KPMG’s own review finds approach to whistleblowers ‘overly legalistic’
Sep 17, 2026
An independent review of how KPMG dealt with a former employee who alleged audit partners were misusing confidential client information to win work has found the firm systematically mistreated the whistleblower and buried his allegations in an ineffective conflict-ridden process.
A report into the firm’s handling of the allegations, which were largely substantiated after being raised in the Senate earlier this year, found KPMG failed to protect the whistleblower by taking a hostile and legalistic approach to protect the firm.
The firm also unfairly labelled him an aggrieved employee instead of properly investigating his claims.
KPMG chief executive John Sams and chairman Michael Ebeid apologised to the whistleblower – who was not interviewed for the report, compiled by consultancy Andrews Group – and agreed to the recommendations made in the review to improve the firm’s whistleblower processes.
“Senior people in our organisation behaved in a manner that was unacceptable and not in line with our values, and when someone had the courage to raise their concerns, we did not respond as we should have, and we did not treat this individual with the respect they deserved,” they said.
Sams and Ebeid also accepted that existing KPMG policies, and the firm’s approach to handling internal complaints, had failed.
“The Andrews Group’s report found that we adopted an overly legalistic approach, had deficiencies in our whistleblower program, failed to appropriately manage conflicts of interest, initially placed too much emphasis on workplace grievances rather than the ethical issues being raised and failed to provide the whistleblower with appropriate safeguards or support,” they said. “Ultimately, the report finds that KPMG failed to protect the whistleblower. We accept these findings.”
KPMG has been in crisis since the whistleblower, a former employee, resorted to having Labor senator Deborah O’Neill use parliamentary privilege to air his allegations in March. His claims included that audit partners used the confidential customer data of major companies and other insider information to win auditing work, then covered up the actions when he complained. Allens, which was asked by KPMG to review the allegations, has ultimately substantiated most of the claims.
The findings came from one of nine external reviews or investigations into the firm since the revelations.
Other reviews or investigations into aspects of the claims are being carried out by a parliamentary inquiry, the Department of Finance, the corporate regulator, Tax Practitioners Board, Allens, professional body Chartered Accountants ANZ, Principia Advisory and Kerry Schott.
The Andrews Group investigators, Dennis Gentilin and Ray Andrews, recommended KPMG establish a so-called integrity office that would be independent of client-facing work and run its whistleblower program.
The review also recommends that the firm improve a governance program known as the Ethics Champion Initiative, which tried to provide a pathway for concerns that did not go directly through human resources.
KPMG has already engaged Mallesons to review its whistleblower program.
The Andrews Group review also recommended that KPMG “advocate for legislative reform” to improve whistleblower protections. While the firm has accepted this recommendation, it says it has “a lot of work to do before we could be considered an exemplar in our industry”.
“The review was based on a simple but indisputable premise: KPMG Australia failed to protect the whistleblower,” the report reads.
“The basis for this premise is something the passage of time has made abundantly clear – the whistleblower, and many of their legitimate concerns, were not treated with the required level of respect and seriousness by KPMG Australia, leaving them with little choice but to seek recourse to external disclosure channels.”
[Australian Financial Review]
