Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some more remarks about an institution that's so fundamentally important to the proper functioning of the markets, and that is PwC, who until fairly recently have had quite a reputation as being a critical part of the truth-telling essential to the proper functioning of the markets. I'm interested in this because so many Australians now have superannuation as a result of Labor Party policy and implementation of that policy, and what happens with these big companies, particularly ones like PwC, really matters for all of us. If I can put it this way, in the currency wars between, on one hand, truth-telling in the public space, professional integrity and reputation and, on the other, raking in the personal benefits and dollars, PwC's latest CEO, Mr Burrowes, has followed the leaders who preceded him—namely, Mr Luke Sayers and Mr Tom Seymour. We have seen Mr Burrowes jettison the truth for his personal financial benefit, and dissembling has won the day. This is a bad look, PwC. When will you learn the lesson?

The half-truths uttered by Mr Burrowes in response to my question about how much he is paid since he's been imposed on the Australian branch of PwC were a very bad start. He originally said he was being paid $2.4 million per year. Within a couple of days, that had to be adjusted to $2.8 million. How could you miss $400,000? But, in a further question when I contacted Mr Burrowes to get clarification about any other potential payments that he has from PwC International, he was forced to correct the record in answer to my question on notice and declare another $1.2 million is being paid to him by PwC International. I don't know how he can say, 'Oops, I just forgot $1.2 million,' in his answer to my question. The reality is that trying to get the truth out of PwC is proving incredibly difficult. Every time they refuse to tell the truth fully and clearly, the reputation of PwC is further tarnished and further damaged.

The scale of the whopper that he told, at $1.2 million, makes me question everything that comes from Mr Burrowes as the company man imposed by PwC International on PwC Australia. First, there is the matter of his salary and the ongoing connections to PwC International, which I've given you some information on. There is the Linklaters report and the involvement of international partners in the attempted rort of the Australian taxpayers. We know that Mr Burrowes receives part of his income from an international source. We know that he is related to the international entity. Yet he has told this Senate that he can't see that document. The Senate has requested that the Financial Reporting Council in the UK have a look at the document, the Linklaters report, which tells us about an international web of deception that was going on. They have denied the British regulatory body as well. The reason that they are able to avoid it is that they continue to abuse a very special process called legal professional privilege. We know that they're masters of the art of using legal professional privilege and putting a veil of containment over any documents by saying they are legal and confidential.

To be clear for those who don't engage with this too often, legal professional privilege doesn't happen just because a lawyer engages with it. PwC International have a choice. They can release these documents, even confidentially, to the Financial Review Council or to the Senate. They don't have to hang onto legal professional privilege. They used that tactic abusively against the Australian Taxation Office for years and years, and they were found wanting in a court because of this abuse of that privilege. Those tactics continue. There's a formal agreement between PwC Australia and PwC International. That is still unclear. The truth about the implications of Luke Sayers and his meeting with the deputy ATO— (Time expired)