PwC Australia was not aware about the bonus its chief executive Kevin Burrowes received from the company’s global headquarters for nearly a year, a parliamentary inquiry was told on Friday.
The parliamentary inquiry, probing the 2015 leaking of confidential government tax reform information, was told that Burrowes did not reveal he was getting paid $1.2 million from PwC’s international branch apart from his annual salary of AU$2.4 million, which was later corrected to AU$2.8m, The Guardian reported.
Burrowes, who was appointed PwC CEO in July 2023, mentioned the extra income during the partners’ meet in June this year, 11 months after he joined PwC Australia. His present salary is AU$3.2 million.
Parliamentary Committee chair Senator Deborah O’Neill said working for two masters was “replete with a conflict of interest” and not disclosing details about additional salary was “deceptive”
However, Burrowes said it was a misunderstanding.
“[You] probably won’t agree with what I’m going to say, but we have been extraordinarily transparent with you. We have answered hundreds of questions,” he told the committee, adding that his additional payment was for serving 20 to 30 global clients.
Jan McCahey, PwC’s chief risk and ethics leader, told the inquiry that she heard about Burrowes’ additional income in June this year, reported AAP. Burrowes said he had informed the board about receiving additional payment, while admitting that the chief risk officer was not told about it.
The parliamentary committee was set up last year after it was revealed former PwC partner Peter-John Collins revealed sensitive information to corporate clients about tax reforms during the Abbott government in 2015.
Appearing before the committee, PwC’s former general counsel Meredith Beattie said in 2017, the firm used its legal privilege to deny access to relevant documents, which the Australian Taxation Office had wanted as part of an investigation into the leak of confidential tax material.
“Certain parts of the tax group had not been following the protocols, they had not been following the legal engagement letters, and the effect of that mean that the privilege claims that had been made … were not valid,” Beattie told the inquiry. “I raised the issues with a group within the firm … and as a result of the letter we had received from the ATO … they were raising very allegations about the firm that was using privilege in a way that was designed to hide matters from the tax office.”
