, particularly higher order or more serious matters. So, in terms of time taken, five in 2024 were less than a month, 85 were within one to six months and 67 were within six to 12 months. Some more complex matters involving volumes of evidentiary material may take longer depending on the approach taken by the member in terms of how they defend those proceedings, which is entirely up to them. Senator SCARR: Okay. That makes sense. I have just two further questions. Firstly, you mentioned that, in terms of the power of CA ANZ to look at the conduct of former members, it depends whether or not—as I understood it—they became a former member before the new by-laws came into effect. Is that correct? When did the conduct occur? Ms Chapman : What is relevant is the timing of the conduct. When did the conduct occur? Was the person a member at the time of that conduct? Then it's not really relevant when the actual finding is made by an external body. The referable point is whether they were a member at the time of the conduct. Senator SCARR: If someone were a member at the time the conduct was made but that was before the by-laws were changed, they'd still fall within the purview of the amended by-laws in terms of their previous conduct? Ms Chapman : As long as they were a member at the time of the misconduct, then they're covered. Senator SCARR: Got it. My last question is on the recalibration of the fines that can be issued. Can you just confirm that for me again? As I understood, it's $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a firm. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : Yes. That's correct. Senator SCARR: How did you come up with those amounts? In previous board documented cases, this committee has considered that fine to be totally inadequate. Given the revenue or net income earned by partners in major accounting firms, how did you calibrate the fine to the income that's actually earned especially by senior partners in some of the major accounting firms? Mrs van Onselen : In the context of our professional conduct framework review that we initiated in 2021, the findings of which came down in July 2022, the recommendations of which were independently verified by the former ACT integrity officer, Dennis Cowdroy KC, we looked at the fines of other associations within both Australia and New Zealand—for example, Engineers Australia, the New Zealand Law Society, the Law Society of New South Wales and the Australian Medical Association. We also looked at our peer bodies around the world—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and AICPA. That found our fines were within a very similar level. In fact, even at that original level, it was higher than, for example, Engineers Australia and other bodies. But we felt that some improvements could be made. We felt that there were societal expectations in that respect as well. Something we were very cognisant of and took legal advice on was that, as a private membership body that operates under common law, our fines cannot be penalties; they cannot be punitive. We are not a government regulator. We are not a frontline regulator. In the context of ensuring that our judgements and our fines when they are made are upheld if ever challenged in a latter court of law, we made them as proportionate and as high as we could. We then took it to a member vote, and our members overwhelmingly voted in favour of those amounts. Senator SCARR: Okay. So there's a legal issue, given the nature of the organisation and the membership, that, if the fines were too high, they may be found by court to constitute penalties or be punitive in nature and thereby be struck out. Is that correct? Mrs van Onselen : Correct. We have in the past said to this committee and other committees that, if the government decided that they wanted to increase fines, it's certainly within their remit and purview under legislation to increase our fines in that capacity, but we would need legislative authority to do so. In the event that you have other authorities around the world, for example, the PCAOB, they have huge, significant revenue and funding to make their investigations, and, as a result, you'll see that their fines, which they have legislation to do, are significantly higher than any Australian government regulator or professional body can remit. CHAIR: I'll note for the record that it was the PCAOB that provided the public knowledge of the KPMG cheating scandal. It was an entity outside of Australia that identified that in a public place and instituted a fine of some size. Mrs van Onselen : A suite of large firms in that capacity—yes, that's right. And they have significantly more resources than ASIC do, which is something that in our Going Further road map we have referenced: (1) that ASIC needs further clarification in respect to its purview, particularly of audit firms of public interest entities, and also further resources. CHAIR: I'll just table for fullness, because I will put this before ASIC this afternoon. In light of the questions that have just been asked and where we are, I will table an ASIC public statement media release: 'Auditor of United Global Capital and related entities cancelled by the Companies Auditor Disciplinary Board'. I do so because the background really gives shape and form to this scale at which Mr O'Shea was operating then and, to put on the record, appears to continue to be operating at with some impunity. There's one clarifying question in the room, and then I'll come to you, Senator Pocock. Senator Buchholz. Mr BUCHHOLZ: Ms van Onselen, on your comments around the fine imposed, you mentioned that you're not a regulatory body. In the event that you impose a fine from your organisation on a member who ceases to be a member, what is the compulsion on the non-member to service the fine if they walk away and say, 'No, thanks for the fine, but I'm not interested'? Mrs van Onselen : That can be a risk, but we find that our recovery rates are high. And this goes to the question that Senator Scarr raised earlier. On page 17 of our own Professional standards, regulation and conduct annual report, we note that we recover about 85 per cent of our external legal costs. There is always a risk, particularly with insolvency matters, that the member is impecunious and unable to pay. However, we do recover a high proportion of our costs, and we do take recovery action where necessary. Mr BUCHHOLZ: So you pick it up on 85 per cent. Is that in the case where members are wanting to continue the membership? In an event such as this, where the membership has ceased, does that fall into the 15 per cent category of non-recoverables? Ms Chapman : Not necessarily. We do have examples of members who have ceased to be members but who have paid their costs orders. CHAIR: Are they required to, though? That's the question? Ms Chapman : They are required to. CHAIR: What do you do if they resist? Ms Chapman : We pursue recovery. CHAIR: Can you provide on notice the circumstances where that's occurred and the amounts that we're talking about? Ms Chapman : We can provide that on notice. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Senator Pocock. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Thanks everyone for being here. KPMG has been mentioned. What's the status of the investigation into the KPMG registered auditor who used AI to cheat on internal AI training? Mrs van Onselen : Those related matters in relation to the use of artificial intelligence for internal tests at KPMG were disclosed to us by the firm through a quality practice review that was ordered post the 2021 exam related matter. In that instance, it was disclosed that there were 28 employees of KPMG who were involved in that academic integrity matter, 10 of which are our members and 10 of which have self-disclosed to us, including the RCA that you refer to, and are currently going through our independent investigative process. Ms Chapman : May I add one thing just to complete that. ASIC has been notified of the details of the registered company auditor who has self-disclosed to us. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Can you give us any further information about where you are up to in the process you are going through? Ms Chapman : The independent professional conduct committee is progressing these matters. It would be inappropriate to comment any further. They're on foot. They are in progress now. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Going to another matter, you informed this committee that you've been investigating the conduct of KPMG in relation to the New South Wales Transport Asset Holding Entity, TAHE, matter. That's been underway now since 2021—so more than five years. What is the precise status of your investigation into that conduct, including any inquiry into Mr Andrew Yates or any other executive partners of KPMG? Ms Chapman : Yes, in earlier proceedings before this committee, we noted that the professional conduct committee had commenced an investigation. I can confirm that the disciplinary bodies have concluded their investigations in relation to a member who was involved in an engagement, and those investigations concluded and determined that the member did not breach the code of ethics or the CA ANZ by-laws. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: And is that a published finding? Ms Chapman : In terms of the CA ANZ by-laws, where there is no adverse finding against a member, there is no capacity to publish a finding. The publication provisions of the by-laws provide that a disciplinary tribunal or an appeals council decision is published if there is an adverse finding against the member. There is no publication if there is no adverse finding against the member. The by-laws also provide that, in terms of the professional conduct committee investigation outcomes, which are the lower order outcomes, those decisions, if they are published, do not contain identifying details but may be published in the public interest as a deterrent. So, to your question, there is no published decision in relation to this matter; however, I'm authorised to make that statement. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Mrs van Onselen, in your opening statement you spoke about our interest as a committee in the affiliate members of CA ANZ. I'm interested in the scope of the coverage of professional standards in accounting. I understand that a public interest case has been brought in the New South Wales Supreme Court, seeking to remove affiliate members and category 3 services from the accounting scheme. If that occurred, the accounting scheme would, I understand, continue to apply only to qualified accountants but cease coverage of unqualified consultants and consulting services, principally affecting those in the big four. Will CA ANZ be defending that proceeding? Mrs van Onselen : Yes, Senator Pocock. As I said in my opening statement, we are defending that matter alongside the professional standards council, and I referenced the report, which I have a copy of and can table. It's an independent report conducted by Professor Charles Sampford, who is a very senior academic at Griffith University. He's involved in matters relating to integrity issues in the Queensland government. The report says: The fundamental aim of professional standards legislation is consumer protection. Now, affiliates work across firms of all sizes, and including them in our scheme achieves two things. Firstly, it holds more professionals to a higher standard; and, secondly, it protects more consumers who may need access to compensation through mandatory professional indemnity insurance. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: It also caps, of course, any liability. In contesting that case and defending that case, do you fund that out of general CA ANZ revenue or do you impose a levy? How will you fund that case? Mrs van Onselen : Like all litigation matters or conduct related matters involving lawyers, we fund those out of our operating expenses. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: What communication have you had with your members about that case? Mrs van Onselen : I believe that we issued a membership-wide either email or reference statement on our public website, probably both, in relation to that matter—that we were defending the matter. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Could you provide to the committee those two pieces of communication or any other pieces that have dealt with that case. Is CA ANZ a respondent to any other litigation from its members or former members at present? Ms Chapman : Yes, we are. There is one matter that remains on foot in the Queensland federal court, and there is one matter that concluded this week with the handing down of a judgement by Justice Brereton in the New South Wales supreme court. That concludes that matter at this stage. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: In the matter of— Mrs van Onselen : Sorry, Senator, if I may, in that last matter that my friend referred to, Justice Brereton made the following comment: In the circumstances where this court has concluded that the claims that Jaworski wishes to bring have no prima facie evidentiary basis, Jaworski is making vexatious use of the processes of this court in seeking to agitate the same claims when he has failed to meet outstanding costs orders of this court and the Court of Appeal. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Is there a matter still afoot in the Federal Court of Reeve v Chartered Accountants of Australia and New Zealand? Ms Chapman : Yes. That's the matter that I mentioned. It's the federal court in Queensland. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Is part of Mr Reeve's allegation that CA ANZ failed to investigate his repeated reports of professional misconduct by a global audit firm? Ms Chapman : Mr Reeve has advanced a number of claims. He's a self-represented litigant, and those claims are being defended by Chartered Accountants on the basis that they are without foundation and they're not substantiated by evidence. The next hearing in this matter is in April, I believe, to hear Mr Reeve's application calling for the recusal of the judge in our case. Mr Reeve has also advanced cases against the Fair Work Commission and the Australian Human Rights Commission, which are separate matters. We are defending the proceedings as we are required to do, having been made a party to them. However, as I said, we believe, and our defence is on the basis, that the claims are unsubstantiated and without foundation. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Thank you. This morning you've given us data on complaints and the resolution of complaints for the year through to December 2025. When you last appeared, you were questioned specifically about the apparent lack of enforcement against the big four. As I recall, you testified that just 17 big four members had been disciplined for breaches of ethics. And in your answers on notice in 2024 you reported there were 170 active monitoring, inquiry and investigation files concerning members in big four firms. How many of those have resulted in disciplinary sanctions? Ms Chapman : Thank you for the question. As you can see from the data we've provided to the committee for the purposes of this proceeding, there have been a fairly extensive and comprehensive set of investigations undertaken by the Professional Conduct Committee over financial year 2025 and into the calendar year 2025 in relation to academic integrity, in particular. The details of those investigations taken on the PCC's own initiation are detailed at page 15 of our annual professional standards, regulation and conduct report. That has resulted in— Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Sorry, my question is not about the general numbers. It's about those cases concerning members in big four firms. Ms Chapman : And those cases concerning members in big four firms have significantly increased as a result of that PCC program of work. The number of complaints resolved by the PCC in the 13 months from December 2024 to 31 December 2025 amounted to 334, which is a significant jump. You can see from— Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Sorry, can you just explain what the 334 is. It's the number of— Ms Chapman : That's the number of complaints involving members in the six large firms that the committee has asked for information about. Among those 334 complaints, there were 203 cautions issued, four consent orders entered into and 87 professional reminders issued. A 'no further action' was ordered in 16 cases, and we've provided, as a footnote to page 15 of our submission, the reasons for no further action. Then there were a number of complaints that were not investigated because of deficiencies in the complaint itself. Then there were six matters that went through to the DT or appeals council, resulting in the termination of a member, the suspension of three members and the censure of another member, with fines as well in relation to two matters. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Can you give me the reference? Is that in your submission, or in another report? Ms Chapman : It's in our submission, on pages 14, 15 and 16. And I've included links to the decisions in the footnotes, should the committee be minded to read those decisions. They are quite comprehensive in terms of providing insight into the tribunal's reasoning. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: On notice, could you provide to us the type of service involved, including whether it related to audit and accounting or non-accounting services, and the level of fine, where it went through to a fine? I think you said that was in three cases. Ms Chapman : The fines applied in two cases. They applied in the cases of Mr Seymour and PwC the firm. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Okay. Yes. If you could give us— CHAIR: Before you jump off there, could I just get, for the record, the amount of the fine that Mr Seymour was sanctioned with? Ms Chapman : The tribunal ordered a fine of $15,000 and a costs order of almost $10,000. CHAIR: Yes, it was up in the high $9,000s. Mrs van Onselen : His membership was suspended for four years. He was stripped of his fellowship status as well, which is in line with the TPB deregistration as a tax agent. He was also given a four-year ban. CHAIR: And that was the first occasion, I believe, that you sanctioned a company and a head of a company in a way that related to his behaviours other than just as an individual. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : Close, but not quite. In November 2023, PwC the firm was censured and fined in relation to the TPB finding against the firm. At that time, the highest fine that was available to be applied, $50,000, was applied. A second fine was imposed in relation to PwC the firm in relation to its reporting failures to the PCAOB, and on that occasion a fine of $25,000 was imposed by the disciplinary tribunal. Mrs van Onselen : May I just add that there was also a costs order of $45,000, or just over, for that first matter. PwC was also ordered to do a quality review and to undertake to provide further information to the PCC on a regular basis, and there was a publication order and notification to other parties. On the second matter, there was a costs order of just over $7,000; it was $7,232. There was an undertaking to provide any further documents provided to the PCAOB regarding the matter. And, again, there was another publication and notification order. And perhaps I could go back to your earlier question, Senator Pocock, in relation to the schemes matter. I have an update for you. We provided, on 3 March 2025, on our website, an announcement of the approval of the new Professional Standards Scheme, to commence on 13 July 2025 for over a five-year period, where we were complimented by the Professional Standards Council on the quality of our report and application. Then, on 16 July, we provided an update in relation to Mr Lyon's litigation and noted that we would be defending it and, in the meantime, the scheme is fully in force and operative. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Can I go to your views about the adequacy of that fine for Mr Seymour. I understand that it was a $15,000 fine and a $10,000 costs award. What's your view about the adequacy of that, in view of the nature of the breach by PwC? Mrs van Onselen : As a private membership body, CA ANZ's powers, as I mentioned before, are defined by our royal charter and our by-laws. It's important to note that we're part of a broader regulatory landscape but we do not have the same powers as statutory regulators, like ASIC and TPB. The disciplinary decision against Mr Seymour, which we have provided to the committee, considered the TPB determination, and the decision outlines clearly the tribunal's view of his conduct. The tribunal, as I mentioned before, determined to suspend his membership for a period of four years, which corresponds to the TPB decision to terminate his tax agent registration and restrict reapplication for four years. In addition to that, they stripped his membership status as a fellow and had a public naming of the decision, and then there was the costs order and also the fine. Fines are determined by the tribunal, but to be enforceable they cannot be punitive, and management cannot challenge or amend the tribunal sanctions or fines made by the independent disciplinary committee. It's a little bit like church and state or government and the judiciary: there is an independence that needs to be honoured in this instance. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: In your experience, is this the only instance—published or unpublished—in which an affiliate member or otherwise from a big firm has been disciplined by CA ANZ? Mrs van Onselen : You'll see on page 14 of our submission to the committee we've provided the total complaints resolved by the PCC in relation to large firms, as identified in the invitation by the committee for our appearance. I would note, though, for the committee's benefit that the six firms identified are not necessarily the six largest firms by revenue. There are two others that in most recent reports are larger. In that period between calendar year 2019 and November 2024, there were 133 complaints resolved by the professional conduct committee against large firms. In relation to the disciplinary tribunal, there were two between calendar year 2019 and November 2024. CHAIR: Before we move on, what were the other two large firms that you did not name in your answer to Senator Pocock? Mrs van Onselen : There's an annual publication of firms' revenue. By annual revenue it's— CHAIR: Yes; if you could name them, please. Mrs van Onselen : Findex and RSM. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I have a last clarifying question. I wanted to know how many affiliate members have been investigated or disciplined by CA ANZ. Ms Chapman : In the last five years, we are instructed that there have been 24 affiliate members who have had complaints made about them by chartered accountants disciplinary bodies. I believe 10 of those were complaints lodged by third parties, which is clients or other members; eight were self-reports; and six were complaints that were initiated by the PCC on information that they had about the affiliate from external scans. There were 14 investigations undertaken in relation to those 24 complaints. That resulted in nine cautions being issued, two consent agreements, and one referral to the disciplinary tribunal, which is on foot at the moment. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Any sanctions or disciplinary outcomes specifically to date? Ms Chapman : There have been nine cautions; two consent agreements, which would include censures or similar types of reprimands; and then one referral to the disciplinary tribunal, which is predicated on the basis that suspension or termination of membership is being sought. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Thank you. Mrs van Onselen : To clarify, we have 2,261 affiliates within our membership base of 140,000. So that is just under two per cent of our membership. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I have more questions, but I think my 15 minutes is up. Thanks very much for your answers. CHAIR: Can I indicate that it's a matter of public knowledge that in the year 2022-23, before Mr Seymour was displaced from his role as CEO of PwC by intervention of the global element of PwC, his income was $4.6 million. We're not talking about a career outcome. We're talking about a single year—$4.6 million. You very clearly indicated the fines that he received. You explained you're capable of implementing them and that you have increased them in recent years, with the consent of your compliant members. In what way do you think a fine of $10,000 in recovery costs—under $15,000 as the personal penalty—acts as any form of dissuasion for members in the profession who are bringing in $4.6 million in a single year? Mrs van Onselen : That would be a question, I think— CHAIR: I'm asking you— Mrs van Onselen : That's fine. CHAIR: and I'm not asking you to move it to anybody else. What is your view about the dissuasion factor of that level of fine, noting the limitations you've put on the record already? Mrs van Onselen : Noting that the TPB, which is a government regulator, did not issue a fine and noting that we exist in the co-regulatory space and that we have received legal advice on this issue that our fines cannot be punitive or penalties, we would need— CHAIR: We've already got that on the record. Mrs van Onselen : legislative intent. CHAIR: The question is: do you see that level of fine having any dissuasion effect at all? Mrs van Onselen : I look at it in the context of what's legally enforceable and what would be upheld if it were challenged in a court of law, and our advice is that it would be challenged. If it was higher— CHAIR: Of course it would. But the reality we have to deal with is cowboys moving around in our economy who are being profoundly incentivised by profit that is a counterweight to any ethical training. Even if you police that training quite well, the reality is, if you're an unethical person and you're incentivised by profit at any price—especially if it's to the tune of $4.6 million—that is a risk ratio of an extraordinary level in our economy. That's how I see it, representing Australian citizens, and you're sitting in your position, expressing your limitations, but the gap has to be attended to, Mrs van Onselen. Mrs van Onselen : They're the limitations of the government's legislation. If you want PCAOB-type fines, then you need to provide sufficient resources to ASIC and legislation authority either to ourselves—we certainly have the disciplinary and conduct frameworks to go through that process, but we would need legislative intervention. CHAIR: Can I ask, in response to the Financial Services Council recommendation in 2023 that the PABs might be combined to form a single, independent body to oversee the entire sector—which at least would mitigate some of the gaps that have been exposed already in the evidence this morning—if you have given any further consideration to that. Have you advocated for the fusion of your disciplinary board with the other representatives of the sector—the CPA and the IPA? Mrs van Onselen : You're not talking about the merger of the standards, just to clarify—the standard-setting bodies—or the new era body that the FRC will merge to? CHAIR: I'm talking about a disciplinary body. Has that been given any consideration? Mrs van Onselen : In that instance, as a private membership body, we would always need to retain the ability to discipline our members and to have oversight of our membership base. CHAIR: Can I put it to you, Mrs van Onselen, that, while that is a desirable thing from your point of view and for CA ANZ as a business model, it is not serving the public good. I'll go to questions from Ms Jarrett. Mrs van Onselen : Would you like me to respond to that? CHAIR: I think I'll just leave it as a statement because I don't think we're going to agree. Ms Jarrett. Ms JARRETT: I want to pick up on a couple of things. You said at the start, Mrs van Onselen, that there were 707 complaints and you've resolved 710. Did I hear that correctly? Mrs van Onselen : Correct. Yes. Ms JARRETT: Does that mean that the difference is because you're resolving older cases? Mrs van Onselen : Yes, that's right. Ms JARRETT: How many open cases are there that you're dealing with at the moment? Mrs van Onselen : I might defer to my friend Ms Chapman. Ms Chapman : I would need to take that on notice. It's in the order of a couple hundred, and we have about 1,143 active monitoring files at the moment. At any given time, depending on inquiries that are being made, those could be converted to investigations. Ms JARRETT: Could you take that on notice. I am keen to understand how many cases are open at the moment, given the discussions that we've had around timing and interactions with others. You talked about self-reporting and about how two-thirds are self-reported at the moment. Is that an improvement on previous years, or is that standard, run of the mill, 'This is what we normally get'? Mrs van Onselen : It's certainly an increase from prior years, and it's reflective of the enhanced work that we have done in both our Going Further roadmap and the professional conduct framework review to look upstream and educate our members in relation to their self-disclosure obligations, noting though that self-disclosure is only one part of our ability to open an investigation and look at a matter. We can receive complaints from members of the public, from clients of our member services and from the government. We also do active monitoring of adverse court findings, where we receive information sharing from other regulators et cetera. However, our members do have an ethical obligation to self-disclose in a number of forums. The first would be when they have their annual renewal of their subscription. They're required to attest that they're a fit and proper person. They're required to inform us of any adverse findings that have been made against them. They're also required to inform the conduct team within 14 days—I think—of an adverse finding made against them, be that in a court of law or by another regulator and beyond. What we've done upstream is—and you'll see this in the highlights pages of our APSR 2024 that the committee has and the highlights pages of our 2025 APSR—amend our membership handbook to make very clear the circumstances and guidelines behind self-disclosure. We've included a frequently asked questions component in that respect, and then we've used our quite large platforms like Acuity, our magazine; our website; and our social media platforms—LinkedIn, for example—to again remind members of their self-disclosure requirements. We also work proactively with the firms. It's very important here that the firms encourage their employees that are members of ours to self-disclose—for example, if there's been a firm adverse finding. We've worked with them successfully, and you can see that in the annual transparency report that we published in December of this year on page 15. You'll see outcomes for 2025 in terms of the type of complaints, and you'll see the large increase there of some historical academic integrity matters from 2016 to 2019, of which there were about 189. Ms JARRETT: Are you able to take this on notice and let us know what percentage increase there has been in self-reporting from year to year over the last few years? You mentioned adverse findings. That, I assume, means adverse findings through one of the other professional bodies like ASIC or whatever—a more formal process. Is that correct? Ms Chapman : Correct. Mrs van Onselen : Or in a court of law if there's been a judgement. Ms JARRETT: You said that you are working with the firms to better understand their internal disciplinary activities. Is there a requirement for those firms to notify you if they're watching someone carefully, if they've made their own internal cautions or if they've taken action against individuals? Is there a requirement for them to tell you that under their membership rules? Ms Chapman : The requirement under the membership rules is that it sits with the individual member to notify the PCC within seven days of a notification event, which includes internal findings by an employer that go to integrity or another aspect of ethical conduct and behaviour. That's where we have seen an increase over the last few years of self-reports—a significant increase—and we will take it on notice to give you that number. If I can, I'll add to Mrs van Onselen's notes about the work we've been doing to raise awareness of self-disclosure. Through the PCFR, we observed that members had low levels of awareness of their self-disclosure obligations and have worked consistently over the past few years to remind members of their obligations. In October 2025, we issued our first Quarterly Ethics Digest—or QED, for the mathematically inclined—which is being sent to all individual members on a quarterly basis. The first issue was sent to coincide with Global Ethics Day last year, which was an incredible event in terms of attracting 16,000 registrations of our members to hear about integrity in practice. The QED goes out quarterly and includes links to those fundamental membership obligations around self-disclosure. It is the individual member's obligation to disclose. That's not to say that we don't have firms, from time to time, bringing matters to our attention. However, the obligation sits with the individual member, and we have seen, as I said, an increase. Ms JARRETT: If the firms don't bring them to your attention, does that then kick off some sort of internal process for you to start looking, whether through the tribunal or the disciplinary board? Is that a trigger? Ms Chapman : Through our Quality and Practice Review Program, we send a reviewer into practices. They will ask questions about these sorts of matters. That will often surface issues and form the basis for further inquiries to be made. Ms JARRETT: Have you seen— Mrs van Onselen : Sorry, may I add in terms of the enhanced ethics training that we give our members since we introduced mandatory ethics training post our Professional Conduct Framework Review and GoingFurther road map. There's Global Ethics Day, for example. Global Ethics Day is when we hold it, and it's complimentary CPD for our membership base. When we first held that a few years ago, we'd probably get 2,000 or 3,000—which was a record at that time—of our membership base. As the years have progressed, you can see the emerging awareness of that particular day. It's getting quite a brand, to get over 10 per cent of our membership base registered and over 9,000 live on that time. We had a global ethicist. We had a former premier, Mr Mark McGowan, who was also on the panel. I was on the panel reminding members of their obligations under the APES 110, in addition to our other material and Acuity articles and things of that nature. So, we have done a huge amount of work upstream to ensure that our members are aware of their obligations as members of CA ANZ. Ms JARRETT: I'm interested in any trends you're seeing in the types of cases that you're reviewing at this point in time. Are you seeing any changes? What I'm trying to understand is: are things changing out there in the ether that we don't know about that we should be aware of? Ms Chapman : In our professional standards regulation and conduct annual report, we provide a breakdown of the causes for complaints. We also provide it in our 2024 APSR. Sadly, year on year, the issues tend to be the same: non-criminal adverse findings, unprofessional behaviour— Ms JARRETT: Like what? CHAIR: Before you jump off that, could you explain—for those of us who are not doing your job every day—what exactly that means. Ms Chapman : Adverse findings in civil litigation, where the court has made a finding about a member in a non-criminal—it doesn't relate to a crime, per se, but there are civil proceedings where the member has been observed by the court to have engaged in misconduct that impacts their integrity or their business practices. CHAIR: Give an example of such cases, please. What does that look like in the public place? We're talking at this lovely sanitised level of language, and we can do that with a report, but our job is to help Australians understand what risks they are being exposed to by people that you are sanctioning—if I can put it this way—in the dark, in a quiet place, where people aren't named and behaviours are not explicit. This is the chance for us to get it on the record. What exactly are you talking about there? What sort of behaviours have represented? Ms Chapman : They would be adverse findings—for example, by the TPB or CADB—that a member has failed to satisfy requirements for registration as an agent or as a registered company auditor. Those are not criminal findings. They're non-criminal, but they're adverse findings that go to the member's integrity or business practices. CHAIR: For the record there, you're talking about it going backwards and forwards between CADB, the TPB and yourself. It's inexplicable to me that there are such gaps if this is going backwards and forwards between you. On how many occasions would you be interacting with CADB and the TPB in a year? Ms Chapman : CADB referrals are public. We take notice of those as they're made public. CHAIR: Do they interact with you directly? Ms Chapman : I believe we interact directly with ASIC. CADB processes are subject to their own legislation. The referrals are made public, we become aware of those, and then the findings are made public. There is an issue where settlements occur. Historically, we've seen that matters would settle and there would be no public outcome. However, taking notice of the referral, our PCC could take action and follow those inquiries. But the settlement— CHAIR: It could, but it doesn't necessarily do so. We've got the TPB and CADB. We've got some gaps in knowledge transfer between those entities and yourself and a little uncertainty about how proactively CA ANZ or your disciplinary body chases this down, given there's a cost to do so. You seek to recover costs in some cases, and they seem quite low in comparison to what I might have thought. What else are people in the profession doing to bring themselves to your attention in a non-criminal way that we should be aware of as the Australian community? Ms JARRETT: Could I add to that—not just disciplinary cases but the trends in the complaints that are coming through. Ms Chapman : The trends in the complaints, as I said, have remained fairly standard—due care and diligence. We get complaints regularly about books and records and members not handing those over to a new accountant or a new practitioner. There are criminal convictions and charges— CHAIR: Let's flesh that out. Somebody says: 'I don't want you to be my accountant anymore. I want you to transfer all my documents to another accountant,' and accountant No. 1 in that example says: 'No way. I'm keeping the information for myself. I am not going to assist you with the transfer.' That's going on. Ms Chapman : There are complaints about those liens. Accountants historically would use liens over records in order to secure the payment of outstanding fees, but it's not an appropriate practice. That's an issue that we still see sometimes. CHAIR: So, despite a request for transfer, there is a practice amongst accountants to not transfer information until they get paid for their services. They use that moment of transaction. Ms Chapman : We had 14 matters in the 2025 financial year that related to that. The full list is on page 15 of our annual report. CHAIR: Can you please just talk me through them? There will be people who'll be listening. There'll be people who will not be able to read that document and understand. Ms Jarrett and I have both asked for examples and trends of disciplinary and emerging behaviours. Ms Chapman : For FY25, non-criminal adverse findings, as I've mentioned before—registrations being subject to an adverse finding, unprofessional behaviour, failures of due care and diligence, conflicts of interest and objectivity— CHAIR: What does 'failure of due care and diligence' mean? Ms Chapman : The complaint would be that a member has made a significant or material error in a client engagement or in a piece of client work. CHAIR: And materiality, in terms of accounting, means what? Ms Chapman : It depends on the engagement. Trivial or minor errors in work wouldn't necessarily be grounds for a complaint, but, where the client has suffered a detriment as a result of a significant error, that could be raised and pursued as a complaint. CHAIR: This is where there might be a purchase of a business and an unrealistic assessment by accountant No. 1 of the business to be sold, who values it at more than it is actually worth. Then the person who purchased it on the back of that public information provided and ticked off by one of your members finds that it was inaccurate. Is that what that descriptor means? Ms Chapman : It would go more to the failure to exercise the due care in order to establish a reasonable valuation. CHAIR: So it could be accountant 2 who hasn't checked the homework of accountant 1. Ms Chapman : It could be that accountant 1 simply hasn't done enough work to determine an appropriate valuation. The circumstances vary, and each complaint is assessed on the basis of the particular facts. CHAIR: But there are two failure points there, potentially, at least. Ms Chapman : Potentially. Ultimately the client engagement partner is responsible for the work. Whether the person who's signing off the work relies on tools or whether they rely on other people to assist them with the delivery of the client work, it's the client engagement partner who bears the responsibility for the accuracy and the quality of the engagement. CHAIR: Okay. So, that was item 2. Item 3 on your list? Ms JARRETT: Conflict of interest—what are the conflicts of interest you're seeing? Ms Chapman : We do see a number of conflict-of-interest cases coming through. Typically these involve practitioners who are acting for small-business clients where the directors are partners—matrimonial partners as well as business partners. The sad reality is that often accountants who are trying to do the right thing will continue to act for the business and one of the individuals and not necessarily appreciate that the conflict arises when there's a marriage dissolution or some other factor that impacts that relationship. We have a conflict-of-interest guide that outlines a number of scenarios where that can be a factor. We use scenarios to provide very practical guidance, particularly to those members who work in that small-to-medium business support space, to recognise the issues. But it could be a range of things. There could be a member who's acting in a range of capacities and not necessarily appreciating that they have a conflict and therefore need to disengage. CHAIR: Could I put on the record at this point the work by this committee in the previous parliament and unanimous recommendation 61 for the financial abuse report. Australians know a lot about scams. That costs the economy $3 billion per year. That inquiry received evidence that indicated that financial abuse, which is enabled significantly by the example you just provided, is costing Australia $5.7 billion. It is a form of very gendered abuse, predominantly perpetrated by men on women. And we took evidence that described the sorts of behaviours we're discussing here, where, in a partnership, the accountant most frequently took the part of the man in the breakdown of the relationship, and economic abuse ensued, enabled and directed by members of your profession. So can I point that report out to you and express continuing concern about the behaviour. And thank you for putting on the record that this is something that is in your sights, because it is a very significant cultural problem that needs redress. Mrs van Onselen : I'd just like to refer the committee to our 2025 APSR highlights extract, pages 11 and 12, which outlines the activities we have done in 2025 alone to address financial abuse. In April 2025 CA ANZ voiced its support of the pre-election promise made by the Labor government in this area. In May 2025 we accepted an invitation to contribute to an ongoing multidisciplinary consultative forum established by the Australian Human Rights Commission. That project is now able to be reviewed on their website. We published an update to our members on financial abuse in the October edition of Acuity magazine, which explored the hidden signs of financial abuse that you alluded to and the role accountants can play as first responders to victims and how accountants can respond with care. During the year we also commenced discussions with Legal Aid New South Wales to gain a better understanding and to build a network of experienced professionals in this area. On 24 November we hosted a free webinar for our members that explored the vital role accountants play in preventing and mitigating financial abuse by strengthening client practices. This webinar featured Adjunct Professor Susan Rix AM FCA, chair of CA advisory group, and others. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Back to you, Ms Jarrett, for a final couple of questions. Ms JARRETT: Are there any other trends? You've mentioned conflict of interest. You've mentioned due diligence, material errors et cetera. Is there anything else we should be aware of? Mrs van Onselen : Yes, there are some areas that we're looking at the moment. For example, academic integrity and internal training have been a priority for us since 2021, with firms required to show how their policies and controls address this risk. You'll see that as highlighted in both the professional standards regulation and conduct annual report that was published for 1 July 2024 to 31 June 2025. As part of its investigations, our independent professional conduct committee required several firms to conduct internal inquiries, which resulted in the large number of self-disclosures that you see at page 15 of that report. I also wrote to all of the large firms as well. Ms JARRETT: To clarify: you said 'several firms'. Is academic integrity seen more in the larger firms than the smaller firms, or is it more widespread? Mrs van Onselen : It was in relation to historical matters that the PCAOB initially looked at from 2016 to 2019. Ms JARRETT: So it was predominantly the big firms. Mrs van Onselen : Yes. In terms of emerging areas, you'll see this on our 2025 highlights page. We're looking at artificial intelligence in academic learning, particularly our own CA program. We're working with TEQSA. We are the only professional accounting organisation that is accredited with TEQSA. We've provided them with our generative AI action plan and we have, over the last four to five years, ensured that our candidates sit first and foremost an academic integrity module and have to pass an academic integrity test with a minimum of 80 per cent before they can attempt their first assessment. We also removed multiple-choice questions from the CA program assessments in order to ensure that there's genuine engagement through open-book exams. We use plagiarism detection software for online written work and we have personalised and unique tasks, reflections and candidate authentication and proctoring for high-stakes online exams. Our academic integrity framework aligns with TEQSA requirements and also the Higher Education Standards Framework. The use of AI is an emerging area of particular focus for us, but the finance profession will also be heavily involved in the tranche 2 AML legislation. We are at this stage, again at the upstream end, really working and equipping our members to ensure that their clients are compliant with the AML tranche 2 legislation requirements as well as climate disclosure legislation that is also active now for group 1 entities. So there is huge learning with this kind of regulatory change that's occurring, and we need to equip our members so they in turn can give accurate, satisfactory advice to their clients. Ms JARRETT: Thank you. I have other questions, but next time. CHAIR: Thank you very much. We'll go now to Senator Sharma. Senator SHARMA: Good morning, everyone. I just wanted to understand a little better the basis of your organisation being able to impose disciplinary action on its members. As I understand it—and please correct me if I'm wrong—your relationship with your members is contractual in nature. Mrs van Onselen : Correct. Senator SHARMA: And so, when they become members, they sign up to your disciplinary processes and agree to honour and observe them. I think someone was asking about this earlier. If they refused to pay a fine, for instance, they are in breach of contract but nothing more than that. Mrs van Onselen : Not necessarily. I think we will take those on notice to provide the committee further information. But there have been instances where we will, in lower courts, depending on the amount that is owed, pursue the costs orders that have been made in our favour. Senator SHARMA: But you do so on the basis that the parties are in breach of their contract, right? Ms Chapman : Yes. Senator SHARMA: To go to the question of the quantum of fines you can impose, is it the non-penalty principle of equity law, effectively, that limits what you can impose—that you cannot have a punitive fine in a contract? If I was a consumer with a credit card and I missed a payment, the bank can't say, 'You're going to have to pay me $5,000 for being one day late on your payment.' That's what limits your ability to impose fines? Ms Chapman : Correct. The common law makes those sorts of provisions void as penalties, and, because our disciplinary bodies are required to, we're upholding the rule of law in the public interest. Seeking remedies that are not legally enforceable or that may not be legally enforceable is not really consistent with that principle. CA ANZ regulation 8 provides a set of guiding principles to sanctions—to the determination of sanctions and the relevant principles. That regulation is generally appended to every public decision, and there's an explanation in each decision as to how the tribunal or committee has come to its view on the determination of a sanction. Senator SHARMA: I think you can now impose penalties of up to $250,000— Ms Chapman : For the firms. Senator SHARMA:   For an individual? Mrs van Onselen : $50,000. Senator SHARMA: Would you need advice, or would the disciplinary tribunal need advice, that that would be able to withstand a legal challenge before they could seek that—that it wasn't going to be punitive in nature? It has to be linked somehow to the damage suffered or the costs incurred. Ms Chapman : Correct. The tribunal is legally advised. They have external legal advisers to support their decision-making as they consider a matter, so they would take advice at that time. The fact that there is a ceiling of $250,000, means there are circumstances where it could form that view that that would be the appropriate level. However, it's entirely within its discretion because of the independence of that process. Senator SHARMA: Okay. I understand. To return to the PwC and Mr Tom Seymour matter, as I understand it you suspended his ability to be a member for four years. Is that right? Ms Chapman : For four years—that's correct. Senator SHARMA: Then you imposed a costs order on him and also a fine. Ms Chapman : Also a fine. Senator SHARMA: Okay. If I then compare that to what the Tax Practitioners Board did, the Tax Practitioners Board terminated his registration and prohibited him from applying for registration for a period of four years, but issued no fine. Ms Chapman : No, they didn't issue a fine. Senator SHARMA: Is it true to say that your association took stronger action against him than the TPB? Mrs van Onselen : Yes, correct. Senator SHARMA: That's interesting, because you're obviously not operating under a statutory framework, right? You don't have the powers of a regulator or legislation behind you. Ms Chapman : No, and we do regard them as the higher order regulator. We have very good relationships with the TPB, we meet with the TPB regularly and we have information-sharing arrangements in place with the TPB. However, you're correct, Senator; the TPB did not impose a fine or seek a civil penalty order under the relevant legislation. Senator SHARMA: They could have sought to impose a fine if they went to the Federal Court. That's correct, isn't it? Ms Chapman : That is my understanding. Senator SHARMA: But they didn't seek to do that. On page 15 of your submission—this is the table where you provide complaints resolved by your body—you've got the PwC item there. I can see it's footnoted and I've looked at those press releases. You've also got the KPMG item, which has no published decision. Why in the PwC case are all the details publicly available, you confirm the case has been closed and the person is named, and then in the KPMG instance that's not the case? Ms Chapman : I think that matter, Senator, may have been covered prior to you joining us this morning. The KPMG decision that's referenced there relates to the TAHE matter. Senator SHARMA: Yes, I caught it at the end when Senator Pocock asked you about it earlier on. Ms Chapman : Correct. Where there's no decision—where there's no adverse finding, the by-laws preclude the publication of a decision. On that basis, there is a limit to what can be said publicly. I am authorised, though, to— Senator SHARMA: You are authorised to say the matter has been resolved. Ms Chapman : Correct. Senator SHARMA: Okay. That rule is in place, I presume, to protect the reputation of the innocent or make sure that people do not suffer adverse consequences as a result of an accusation that's made against them that ultimately is not substantiated. Ms Chapman : Correct. Mrs van Onselen : Correct. And while there's no adverse finding against a member, it's not appropriate to publicly name that member. Senator SHARMA: I respect that. Mrs van Onselen : We encourage members to self-disclose, and it would be counterproductive to then publicly name those individuals who did nothing wrong. Again, there's a separation of powers between CA ANZ, similar to the government and the judiciary, and between the independent conduct and disciplinary processes. Senator SHARMA: Yes, understood. Just so that I'm clear, because I caught the end of this, with that KPMG case, you concluded that the member did not breach the code of ethics or the CA ANZ by-laws. Ms Chapman: The CA ANZdisciplinary bodies forged that view, yes. Senator SHARMA: And that is consistent, as I understand it, with the New South Wales ICAC's finding that there was no corrupt conduct in that investigation. Mrs van Onselen : That's correct. During its 2021 inquiry, the New South Wales Public Accountability Committee resolved to refer aspects of TAHE to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and ICAC did not identify any evidence of corruption and discontinued its investigation. Senator SHARMA: Obviously your involvement with this issue has terminated. There are no other ongoing or active investigations into this that you're aware of. Ms Chapman : That's right. CHAIR: I'll just jump on the KPMG discussion. My understanding is that a partner who was a registered auditor has been fined more than $10,000 by KPMG for using the technology in a training course about AI. More than two dozen KPMG personnel have used artificial intelligence to cheat on internal exams since July 2025, and a handful of first-year staff used AI to collude on internet training. What's the status of the investigation into the registered auditor for cheating with the use of AI? Ms Chapman : As I mentioned earlier, the investigation is underway, along with nine other self-disclosures that have been provided by 10 chartered accountants' members who were identified by the firm as having improperly used the AI tool. CHAIR: So there are self-reports and the status is ongoing? Ms Chapman : There are 10 self-reports. Ten members involved were identified as being involved by the firm. Ten of those have self-reported, including one member who is a registered company auditor, and I'm instructed that the PCC has notified ASIC of the details of that registered company auditor, notwithstanding that the investigation is on foot, not yet concluded. CHAIR: What triggered that notification when there seems to be some uncertainty about who lets whom know what's going on and when? Ms Chapman : Our by-laws were part of the PCFR amended and introduced new, clearer provisions around the notification to third parties. So by-law 40.37, for those who are inclined to go and have a look at it, does allow the PCC now and other disciplinary bodies to notify any third party at any stage of a complaint where it's in the public interest to do so or where there's a legal permission to do so—for example, the TPB, ASIC, an employer, or any other person who the PCC considers ought to know. Over the last 12 months, our PCC and disciplinary bodies have notified external parties in relation to 27 matters. Twenty-two of those members were referred to the Tax Practitioners Board; eight were referred to ASIC. We had referrals to the Victorian police. We had referrals to the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. We had one referral to the PCAOB. So there is an active referral process. CHAIR: Could you provide on notice a breakdown of those matters with some descriptions for the committee to understand where they are? Do you have any indication of the intersection between Chartered Accountants Australia New Zealand and the matters about Westpac, ANZ and National Australia Bank with regard to lawyers and accountants enabling fraudulent acquisition of loans? Are they before you? Are they connected to you? Ms Chapman : I can take that on notice. I would like to comment, though, on the fraudulent loan applications point because that, obviously, is a current matter, with the Commonwealth Bank having raised the alarm, if you like, with AUSTRAC and others. We are closely monitoring the reports and what's happening in that space. At this stage, none of the information that's available to us suggests that any chartered accountants are involved; however, we'll keep an eye on that. We have written to the Commonwealth Bank and we've made the Commonwealth Bank aware of our jurisdiction in relation to chartered accountants. However, given that it is a police matter, I expect that that process will be respected and allowed to be concluded. We have, obviously, taken this as an opportunity to remind all of our members of their obligations to comply with the law at all times. Any member who is charged with a serious criminal offence, which includes fraud, is required to self-disclose to Chartered Accountants, to the PCC, in accordance with our by-laws. CHAIR: I love the etiquette of that. But I put it to you that, if the police are investigating you and you're part of a criminal gang that is sophisticated enough, with knowledge from accountants and lawyers, to go in and rip off three of the four big banks in Australia to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, you're hardly likely to have the character to self-report to CA ANZ for fear of a massive fine of $15,000. Ms Chapman : We see this as an opportunity to remind all of our members of their obligations not only to act lawfully and ethically but also to be very aware of the risks of identity theft, the risks of AI misuse in their own practices or the risks of their own credentials being misappropriated by any third parties to fraudulently obtain loans with financial institutions. CHAIR: I have so many more questions, but I will go to Senator Pocock for another round of 15 minutes. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I feel that we've heard this morning about some really important things for this committee to consider. We've certainly heard about holes in the regulatory frameworks which allow scoundrels to forum shop, essentially, to maintain some kind of professional status despite serious misdemeanours. I feel like we've also heard very clearly that the fines available to you under current arrangements are very small in size and that there is a role for lawmakers to enable a larger pursuit of significant financial penalties. A $17,000 fine, if you're receiving a $4 million income, just doesn't cut it. But I want to go to a third thing, and then I have some other questions as well. Is it the case that any consultant or Australian consulting company can cap their liability through the accounting scheme, or is access effectively restricted to those in the very large big four and a small number of very large multidisciplinary firms? Given the way the system operates, is that effectively what is granted here in relation to the cap? Mrs van Onselen : The scheme applies to about 30,000 of 140,000 members, those that are in chartered accounting firms, and, if they are a partner or have signing authority, then they'll also be encompassed through our affiliate program and be required to adhere to our code of ethics and be accountable to that code of ethics, as you heard earlier from Ms Chapman in relation to some of the actions we have taken in the past in relation to affiliates. The caps that you mentioned—$75 million and $25 million, depending on the services rendered—are subject to actuarial advice and referenced to historical claims data as well. The primary aim of the scheme in this case is to ensure that those members of the public who are receiving advice from a chartered accountant who is a member of the scheme will have the benefit of mandatory professional indemnity insurance so that, in the event that anything goes wrong, they can claim against that insurance. But in the wider consulting sector that are not members of Chartered Accountants and are not CA firms the protection to that consumer of their services is entirely within the contracting negotiations of that party—that is, it's subject to the terms of engagement between that consultant at large versus the client. There may or may not be anything in that engagement contract that says there must be mandatory professional indemnity insurance. However, our members are required to provide a certificate of currency. It's one of the improvements that we've made in the last year. We now do active verification of that certificate of currency to ensure that they have sufficient protections. CHAIR: For every member or a sample— Ms Chapman : The insurance certificates are provided at the firm level. The firm takes out insurance for the firm as a whole. So we obtain certificates of currency from every practice. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I want to continue my questioning here. How is it in the public interest to have only consultants in very large firms covered by these caps and not the very large and significant group of consultants outside the big four firms? Isn't it a very unfair circumstance? You're telling me there are particular criteria they need to meet to be inside that coverage. I take that. I'm not arguing about that. But what we have here is very selective access to the important caps for being sued, which are very significant for big consulting firms and their individual consultants. Mrs van Onselen : It increases consumer protection for the users of those services, which is the primary aim of the scheme. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I know that's your argument, but I'm raising the question of how the public interest is served by such partial access to the caps, which privileges consultants in very large firms. Ms Chapman : In 2004, the Professional Standards Act in New South Wales and subsequently professional standards legislation in other states was amended to amend the definition of 'occupational association' so that it covered for each occupational association the primary and also the ancillary professional services offered by principals and partners within the occupational group. We take the position that professional standards legislation—and we've outlined this in our submission to the committee—extends a very well-established common law principle, which is that contracting parties negotiate to limit their liabilities to each other. Most contracts between consulting firms that operate outside of schemes will limit liability to their clients by reference to a calculated formula or to fees paid or to some other amount. Invariably, they exclude consequential loss. The idea that contracting parties are exposed to each other for consequential losses is, in practical terms, unlikely. What professional standards legislation does is say: 'You can do what you would do contractually—that is, cap your losses to a higher amount, to an amount that we calculate to be actuarially responsible and appropriate. However, you must be a member of a professional association that holds you to account if a complaint is made about you and you will have mandatory professional indemnity insurance to meet those claims.' In 2004, when these legislative amendments were made, and in the late 1990s, insurance companies were folding and going under and consumers were being left without recourse to insurance proceeds. This is a stabilising instrument. It stabilises the insurance market, it stabilises the professional services market and it ensures that consumers have access to appropriate protections. As Mrs van Onselen has said, it's not large firms; it is all of our members in public practice—all 33,000 of them. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I'll leave aside the argument there. I want to go to page 5 of your submission today, which we've already spoken about, and the 13 months of data about complaints. I would like to ask you on notice if you could supply the total complaints received, the total complaints resolved, the court and then the nature of the outcome from the Professional Conduct Committee by large firm and also by whether the matter was related to an accounting or audit function or a consulting or affiliate action. I'd like to seek that on notice, please. I notice on page 15 you do break it down by four large firms in terms of complaints resolved by the disciplinary tribunal or appeals council. I would like it by the six firms, please, on notice. And can you remind us of who is in your group of six large firms? It's EY, KPMG, Deloitte, PwC and—you said—two others. Ms Chapman : Yes. It's Grant Thornton and BDO. CHAIR: However, the two other large ones that we mentioned earlier are Findex— Ms Chapman : Findex and RSM are two firms which now, by revenue, are probably larger than some of the others. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Are there are eight firms in your bucket of large firms? Is that correct? Ms Chapman : Our definition of 'large firms' for the purposes of this information request is limited to the six firms that you've asked about. We're very happy to provide data in due course. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: If you could give the breakdown I have sought, by those firms, that would be appreciated. I wanted to go to the question of exams and students in the recent audit and risk exam experience. I understand there was a real problem in this exam, and it's been spoken of; public discussion has unfolded. Affected students in that recent exam said they had repeated difficulties completing the exam. I understand CA ANZ informed them the problems would be fixed. Many people sat online for hours and later learnt it was unresolvable. Students were also directed to call Janison, who might have been—correct me if I'm wrong—the source of the platform. What was behind the mixed messaging from CA ANZ to students who were sitting that audit and risk exam? Mrs van Onselen : Thank you for the question. First and foremost, I apologise to the candidates affected for the frustration and disappointment that was caused, especially after their significant preparation. On 10 March, approximately 2,000 candidates were scheduled to sit the audit and risk exam; 600 were able to complete the exam, but 1,416 could not get in via the identification platform. Shortly after commencement, many candidates experienced technical issues caused by a failure in a third-party exam platform. Based on the advice that we received by our third-party providers that the issue would be resolved quickly, candidates were advised that the vendor was working to fix the problem, with the aim of allowing the exam to proceed even if delayed. When it was clear that the issue could not be resolved fairly for all, CA ANZ made the difficult decision to stop the exam. Around one-third of the candidates, as I mentioned, were able to complete it. Candidates were updated every 15 to 20 minutes via SMS and our website. Within 24 hours, CA ANZ confirmed remediation options that balanced empathy for disruption with regulatory, academic and integrity requirements. These options included alternative exam arrangements with support or withdrawal without academic or financial penalty and special considerations applying. Yesterday, one week later, 1,224 candidates sat the exam successfully. The balance of 192 either are going to sit the alternative exam on 22 April, will opt to withdraw with no financial penalty or are still deciding. A special out-of-timetable audit and risk offering will be available next term for candidates unable to progress this term. CA ANZ requires a formal audit and risk exam to meet accreditation and integrity requirements. To maintain fairness, an ungraded pass or take-home exam was not appropriate. CA ANZ has engaged with employers seeking their support for affected candidates separately. In more than five years and almost 120,000 online exams with this provider, we have not experienced an issue of this scale. We continue to engage with the provider, and I'll be meeting with the two CEOs in question in the next two weeks. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: What's the name of the company you're dealing with? Mrs van Onselen : Janison is the third-party provider, but the platform that failed was a provider that they engaged, which is Proctortrack. It's commonly used throughout the university system and across the world. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Will you seek compensation from Janison? Mrs van Onselen : At this stage, due to the commercial sensitivities, we couldn't comment further on that, but we are having active discussions with the providers. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Will you keep using them? Mrs van Onselen : That is yet to be determined. We're in the midst of a full root cause analysis and post-implementation review. CHAIR: Last question, Senator Pocock. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I've got a few more. CHAIR: I think we both have. We're renowned for that! Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Will you compensate affected students who've had to take time off? Have you formally reported these systemic failures to TEQSA, and has TEQSA reviewed whether your current solutions remain fit for purpose? Mrs van Onselen : TEQSA regularly reviews our framework. We've received unconditional approval to 2031. We provide annual reporting and attestation as well, and they are satisfied with the CA Program overall and the platforms that we use. But we will be working actively with those providers to ensure that—hopefully—this does not happen again. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: What about compensation for students who have been disadvantaged and now have to study at length before a subsequent taking leave to sit the exam? Is there any consideration of that? Mrs van Onselen : We provided them with an alternate exam within seven days of the previous matter. That is something that we are not contemplating at this stage. It's not appropriate. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: This is my last question. I've heard complaints from students that the quality of their experience and the teaching they are receiving from your courses is suboptimal—very short videos, textbooks years out of date. How is CA ANZ justifying this kind of delivery model, and what are you going to do about the quality of your teaching? Do you see it as an issue, and what remediation are you doing? Mrs van Onselen : The CA Program takes a best-practice approach to professionally allied learning that avoids long and passive lectures. In our most recent annual student survey, 80 per cent of respondents reported being either extremely or somewhat satisfied with their overall learning experience. All learning materials are reviewed annually and updated to reflect current professional standards and legislation, including requirements set by the Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, and by the International Federation of Accountants, IFAC, the global peak body for the accounting profession. Learning is delivered through guided weekly activities, applied case studies and assessment-aligned practice material, and it is supported with discussion forums and access to experienced facilitators and experts, including practising members. The program is also designed to be flexible to allow candidates to juggle the demands of the course with work or other commitments. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: So you think there are no problems here? Mrs van Onselen : It's regularly reviewed and assessed. CHAIR: Senator Sharma. Senator SHARMA: I want to clarify something. What is your relationship with CA New Zealand? Are they part of CA ANZ? Mrs van Onselen : Correct. We had a merger in approximately 2014. That was in effect in 2015. Senator SHARMA: As I understand it, CA New Zealand has statutory regulatory powers that you do not enjoy in Australia. Is that right? Mrs van Onselen : Correct—including over auditors. Senator SHARMA: So when people are saying, 'Why aren't you doing what CA New Zealand's doing?' it's because with respect to Australia you have quite a different set of powers available. Mrs van Onselen : That's right. Senator SHARMA: You don't have any legislative powers. Is that right? Mrs van Onselen : That's right. We report to the FMA in New Zealand and provide oversight not only of auditors but also insolvency practitioners. We would be more than happy to do so for the Australian government if it were so inclined. Senator SHARMA: A few of my colleagues have mentioned the public interest. I don't expect you to ignore the public interest, but you're actually not mandated to enforce or look after the public interest; you're a membership body—is that right? You're there to serve the interests of your members and not act contrary to the public interest, but— Ms Chapman : There's no statutory—that's right. Senator SHARMA: there's no statutory or other legislative instrument that says you must be enforcing the public interest, for want of a better term. Mrs van Onselen : No. Our by-laws do talk about our advocacy being in the public interest, and we don't see those as necessarily mutually exclusive. Senator SHARMA: I can understand that. I just don't think it's fair for us to expect you to do things that you don't actually have the powers or the legislative footing to do. That's all from me. Thank you. CHAIR: Ms Lawrence. Ms LAWRENCE: I wanted to go to, at a very high level in the interest of time, whether you had any comments in response to ASIC's findings that many auditors are failing to demonstrate compliance with auditor independence obligations or around the extent to which auditors are identifying red flags and reporting them to ASIC and the extent to which you have data around where they're carrying out those obligations. Mrs van Onselen : ASIC released audit findings in October of last year. It's important to put those reports into context. They're designed to probe and challenge to reveal insights and focus areas to improve audit and reporting, and that's what the 2025 reports have done. Both external and internal assessments of investor confidence in audit remain very strong. The Edelman trust survey, a global study that has been undertaken since 2017, shows that chartered accountants in particular are the third most trusted profession in the world, just behind doctors and engineers, and that is well above the term 'accountant', which is about seventh or eighth on that list. We've also seen trust in chartered accountants increase year on year. In 2025, ASIC expanded its work from corporate reporting and audit to encompass registered superannuation entities and did a deep dive on independence. The reports are risk based, homing in on issues rather than providing a generalised assessment or conclusion on audit quality in Australia. Our regular audit investor confidence survey that we do shows very strong investor confidence in audit in Australia. Our approach to the ASIC findings each year is to engage with ASIC, who I believe will be on this afternoon, so that we fully understand and can also properly incorporate their findings into our work. We're making sure that ASIC's focus and messaging cut through to our auditor members on the ground and that they are also taken seriously by our members. We do this via an annual audit and accounting conference, webinars focused on current reporting and assurance issues, and regulator findings, guidance and CPD requirements. We use those findings from ASIC to inform our advocacy on reporting and audit standard setting and regulation as well as our research and thought leadership activities. We value the insights that ASIC provides to the profession each year, and we should be concerned if they don't identify findings of areas that require focus for improvement. Ms LAWRENCE: Unfortunately, the very tail end there cut out. I did ask for broad feedback, so thank you for that. I would have been more interested in whether you agreed with their findings of disappointment about the underreporting and concerns around independence and self-reported breaches. I appreciate the trust factor, but what are you seeing amongst your membership? Do you have some data to point to? Is there any kind of loop so you are then privy to understanding the extent to which red flags are reported to ASIC and independence issues are managed? What are you looking at to back in the overarching statements around trust and assurance? Ms Chapman : We take all of the findings from the ASIC reports and incorporate them into our practice quality review program. The findings against the relatively small number of auditors that ASIC looked at are salutary, and they provide really important reminders and risk scenarios for members more broadly. We incorporate those into our quality review program. Our quality review program results are reported in our annual professional standards regulation and conduct report. Satisfactory findings remain reasonably high at 85 per cent. Where we do find issues, we ensure there's remediation by practices within a reasonable time period. They're complementary activities in that regard, and we certainly take the ASIC reports on the basis in which they're provided, which is well established and well outlined in the reports themselves. Ms LAWRENCE: Thanks, Chair. CHAIR: I have a couple of quick ones to finish off. Can I go to page 14 of your submission and go down to the final point there, 'Consent Order', with footnote No. 14. That's under 'PCC outcomes (Large Firms)'. What does PCC stand for in that context? Mrs van Onselen : That's Professional Conduct Committee. CHAIR: Thank you very much. The consent order number for that is three in calendar year 2019 to November 2024. There is only one published decision, and there are two ASIC referrals. I see you've got footnote 15 over the page. Could you break that out for me and give me a sense of what you can do about the two that are not disclosed. Ms Chapman : The consent orders were made in relation to four complaints. Often, there might be three members and four complaints, so one member may have two complaints against them. Consent orders are not generally published. Occasionally, the PCC will publish a decision where a consent order has been entered into in order to ensure that the membership is aware of an issue more broadly, but, in this particular case, as the numbers show—as the table shows—there were two of those consent orders that resulted in referrals to ASIC and there was one published decision, which, at footnote 15, is the published decision in relation to a provisional member at BDO who engaged in academic misconduct. That decision is published, and it's on the ASIC—on our website. CHAIR: Excellent. Can I deduce from what you've just said that, of the three consent orders, two of them may be connected to—is it the first one? Sorry, was that BDO? No. Who's the one that's public? Ms Chapman : The BDO provisional member. CHAIR: Are there two matters for BDO? Ms Chapman : No, there's one matter for BDO. The others do not relate to published decisions; they relate to unpublished decisions. I can take that on notice and give the committee more information. CHAIR: I guess the question is: when the PCC makes a decision about whether to make these things public or not, what is the schedule of considerations that are given to making that decision? Given you have so few powers and such limited amounts of money to be able to provide incentives for people to stay within the lines, it seems extraordinary to me that, when there are findings, they are not made public. What's the consideration? Take that on notice, if you can, because the time is lagging. I'm sure you have to get on, and we've got other witnesses. Could I quickly go to matters with regard to Deloitte and Corporate Travel Management that went undetected during PwC's 14-year tenure as auditor. Have you any views, as CA ANZ, with the systemic weakness of audit quality and professional scepticism amongst large firms, particularly with regard to prolonged engagement, such as that matter of 14 years, even with rotation by large entities such as PwC, KMPG, EY and Deloitte? Ms Chapman : I will reiterate the point I made in relation to ASIC's report 816 and report 819. Long tenure, rotation and independence are critical; they're fundamental features. CHAIR: There's a sweet point for everyone. Ms Chapman : There is no argument about that, and the independence rules are reasonably prescriptive. They're prescriptive, and they should be well understood. CHAIR: Yet we have CTM. Ms Chapman : In terms of corporate travel in particular, I will observe that there are a number of matters on foot and that there may well be public findings in relation to those matters. Where there are matters on foot, we obviously have notice of those. I mentioned earlier that the Professional Conduct Committee maintains an active monitoring oversight of external matters and currently has about 1,100 monitoring files. To the extent that matters like this are in the public domain, the Professional Conduct Committee is monitoring, actively considering and inquiring into whether there's a disciplinary— CHAIR: Action required. Ms Chapman : action required to be taken. CHAIR: On notice, could you clearly outline what action should or could be taken by your professional body when a successor auditor identifies apparent deficiencies in a predecessor's audit work. That would be helpful. Mrs van Onselen : I could add some additional flavour. CHAIR: Could you do it on notice, Mrs van Onselen. I'm about to let you go, but I just want to ask one final set of questions given the growing influence of private equity in foreign ownership in Australia. This goes, in particular, to issues in the public place around Grant Thornton. What takes precedence when ethical obligations conflict with investor expectation? Is it professional standards or financial performance? Mrs van Onselen : There is a rise of private equity investment in accounting firms across the world. It's something that we're actively monitoring. My colleague Geraldine Magarey is actually on the IFAC private equity subcommittee monitoring this. There's been a rapid increase in the US, Europe and the UK, and we're now seeing it on our shores. It's something that we're actively monitoring. AICPA in America, for example, currently have out for public consultation—it's almost exactly to your question—that input, in terms of ethics versus private equity and financial interests. What we have informed our members—and we'll continue to do so—is that their primary obligation as members, as is ours, is to adhere to APES 110, which is the code of ethics. So issues such as confidentiality, integrity, competency, honesty et cetera all still remain with that member whilst they are a member of CA, and, if it's a CA firm, then it certainly attends to that as well. CHAIR: I guess we're seeing the level of tension now mounting. This is a sector where this committee, certainly, has found standards to be wanting. Today we've confirmed regulatory gaps. In relation to management and supervision, policing, fines and dissuasion in the sector—I don't think community standards are being met at this point. Now we have the added burden of, 'Will I keep my CA ANZ membership and the access that gives me to the profession, or will I keep my job and deliver profit,' which, as we have seen, has driven terribly aberrant behaviours to a level that I would consider treasonous to our nation—in the case of Mr Peter-John Collins. Mrs van Onselen : One of the reasons, which is probably a pro factor for private equity investment in accounting firms, is that what they deliver is much-needed capital to invest in technology, be that AI, information or— CHAIR: Yes, but will that tail wag the dog? That is the question that needs a considered response. I'm pleased to hear that you are in a conversation with your international partners. Has any regulator concluded that private equity ownership is compatible with the profession's duties to act in the public interest, or has that simply been assumed as the market is emerging? Ms Chapman : There has been no regulator pronouncement of that type. As Mrs van Onselen said, the standard-setting boards—the APES board, for example, has considered private equity. We can take it on notice to provide copies of the pronouncements that it has put out around private equity. CHAIR: Have you made any public comments, or even private representations, about the level of transparency that's required in the public place so that both clients and regulators can know who truly controls these firms? Ms Chapman : We've been fairly consistent in terms of advocating in favour of transparency—particularly, having ASIC potentially using the transparency-reporting provisions of the Corporations Act to set a standard or to set a set of requirements around reporting. I might defer to my colleague Mrs Magarey in terms of the particular question. CHAIR: Thank you. You've travelled all this way. Mrs Magarey; it's great to actually get you on the record. Mrs Magarey : Thank you, Senator. I would add that the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, which ASIC is part of, is conducting a review into private equity and the profession. CHAIR: Thank you very much. I can conclude with these two, and perhaps they might need to be on notice. Should accounting firms with private equity ownership be subject to stronger disclosure, more determined and clear oversight or other ethical requirements than traditional partnerships? We've already seen that as a structure this is not particularly edifying, once you get inside and see the failure of the notion of joint and several liability. Do you have a view about that? Mrs van Onselen : Generally, as a professional membership body, we're agnostic, in terms of firm structure, whether that's by corporation, partnership or sole trader. I don't really have much to add there, other than to say what I mentioned before. What private equity is doing is enabling, particularly, small and medium businesses and practices to be able to have the technology that they can invest in order to keep up with changing times and evolving technology needs. So there is a benefit there as well. CHAIR: There are a range of things, including AI, which has been the subject of some discussion and considerable acceptance that there's risk involved in it. It's part of the world that we've got to come to terms with. But there's another risk. Finally, if you could give consideration to this on notice, at what point does consolidation and investor ownership become a threat to competition and independent professional judgement? Any insights that you have, anything that the board's considering with regard to that, would be helpful. Ms Chapman : We can take that on notice. We would observe that—and that is a question of the same type as the previous question around independence—our members have professional obligations under the code of ethics, under the firm, under pronouncements issued by the standard setters, that they must comply with, regardless of whether they are practising within a traditional accounting firm or partnership or whether they're an employee, effectively, within a corporation or whether they're a sole trader. Those obligations are non-negotiable, particularly in relation to the regulated services such as audit, tax or insolvency. CHAIR: Can I just point out—we have come full circle—the word 'should', and expectations about compliance with those ethical standards were clearly not met by Mr O'Shea, yet he continues to be registered with the Tax Practitioners Board, not only with the Tax Practitioners Board but also with some legal entities, which I'll have more to say about a little later on. I and my colleagues thank you for your engagement. I think it's been a very interesting session this morning. Proceedings suspended from 11:32 to 11:48 .