CONWAY, Mr Andrew, Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Public Accountants [by video link] STYLIANOU, Ms Vicki, Group Executive, Advocacy and Professional Standards, Institute of Public Accountants CHAIR: Welcome. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. I now invite you to make a short opening statement and, at the conclusion of any remarks, I will invite members of the committee to ask questions. Mr Conway : Thank you very much, Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the ability to participate electronically, so thank you to you and the secretariat for facilitating that. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Institute of Public Accountants on this very important ongoing discussion and conversation. It's both a privilege and a responsibility to contribute to this important discussion on the oversight of professional bodies and the professional standards of members. The IPA stands firmly committed to serving the public interest. That commitment is central to our purpose as a professional accounting body and underpins every aspect of our work, from enforcing professional and ethical standards to supporting our members in maintaining competence and integrity and ensuring that the communities and businesses they serve can trust their advice and stewardship. Integrity, accountability and professionalism are not optional values in our profession; they are fundamental obligations. In recent years, the accounting profession has faced significant scrutiny following high-profile ethical breaches. These events have tested public confidence and prompted a necessary reassessment of professional oversight and corporate culture across the sector. We welcome this scrutiny because raising the bar on ethics and professional standards is not just a regulatory expectation; it's a moral imperative and a shared responsibility across all professional bodies. However, it's also important to recognise that many of our regulatory compliance obligations that have emerged from these incidents have fallen disproportionately on smaller practitioners, particularly those serving regional and small-business communities. These members perform essential work that sustains the integrity of Australia's small-business economy, yet they often operate with limited resources, shouldering the same compliance and reporting burdens as large practices without equivalent means. The IPA continues to advocate for a balanced approach, one that strengthens ethical and professional frameworks while ensuring that solutions remain proportionate, practical and supportive. Our focus is on building integrity through education, guidance and collaboration rather than compliance alone. To this end, to build on our track record of consumer protection, we've taken a number of steps, including the fact that the IPA were the first professional accounting body to mandate an annual ethics and practice management CPD, conducted a thorough professional conduct review, secured unanimous member approval of constitutional changes to raise the bar on professional conduct, provided practical guidance and support in relation to practical risk management and aligned with the APES 320 and APES 325. More recently, the IPA board has required members to be accountable for their CPD on an annual cycle as opposed to a triennium. All of these steps and others have been designed to contribute to consumer protection and public trust. We acknowledge that this will always be a work in progress. We are working alongside regulators, government and our fellow professional bodies to rebuild trust and reaffirm the profession's social contract. Our objective is clear. It is to ensure that every accountant, regardless of practice, size or location, can meet the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct while continuing to serve the public interest effectively. Thank you, Chair and members. We look forward to your questions. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr Conway. I'll go to Mr Moncrieff for the first set of questions. Mr MONCRIEFF: Thank you for seeing us this afternoon. I was wondering if you could go through some of the CPD requirements that you have for your members. I understand it's a self-reporting system. How do you go about ensuring that that self-reporting system has its integrity maintained? Mr Conway : We apply a process. There are three broad buckets, if I could describe them as such, of CPD we ask our members to fill up. I'll keep it fairly straightforward language because I think our profession—like other professions, I suppose—does get caught up in its own language. If there are acronyms we use, please, ask us to use full terms. We've experienced in the past that the committee is very good at asking us to refrain from acronyms and to use full terms, so we'll do our best. From the continuing professional development side, the first of those three buckets is technical and product knowledge. That's really around the technical knowledge of core accounting areas. The second element relates to management and professional skills. That's the nature of managing productivity, the behaviour and operations of accountants and their practices and the environment they operate in. The third bucket is the professional and ethical standards. So it's making sure public interest is foremost and that we applying those professional ethical standards accordingly. We then conduct a random CPD audit. There is a random approach. Members are required to complete the register. That is, as you point out, Mr Moncrieff, a voluntary disclosure to us, although CPD that's undertaken with us is automatically logged on our system. Therefore, for other CPD that we would recognise and verify it would be up to the member to provide that evidence to us. That's all subject, as I said, to a CPD review and an audit. We would we select members in two ways. Firstly, there's a random selection of members and, secondly, there's a risk-adjusted approach to members for whom we have no record of CPD on our system, so those who are failing their obligations or where our practice management reviews or practice quality assurance reviews have identified a concern. So there is a range of ways we triangulate that requirement on members. They are required to complete 120 hours over a three-year period. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we've just required, going forward, that be an annual submission to us. They must declare annually their CPD requirements because, if we wind the clock back three years, there will be elements of CPD that some of us would not have imagined we'd be performing now, and three years is quite a long time in what we would describe as a very dynamic industry. Ms Stylianou : The other thing that we do in terms of ensuring compliance is that our public practitioners must complete a professional standards declaration annually. It's mandatory. That has a range of CPD questions in it. They have to complete that. Mr MONCRIEFF: Sorry, what do you mean by 'CPD questions in it'? Is that in relation to industry related knowledge or is that related to what they've done? Ms Stylianou : It's in relation to what they've done. We ask them: 'What have you done? Who have you done it with? Have you recorded it?' And we ask for proof. But, as Andrew said, we also do a random check even of people who say they've complied. We check to see if they've actually complied. We get them to upload evidence, and we check that as well. For the nonpractitioners, we have them on a different cycle because we also risk rate them. They're rated as lower risk because they're not public facing, but we still put them on a regular CPD audit cycle. Mr MONCRIEFF: So the higher-risk ones have a higher rate of being subject to audit? Ms Stylianou : Exactly, yes. As Andrew mentioned, with our quality review program we also have a special CPD section. Again, we ask them to upload documents, and that is all checked. So, even though they do have to report it, we verify the information. Mr MONCRIEFF: If someone isn't meeting those requirements, do you impose financial penalties as well? Ms Stylianou : It's not financial penalties as much. We actually take an educative approach. So for anyone who is not compliant what we do is give them a remediation plan. They are required to make up the hours. If they are so far behind—which is the problem with the triennium and is one of the reasons we're moving to an annual cycle—that it doesn't look like they're going to be able to meet the requirements, they could face suspension or even forfeiture. So basically, with any noncompliance, if a member isn't able to remediate the noncompliance, at the end of the day, they could face suspension or forfeiture. Mr MONCRIEFF: Are suspensions more likely than a financial penalty? Ms Stylianou : Suspension is more so for members who are close, members who are responsive or members who really show that they want to comply but for various reasons haven't been able to comply. For those members, we do a lot of, let's say, hand holding to make sure that they become compliant. The ones who end up being in forfeiture are the ones who are so far behind the line that they're not going to catch up or don't show that they want to try and comply. Mr MONCRIEFF: Expand a bit on how you review what you're classing as CPD. Obviously we're dealing with quite a dynamic landscape in terms of artificial intelligence. Can you comment a bit on how you keep these things up to date with international standards. Ms Stylianou : We're part of a various number of international bodies, including the International Federation of Accountants, which is where most of the standards are derived from. Then we have staff members in terms of advocacy. As part of being a professional accounting body, our job really is to ensure that we're up to date with the standards and also that we contribute to influencing the outcomes of those standards. So obviously there's a lot of advocacy. Then, once the standards are issued, we do a lot of CPD and training on those standards and whatever emerging issues there are, whether it's AI, cybersecurity or sustainability reporting. There's a whole landscape of different types of topics. We offer that through our CPD. We also have microcredentials. Andrew, might wish to talk to the GCPA. We also have a global certificate for public accounting. That also has a lot of different topics with a lot of research. It's competency based. Our education service and offerings are always having to evolve because, as we all know, everything's changing constantly. Mr Conway : I might just add specifically to that question around how we categorise. There's a combination of both structured, or verifiable, and unstructured, or unverified, CPD. Across that 120 hours over the three years, our requirements are that 90 of those hours must be verifiable. Verifiable is formal learning with a defined objective. There's sometimes an assessment aspect to that. There'll be seminar attendance and workshop attendance. There might be in-house training where we can verify whether there is actually a defined learning outcome. That's how we look at the categorisation of CPD. To give you a worked example of that, as we put together our national congress, our technical team works closely with our events team to identify the knowledge areas and structure our program and code it. We code it against each of those three broad areas I outlined before and identify the number of structured and verified hours that are available to practitioners. It is self-set. The IPA will set whether it's verifiable or unverified, but that gives us a degree of structure about applying those credits. As Vicki pointed out, we then assess those against our quality assurance review. I'm happy to go through those evolutions we've made. To assist the committee, I'll keep this contribution short, but I'm happy to expand on it. We've undertaken a very comprehensive review of our professional program requirements. To give you some idea of how we compare with other bodies—we highly respect the programs of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and CPA Australia—our model is quite different in the sense that, up till this year, we were running our professional program as a program in partnership with a university, so it's a postgraduate led program. In response to demands from employers and members and other stakeholders, we set about crafting an alternative pathway, and that is a microcredential, competency based pathway that assesses over 19,000 units of competency from around the world. We assembled those into 50 microcredentials, and they are, if I use the language, verified learning. There are many organisations running microcredentials and largely using those for CPD purposes, but the difference for us is we use microcredentials as a pathway to certification. It is assessed learning, and we map it to the equivalent of an ACF, or Australian Qualifications Framework, level 8—so a postgraduate-level equivalent. So it's competency led. It says, 'Show us and demonstrate you can do, not that you can pass an exam.' It's a fundamental shift, and that shift is echoed across the global profession, where there is a move to competency based programs to focus on what you can do rather than (a) what you say you can do or (b) what you can pass in an exam to demonstrate competence. They're the key differences for us. Mr MONCRIEFF: Is that something that is trying to adjust for the role of AI in all of these exam programs, or is that separate? Mr Conway : I can give you a very specific example. In the Global Certificate of Public Accounting, there are three broad areas of competence that we assess, and they are technical skills. We think it's still important—I'm being flippant here—for an accountant in 2026 and going forward to know something about accounting. So we have technical accounting skills. We then have professional skills, and then we have transdisciplinary skills. In the transdisciplinary skills we have digital acumen, cybersecurity—those elements that could apply to any discipline. And in the professional skills we have problem solving, teamwork, communications and wellbeing. To give you a precise example, Mr Moncrieff, we assess the problem solving by way of a workshop. It's an invigilated workshop where a problem statement is provided to a group of people and they're asked to consider the problem, and their response to, and management of, the problem is assessed and invigilated for competency. So it's a very different model from a multiple-choice exam or some sort of online assessment mechanism. Again, it's reinforcing that point: 'Show us that you can do and that you can demonstrate that competency to achieve a certification.' Mr MONCRIEFF: Thank you. CHAIR: Senator Sharma, do you want the call? Senator SHARMA: I've got a few questions. Thank you, Mr Conway and Ms Stylianou. I understand a little bit about the disciplinary tools and procedures you have available to you. I was just looking at the numbers of disciplinary actions you took against members last year. I see that there were five matters that were referred to the disciplinary tribunal. Is that the right figure I've got there? Ms Stylianou : Yes, that's correct. Senator SHARMA: Okay. I see that the breakdown in your submission is one forfeiture and censure, four admonishments, five costs and two fines. Would you mind explaining each of those sanctions separately to me? Forfeiture and censure mean you lose your membership? Ms Stylianou : Yes, that's correct. With forfeiture you lose your membership. Suspension is where you don't lose your membership but basically you lose your privileges. It depends on the situation; sometimes we go straight to forfeiture and sometimes we go to suspension to allow the member to remediate and comply to meet certain conditions, and if they meet those conditions then they get to keep their membership, but it's always under, usually, threat of forfeiture. We have admonishment and censorship. We do publish the results, but in some cases we publish names and in some cases we don't. So it depends. We can have any combination— Senator SHARMA: So admonishment and censure are publication of the finding? Ms Stylianou : Yes. Sometimes there's a combination. It might be a fine; there could be a cost order as well. There's a difference also between the disciplinary tribunal and a more administrative approach. The bulk of our disciplinary matters go through to a professional conduct committee. We've tried to, over the last few years, streamline our processes so that the more complex and more contentious ones will go to the tribunal and then the more straightforward ones will go to a professional conduct committee, and there are various processes within that. We've tried to really streamline, especially if it's a situation where the member is not contesting. If it's a situation that's come from a regulator and the regulator has breached the member, then we take that as evidence on the face of it, and very, very rarely does a member contest it. In matters like that, we still investigate, because we don't have jurisdiction, obviously, over the legislation. But we look at the same evidence in terms of the code of ethics, the professional and ethical standards, to see what's been breached. Most matters are reasonably straightforward, and those can proceed more quickly. There are also complaints that we investigate, and it might be a case of no further action. Sometimes complainants don't provide sufficient evidence, so there's really nothing to go on. It's a whole range of different things. Senator SHARMA: What's the maximum fine that you're able to levy? Ms Stylianou : It's $100,000. Senator SHARMA: Okay. These figures are calendar year 2024, I think. What size was each of those fines? Do you remember? Ms Stylianou : I'll have to have a look and take that on notice. But I think the highest fine we've issued so far is $25,000—and then costs. I think the costs were $13,000, but I'll give you the exact numbers. Senator SHARMA: So $25,000 is the highest fine you've issued so far. Ms Stylianou : Yes. Senator SHARMA: I'll just go to the general causes of complaints. You've got failure to meet professional standards, professional misconduct, ethical issues and service quality issues. What sort of conduct causes complaints or tends to give rise to the highest fines? Is it ethical issues or professional misconduct? Ms Stylianou : It's probably a mix of both. We find that the most egregious ones are ones that have involved fraud. There are some, for example, where there are multiple companies, multiple trusts, various corporate structures involved and lots of different parties involved. Usually there are court proceedings in the middle of it all. That's not uncommon for those types of matters. Sometimes we do hold a matter in abeyance until the court proceedings have concluded, and sometimes we get copies of the transcript from the court and see what the final determination is because a lot of the evidence that would support a claim against the professional and ethical standards would be found there. But we still give the member the opportunity to be heard if they wish to be heard. Those matters would normally involve lawyers. Members have lawyers representing them. Usually they involve at least allegations of fraud, not necessarily criminal matters; they're different. But these are civil matters. Senator SHARMA: I understand. Thank you. I'll turn to another topic. Mr Conway, you said in your opening statement that some recent changes and requirements had fallen disproportionately on smaller practitioners. Would you mind expanding a little on that comment, on how you've noticed it as a professional membership organisation and on the ability of smaller practitioners to meet these requirements and stay viable with small units? Mr Conway : Sure. Thanks for the opportunity to address this point because I think it gives a chance to provide a voice to our members in this space. We regularly interact with members, perhaps to a fault. I still, to this day, contact every new member and give them my mobile number and ask them to contact me, and that's their right. My view is that they pay for the phone and they should be entitled to contact. I hear a lot—Vicky does too—from members generally around the volume and velocity of regulation that they're facing, particularly and most importantly in the small- and sole-practitioner space. The challenge I think, if we think about the regulatory interventions following matters pertaining to PwC and the responses to the Tax Agent Services Act code determinations and the imposition of breach reporting obligations, is that there is a genuine concern with members about working through the practicalities of that. What does it mean? What sorts of breaches should they be looking to identify? What happens if they are breached or there's been a notification on them? There's a genuine fear, which is palpable within the profession. Some might say, 'Well, that's just the territory you live in.' But for sole practitioners who go about their business and almost exclusively, day in and day out, do the right thing by their clients, their observation, anecdotally, is that they're having to bear the brunt of regulatory impact perhaps more acutely than larger firms are. They're the ones who are having to face and address these regulatory compliance obligations, when they really don't have the means and capacity that they feel they're required to have. So we take that obligation seriously. We provide that support for them and guide them through that process. But I think a very real sentiment that members hold is this overarching sense of regulation. As colleagues from other bodies have spoken about, there are a raft of other regulations impacting. There's of course the anti-money laundering regulations taking hold, and the tranche 2 reforms. All of that is important. There's no question as to the public policy priority. But it's set against the backdrop of ongoing change and concern that small practitioners are facing. We feel an obligation to voice those concerns on their behalf. We feel that as an intermediary our job is to help manage the implementation of the reforms to try to address the public policy parameters and do that in a sensible way. But I think it's important for the committee to, as I'm sure you already do, take note that smaller practitioners are feeling the squeeze and that core of ongoing regulation. I think we'd have to call that out, because it will not serve Australia well if practitioners simply disengage. So we need to keep them engaged in the process to ensure that public interest is upheld. As I said, almost every practitioner goes about their business every day trying to keep their head above water and making sure they do the right thing. That's what we see that our job is: to try to facilitate that. Senator SHARMA: Thank you. You did mention—and I was curious to hear a bit more about this, but I won't spend too long on it, because it's not quite on topic—the AML/CTF expansion to tranche 2. That'll cover your members and comes into effect I think from 1 July this year. What are the more onerous elements of those requirements or duties that you're hearing the most concern about from your members? What are they most anxious about in terms of these new obligations that are being put on them as a result of that expansion? Mr Conway : I think—and my colleague Vicki Stylianou may have a view on this as well, and it is perhaps a topic for an entire inquiry in itself—principally it is really around the obligations that— CHAIR: We had quite a few already on AML/CTF. It's got long legs, since 2016, when it was announced. Mr Conway : You're very right to point that out. I was more reflecting on the implementation aspects for practitioners. I think there are some challenges. If we zoom out a bit from the AML discussion, practitioners are saying to us that there are challenges around the intersection of codes. We've got the Tax Agent Services Act code of conduct. Depending on what function the accountant it performing, they may well have compliance obligations under ASIC and financial services. They'll have their code obligations in relation to being a member of a professional body and now of course the AUSTRAC and AML tranche 2 obligations. So the intersection of code obligations is I think an important one for us to navigate. But I would say that AUSTRAC have been very accommodating and the profession as a whole has been working very proactively in addressing those concerns. At a very practical level, it's about the systems and the processes, the documentation, the practice management approaches: how do we embed this discipline? We often try to convey to regulators to think about a sole practitioner in regional Australia working two days a week—how are they going to comply with this?—and to make sure we bring those issues to the table. What we have done is we've provided our members with access to free resources like workbooks and guidance materials to get them onto this travelator—this fast-moving travelator of compliance. We have also conveyed to them that, come 1 July, the sky is not going to fall in, but it feels a little like that at the moment. We understand that. From an IPA group perspective, we have lived experience. Our sister body in the UK, the Institute of Financial Accountants, has been operating with the UK based regulatory regime on AML supervision for almost 10 years. We are a supervisory body in the UK. So we understand the space. We also understand the member sentiment in saying, 'Why do I have to do this? Why are these obligations being pushed onto me?' When we address that from a public policy perspective, members understand it. We refer to it affectionately, as taking members by the hand and saying, 'We'll help you and we'll guide you,' and we provide resources to them in an open-source way. So we're doing our bit to address that from a practical point of view. But it's a very real sentiment: 'What do I need to do to change my practice management approach, my documentation regime, know my client; how do I demonstrate that; and'—again—'how do I make sure that I'm compliant?' Senator SHARMA: Thanks, Mr Conway. Ms Stylianou? Ms Stylianou : The fact that the AUSTRAC guidance is running to 400 pages— Senator SHARMA: Is that how long it is? Ms Stylianou : Yes. It was like, 'Well, that's a lot of guidance.' You need guidance for the guidance. So part of our job is doing that. Senator SHARMA: Pointing out the most salient aspects? Ms Stylianou : As much as you can, to comply—and the need even for software and completely different systems and processes. That is a cost, but you're going to need them if you're going to actually comply. You may not necessarily be able to pass a lot of these costs onto your client. A lot of our members don't have the sorts of clients where you can pass on those costs. So the cost of doing business has gone up. But, by and large, the vast majority want to comply. I know we're talking about the ones that don't. But it's about the processes that they've got to go through. It's not just 'know your client'—who are they, where do they live and that kind of thing. It's knowing everything about that client, like politically exposed people—to the nth degree. A lot of members are saying, 'How are we supposed to know that?' But they're going to have to know a lot more than they know. So all of that is very much playing on them. CHAIR: I guess it's a bit like doctors; there's clinical hygiene. There's also economic hygiene, and sadly we have some very creative operators—international entities and some homegrowns as well—who are seeking to play in this space. When we use the words 'AML' and 'CTF'—if there are any good Aussies out there trying to keep up with what's going on in the nation—we're actually talking about a second tranche of reform that's been adopted across the entire world. You said you've been an AML supervision system provider in the UK since 2015, I think it was. Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: It's 11 years later that it's getting to Australia. It was committed to by Mr Morrison, who even dropped into Rome to say, 'Yes, I'm on board with this,' on his way to Glasgow—a hundred per cent. It didn't happen. There has been incredible resistance. But this is to prevent—let's be clear in the geopolitical reality—money laundering. I'd just mention Commonwealth Bank, ANZ and National Australia Bank, who are looking at hundreds of millions of dollars that have been fraudulently acquired by sophisticated money-laundering systems that are equivalent to some large international entities. The other part of this is to counter terrorism financing. We do need to do this work, and we could not stay any longer in the company of Haiti and Madagascar, which are the other two recalcitrants who committed and didn't proceed. So there is change, and this is financial hygiene in the national interest. Ms Stylianou : Yes, and we have never, ever been against the AML/CTF laws and regulations. We understand the position of Australia as a country and whether or not we have fulfilled our obligations. In fact, I was here all those years ago, giving evidence— CHAIR: I recall! Ms Stylianou : and we had the same position back then. We're not against it. We 100 per cent support it. Our only real advocacy was to say, 'Let's try to make it as streamlined and efficient as possible for those who have to implement it,' which you would think would also help in the detection of financial crime. Anything that we as a body and our members can do to detect financial crime and all that that happens to facilitate—we are 100 per cent there. We just want to make sure that our members are in a position to actually be able to implement it, because we have never, ever been opposed to it. We absolutely see the need for it; every single day, all of us as citizens do. CHAIR: It's a huge, sophisticated, international market now in terms of products that people can access. I expect costs for Australian businesses to adopt the change are far less than they were for first adopters. It is change, absolutely, and all change costs intellectual energy in addition to a financial impost. But it's just a part of doing business in every industry. We all have to keep up with change. Can I go to a general question about the First Guardian and Shield matters. The whole ecosystem—research houses, auditors, accountants, trustees—has been implicated in this. Have you investigated whether any of the people who were registered with IPA are involved in those matters? Ms Stylianou : We have had a look, and we follow what's happened in the media quite closely. We're involved in advocacy around the managed investment schemes and a whole lot of other things in the financial advice space. To date, we haven't come across any IPA members that are implicated. Some may come to light further down the track. ASIC has been wonderful at now disclosing to us when our members are involved in— CHAIR: Is that a change of practice? Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: Since when? Ms Stylianou : I'm not sure exactly since when. I would say at least a year, but I could give you the exact date. It has definitely been a change, and that has been really, really helpful, because then we can take action immediately. But we always monitored news releases; we've all got our intelligence sources and other ways of finding instances of wrongdoing. Of course, it's helpful if you get advised, and sometimes members disclose what other members are doing and things like that. If we do hear, then, definitely, we can take action. But until then we're monitoring. We haven't seen anything come up in our CRM system that discloses those entities. We don't have a huge number of members in that space, but we'll just keep monitoring. So far, at the moment, we haven't come across any members that are involved. CHAIR: Is it the same for the Commonwealth Bank, NAB and ANZ matters? Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: You haven't found any members associated with that in any way? Ms Stylianou : Not so far, no. But we'll keep monitoring, and things may come to light. Sometimes members do actually self-report and disclose. It can be quite surprising. There's a lot in the media, but we have a dialogue with the regulators. We'll just keep monitoring. CHAIR: I guess there's the efficient way of having a register of these things for trusted entities to share information, which doesn't seem to be formalised in any way. And then there's the grapevine, which can be more of a risk to personal reputation than anything else. The haphazard nature of that has been well displayed, as the current practice. It might serve a smaller population, a smaller group and another time, but I would put to you that it's increasingly inefficient and ineffective in a digital world, where a global economy is operating. We have maligned players from overseas seeking to disrupt Australia in every possible way at a social level, but also in our financial service sector. I put on the record for you, as I have for the other witnesses today, that I think this is a pressing issue that the sector needs to grapple with. The conversation with ASIC, of course, would be a critical part of that, as would be the case with AUSTRAC and perhaps even APRA. There's a lot to do there. Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: I'll go to the matter of Mr Ryan O'Shea. There are a number of documents that I'm about to table, and a similar set will be made available to ASIC. I've got more copies here. I might just give them to the secretariat. If we can get those to Ms Stylianou now. I think, digitally, they might be coming to you, too, Mr Conway. While that's being distributed, I'll go to the ASIC statement that was released on 24 October 2025, through which the Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board, CADB, handed down its decision on company auditor Ryan William O'Shea for failing to carry out or perform adequately and properly his duties as auditor of United Global Capital; Global Capital Property Fund Limited, GCPF; and UGC Global Alpha Fund Limited, known as Alpha Fund. The scale of this is extraordinary, because we're talking about $92 million invested into GCPF and Alpha Fund and predominantly by self-managed super funds. I'm hearing a steady refrain here about the vulnerability of self-managed super funds and exploitative practitioners who are smelling like bears to a honeypot. They're moving in 15 property developments, at $93 million; unit trusts with Alpha Fund, $6.5 million; loans to a Mr Hewish, for which there were no loan agreements—echoes of the NAB fraudulent loan dimensions. ASIC indicates that it makes interim stop orders with regard to that, so clearly this is a matter that's quite public. But, as you would have seen earlier, when I provided documents to CA ANZ, where Mr O'Shea was a member, he has now switched the logo. He is no longer, as of 2023-24, using the chartered accountants' logo. But I'll draw your attention to the Gol Gol Preschool Association Incorporated document, which should be among those ones you have, where the IPA logo is clearly evident in the bottom right-hand corner of the last page. Is Mr O'Shea one of your members? Ms Stylianou : Yes, Mr O'Shea is one of our members. He joined in 2023. ASIC advised us of the outcome of the CADB hearing. We commenced action against him. We've given him warnings. CHAIR: Can I just get the sequence? Before you let him join, were you aware of the CADB matter? When did ASIC advise you? Ms Stylianou : It was at the end of October 2025. CHAIR: So post his registration with you? Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: But the CADB document was in October 2025, and you knew nothing about him. Did CA ANZ get in touch with you at all? Ms Stylianou : Not that I'm aware of. When he joined IPA, he was shown as a joint member with CA ANZ. CHAIR: Okay. And what are the processes when somebody wants to be a joint member or transfer between one or the other? We have taken evidence on this before. I thought it sounded robust, but clearly something didn't happen. Ms Stylianou : We do seek proof, evidential proof, that they're a paid-up member of the other body. We take that on board. CHAIR: But you don't have proof about whether they're acting ethically or if they're dodgy as all get-out. Ms Stylianou : No, not as such. But the assumption is that, if they're still a current member, they're a fit and proper person. CHAIR: Yet we do know, and you would know too, that there have been some lengthy considerations by the disciplinary boards of these people and that there is a time lag. Again, there looks to me like there is a big, dark, dangerous space where nobody's able to see what's happening in terms of the movement of these individuals around and amongst the organisations—yours, CPA and CA ANZ. Ms Stylianou : Yes. And I think one of the things is that a proceeding will start and it could take months—it could take years—until it gets to a conclusion. Usually, we're notified at the end of the process rather than at the beginning. CHAIR: I understand that's the practice. I'm pointing out there's a problem. What's to prevent like-minded entities that are, supposedly, collectively upholding professional standards of accountants and auditors in this country from communicating at the point of knowledge that an inquiry is on foot? Ms Stylianou : I think that's where we need to land. I know that we've had quite a bit of legal advice on this, from at least two legal firms, about what our obligations are and what we are supposed to not disclose and what we can disclose. We follow that legal direction and also the privacy legislation changes that happened in the last couple of years that have really sought to strengthen those privacy situations. We're very cognisant of that. We have changed our processes to be able to get consent from members to say that they agree to us being able to disclose certain information. CHAIR: Again, I would say, if you're under investigation—you've shifted from one entity to another, there are suspicions about what you're doing and ASIC is inquiring into you—you don't get to say, 'Oh, yes, you can release my name or have a conversation with another entity in that ecosystem.' It just doesn't wash, in terms of the pub test to which we are frequently subject. People knew about this guy. He's not operating at a small level. We're talking about just one audit, there, of $93 million. Ms Stylianou : The other issue that is often the case is when people like Ryan O'Shea use multiple entities, multiple names, multiple structures, and we have to be across all of them. CHAIR: Is your hygiene, if I could put it that way, in terms of disclosure to you, know your customer, sufficient to meet the challenges of 2025 in Australia? Ms Stylianou : I would say, for the vast majority of members, it is. I think, for people like Ryan O'Shea— CHAIR: I'm going to disagree with you. They have served you well, but clearly there is a breakdown. Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: And, sadly, when people do the wrong thing, others have to fill in forms and self-identify what's really going on—otherwise, the whole institute is compromised. Ms Stylianou : As soon as we find out—we have ways and means of monitoring what's going on, but I cannot say that we are going to know 100 per cent of everything that goes on by everyone and every entity. As soon as we find out, even if it is—sometimes we get, shall I say, tips from members, tips from members of the public. CHAIR: Yes. Ms Stylianou : Then we can investigate. Sometimes we get people wanting to, say, whistleblow. We had one recently, where someone who was not a member of the IPA wanted to whistleblow. The problem often is that they don't want to hand over too much information, for purposes of risking recriminations. We can act on what we're given and we can take it as far as we can take it, which we do. CHAIR: I understand, and we're getting down in the weeds. I understand the limitations you're operating within; I'm just saying it's not working and it's not working to the 2025 level of scrutiny, I believe. Ms Stylianou : No. CHAIR: Have you taken any steps to discipline Mr O'Shea and remove him from the membership, following the transmissions documented in CADB? Ms Stylianou : Yes, we have. Once we were notified by ASIC, we started our own process. We issued a show cause notice. He was given warnings. We asked for certain information to be given to us. Certain things then transpired. He gave us some information. There were issues that he expressed to us. I'm happy to disclose that confidentially: I don't know if I want certain things that he said to us on the public record. So he's going through that process at the moment. CHAIR: So he is currently the subject of a disciplinary committee review. Is that correct? Ms Stylianou : Yes. He's been investigated already. CHAIR: It's complete or ongoing? Ms Stylianou : It's nearly complete. I do notice also that he's still currently a registered tax agent. CHAIR: He is indeed—a tax agent registered with the TPB, according to their website, as of yesterday. Ms Stylianou : Yes. We checked this morning. CHAIR: I checked yesterday. He was still there. Ms Stylianou : He's still there. CHAIR: I kind of think, given what you know about him, what CADB have said about him—the guy's still out there turning a buck! Ms Stylianou : Yes. And the thing for us is— CHAIR: Or maybe many bucks. Ms Stylianou : That's correct. And, as you've heard already, the issue also is—I mean, we could fine him, we could forfeit his membership, we could do our absolute worst, but that is not going to stop him, or anyone for that matter, from being able to go out to the public and offer services. He still holds a statutory registration, which we have no control over. CHAIR: Did you advise the TPB of the actions you were taking? Ms Stylianou : No. Mr Conway : And perhaps I could build on that point briefly. There's the issue around the capacity for us to intervene, as Vicki has pointed out, in terms of limitations. Other professional bodies have spoken about the forfeiture, censure, fining and suspension processes. But without the statutory ability to intervene, we just don't have those powers. Obviously it's a matter for the regulators to do some sort of intervention or injunction to prevent somebody from doing that. We don't have those capacities at law to do that. I absolutely accept the line of your inquiry, in terms of how we stop the malfeasance of these practitioners, these people with mal intent, from forum shopping and getting through the side door or the back door of another body and inflicting harm. I absolutely agree, and we are absolutely committed to doing whatever is possible to avoid that and to eliminate that and, from our perspective, making sure they don't inflict any further harm, and shortening as tight as possible that process to removing them from the membership. That's absolutely our principle. So I completely agree with the approach you're taking and the committee is taking on that, and we'll do whatever we can to support it. CHAIR: Thank you. I want to go to two other documents, from October last year: an article in Accountants Daily by Emma Partis of 28 October 2025 and also the CADB press release of 24 October. I think you have copies of those in front of you. I'd draw your attention to the statement by CADB: Mr O'Shea continuously failed, across multiple audits, to undertake sufficient (or any) work to determine that these investments— In Global Capital Property Fund Limited— were made on commercial terms, that there was appropriate evidence to support the values of the investments, that the investments were recoverable and that the investments had been adequately disclosed. This is in circumstances where it was clear from the documents that there were potential impairment indicators that had not been investigated, and Mr O'Shea was not corroborating the evidence provided by directors who had a direct financial interest in the investments, and the risk of management bias was significant … CADB also found that the 'extensive and serious nature' of Mr O'Shea's failings justified a finding that he was 'not a fit and proper person to remain registered as an auditor'. Yet he's still listed on the Tax Practitioners Board, he's still able to hang out his shingle and go out and use your logo while you investigate him and he's still able to operate in a way that I think has been revealed to be profoundly at odds with the expectations of the sector. The company documents have some implications for the directors associated with him. What do you do with that kind of information? To whom do you disclose that? Ms Stylianou : I would assume—again, it's an assumption—that the TPB would be aware of this. I know that the regulators regularly exchange. So I would expect that the TPB will take action against him. I can't pre-empt the decision of our independent professional conduct committee, but our recommendation is that he be forfeited. That's in train at the moment—as we speak, basically. He was afforded, for the sake of procedural fairness and natural justice, some extensions of time from as soon as we started our investigative process. But they have now come to a conclusion, and that's the point that we are at. So I can only really speak for the actions taken by the IPA. CHAIR: Could I get you to check, on notice, when Mr O'Shea became a member of the IPA, if you don't have the exact date—or you do? Ms Stylianou : It's 2023 and I'm pretty sure it's October, but I can give you the exact date. CHAIR: I'm keen to get to see what the crossover with CA ANZ is. Is there any part of your membership process that queries your membership of other professional bodies, or is it by self-disclosure? Ms Stylianou : As to whether they're members of another body? CHAIR: Yes. Ms Stylianou : We ask for evidence that they are current members of a body. CHAIR: So that's without any attestation of fit and proper— Ms Stylianou : When they join, as joint members, we do go through a particular process that tests fitness and propriety. They have to—I know it's self-reporting, but they're supposed to disclose if there are any current actions against them or any past actions. Usually, we go back at least five years and we ask a series of questions. If they're a member of one of the other two professional accounting bodies we take that as pretty weighty evidence of their fitness and propriety, but they are supposed to disclose if there's anything that would go against them being fit-and-proper people. CHAIR: And, when you find that they don't disclose, will they ever get $100,000 of fine? Ms Stylianou : I don't know if they'll get $100,000 of fine. That's up to the tribunal. But, certainly, we would take action. If we find out that someone should have reported something that they didn't, then, yes, that in itself is a breach of our by-laws. CHAIR: What about if they left the membership of CA ANZ, joined IPA and then held out, still, in the public place that they were a member of CA ANZ, and signing independent reviews. Is that a breach of any of your by-laws? Ms Stylianou : Yes. If they tell us that they're a member of another body when they're actually not—we would find out, because that would mean that they can't provide the evidence that they're a current member. In the case of Mr O'Shea, he showed his membership of CA ANZ when he joined IPA. He was a current member of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, at that point in time. But, if they hold themselves out to be a member, whether it's of IPA or any other body, and we find out, then we send them a cease-and-desist notice. That does happen, from time to time, with ex-members. Sometimes it's with people who were never members. They just appropriate the logo. So that does happen from time to time. Then we would rely—usually it's members of— CHAIR: Could I put it to you that it needs to be a rather expensive exercise. If I thought I were going to be charged $100,000 for using your logo, I might think twice. If it's going to cost me $5,000 and a bit of paperwork and I'm going to make $100,000 out of it, like the cost of doing business, for the unethical person, it doesn't matter, right? Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: I think we're seeing a lack of incentive to do the right thing because some people are, probably, behaving in a way, unethically, to make the money. Ms Stylianou : Yes. Our disciplinary tribunal is definitely increasing the amount of the fines. If I was to speculate as to trends—not just speculating on trends, but based on what we've seen—the penalties are getting harsher. CHAIR: It might be, if I can say, about time. Ms Stylianou : Yes, and I suspect they will continue to get harsher. CHAIR: I don't even know, at the highest level that's been advocated for today, that that will be sufficient to really pull in the cowboys. I'll go to another piece of evidence. So far, all the documents that I've put to you are ones that had been tabled earlier today. I'm tabling two additional documents, right now. For the first one, I want to ask if you know anything about this: can the IPA—and it's Mr Conway or yourself—please explain the importance of an external examiner who is qualified to examine records of law practices and approved barristers' clerks? Ms Stylianou : What's the context of that? CHAIR: Do you know of the process? Ms Stylianou : Of members who are accredited as external examiners? CHAIR: Yes. Ms Stylianou : Yes. Our members are accredited under various pieces of legislation and regulations to be—let's call it audit and assurance—in different industries or professions, and that's one of them. CHAIR: And that profession that we're talking about is the profession of— Ms Stylianou : The legal profession. CHAIR: The law. Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: That's a pretty significant professional responsibility. Ms Stylianou : Yes, absolutely. CHAIR: Can I ask you to look at two documents now. One is 'External examiners'. It's a document I picked up from the internet: working with an external examiner, who can be an external examiner, appointing an external examiner, annual trust examination, and termination. An external examiner is a high-status role. Ms Stylianou : Absolutely. CHAIR: And it's given to a person accredited with you—IPA. Ms Stylianou : Yes. CHAIR: And they interact with the legal profession, to a level where they can examine whom about what? Ms Stylianou : I would have to take that on notice as to exactly what they examine. Usually it's financial statements and financial records, but in that particular context I would have to have a look to see exactly what it is beyond that or if there is anything in particular. I know that in terms of trust accounts there's a lot of scrutiny of anyone who audits trust accounts, whether it's trust accounts of the legal profession, of real estate agents or of anyone else who holds trust accounts, though it's usually those two. CHAIR: Accountants, lawyers and real estate agents are very intimately connected. Most people might make one purchase or a couple of purchases of a house over the course of their lifetime, and they interact with all of those people with regard to those transactions. It's a connected group of highly educated, highly valued professionals fundamental to the proper functioning of the movement of real estate in our financial sector. Ms Stylianou : Yes, and there are very strict rules around independence. In fact, the three accounting bodies are now in the process of revising the independence guidelines that are part of the code of ethics. CHAIR: Let me say I think it's a very good idea. I have now put in front of you the list of external examiners. It's described as a list of external examiners 'qualified to examine the records of a law practice or approved barristers' clerk', where a lot of trust money is held. Millions—dare I say billions—of dollars, perhaps, on a day could be transacted through these accounts. Could I get you to shift through a couple of pages, to page 3 of 9. Ms Stylianou : I see it. CHAIR: The heading is 'Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner', and it says 'External examiners list (updated 2 October 2025)'. Despite what CADB says about Mr O'Shea, what you know about Mr O'Shea, what CA ANZ knows about Mr O'Shea, what's on the public record about Mr O'Shea and what the TPB knows about Mr O'Shea, Mr O'Shea is still, according to this document, through an accounting firm called audit.able, an external examiner qualified to examine the records of a law practice or approved barristers' clerk. Does that give you any cause for concern, Mr Conway? Mr Conway : It does, and I agree with that sentiment. We don't want practitioners like Mr O'Shea in our profession. What we are trying to do is identify ways and means for us to get them out of our professional body and our profession as quickly as possible. Does that meet the committee or the community's expectations at the moment? That's obviously for you and the community to advise us, but we're doing our best to get him and practitioners like him—hopefully, there aren't any more—out. So it is a concern. It is an important role. There are a range of other roles that practitioners will have, in terms of the ability to provide assurance and review engagements for not-for-profit entities and a whole range of entities. I think the observation you're making is fair. It is patently unacceptable for that gap to exist. CHAIR: This guy is really good at filling out the forms and finding the gaps. I reckon he must have ridden the London Tube for a long time—'Mind the gap,' 'Mind the gap.' This guy is the gap finder. He's better than a front-rower in a test match for Australia at getting through the gaps. This guy is unbelievably adept. He is playing the entire system, and his case reveals profoundly broken structures in terms of knowledge sharing and prevention in the national interest. This document asserts: All persons named on this list satisfy the criteria set out in sections 155-156 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria) and Rule 65 of the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015. Each have given their consent for the Board to publish their contact details. The table has been arranged alphabetically by location for ease of reference. Here you go: bring this guy into your law practice. Bring him into your barrister's office. And he is making a motza, I'd expect, out of shopping himself around and playing for time through every position of inquiry that he's been put to. How many more Mr O'Sheas are there? I have no idea. Ms Stylianou : That's an extremely good question. I think it would be a useful exercise for us to have a look—especially with AI, these days—at as many public registers as possible and do some kind of analysis of all the names. Certainly, for example, we could take all of these names and, in our database, see how many are IPA members and then have a good look at them in terms of a risk analysis, as with many other public registers. There would be other legal services boards, obviously, around Australia. CHAIR: It's a very noble sentiment for you to undertake to do that. I'm also going to ask you to make sure that you inform Victorian Legal Services that Mr O'Shea is not a competent or suitable person to discharge the duties of an external examiner, in your view, at this point in time and that you advise them of what's going on. But I put to you that it's not just a single instance—that there are people who have these skills who, for various reasons, are operating at the edges of the law and using your insignia and that of Chartered Accountants ANZ. I wouldn't be surprised to see them come to the CPA for the next one. It's a big problem. Mr Conway : I would make a point around enforcement. I'm sorry if it goes over some old ground. I absolutely take on board that focus in relation to our obligations and notifications. Vicki has pointed out the process we go through with the public notification, and, again, we're trying to make that as quick as possible. But I do point out the limitations in relation to our capacity to intervene and to take any form of statutory approach. There is this intersection between the statutory regulator's obligations and powers and ours. Who does what in this instance? That requires some ventilation, clearly, in the public interest, so we're keen to engage in that, but I want to reinforce that point around the limitations that we have. We're doing what we can within our— CHAIR: I understand where we are and the historical reality, but I've also seen a lot of traffic light determinations about many things in accounting—green, orange or red, to be verified. It could be at the very beginning, just an indicator: green for, 'This is completely compliant; we have no concerns, there are no indicators'; orange for, 'Watch out; there are a few little signals'; and red for, 'This is the experience. You should be very careful in dealing with this person.' At the very least we need something. Mr Conway : I agree with you in terms of the sense, but there are some practical challenges that give rise to questions about where the line is in relation to the notification of a complaint that's made against a practitioner versus a statutory enforcement action or pending enforcement action. For some practitioners, they may be named in some form of complaint or investigation that is then unfounded, yet there is a public register—to your point, an amber flashing light saying, 'Be cautious'—and that practitioner suffers detriment or loss. How do we navigate that space whilst maintaining a focus—I'm not trying to— CHAIR: Is it a matter for the public? Perhaps not. Mr Conway : Yes. CHAIR: Is it a matter for the ecosystem and the integrity of the financial sector? I would put it to you that it is in all of your interests to be sharing this information in a respectful, discreet way that provides the protections that I think Australians deserve. That's a big policy challenge to be faced, but I hope today has demonstrated there is a very big problem that needs further investigation. I thank you for being here with us today. There will be questions on notice. If you could answer those by Friday 10 April, it would be of great assistance to the committee. Thank you for attending, and we will have you again before this committee next year. We might try and arrange the date to be after 30 or 31 March, whichever one it is, so that we can pick up the most recent data—because your brief was a little shorter than the others, sadly, because of the date and the timing. So we'll look for a fuller submission next year. Thank you very much. Mr Conway : Thank you, Chair. .