Anthony (00:01)
Welcome to Corporate Grime, the podcast where we look at corporate crime spreading across Australia, shine the light on issues that often aren't given enough attention. My name is Anthony Klan, I'm an investigative reporter and I'm joined with professional corporate governance expert.
Dr Andy Schmulow. Good afternoon Andy.
Andy (00:20)
Anthony, lovely to be back with you. What a week it's been.
Anthony (00:24)
What an enormous week it's been indeed. Look, this PricewaterhouseCoopers story just keeps getting bigger and bigger. And it's, I'd say that the most explosive hearings last Friday that I've seen in the saga to date, it was the day of just witnesses entering the box and just this explosion after explosion. What was your takeaway from the day, Andy?
Andy (00:47)
I've got to say, I've got to agree with you. There's been some really explosive testimony in the past and certainly explosive enough that it's turned the saga into, well, into a saga. But I've got to say what I saw on Friday, the expression that comes to mind, you could not make this shit up. We had the ATO appearing before the inquiry. So this is a Senate inquiry.
It's an inquiry that was convened after the revelation that partners at PlaswaterhouseCoopers had been trafficking in Australia's tax secrets. Convened by the Senate, chaired by Senator Richard Colbeck from Tasmania.
and he is joined by Senator Barbara Pocock who is a member of the Australian Greens. Colbeck is a Liberal and he's joined by Senator Deborah O 'Neill who is from the Labour Party and I have to say Colbeck's not bad but Barbara Pocock and Deborah O 'Neill, oh my god, you do you...
Anthony (01:57)
They're forces to be reckoned with, they're doing absolutely stellar job.
Andy (02:00)
You do not want to get on the wrong side of those two women. You know, you would just be well. You'd end up like Andrew Yates. Toast.
Anthony (02:10)
And so Andrew Yates, tell us else about him. So we've had PWC, we had KPMG. Now this is a Senate inquiry into consultancies. Generally, obviously the big four will take up the lion's share of that. That's KPMG, PWC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young. Now we've seen Andrew Yates, the CEO of KPMG. KPMG is the biggest, the federal government's, of the big four gets more federal government.
money than any other. It's getting billions of dollars. So the CEO, the question is, you know, they need to be beyond reproach. We've had the CEO, Andrew Yates has been in the stand before and on Friday, he appeared again. Now, Andy, Dr. Shmulo has written a fantastic piece for the Klaxon. You can find it at theklaxon .com .au.
where he summarises this, but writes about this. It's a fantastic article. Check it out. But Andy, what were your thoughts on regarding the KPMG CEO on Friday?
Andy (03:04)
So the first time he appeared, he burned himself to the ground. This time he set fire to the ashes. The first time he appeared, he was asked whether KPMG used Power Maps. Now, as Senator O 'Neill pointed out, Power Maps are not illegal, but they are a problem and they are a concern because they are a means by which...
to engage in a strategy called land and expand. So what these big consultancy firms do is they engage in the strategy called land and expand. They get into a government department by underquoting for the work that they're going to do.
Then once they're in there, they try to massively expand the scope of the work that they've got to do and they keep upping the price. And by this stage, they've got their tentacles into the department. They are well familiar with who's who in the department. They're looking very closely at building relationships with people in the department. Some of those relationships are built on the basis of an implied promise of a revolving door.
So one of the guys who appeared for KPMG on Friday was a senior defense official and he had gone and joined KPMG.
And when he left defense, it was on the understanding that he would not contact anyone at the Defense Department for 12 months. And the first time Andrew Yates appeared, Barbara Pocock confronted him with email correspondence within KPMG in which they were boasting about the fact that this guy still had six months to run on his exclusion clause. And he was actively courting people in the Defense Department and building relationships. But I don't want to get hung up on that.
because that's the tip of the iceberg right? First time Yates appeared Barbara Pocock says to him do you use Power Maps? No no no no no no we don't use Power Maps no I don't even know what a Power Map is what's a Power Map? She holds up a piece of paper and she says this is a Power Map this is a Power Map and it's been put together by KPMG.
So he proceeded to do this kind of twisting, writhing little dance in which he tortured himself for sort of 15 or 20 minutes trying to explain that, well, it wasn't really a power map and he didn't think of it as a power map and he wasn't sure that it was a power map and blah, blah.
Anthony (05:37)
And so, so power map being you've got the consultant CKPMG say, maps at the department, who's who works out who can hit, who's most influential, etc, etc, and how it can extract the most money out of getting contracts, and yet working out what's going on. And the crime here isn't as much the power maps, even though they're, you know, as bad as they are, the issue, the biggest issue here now is the cover up. And often that's the case now.
And that was shown in painful detail, or painful for Mr. Yates on Friday anyway.
Andy (06:12)
So just to clarify something, Power Maps are designed to pedal influence, to get tentacles deep into a department, to schmooze, to traffic in kind of relationships. They are antithetical to a government department.
awarding contracts on the basis of the most rational possible determinants that you could find. If a government department is going to be basing its procurement and purchasing of consultancy services on the most uncorrupted set of criteria,
then who it's got cozy relationships with irrelevant, right? It's got absolutely nothing to do with how the government department should be engaging in procurement. When you have firms like KPMG that are actively promoting these power maps and compiling these power maps and then putting their staff under enormous pressure to go and sell into departments based on these power maps, it becomes a form of soft corruption. So anyway, Andrew Yates, first time he appeared in September of last year, he says, no, no, no, we don't use power maps.
power maps, I don't know what you're talking about, it's all a big ruse. She then shows him a power map. Right, so he's confronted with the fact that he's live to Parliament. Senator Pocock says to him, you have just been caught lying to Parliament. So he then says, he gets his two RC, I can't remember what the guy's name is. And this fellow says, Oh, no, we kind of got hung up on the definition of a power map and
You know, we don't call those things power maps. We call them relationship maps. There's no difference, right? At which point Senator O 'Neill steps in and she says, I asked you a question on notice, boys. The question I asked you was, do you use power maps or relationship maps or influence maps or any other kind of map where you map your relationship with people in the government department and how well disposed they are towards you, irrespective of the name you call it. So they were caught absolutely flat footed. Now,
Anthony (08:20)
And she read out the specific word for word, the questions on notice, and it captured all of that undeniably.
Andy (08:26)
She cast that she gave them a definition that was so wide that it was inescapable. And as you rightly say, it was a question on notice. So they're sitting in their offices, they're reviewing the question, having meetings, they're discussing how they should answer the question. This is not a question that is sprung on them in testimony and they misspoke in the heat of the moment. That's not what happened here.
Anthony (08:52)
sitting back there with their team of corporate lawyers, working how they can try and get out of it.
Andy (08:57)
So that was in September. Fast forward to early February. Yates is back. He's brought with him an entire flotilla. He's got about 10 or 12 people with him as a security blanket. He sits up in front of the Senate and Barbara Pocock gets absolutely stuck into him about Power Maps.
She says, Tim, you came here last time and you lied. Are you going to tell us the truth this time? Yes, no, no, yes, yes, no, no, yes, I'm going to tell you the truth. I don't want to be out here. So she says, OK, you say you've come here to tell us the truth. We asked you to give us copies of all the Power Maps that you use. Yep. Yes, yes, we've done that. We've done that. We've given you copies of all the Power Maps we use. So she holds up a copy of what they've sent her.
And she says, this is not a PowerNap. This is an organizational chart of a government department which you have copied and pasted from the government department's website. So you've tried to find something that is as innocuous as is humanly possible.
You've cut and pasted. You've then changed it from portrait mode or from landscape mode to portrait mode. You've deleted the government department's name at the top and you've put your name in and you've told us that's the only kind of Power Map you do. She goes, oh, yes, well, yes. Well, that's kind of, yes, that's true. That's all we do. We just do it because we want to be efficient. And she says, oh, really? What about this? And she holds up another different actual KPMG Power Map.
It was just...
Anthony (10:44)
Precisely, and you've given us this sham power map and she's holding up there, we've got an image of it on the klaxon there in Dr. Shmulo's piece of what they've sent through and anyone who spends much time looking at government reports or annual reports or who's in government and most journalists and politicians have been in that boat.
This is quite a familiar, this map or this layout is quite familiar and you'll see it in all annual reports and say here's our people in our department. So for them to get one of those and then doctor it a little and put it in like she said you must think we're idiots and I think that pretty much hit the nail on the head. That's clearly what they were thinking but she then went, yes exactly, went and held up what had been provided to the supplier or they'd obtained elsewhere presumably through a whistleblower.
showing, well here's actually what you're doing and he said he hadn't seen this before etc etc but he didn't deny it was KPMG so basically, well yes, not even basically but caught red -handed. Here's the quote from Senator O 'Neill, you must think we're absolutely stupid. So anyway, what happens to him? So he's still there, now he's admitted, he's being paid 2 .2 million dollars a year.
So an enormous amount of very large proportion of that's going to become funded ultimately by taxpayers. Give it to KPMG, you get such a large proportion of its income from taxpayers and Australian government departments keep giving big contracts to KPMG, particularly defence. So the issue is what happens to him? Why is he still there? Well, I think this is an interesting one, but with these big partners, Andy, you've got big partnerships rather, you've got...
rather than being a corporate entity where you've got a chair whose head would roll if they didn't do the right thing and get rid of the CEO for performance. You don't have that as such. You've got to lease the lease partners and their primary objective is to maximise money they can make out of the corporation. So you just don't see the heads rolling like you would ordinarily. And I guess that's why the calls there to actually properly bringing some laws to properly police these partnerships or make them become corporate entities or the very least stop giving him.
billions of dollars.
Andy (12:52)
To be fair, as bad as PWC is, when Tom Seymour, the CEO, was found to have lied.
to Parliament. He also went before Parliament and he said there was nobody else involved in the Tax League scandal other than Peter John Collins. And then it transpired not only had there been other people involved, the other people involved included Tom Seymour, the CEO. And when that was revealed, Tom Seymour had to leave his position. So PwC at least they kind of had the sort of situational awareness where they said, well, you know, CEO, he's been caught lying to Parliament. It's a really
bad look. Tom, you might need to walk the plank. Yates has been caught lying to Parliament twice. Nothing's happened to him. KPMG is even worse. And when Senator O 'Neill held up a copy of the bogus org chart, the organizational chart that KPMG had sent in, she said to Andrew Yates, it took us a couple of minutes.
searching on the web to find where you'd copied and pasted this from.
I've got to say the woman who was sitting next to him, I don't know what her name is, she looked like she'd seen into the vortex. She was just like a stunned mother. She was sitting there like trying not to look like she was going to burst into tears. It was just all so terrible. And Yates.
Anthony (14:21)
I think Andy, you sort of summed it up quite well there. Sorry, you sort of summed it up quite well there in your piece. Andrew Yates was reduced to the professional services firm's CEO equivalent of Barnaby Joyce. I think that encapsulates quite a lot there.
Andy (14:36)
So that was Andrew Yates providing a low light. But then the session started in the morning with the Australian tax office, the deputy commissioner, Jeremy Herschorn appearing before the Senate and talking about all the things that the ATO was doing to try and put a stop to the to the routing of the tax system and how concerned they were about what PwC had done and that they were very upset about it. And...
very pleased that something was now finally happening, blah, blah, blah. The day before this inquiry took place, Neil Chenoweth, a journalist at the Australian Financial Review, published a massive story entitled Inside the Tax Officers' Bitter Feud over PWC. And there's no doubt in my mind that Chenoweth timed this article.
so that it would appear the day before. The officials from the Australian Tax Office and the officials from the Tax Practitioners Board were meant to appear before Parliament. So Hirshhorn, Deputy Commissioner of Tax, he's sitting in front of these senators and they start to grill him on the allegations in this article. And the allegations are that the Tax Office, the ATO, waged a war.
against the CEO of the Tax Practitioners Board, a fellow by the name of Michael O 'Neill, because he wouldn't stop investigating Price Waterhouse. The allegations in the article
Anthony (16:09)
And just to explain, sorry to interject there quickly, so just in case anyone's confused, we've got the Australian Taxation Office, which is the biggest entity, the main body, the Tax Practitioners Board, which is also an Australian government entity. It is responsible for a budget of about $150 million a year, so it's much smaller, but it has about 150 employees, sizeable enough. It's responsible for policing the practices of the 40 ,000 -odd Australian tax practitioners, accountants, what have you.
So their role is to take action against the PwC partners who are involved in the tax leak scandal for sharing Australian government, confidential Australian government information around PwC and using it to win business around the world. So you've got this sort of the argy -bargy between the ATO and the Tax Practitioners Board and the...
A key issue throughout here all along has been the ATO saying, oh, look, we couldn't do anything since 2014 or 15 or however long ago. It's known about this issue like a decade essentially because of the secrecy laws and XYZ. And the Tax Practitioners Board has actually gone, hang on, we can do something here. So it's gone out on its own and issued letters to...
the major multinationals, tech companies, the people that have been using these dodgy scheme whipped up by PwC to avoid Australian tax avoidance laws. The ATO has got super upset about this and behind the scenes, we've heard this from about 12 months ago and Chenoweth did a great piece a year ago now, setting a lot of this out and then the ATO came and denied it all and talked it down, etc, etc. And they tried to pull the same thing on Friday and back to you Andy.
Andy (17:46)
Yeah, spot on. So the ATO is the huge behemoth responsible for tax policy and enforcement of the Tax Act and making sure that it collects taxes from taxpayers. The Tax Practitioners Board is the entity no one had ever heard of until Peter Collins was found to have been selling tax secrets. So Chenoweth says in his article, he makes allegations,
I have to say, when I read Chenoweth's article, I thought to myself, and this is coming from someone who's a skeptic and someone who's very concerned about Australia's sliding to crony capitalism and someone who is concerned about white collar crime. When I read Chenoweth's article, I thought to myself, I don't really know if I believe this.
Like, the allegations are so bad and call me naive, but I've always kind of had this sort of sense that the Australian Tax Office, that its reputation, that its ethics, that its integrity is inviolable, right? That they are just, they are bulletproof, they're squeaky clean.
And I looked at this and I thought, oh, these allegations, I'm not sure if I believe them. Like there's some really serious allegations in here. Like, for example, that the current commissioner, Chris Jordan, launched a whole lot of complaints against Michael O 'Neill. Michael O 'Neill, as I say, is the CEO of the tax practitioners board, this tiny little minnow.
that he launched a whole lot of complaints against Michael O 'Neill because O 'Neill wouldn't bloody stop investigating PWC. Had him investigated for bullying, for example. Now, if you watch the testimony and you watch Michael O 'Neill, and don't get me wrong, I've got a lot of respect for Michael O 'Neill. He's obviously, obviously one of the good guys, but he has a personality like, I don't know, a glass of water mixed with maybe a butterfly.
Like he's not a scary guy. He's very softly spoken. He's quite sort of effete.
Anthony (20:07)
He's a bureaucrat from central casting. You know, he comes a lot. He's kind of meek and precise. I mean, know, I mean, anyone could be a bully, but he does seem extremely unlikely. But I mean, what happened next was pretty remarkable.
Andy (20:09)
Yeah.
So Chenoweth's article says that they tried to have him investigated for bullying, that that fell flat on its face, that they tried to have him investigated for overreach, that fell flat on its face, that they threatened to have him investigated for fraud, but they didn't even have anywhere to start with that. The article also said, Chris Jordan came to a board meeting of the Tax Practitioners Board and unannounced.
He proceeded to lambaste Michael O 'Neill, who was out of the room, proceeded to lambaste him for continuing to investigate PWC in front of two board members, a guy by the name of Hogan and a woman by the name of Sullivan, both of whom,
Anthony (21:09)
And these are two tax practitioners board members. So two board members of the Australian Government Tax Practitioners Board.
Andy (21:15)
Is his name Peter Hogan? I can't remember his first name. Her name is Judy Sullivan. Let me just see if I can, Paul Hogan. So Paul Hogan and Judy Sullivan, they're sitting in on this meeting. They are both ex -PWC partners, which means they are both getting a pension from PWC.
Anthony (21:19)
Yes.
Andy (21:43)
Jordan comes in, he doesn't say to them, guys, I'm about to talk about a PWC matter, so you might wanna recuse yourselves. Nor does he say to Michael O 'Neill, I'm going to attack you mercilessly, so I don't know, you might wanna be in the room to defend yourself. He attacks O 'Neill while O 'Neill is out of the room and in front of two former PWC partners, both of whom are still getting a pension.
from PWC, both of whom, get this right, both of whom are in regular and close communication with the then minister, Michael Sukar. And guess where Michael Sukar used to work? PWC, right?
Anthony (22:26)
And what came out of the inquiry on top of that was that neither actually got up and said, hey, we're going to recuse ourselves from the meeting. So the TPB said, oh, look, you know, they recuse themselves, et cetera, et cetera. They haven't been involved in the PWC. Peter Collins Pro was like, well, hang on a minute. They didn't excuse themselves or recuse themselves from that meeting. They sat there for that entire meeting. Now, Senator Pocock just said that was the sort of thing that you should be outed from a board from immediately. I mean, that's just beyond the pale. But anyway.
Andy (22:52)
And then Michael Sukar, ex -PWC, minister for whatever he was minister for in the Liberal government, Michael Sukar then enacted so -called reforms of the TPB to give the new incoming chairman, who is openly hostile to Michael O 'Neill, the power to sack O 'Neill. So we've got Chris Jordan goes to a board meeting.
gets stuck into Michael O 'Neill while he's out of the room, but who's in the room, two PWC ex -partners who are in constant contact with Michael Suka, who's also ex -PWC, who then enacts reforms to help the new incoming chair of the TPB, the Tax Practitioners Board, boot Michael O 'Neill out of the organisation, because Michael O 'Neill won't stop investigating PWC. So.
Anthony (23:45)
And it's worth noting as well that Michael O 'Neill has an absolutely stellar history at the Tax Practitioners Board in public service. And he's led particularly the 80s and 90s and the early 2000s, like some fantastic investigations and probes. So his school board is sort of, you know, beyond none. Like he's the top of his game.
Andy (24:07)
One of the other allegations that Chenoweth made is that when Michael Sukar enacted these reforms, one of the reforms that he put in place, had it gone through, it didn't go through because the bloody corrupt liberals lost government, one of the reforms he was going to put in place was that when the new chair of the TPB sacked Michael O 'Neill,
Michael O 'Neill would be subject to a so -called no returns policy. So Michael O 'Neill has been seconded to the Tax Practitioners Board from the Australian Tax Office and his contract states if he has to leave the Tax Practitioners Board he is automatically entitled to return to his job at the Australian Tax Office. Under relentless pressure from Chris Jordan, the current ATO Commissioner,
under relentless pressure from Chris Jordan. Not only does Michael Sukar put in place steps so that the chair can sack Michael O 'Neill, but when he sacked him, he won't have a job to go back to. So these are the allegations in Chenoweth's article. And I read them and I thought they are so shocking, I actually don't believe them. So the first person who's up to be interviewed, Jeremy Herschel, the Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Tax Office, and of course, Senator Barbara Pocock, who's all over this. She says to Herschel,
I want to ask you about these allegations. Did you launch all sorts of inquiries and all sorts of complaints against Michael O 'Neill? No, no, no, no, we didn't do that. Did you try and have him sacked? No, no, no. Did you try and enforce a no returns policy on him? No, no, I can't tell you how egregiously untrue those allegations are. So I thought, I'm relieved. I'm actually relieved to hear that the Australian Tax Office is not that corrupt.
Next up, next organisation to appear before the Senate after the Australian Tax Office was finished that morning, tax practitioners bought. Michael O 'Neill doesn't say a word. Like I, if I'd gone there, I would have sat down and gone, excuse me, excuse me, I just want to say everything Jeremy Herschel said was a bloody lie. Not this guy O 'Neill, he's very quiet, he's very calm, he doesn't say anything. Barbara Pocock says to him, so we've heard that there were no...
we've heard a denial that there were any investigations against you. Is that true? He goes, no, I'm afraid it's not true. She goes, excuse me.
Anthony (26:42)
And what he delivered, it was devastating. He just, he went through in very measured, using very measured words, but he just explained in detail exactly what had happened. And it just left Herschel on just looking like a liar, having lied. So, and I guess a big one point to add there is that Chris Jordan, who's the boss of the ATO, has been there for many years. He's preparing to leave in the next few weeks, actually. And there's another...
person's been appointed to run the ATO for at least the next five years. Now that person is Rob Heffern, who is to lead the ATO for a period of seven years. It was announced on December 7 by Jim Chalmers, the Federal Treasurer.
He used to be, Heffern used to be, or is currently the CEO of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and he's been in the public service for over 30 years. The reason I bring that up is because what we've seen throughout these Australian government tax entities is just a proliferation of these big four former partners or big four partners, even many of them still on the payroll, the big four running Australia's taxation systems, which is just a disaster. So the government's shown some...
great sense there and actually employed someone who's not from the big four and put them in charge. And the reason I've raised that is because Herschon himself was a key favourite to actually be put into the position of the boss of the ATO commissioner. So it might have been that they made a very well, it looks like they made a very good call there if you've got Herschon making untrue statements to a Senate inquiry. I mean, it's pretty difficult for him to get around that, isn't it? He said one thing and the truth's gone.
Andy (28:19)
And Herschel is ex KPMG.
Anthony (28:22)
Yes, exactly. Of course, Hirshhorn. So both the ATO boss and the deputy are both ex -KPMG. It's quite remarkable.
Andy (28:30)
And one of the things they said to Michael O 'Neill was they said, tell us, were you going to, was there any talk about a no return policy? He said, yes, Michael Sukar had put in place a no return policy and I was being told I had to sign a new contract and the new contract would have included a no return policy. And Barbara Pocock said, well, what happened with that? And he said, oh, well, you know.
Minister Sukhal was part of a government that lost office and so it didn't eventuate. And she said, and they were threatening you with a fraud inquiry. Like this guy, this guy is so straighty 180. This guy is like, you know, he probably is incapable of even bloody cheating at monopoly, right? He is just so down the line. And...
she said to him, so they were going to investigate you for fraud. What was that like? And he said, well, you know, it did cause some it did cause some challenges for me and my staff. Like, like I cannot imagine a workplace more toxic than having the Australian tax office bearing down on you going, we're going to get you, we're going to get you for bullying or we're going to get you for fraud. We're going to get you for something. And he goes.
Anthony (29:41)
You think?
for doing your job, for doing your job, right? I mean, that's corruption. That's textbook corruption.
Andy (29:55)
Yeah, for doing a job.
So right there, and by this stage, we haven't even broken for lunch, right? By this stage, the Senate hearings on Friday, it isn't even lunchtime.
And what we are hearing is the CEO of the Tax Practitioners Board revealing that he had been subjected to a relentless campaign of vilification and bullying in order to shut him down and shut him up because he wouldn't stop investigating PWC. And while all of this is going on, he's having to deal with board members who are PWC ex -partners and who are in constant contact with an ex -PWC partner who's now a minister of whatever Sukho was minister of. It's just...
Antony, this is no longer Sweden with better weather. This country is becoming Russia with better weather. This is out of control.
Anthony (30:52)
I think I mean, we've mentioned before, like between 2012 and 2022, Australia fell faster down transparency internationals index towards corruption than any other nation, with the exception of Hungary with with whom we tied. I mean, they might have even underestimated it. I mean, obviously, they were they were they were at least spot on. But I mean, this is the sort of stuff that's been going on behind the scenes here for the past decade, at least. And it's it's rotten. And there's a lot more than this. I mean, this is still just the tip of the iceberg.
Andy (31:20)
just looking up quickly what Michael Sukar was a minister of. Assistant minister to the treasurer. Assistant minister to the treasurer. So really, you know.
Anthony (31:35)
That's super high up. That's pretty much, yeah. The Deputy Treasurer.
Andy (31:38)
And Josh Frydenberg, I mean, I just, I don't have a good word to say about him. I was actually, I was actually bitterly, bitterly disappointed the other day when I heard that Josh Frydenberg isn't going to be re -contesting the seat of Kuyong because the only thing that would have given me more pleasure than seeing Josh Frydenberg lose to Monique Ryan would have been seeing him lose to her twice. Anyway.
Anthony (31:59)
and he would have got trounced. And I'm sure, well, I'm certain that's why that he hasn't run because they've just thought, well, just keep doing the polling, keep doing the polling. And it just keeps saying no way. And more the public becomes aware of what Josh Frydenberg got up to. And as we've mentioned before, we've written at length the Klaxon, you can find it there is Frydenberg secretly deleted the findings of the investigation into corruption at the top of ASIC, the top of the corporate regulator. And still nothing's come out.
The government still hasn't done anything about that. That's a shame. The current government really needs to get on that and expose it because there's no point just coming into government and letting serious wrongdoing just sit there. You've got to actually hold it out and do something to prevent it happening again.
Andy (32:38)
Then after lunch, after we'd all had a chance to have a lie down and kind of digest and what we'd seen in the morning and just sort of pull ourselves towards ourselves, along came resting bulldog face, Kevin Burrows. Kevin Burrows is the CEO of PWC, parachuted into PWC after Tom Seymour had to leave because he'd been caught lying to parliament. And Kevin Burrows,
was in charge of PWC in Singapore. He's a POM. Joe Esten, I think.
Anthony (33:12)
He spent a lot of years working in decades working at PWC UK beforehand. So he's a PWC bluebird all the way through.
Andy (33:24)
Yep, and he's parachuted into PWC Australia to deal with the dumpster fire that has become the former audit firm known as PWC. But Anthony and I, we've been doing a little bit of digging.
And we found some very interesting information about Mr. Kevin Burrows, resting bulldog face. I think it was Joe Aston who wrote Rear Window in the Australian Financial Review, referred to him as resting bulldog face. He's not a pretty man. Big Kevo used to be head of clients and markets for PWC UK.
Anthony (33:40)
Mmm.
That sounds like Joyce.
Andy (34:09)
When Peter Collins was found to have betrayed Australia and sold Australia's tax secrets to the biggest tax evaders on earth.
Some of that information was shared with the Tax in brackets Evasion Department at PWC in the UK. So the Tax Advice Department in the UK is receiving and trafficking in Australia's tax secrets, which they're getting from this traitor, Peter Collins, in Sydney. The Tax Division of PWC UK,
reported to the head of PWC UK clients and markets. Guess who the head of clients and markets was at PWC UK?
Big Cave Resting Bulldog Face.
Anthony (35:08)
unbelievable, isn't it? And he's the one that now parachuted in there. But I think that sort of brings us to the next point is listeners will no doubt recall in September of last year, PWC said, Oh, look, we're going to have with with here's the findings of our, our independent review in this whole saga. Now, several months into the affair, they announced that
that they would conduct their own internal review that they'd appointed Ziggy Switzkowski, who's a businessman, former CEO of Telstra many years ago. He comes in and does this inquiry. We subsequently reveal, the Klaxon reveals that the terms of reference, PwC is refusing to disclose the terms of reference of this inquiry, and the terms of reference being the instructions that are set for the inquiry, the instructions that PwC sets for the inquiry that it pays for.
And then the report comes out and sure enough, PWC has deliberately told Switkowski not to look into the tax leaks affair. It said don't look into anything before your appointment before 2023. And obviously he's appointed after the scandals happened. So he's put in there to do this report. He can't report on specifically any of these issues and doesn't actually makes that point in his final report. PWC says, look, here's your report. See you later. We're all done.
They also put out this so -called statement of facts, 33 page document that's sort of heavily legaled and names redacted and sort of largely a nonsense. But it has a little bit more information about the tax, the tax affair, but it's extremely carefully done with teams of corporate lawyers to avoid anyone getting in trouble or any actual proper information coming out. And they also at the same time, so it's in cahoots, so they're working at the same time. You've got PwC International, they put out a statement that same day.
It's about three paragraphs on the website saying, hey, look, we had some lawyers looking at this group, Linklater is a law firm we've engaged in. They've done a report. But yeah, too bad we're not going to show it to you essentially. Or they just didn't refer to it, but they wouldn't provide it to me. You haven't provided the Senate inquiry. So there's been these questions ever since. Hey, what's in this Linklater's report? Over to you, Andy.
Andy (37:13)
So first thing I want to say, don't be a moron. Don't be stupid. Don't be an idiot. When PwC gets Ziggy Switowski to do a review, don't be dumb as dog shit and think, oh, well, Ziggy Switowski, he used to be chair of Telstra, CEO of Telstra, and he's very respected. And I'm sure everything's under control now, and there'll be an independent review.
They got Ziggy Switowski to do a review. When he did the review, they said to him, you are allowed to look at PWC from the day you are appointed forwards. You are not allowed to look backwards at all. Well, what's the point of the review? Like, what are you reviewing? You're looking in a crystal ball.
Anthony (38:00)
And they even hid that fact because they refused to say what their terms of reference were until it came out. And actually it was the New South Wales inquiry that exposed that. So we were exposed that they were refusing to hand over the terms of reference and they refused and we put it to them many times. Then there was an inquiry by the New South Wales government.
And they actually managed to get their hands on it and found that sure enough, he wasn't actually looking at the issue at hand. So it's just a, so from day one, it's been a completely organized, carefully choreographed, stitch up, cover up by PWC. And the, what is great is Senate Inquiry has done such a good job and they are completely aware of this as they've made known.
that's, you know, this isn't good enough, but often it's so frustrating as a journalist, you'll see this and as an investigative journalist, you'll dig into this stuff and you'll know exactly what's going on. But you'll have a Senate or authorities that just won't do their jobs properly and won't get to the bottom of it. But this time they're really sticking to their guns, which is fantastic. And there was some extremely strong language used to that end on Friday.
Andy (39:03)
about the Linklater's report. So the Svartovsky report is just a curtain trick, right? It's just a fig leaf. But the Linklater's report, that's even worse. PWC has refused to show anyone what the terms of reference were for the Linklater's report. And they've refused to show anybody the Linklater's report, which names a so -called dirty six. Six partners who are at the very top of PWC Global.
who are part of trafficking Australia's tax secrets. So Kevo, big Kevo resting bulldog face goes and he appears before the Senate and they said to him, where's the linklater's report? You promised the public, your firm went on the record in September of last year and said, we promise we will give you the linklater's report. That was September. Where's the linklater's report, Kevo? And he goes, oh no.
I've emailed the head office and they've said it's covered by confidentiality and they won't show it to me. Now, at this point, I want to pull back the curtain, right? Kevo is the CEO of PwC Australia. He was the CEO of PwC Singapore. He was in a very senior position at PwC in the UK. He's been parachuted into this dumpster fire to try and save what little is left of PwC. Are you telling me if big Kevo...
turned around to Bob Moritz, who's the global CEO of PwC and said to him, Bobby, either you give me that link later's report or I'm walking.
Right? I can get a job somewhere else or I've made so much money I can retire, but I'm not going to be the patsy. I'm not going to be hung out to dry. We promised the Australian public that the linklater's report. You've refused to give it to me. This is not acceptable. If you want me to put this dumpster fire out, you need to give me that linklater's report. Instead, he says, oh no, I've sent a few emails and they said, no, you can't have it. I call bullshit.
Anthony (41:03)
I call it bullshit too, it's a stitch up. It's pretty organized stitch up, of course. They don't want to release it, they won't release it. But I think the heart of all of this is why on earth is PWC doing its own investigations into itself? The governments need to be in there. Where on earth is the AFP, the Australian Federal Police, they were supposed to be looking at this years ago and they still haven't done anything. It's outrageous. And PWC, I mean, even with this link letter as a report, clearly there's damning findings in there.
Andy (41:15)
Yeah.
If.
Anthony (41:31)
I mean, the issue with this link latest report is it looks at the international aspects of the tax gap, not just the Australian information, but all the all the PwC branches and partners around the world sharing it and making money out of or trying to make money out of it. So it makes the issue global. So what PwC is doing absolutely everything it can is trying to cauterize the word keep it in Australia, keep it locked away in Australia. But that
Andy (41:46)
If.
Anthony (41:55)
almost certainly isn't going to happen. And it isn't going to happen in a large part because the Senate inquiry is saying, look, no, that's not good enough. We're not going to let that stand. Now, Chair Richard Colbeck said, look, we'll do everything in our power. We will be or are engaging with our counterparts in other parts of the world, other jurisdictions. Now, if you look at the US, for example, the laws there regarding organized corruption, organized crime or wrongdoing, corporate wrongdoing,
much stronger. So there's every chance that there could be there could be quite a bit of action coming from that on that front. But basically what this means is it's not going away. We saw the Financial Times had a good piece on this on Friday, it's making international headlines, they're not going to get away with it. What is remarkable to me, and I mean, it's got to be it's the it's all the partners voting, well, they're not going to vote.
they're clearly not gonna vote to tell the truth because it's gonna cost them some money. So they're gonna vote to cover it all up, which is what they keep doing and doing and doing. But the long -term effect is just gonna be, this is gonna drag out and drag out and drag out and not gonna get any better. And they think it's just gonna blow over with the media cycle, et cetera, but it isn't. The...
Andy (43:05)
What's even more interesting? Senator Colbeck said to Big Kevo.
These were his words. He said, we are deadly serious about getting that report. And he said, if we don't get that report, we on this committee, and it's not just, he said, it's not just us, it's the whole Australian parliament. We're gonna write a report that's not gonna be pretty, and we're gonna spread the love around, and we'll spread it around internationally. So he's saying to Kevo, if you don't give us that report, the consequences for you are gonna be catastrophic.
So now you've got to ask yourself, what's in that report that is so explosive that Big Kevo would rather risk the wrath of the entire Australian parliament than hand over that report? What's in there?
Anthony (44:00)
And you have Colbeck saying, there are people who are actively working with Australians, particularly in the United States, to go around and gather up customers to help them promote tax schemes. Why don't we deserve to understand what sits behind that from the international level? And he says, the only answer I get is the same answer the tax office got, and this is the ATO. So the PWC for many years is telling the ATO to basically get stuff, we're not giving you information, legal professional privilege.
Which is nonsense, of course, because legal professional privilege will hang on. PwC paid this law firm to get this advice. It could do what it wants with it. It's it's it's it's PwC's damn advice. It's saying it's legal professional privilege. It's just the nonsense. It's just more of a nonsense on top of on top of nonsense. But I think one really interesting point that we've come by and this is the basis of a major expose we're going to run tomorrow, which should cause quite a few few quite a bit of a stir, I think, Andy. So you've got.
Andy (44:31)
Exactly.
Anthony (44:54)
Kevin Burrow saying, look, I can't get this report, blah, blah, blah, send an email, et cetera. Now there's a person called Patricia Carney, who calls herself or is called Patty Carney, prefers Patty apparently. Now Patty Carney is a member of PwC International. Now remember it's PwC International, it's based in the UK, that's done this commission, this link latest report.
into the global aspects of this scandal. Now, Patricia Carney is the director of the PwC International and directors of entities such as this. They are required to be able to access company documents. Otherwise, they wouldn't be directors. They've got to sign off on accounts, et cetera. She has full access. So, Patty Carney is also PwC Australia partner. Patty Carney works in Sydney in PwC's offices. She works alongside Burrows. So all Burrows has to do is say, hey, Patty,
How's about that document? So here you've got an independent director and it's worth noting here, I called Patty yesterday. It's quite helpful actually, a lot of these PWC partners, they have their mobile phone numbers on the website. I guess quite a few of them don't anymore. But anyway, she, and she refused to comment. She heard out my questions and then said, oh, look, it's being handled by the media team at PWC Australia.
And sure enough, I put written questions to Kevin Burrows regarding these four questions. Have you asked Miss Carney for this information? If not, why not? If so, when did you ask her for it? Anyway, it comes back from the PR person.
ah yeah, look, nah, we're not gonna respond to that. A lot of these issues were discussed last Friday, so basically get stuffed. So that's just part of the ongoing cover -up anyway. So that won't do much to help them though, because it's the basis now of a major, will be the basis of a major expose, and the Senate inquiry will no doubt be watching that very closely.
Andy (46:46)
So to be just to make sure that we join the dots. Kevo says when he's asked why he hasn't provided the link latest report, if you read between the lines, what's really going on? He said, even I haven't seen it. Now, there's no ways, right? There is no ways that if Kevo had said to the global CEO, at least show me the report.
least let me see it, they would have said no to him. The reason why he hasn't seen it, because he doesn't want to see it so he can maintain plausible deniability. Peter.
Anthony (47:20)
Exactly, and that's the way these things work. You don't actually look at it, but they can say, hey, the gist of it is X, Y, Z, or just use some language behind the scenes, all good. So he knows what's going on. He's given the heads up, but doesn't actually see it. So he can stand there and correctly say he hasn't seen the report.
Andy (47:34)
So there's a firm, there's a company that is registered in the United Kingdom called PWC International Limited, PWCIL. It doesn't trade. All it does is manage the franchise. PWCIL has commissioned the Linklater's report. One of the board members of PWCIL is an employee of Kevo Resting Bulldog Face. So when he says, oh, you know, I've emailed and they're the other side of the world and they're in...
galaxy far, far away and I can't get hold of them and they don't want to give it to me and it's so far away and it's all so difficult. All he needs to do is take his resting bulldog face and his buffy hairdo and stick it around the corner of the door of the office of Miss Carney and go, give me the damn link later's report and you'll get it. And what I find particularly interesting, right? Australia is a G8 economy. PwC Global is a global firm. It's not, it cannot.
claim to be a credible global firm without a footprint, a sizeable footprint in a G8 economy like Australia. They're risking that. They're risking their presence here. They've already had to sell off their government consulting arm. They're risking the survival of PwC Australia in a G8 economy and the impact that will have on PwC Global.
in order not to release the report. I say it again, can you imagine what's in that report?
Anthony (49:08)
Remarkable, all right, we better wrap it up there. Andy, it was just a remarkable session Friday. There's many more stories to come out of that. And also later this month, there is another hearing. This particular Senate inquiry is due to be wrapped up.
by around the 25th of March that you do issue their final report. They have extended their deadline several times. I think this time they'll probably will wind it up by that date. But these issues won't be going away because other Senate inquiries are ongoing. The Standing Committee and economics, for example, these senators straddle both. So they'll be continuing to track this and to ask questions on this regardless of whether this specific inquiry is wound up. Andy.
Andy (49:47)
Yep, and if you go over to my LinkedIn page, I've put up edited clips. I've put up clips of the interactions between Barbara Pocock and Andrew Yates and Senator Deborah O 'Neill and Andrew Yates. And it is some of the best entertainment you will watch on TV.
Anthony (50:09)
Truly remarkable. All right, thank you so much and we'll be speaking to you again next time.
Andy (50:14)
Terrific, thank you, Anthony. Wonderful to talk to you and all best wishes to our listeners. Thank you so much for tuning in.
Anthony (50:23)
Indeed. Thank you so much.
Welcome to Corporate Grime, the podcast where we look at corporate crime spreading across Australia, shine the light on issues that often aren't given enough attention. My name is Anthony Klan, I'm an investigative reporter and I'm joined with professional corporate governance expert.
Dr Andy Schmulow. Good afternoon Andy.
Andy (00:20)
Anthony, lovely to be back with you. What a week it's been.
Anthony (00:24)
What an enormous week it's been indeed. Look, this PricewaterhouseCoopers story just keeps getting bigger and bigger. And it's, I'd say that the most explosive hearings last Friday that I've seen in the saga to date, it was the day of just witnesses entering the box and just this explosion after explosion. What was your takeaway from the day, Andy?
Andy (00:47)
I've got to say, I've got to agree with you. There's been some really explosive testimony in the past and certainly explosive enough that it's turned the saga into, well, into a saga. But I've got to say what I saw on Friday, the expression that comes to mind, you could not make this shit up. We had the ATO appearing before the inquiry. So this is a Senate inquiry.
It's an inquiry that was convened after the revelation that partners at PlaswaterhouseCoopers had been trafficking in Australia's tax secrets. Convened by the Senate, chaired by Senator Richard Colbeck from Tasmania.
and he is joined by Senator Barbara Pocock who is a member of the Australian Greens. Colbeck is a Liberal and he's joined by Senator Deborah O 'Neill who is from the Labour Party and I have to say Colbeck's not bad but Barbara Pocock and Deborah O 'Neill, oh my god, you do you...
Anthony (01:57)
They're forces to be reckoned with, they're doing absolutely stellar job.
Andy (02:00)
You do not want to get on the wrong side of those two women. You know, you would just be well. You'd end up like Andrew Yates. Toast.
Anthony (02:10)
And so Andrew Yates, tell us else about him. So we've had PWC, we had KPMG. Now this is a Senate inquiry into consultancies. Generally, obviously the big four will take up the lion's share of that. That's KPMG, PWC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young. Now we've seen Andrew Yates, the CEO of KPMG. KPMG is the biggest, the federal government's, of the big four gets more federal government.
money than any other. It's getting billions of dollars. So the CEO, the question is, you know, they need to be beyond reproach. We've had the CEO, Andrew Yates has been in the stand before and on Friday, he appeared again. Now, Andy, Dr. Shmulo has written a fantastic piece for the Klaxon. You can find it at theklaxon .com .au.
where he summarises this, but writes about this. It's a fantastic article. Check it out. But Andy, what were your thoughts on regarding the KPMG CEO on Friday?
Andy (03:04)
So the first time he appeared, he burned himself to the ground. This time he set fire to the ashes. The first time he appeared, he was asked whether KPMG used Power Maps. Now, as Senator O 'Neill pointed out, Power Maps are not illegal, but they are a problem and they are a concern because they are a means by which...
to engage in a strategy called land and expand. So what these big consultancy firms do is they engage in the strategy called land and expand. They get into a government department by underquoting for the work that they're going to do.
Then once they're in there, they try to massively expand the scope of the work that they've got to do and they keep upping the price. And by this stage, they've got their tentacles into the department. They are well familiar with who's who in the department. They're looking very closely at building relationships with people in the department. Some of those relationships are built on the basis of an implied promise of a revolving door.
So one of the guys who appeared for KPMG on Friday was a senior defense official and he had gone and joined KPMG.
And when he left defense, it was on the understanding that he would not contact anyone at the Defense Department for 12 months. And the first time Andrew Yates appeared, Barbara Pocock confronted him with email correspondence within KPMG in which they were boasting about the fact that this guy still had six months to run on his exclusion clause. And he was actively courting people in the Defense Department and building relationships. But I don't want to get hung up on that.
because that's the tip of the iceberg right? First time Yates appeared Barbara Pocock says to him do you use Power Maps? No no no no no no we don't use Power Maps no I don't even know what a Power Map is what's a Power Map? She holds up a piece of paper and she says this is a Power Map this is a Power Map and it's been put together by KPMG.
So he proceeded to do this kind of twisting, writhing little dance in which he tortured himself for sort of 15 or 20 minutes trying to explain that, well, it wasn't really a power map and he didn't think of it as a power map and he wasn't sure that it was a power map and blah, blah.
Anthony (05:37)
And so, so power map being you've got the consultant CKPMG say, maps at the department, who's who works out who can hit, who's most influential, etc, etc, and how it can extract the most money out of getting contracts, and yet working out what's going on. And the crime here isn't as much the power maps, even though they're, you know, as bad as they are, the issue, the biggest issue here now is the cover up. And often that's the case now.
And that was shown in painful detail, or painful for Mr. Yates on Friday anyway.
Andy (06:12)
So just to clarify something, Power Maps are designed to pedal influence, to get tentacles deep into a department, to schmooze, to traffic in kind of relationships. They are antithetical to a government department.
awarding contracts on the basis of the most rational possible determinants that you could find. If a government department is going to be basing its procurement and purchasing of consultancy services on the most uncorrupted set of criteria,
then who it's got cozy relationships with irrelevant, right? It's got absolutely nothing to do with how the government department should be engaging in procurement. When you have firms like KPMG that are actively promoting these power maps and compiling these power maps and then putting their staff under enormous pressure to go and sell into departments based on these power maps, it becomes a form of soft corruption. So anyway, Andrew Yates, first time he appeared in September of last year, he says, no, no, no, we don't use power maps.
power maps, I don't know what you're talking about, it's all a big ruse. She then shows him a power map. Right, so he's confronted with the fact that he's live to Parliament. Senator Pocock says to him, you have just been caught lying to Parliament. So he then says, he gets his two RC, I can't remember what the guy's name is. And this fellow says, Oh, no, we kind of got hung up on the definition of a power map and
You know, we don't call those things power maps. We call them relationship maps. There's no difference, right? At which point Senator O 'Neill steps in and she says, I asked you a question on notice, boys. The question I asked you was, do you use power maps or relationship maps or influence maps or any other kind of map where you map your relationship with people in the government department and how well disposed they are towards you, irrespective of the name you call it. So they were caught absolutely flat footed. Now,
Anthony (08:20)
And she read out the specific word for word, the questions on notice, and it captured all of that undeniably.
Andy (08:26)
She cast that she gave them a definition that was so wide that it was inescapable. And as you rightly say, it was a question on notice. So they're sitting in their offices, they're reviewing the question, having meetings, they're discussing how they should answer the question. This is not a question that is sprung on them in testimony and they misspoke in the heat of the moment. That's not what happened here.
Anthony (08:52)
sitting back there with their team of corporate lawyers, working how they can try and get out of it.
Andy (08:57)
So that was in September. Fast forward to early February. Yates is back. He's brought with him an entire flotilla. He's got about 10 or 12 people with him as a security blanket. He sits up in front of the Senate and Barbara Pocock gets absolutely stuck into him about Power Maps.
She says, Tim, you came here last time and you lied. Are you going to tell us the truth this time? Yes, no, no, yes, yes, no, no, yes, I'm going to tell you the truth. I don't want to be out here. So she says, OK, you say you've come here to tell us the truth. We asked you to give us copies of all the Power Maps that you use. Yep. Yes, yes, we've done that. We've done that. We've given you copies of all the Power Maps we use. So she holds up a copy of what they've sent her.
And she says, this is not a PowerNap. This is an organizational chart of a government department which you have copied and pasted from the government department's website. So you've tried to find something that is as innocuous as is humanly possible.
You've cut and pasted. You've then changed it from portrait mode or from landscape mode to portrait mode. You've deleted the government department's name at the top and you've put your name in and you've told us that's the only kind of Power Map you do. She goes, oh, yes, well, yes. Well, that's kind of, yes, that's true. That's all we do. We just do it because we want to be efficient. And she says, oh, really? What about this? And she holds up another different actual KPMG Power Map.
It was just...
Anthony (10:44)
Precisely, and you've given us this sham power map and she's holding up there, we've got an image of it on the klaxon there in Dr. Shmulo's piece of what they've sent through and anyone who spends much time looking at government reports or annual reports or who's in government and most journalists and politicians have been in that boat.
This is quite a familiar, this map or this layout is quite familiar and you'll see it in all annual reports and say here's our people in our department. So for them to get one of those and then doctor it a little and put it in like she said you must think we're idiots and I think that pretty much hit the nail on the head. That's clearly what they were thinking but she then went, yes exactly, went and held up what had been provided to the supplier or they'd obtained elsewhere presumably through a whistleblower.
showing, well here's actually what you're doing and he said he hadn't seen this before etc etc but he didn't deny it was KPMG so basically, well yes, not even basically but caught red -handed. Here's the quote from Senator O 'Neill, you must think we're absolutely stupid. So anyway, what happens to him? So he's still there, now he's admitted, he's being paid 2 .2 million dollars a year.
So an enormous amount of very large proportion of that's going to become funded ultimately by taxpayers. Give it to KPMG, you get such a large proportion of its income from taxpayers and Australian government departments keep giving big contracts to KPMG, particularly defence. So the issue is what happens to him? Why is he still there? Well, I think this is an interesting one, but with these big partners, Andy, you've got big partnerships rather, you've got...
rather than being a corporate entity where you've got a chair whose head would roll if they didn't do the right thing and get rid of the CEO for performance. You don't have that as such. You've got to lease the lease partners and their primary objective is to maximise money they can make out of the corporation. So you just don't see the heads rolling like you would ordinarily. And I guess that's why the calls there to actually properly bringing some laws to properly police these partnerships or make them become corporate entities or the very least stop giving him.
billions of dollars.
Andy (12:52)
To be fair, as bad as PWC is, when Tom Seymour, the CEO, was found to have lied.
to Parliament. He also went before Parliament and he said there was nobody else involved in the Tax League scandal other than Peter John Collins. And then it transpired not only had there been other people involved, the other people involved included Tom Seymour, the CEO. And when that was revealed, Tom Seymour had to leave his position. So PwC at least they kind of had the sort of situational awareness where they said, well, you know, CEO, he's been caught lying to Parliament. It's a really
bad look. Tom, you might need to walk the plank. Yates has been caught lying to Parliament twice. Nothing's happened to him. KPMG is even worse. And when Senator O 'Neill held up a copy of the bogus org chart, the organizational chart that KPMG had sent in, she said to Andrew Yates, it took us a couple of minutes.
searching on the web to find where you'd copied and pasted this from.
I've got to say the woman who was sitting next to him, I don't know what her name is, she looked like she'd seen into the vortex. She was just like a stunned mother. She was sitting there like trying not to look like she was going to burst into tears. It was just all so terrible. And Yates.
Anthony (14:21)
I think Andy, you sort of summed it up quite well there. Sorry, you sort of summed it up quite well there in your piece. Andrew Yates was reduced to the professional services firm's CEO equivalent of Barnaby Joyce. I think that encapsulates quite a lot there.
Andy (14:36)
So that was Andrew Yates providing a low light. But then the session started in the morning with the Australian tax office, the deputy commissioner, Jeremy Herschorn appearing before the Senate and talking about all the things that the ATO was doing to try and put a stop to the to the routing of the tax system and how concerned they were about what PwC had done and that they were very upset about it. And...
very pleased that something was now finally happening, blah, blah, blah. The day before this inquiry took place, Neil Chenoweth, a journalist at the Australian Financial Review, published a massive story entitled Inside the Tax Officers' Bitter Feud over PWC. And there's no doubt in my mind that Chenoweth timed this article.
so that it would appear the day before. The officials from the Australian Tax Office and the officials from the Tax Practitioners Board were meant to appear before Parliament. So Hirshhorn, Deputy Commissioner of Tax, he's sitting in front of these senators and they start to grill him on the allegations in this article. And the allegations are that the Tax Office, the ATO, waged a war.
against the CEO of the Tax Practitioners Board, a fellow by the name of Michael O 'Neill, because he wouldn't stop investigating Price Waterhouse. The allegations in the article
Anthony (16:09)
And just to explain, sorry to interject there quickly, so just in case anyone's confused, we've got the Australian Taxation Office, which is the biggest entity, the main body, the Tax Practitioners Board, which is also an Australian government entity. It is responsible for a budget of about $150 million a year, so it's much smaller, but it has about 150 employees, sizeable enough. It's responsible for policing the practices of the 40 ,000 -odd Australian tax practitioners, accountants, what have you.
So their role is to take action against the PwC partners who are involved in the tax leak scandal for sharing Australian government, confidential Australian government information around PwC and using it to win business around the world. So you've got this sort of the argy -bargy between the ATO and the Tax Practitioners Board and the...
A key issue throughout here all along has been the ATO saying, oh, look, we couldn't do anything since 2014 or 15 or however long ago. It's known about this issue like a decade essentially because of the secrecy laws and XYZ. And the Tax Practitioners Board has actually gone, hang on, we can do something here. So it's gone out on its own and issued letters to...
the major multinationals, tech companies, the people that have been using these dodgy scheme whipped up by PwC to avoid Australian tax avoidance laws. The ATO has got super upset about this and behind the scenes, we've heard this from about 12 months ago and Chenoweth did a great piece a year ago now, setting a lot of this out and then the ATO came and denied it all and talked it down, etc, etc. And they tried to pull the same thing on Friday and back to you Andy.
Andy (17:46)
Yeah, spot on. So the ATO is the huge behemoth responsible for tax policy and enforcement of the Tax Act and making sure that it collects taxes from taxpayers. The Tax Practitioners Board is the entity no one had ever heard of until Peter Collins was found to have been selling tax secrets. So Chenoweth says in his article, he makes allegations,
I have to say, when I read Chenoweth's article, I thought to myself, and this is coming from someone who's a skeptic and someone who's very concerned about Australia's sliding to crony capitalism and someone who is concerned about white collar crime. When I read Chenoweth's article, I thought to myself, I don't really know if I believe this.
Like, the allegations are so bad and call me naive, but I've always kind of had this sort of sense that the Australian Tax Office, that its reputation, that its ethics, that its integrity is inviolable, right? That they are just, they are bulletproof, they're squeaky clean.
And I looked at this and I thought, oh, these allegations, I'm not sure if I believe them. Like there's some really serious allegations in here. Like, for example, that the current commissioner, Chris Jordan, launched a whole lot of complaints against Michael O 'Neill. Michael O 'Neill, as I say, is the CEO of the tax practitioners board, this tiny little minnow.
that he launched a whole lot of complaints against Michael O 'Neill because O 'Neill wouldn't bloody stop investigating PWC. Had him investigated for bullying, for example. Now, if you watch the testimony and you watch Michael O 'Neill, and don't get me wrong, I've got a lot of respect for Michael O 'Neill. He's obviously, obviously one of the good guys, but he has a personality like, I don't know, a glass of water mixed with maybe a butterfly.
Like he's not a scary guy. He's very softly spoken. He's quite sort of effete.
Anthony (20:07)
He's a bureaucrat from central casting. You know, he comes a lot. He's kind of meek and precise. I mean, know, I mean, anyone could be a bully, but he does seem extremely unlikely. But I mean, what happened next was pretty remarkable.
Andy (20:09)
Yeah.
So Chenoweth's article says that they tried to have him investigated for bullying, that that fell flat on its face, that they tried to have him investigated for overreach, that fell flat on its face, that they threatened to have him investigated for fraud, but they didn't even have anywhere to start with that. The article also said, Chris Jordan came to a board meeting of the Tax Practitioners Board and unannounced.
He proceeded to lambaste Michael O 'Neill, who was out of the room, proceeded to lambaste him for continuing to investigate PWC in front of two board members, a guy by the name of Hogan and a woman by the name of Sullivan, both of whom,
Anthony (21:09)
And these are two tax practitioners board members. So two board members of the Australian Government Tax Practitioners Board.
Andy (21:15)
Is his name Peter Hogan? I can't remember his first name. Her name is Judy Sullivan. Let me just see if I can, Paul Hogan. So Paul Hogan and Judy Sullivan, they're sitting in on this meeting. They are both ex -PWC partners, which means they are both getting a pension from PWC.
Anthony (21:19)
Yes.
Andy (21:43)
Jordan comes in, he doesn't say to them, guys, I'm about to talk about a PWC matter, so you might wanna recuse yourselves. Nor does he say to Michael O 'Neill, I'm going to attack you mercilessly, so I don't know, you might wanna be in the room to defend yourself. He attacks O 'Neill while O 'Neill is out of the room and in front of two former PWC partners, both of whom are still getting a pension.
from PWC, both of whom, get this right, both of whom are in regular and close communication with the then minister, Michael Sukar. And guess where Michael Sukar used to work? PWC, right?
Anthony (22:26)
And what came out of the inquiry on top of that was that neither actually got up and said, hey, we're going to recuse ourselves from the meeting. So the TPB said, oh, look, you know, they recuse themselves, et cetera, et cetera. They haven't been involved in the PWC. Peter Collins Pro was like, well, hang on a minute. They didn't excuse themselves or recuse themselves from that meeting. They sat there for that entire meeting. Now, Senator Pocock just said that was the sort of thing that you should be outed from a board from immediately. I mean, that's just beyond the pale. But anyway.
Andy (22:52)
And then Michael Sukar, ex -PWC, minister for whatever he was minister for in the Liberal government, Michael Sukar then enacted so -called reforms of the TPB to give the new incoming chairman, who is openly hostile to Michael O 'Neill, the power to sack O 'Neill. So we've got Chris Jordan goes to a board meeting.
gets stuck into Michael O 'Neill while he's out of the room, but who's in the room, two PWC ex -partners who are in constant contact with Michael Suka, who's also ex -PWC, who then enacts reforms to help the new incoming chair of the TPB, the Tax Practitioners Board, boot Michael O 'Neill out of the organisation, because Michael O 'Neill won't stop investigating PWC. So.
Anthony (23:45)
And it's worth noting as well that Michael O 'Neill has an absolutely stellar history at the Tax Practitioners Board in public service. And he's led particularly the 80s and 90s and the early 2000s, like some fantastic investigations and probes. So his school board is sort of, you know, beyond none. Like he's the top of his game.
Andy (24:07)
One of the other allegations that Chenoweth made is that when Michael Sukar enacted these reforms, one of the reforms that he put in place, had it gone through, it didn't go through because the bloody corrupt liberals lost government, one of the reforms he was going to put in place was that when the new chair of the TPB sacked Michael O 'Neill,
Michael O 'Neill would be subject to a so -called no returns policy. So Michael O 'Neill has been seconded to the Tax Practitioners Board from the Australian Tax Office and his contract states if he has to leave the Tax Practitioners Board he is automatically entitled to return to his job at the Australian Tax Office. Under relentless pressure from Chris Jordan, the current ATO Commissioner,
under relentless pressure from Chris Jordan. Not only does Michael Sukar put in place steps so that the chair can sack Michael O 'Neill, but when he sacked him, he won't have a job to go back to. So these are the allegations in Chenoweth's article. And I read them and I thought they are so shocking, I actually don't believe them. So the first person who's up to be interviewed, Jeremy Herschel, the Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Tax Office, and of course, Senator Barbara Pocock, who's all over this. She says to Herschel,
I want to ask you about these allegations. Did you launch all sorts of inquiries and all sorts of complaints against Michael O 'Neill? No, no, no, no, we didn't do that. Did you try and have him sacked? No, no, no. Did you try and enforce a no returns policy on him? No, no, I can't tell you how egregiously untrue those allegations are. So I thought, I'm relieved. I'm actually relieved to hear that the Australian Tax Office is not that corrupt.
Next up, next organisation to appear before the Senate after the Australian Tax Office was finished that morning, tax practitioners bought. Michael O 'Neill doesn't say a word. Like I, if I'd gone there, I would have sat down and gone, excuse me, excuse me, I just want to say everything Jeremy Herschel said was a bloody lie. Not this guy O 'Neill, he's very quiet, he's very calm, he doesn't say anything. Barbara Pocock says to him, so we've heard that there were no...
we've heard a denial that there were any investigations against you. Is that true? He goes, no, I'm afraid it's not true. She goes, excuse me.
Anthony (26:42)
And what he delivered, it was devastating. He just, he went through in very measured, using very measured words, but he just explained in detail exactly what had happened. And it just left Herschel on just looking like a liar, having lied. So, and I guess a big one point to add there is that Chris Jordan, who's the boss of the ATO, has been there for many years. He's preparing to leave in the next few weeks, actually. And there's another...
person's been appointed to run the ATO for at least the next five years. Now that person is Rob Heffern, who is to lead the ATO for a period of seven years. It was announced on December 7 by Jim Chalmers, the Federal Treasurer.
He used to be, Heffern used to be, or is currently the CEO of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and he's been in the public service for over 30 years. The reason I bring that up is because what we've seen throughout these Australian government tax entities is just a proliferation of these big four former partners or big four partners, even many of them still on the payroll, the big four running Australia's taxation systems, which is just a disaster. So the government's shown some...
great sense there and actually employed someone who's not from the big four and put them in charge. And the reason I've raised that is because Herschon himself was a key favourite to actually be put into the position of the boss of the ATO commissioner. So it might have been that they made a very well, it looks like they made a very good call there if you've got Herschon making untrue statements to a Senate inquiry. I mean, it's pretty difficult for him to get around that, isn't it? He said one thing and the truth's gone.
Andy (28:19)
And Herschel is ex KPMG.
Anthony (28:22)
Yes, exactly. Of course, Hirshhorn. So both the ATO boss and the deputy are both ex -KPMG. It's quite remarkable.
Andy (28:30)
And one of the things they said to Michael O 'Neill was they said, tell us, were you going to, was there any talk about a no return policy? He said, yes, Michael Sukar had put in place a no return policy and I was being told I had to sign a new contract and the new contract would have included a no return policy. And Barbara Pocock said, well, what happened with that? And he said, oh, well, you know.
Minister Sukhal was part of a government that lost office and so it didn't eventuate. And she said, and they were threatening you with a fraud inquiry. Like this guy, this guy is so straighty 180. This guy is like, you know, he probably is incapable of even bloody cheating at monopoly, right? He is just so down the line. And...
she said to him, so they were going to investigate you for fraud. What was that like? And he said, well, you know, it did cause some it did cause some challenges for me and my staff. Like, like I cannot imagine a workplace more toxic than having the Australian tax office bearing down on you going, we're going to get you, we're going to get you for bullying or we're going to get you for fraud. We're going to get you for something. And he goes.
Anthony (29:41)
You think?
for doing your job, for doing your job, right? I mean, that's corruption. That's textbook corruption.
Andy (29:55)
Yeah, for doing a job.
So right there, and by this stage, we haven't even broken for lunch, right? By this stage, the Senate hearings on Friday, it isn't even lunchtime.
And what we are hearing is the CEO of the Tax Practitioners Board revealing that he had been subjected to a relentless campaign of vilification and bullying in order to shut him down and shut him up because he wouldn't stop investigating PWC. And while all of this is going on, he's having to deal with board members who are PWC ex -partners and who are in constant contact with an ex -PWC partner who's now a minister of whatever Sukho was minister of. It's just...
Antony, this is no longer Sweden with better weather. This country is becoming Russia with better weather. This is out of control.
Anthony (30:52)
I think I mean, we've mentioned before, like between 2012 and 2022, Australia fell faster down transparency internationals index towards corruption than any other nation, with the exception of Hungary with with whom we tied. I mean, they might have even underestimated it. I mean, obviously, they were they were they were at least spot on. But I mean, this is the sort of stuff that's been going on behind the scenes here for the past decade, at least. And it's it's rotten. And there's a lot more than this. I mean, this is still just the tip of the iceberg.
Andy (31:20)
just looking up quickly what Michael Sukar was a minister of. Assistant minister to the treasurer. Assistant minister to the treasurer. So really, you know.
Anthony (31:35)
That's super high up. That's pretty much, yeah. The Deputy Treasurer.
Andy (31:38)
And Josh Frydenberg, I mean, I just, I don't have a good word to say about him. I was actually, I was actually bitterly, bitterly disappointed the other day when I heard that Josh Frydenberg isn't going to be re -contesting the seat of Kuyong because the only thing that would have given me more pleasure than seeing Josh Frydenberg lose to Monique Ryan would have been seeing him lose to her twice. Anyway.
Anthony (31:59)
and he would have got trounced. And I'm sure, well, I'm certain that's why that he hasn't run because they've just thought, well, just keep doing the polling, keep doing the polling. And it just keeps saying no way. And more the public becomes aware of what Josh Frydenberg got up to. And as we've mentioned before, we've written at length the Klaxon, you can find it there is Frydenberg secretly deleted the findings of the investigation into corruption at the top of ASIC, the top of the corporate regulator. And still nothing's come out.
The government still hasn't done anything about that. That's a shame. The current government really needs to get on that and expose it because there's no point just coming into government and letting serious wrongdoing just sit there. You've got to actually hold it out and do something to prevent it happening again.
Andy (32:38)
Then after lunch, after we'd all had a chance to have a lie down and kind of digest and what we'd seen in the morning and just sort of pull ourselves towards ourselves, along came resting bulldog face, Kevin Burrows. Kevin Burrows is the CEO of PWC, parachuted into PWC after Tom Seymour had to leave because he'd been caught lying to parliament. And Kevin Burrows,
was in charge of PWC in Singapore. He's a POM. Joe Esten, I think.
Anthony (33:12)
He spent a lot of years working in decades working at PWC UK beforehand. So he's a PWC bluebird all the way through.
Andy (33:24)
Yep, and he's parachuted into PWC Australia to deal with the dumpster fire that has become the former audit firm known as PWC. But Anthony and I, we've been doing a little bit of digging.
And we found some very interesting information about Mr. Kevin Burrows, resting bulldog face. I think it was Joe Aston who wrote Rear Window in the Australian Financial Review, referred to him as resting bulldog face. He's not a pretty man. Big Kevo used to be head of clients and markets for PWC UK.
Anthony (33:40)
Mmm.
That sounds like Joyce.
Andy (34:09)
When Peter Collins was found to have betrayed Australia and sold Australia's tax secrets to the biggest tax evaders on earth.
Some of that information was shared with the Tax in brackets Evasion Department at PWC in the UK. So the Tax Advice Department in the UK is receiving and trafficking in Australia's tax secrets, which they're getting from this traitor, Peter Collins, in Sydney. The Tax Division of PWC UK,
reported to the head of PWC UK clients and markets. Guess who the head of clients and markets was at PWC UK?
Big Cave Resting Bulldog Face.
Anthony (35:08)
unbelievable, isn't it? And he's the one that now parachuted in there. But I think that sort of brings us to the next point is listeners will no doubt recall in September of last year, PWC said, Oh, look, we're going to have with with here's the findings of our, our independent review in this whole saga. Now, several months into the affair, they announced that
that they would conduct their own internal review that they'd appointed Ziggy Switzkowski, who's a businessman, former CEO of Telstra many years ago. He comes in and does this inquiry. We subsequently reveal, the Klaxon reveals that the terms of reference, PwC is refusing to disclose the terms of reference of this inquiry, and the terms of reference being the instructions that are set for the inquiry, the instructions that PwC sets for the inquiry that it pays for.
And then the report comes out and sure enough, PWC has deliberately told Switkowski not to look into the tax leaks affair. It said don't look into anything before your appointment before 2023. And obviously he's appointed after the scandals happened. So he's put in there to do this report. He can't report on specifically any of these issues and doesn't actually makes that point in his final report. PWC says, look, here's your report. See you later. We're all done.
They also put out this so -called statement of facts, 33 page document that's sort of heavily legaled and names redacted and sort of largely a nonsense. But it has a little bit more information about the tax, the tax affair, but it's extremely carefully done with teams of corporate lawyers to avoid anyone getting in trouble or any actual proper information coming out. And they also at the same time, so it's in cahoots, so they're working at the same time. You've got PwC International, they put out a statement that same day.
It's about three paragraphs on the website saying, hey, look, we had some lawyers looking at this group, Linklater is a law firm we've engaged in. They've done a report. But yeah, too bad we're not going to show it to you essentially. Or they just didn't refer to it, but they wouldn't provide it to me. You haven't provided the Senate inquiry. So there's been these questions ever since. Hey, what's in this Linklater's report? Over to you, Andy.
Andy (37:13)
So first thing I want to say, don't be a moron. Don't be stupid. Don't be an idiot. When PwC gets Ziggy Switowski to do a review, don't be dumb as dog shit and think, oh, well, Ziggy Switowski, he used to be chair of Telstra, CEO of Telstra, and he's very respected. And I'm sure everything's under control now, and there'll be an independent review.
They got Ziggy Switowski to do a review. When he did the review, they said to him, you are allowed to look at PWC from the day you are appointed forwards. You are not allowed to look backwards at all. Well, what's the point of the review? Like, what are you reviewing? You're looking in a crystal ball.
Anthony (38:00)
And they even hid that fact because they refused to say what their terms of reference were until it came out. And actually it was the New South Wales inquiry that exposed that. So we were exposed that they were refusing to hand over the terms of reference and they refused and we put it to them many times. Then there was an inquiry by the New South Wales government.
And they actually managed to get their hands on it and found that sure enough, he wasn't actually looking at the issue at hand. So it's just a, so from day one, it's been a completely organized, carefully choreographed, stitch up, cover up by PWC. And the, what is great is Senate Inquiry has done such a good job and they are completely aware of this as they've made known.
that's, you know, this isn't good enough, but often it's so frustrating as a journalist, you'll see this and as an investigative journalist, you'll dig into this stuff and you'll know exactly what's going on. But you'll have a Senate or authorities that just won't do their jobs properly and won't get to the bottom of it. But this time they're really sticking to their guns, which is fantastic. And there was some extremely strong language used to that end on Friday.
Andy (39:03)
about the Linklater's report. So the Svartovsky report is just a curtain trick, right? It's just a fig leaf. But the Linklater's report, that's even worse. PWC has refused to show anyone what the terms of reference were for the Linklater's report. And they've refused to show anybody the Linklater's report, which names a so -called dirty six. Six partners who are at the very top of PWC Global.
who are part of trafficking Australia's tax secrets. So Kevo, big Kevo resting bulldog face goes and he appears before the Senate and they said to him, where's the linklater's report? You promised the public, your firm went on the record in September of last year and said, we promise we will give you the linklater's report. That was September. Where's the linklater's report, Kevo? And he goes, oh no.
I've emailed the head office and they've said it's covered by confidentiality and they won't show it to me. Now, at this point, I want to pull back the curtain, right? Kevo is the CEO of PwC Australia. He was the CEO of PwC Singapore. He was in a very senior position at PwC in the UK. He's been parachuted into this dumpster fire to try and save what little is left of PwC. Are you telling me if big Kevo...
turned around to Bob Moritz, who's the global CEO of PwC and said to him, Bobby, either you give me that link later's report or I'm walking.
Right? I can get a job somewhere else or I've made so much money I can retire, but I'm not going to be the patsy. I'm not going to be hung out to dry. We promised the Australian public that the linklater's report. You've refused to give it to me. This is not acceptable. If you want me to put this dumpster fire out, you need to give me that linklater's report. Instead, he says, oh no, I've sent a few emails and they said, no, you can't have it. I call bullshit.
Anthony (41:03)
I call it bullshit too, it's a stitch up. It's pretty organized stitch up, of course. They don't want to release it, they won't release it. But I think the heart of all of this is why on earth is PWC doing its own investigations into itself? The governments need to be in there. Where on earth is the AFP, the Australian Federal Police, they were supposed to be looking at this years ago and they still haven't done anything. It's outrageous. And PWC, I mean, even with this link letter as a report, clearly there's damning findings in there.
Andy (41:15)
Yeah.
If.
Anthony (41:31)
I mean, the issue with this link latest report is it looks at the international aspects of the tax gap, not just the Australian information, but all the all the PwC branches and partners around the world sharing it and making money out of or trying to make money out of it. So it makes the issue global. So what PwC is doing absolutely everything it can is trying to cauterize the word keep it in Australia, keep it locked away in Australia. But that
Andy (41:46)
If.
Anthony (41:55)
almost certainly isn't going to happen. And it isn't going to happen in a large part because the Senate inquiry is saying, look, no, that's not good enough. We're not going to let that stand. Now, Chair Richard Colbeck said, look, we'll do everything in our power. We will be or are engaging with our counterparts in other parts of the world, other jurisdictions. Now, if you look at the US, for example, the laws there regarding organized corruption, organized crime or wrongdoing, corporate wrongdoing,
much stronger. So there's every chance that there could be there could be quite a bit of action coming from that on that front. But basically what this means is it's not going away. We saw the Financial Times had a good piece on this on Friday, it's making international headlines, they're not going to get away with it. What is remarkable to me, and I mean, it's got to be it's the it's all the partners voting, well, they're not going to vote.
they're clearly not gonna vote to tell the truth because it's gonna cost them some money. So they're gonna vote to cover it all up, which is what they keep doing and doing and doing. But the long -term effect is just gonna be, this is gonna drag out and drag out and drag out and not gonna get any better. And they think it's just gonna blow over with the media cycle, et cetera, but it isn't. The...
Andy (43:05)
What's even more interesting? Senator Colbeck said to Big Kevo.
These were his words. He said, we are deadly serious about getting that report. And he said, if we don't get that report, we on this committee, and it's not just, he said, it's not just us, it's the whole Australian parliament. We're gonna write a report that's not gonna be pretty, and we're gonna spread the love around, and we'll spread it around internationally. So he's saying to Kevo, if you don't give us that report, the consequences for you are gonna be catastrophic.
So now you've got to ask yourself, what's in that report that is so explosive that Big Kevo would rather risk the wrath of the entire Australian parliament than hand over that report? What's in there?
Anthony (44:00)
And you have Colbeck saying, there are people who are actively working with Australians, particularly in the United States, to go around and gather up customers to help them promote tax schemes. Why don't we deserve to understand what sits behind that from the international level? And he says, the only answer I get is the same answer the tax office got, and this is the ATO. So the PWC for many years is telling the ATO to basically get stuff, we're not giving you information, legal professional privilege.
Which is nonsense, of course, because legal professional privilege will hang on. PwC paid this law firm to get this advice. It could do what it wants with it. It's it's it's it's PwC's damn advice. It's saying it's legal professional privilege. It's just the nonsense. It's just more of a nonsense on top of on top of nonsense. But I think one really interesting point that we've come by and this is the basis of a major expose we're going to run tomorrow, which should cause quite a few few quite a bit of a stir, I think, Andy. So you've got.
Andy (44:31)
Exactly.
Anthony (44:54)
Kevin Burrow saying, look, I can't get this report, blah, blah, blah, send an email, et cetera. Now there's a person called Patricia Carney, who calls herself or is called Patty Carney, prefers Patty apparently. Now Patty Carney is a member of PwC International. Now remember it's PwC International, it's based in the UK, that's done this commission, this link latest report.
into the global aspects of this scandal. Now, Patricia Carney is the director of the PwC International and directors of entities such as this. They are required to be able to access company documents. Otherwise, they wouldn't be directors. They've got to sign off on accounts, et cetera. She has full access. So, Patty Carney is also PwC Australia partner. Patty Carney works in Sydney in PwC's offices. She works alongside Burrows. So all Burrows has to do is say, hey, Patty,
How's about that document? So here you've got an independent director and it's worth noting here, I called Patty yesterday. It's quite helpful actually, a lot of these PWC partners, they have their mobile phone numbers on the website. I guess quite a few of them don't anymore. But anyway, she, and she refused to comment. She heard out my questions and then said, oh, look, it's being handled by the media team at PWC Australia.
And sure enough, I put written questions to Kevin Burrows regarding these four questions. Have you asked Miss Carney for this information? If not, why not? If so, when did you ask her for it? Anyway, it comes back from the PR person.
ah yeah, look, nah, we're not gonna respond to that. A lot of these issues were discussed last Friday, so basically get stuffed. So that's just part of the ongoing cover -up anyway. So that won't do much to help them though, because it's the basis now of a major, will be the basis of a major expose, and the Senate inquiry will no doubt be watching that very closely.
Andy (46:46)
So to be just to make sure that we join the dots. Kevo says when he's asked why he hasn't provided the link latest report, if you read between the lines, what's really going on? He said, even I haven't seen it. Now, there's no ways, right? There is no ways that if Kevo had said to the global CEO, at least show me the report.
least let me see it, they would have said no to him. The reason why he hasn't seen it, because he doesn't want to see it so he can maintain plausible deniability. Peter.
Anthony (47:20)
Exactly, and that's the way these things work. You don't actually look at it, but they can say, hey, the gist of it is X, Y, Z, or just use some language behind the scenes, all good. So he knows what's going on. He's given the heads up, but doesn't actually see it. So he can stand there and correctly say he hasn't seen the report.
Andy (47:34)
So there's a firm, there's a company that is registered in the United Kingdom called PWC International Limited, PWCIL. It doesn't trade. All it does is manage the franchise. PWCIL has commissioned the Linklater's report. One of the board members of PWCIL is an employee of Kevo Resting Bulldog Face. So when he says, oh, you know, I've emailed and they're the other side of the world and they're in...
galaxy far, far away and I can't get hold of them and they don't want to give it to me and it's so far away and it's all so difficult. All he needs to do is take his resting bulldog face and his buffy hairdo and stick it around the corner of the door of the office of Miss Carney and go, give me the damn link later's report and you'll get it. And what I find particularly interesting, right? Australia is a G8 economy. PwC Global is a global firm. It's not, it cannot.
claim to be a credible global firm without a footprint, a sizeable footprint in a G8 economy like Australia. They're risking that. They're risking their presence here. They've already had to sell off their government consulting arm. They're risking the survival of PwC Australia in a G8 economy and the impact that will have on PwC Global.
in order not to release the report. I say it again, can you imagine what's in that report?
Anthony (49:08)
Remarkable, all right, we better wrap it up there. Andy, it was just a remarkable session Friday. There's many more stories to come out of that. And also later this month, there is another hearing. This particular Senate inquiry is due to be wrapped up.
by around the 25th of March that you do issue their final report. They have extended their deadline several times. I think this time they'll probably will wind it up by that date. But these issues won't be going away because other Senate inquiries are ongoing. The Standing Committee and economics, for example, these senators straddle both. So they'll be continuing to track this and to ask questions on this regardless of whether this specific inquiry is wound up. Andy.
Andy (49:47)
Yep, and if you go over to my LinkedIn page, I've put up edited clips. I've put up clips of the interactions between Barbara Pocock and Andrew Yates and Senator Deborah O 'Neill and Andrew Yates. And it is some of the best entertainment you will watch on TV.
Anthony (50:09)
Truly remarkable. All right, thank you so much and we'll be speaking to you again next time.
Andy (50:14)
Terrific, thank you, Anthony. Wonderful to talk to you and all best wishes to our listeners. Thank you so much for tuning in.
Anthony (50:23)
Indeed. Thank you so much.
