Senate Economics Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 2:21:20 to 2:26:23
Debate over the appropriateness of labeling a KPMG whistleblower as "disgruntled" during regulatory board discussions.
Topics: Whistleblower protections, Workplace culture
Speakers: Speaker 4, Senator Barbara Pocock, Speaker 16, Senator Lisa Darmanin, Unknown Speaker
>> So I I would I would like to say the the context of that that happening. I received a phone call from a KPMG partner who is the audit partner of the Royal Flying Doctor Service in my capacity as chair of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The phone call went along the lines he rang to assure me. He said, "I'm I'm just trying to assure you that this is not affecting our services in Adelaide." And I said to him, "Look, this is an unfortunate set of circumstances, but we shouldn't be having this conversation." >> Did that. >> So that's that's pretty much the end of that conversation.
>> What what did you base your uh perception your statement that this uh the whistleblower in KPMG was
disgruntled? So the context of that discussion was at a and that discussion happened uh at the end of a board meeting where people were packing their bags and about to walk away and I was talking to I believe another board member in particular and we were we were just discussing the surrounding circumstances. It was at a stage where KPMG had publicly acknowledged that they'd made errors in the way that they'd handled this and we were talking about how things got to this point. And I made the remark in the context that um that these things generally don't get this far if the complaining person isn't somehow disgruntled. Now, that was not an expression of any judgment as to whether the the complainant's uh grievances were genuine, legitimate. It does not it did not include any judgment or any indication that that person's uh honesty was in question. It was just simply to talk about the circumstances in which how do these sort of issues get to the point that they that this one was at
>> the term disgruntled >> can I just finish this burn that way I won't have to return to it maybe um >> you many people in this room will have followed the KPMG matter and will have seen the successive parts of KPMG uh and the ecosystem within around including including uh the attempts by the whistleblower to go through a range of pipes to try and get a very serious set of uh concerns now validated uh listened to. He uh they lost their job. >> Mhm. >> Uh they paid an enormous price as whistleblowers always do almost invariably and they were characterized as disgruntled. That was a clear narrative and it's a common narrative for whistleblowers and I think it's not nothing.
>> I'm not suggesting I'm not if I may
finish. >> It is not nothing for you as the chair of a board at the end of a board meeting with other people in the room to use that characterization. It is a real concern to me uh that that that that has occurred and I think it is a terrible disservice to the whistleblower.
Senator, can can I genuinely say the the the spirit in which I used that the word was not to not to make an accusation about that person and not to do anything to undermine that person, but simply to record what what I thought their state of mind would be in relation to their relationship with KPMGs, their their former employer. I mean it it obviously hadn't
>> I think the whistleblower was insightful not disgruntled and when I made my speech on the 30th of March. >> I didn't do so lightly that was a serious consideration by a senator of the Australian Parliament >> and it took 3 months for you to come to a decision that I think accords with public standards. >> So I I just think we should put that on the record
>> and it's not nothing Mr. to cure because you are the chair of the board of a significant regulator.
>> Senator
>> where this this really matters. People take their tone from their regulator and there you are characterizing someone who you you are you are regulating them for their ethical practice as a firm. >> I and that is your >> off-the cuff characterization of them as a I mean it it shocks me and it's not appropriate for you as a regulator to
speak like that. I'll I'll accept your judgment on that, Senator.
>> And what's your view of your of your behavior,
>> Senator, with with the benefit of of review, I probably would have chosen my >> And you know, I I really genuinely want to say that nothing that I've said is intended to be a judgment in relation to that person's honesty or integrity. If
if we're going to keep plowing over this, I will need to reply to that as I
>> I'm genuinely not trying to cast any
>> you Mr. D. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Kok. Uh Senator Smith, do you have any final questions?