PwC on notice for allegedly attempting parliamentary interference

PwC Australia’s new boss personally called the Senator leading a committee investigating the audit and consulting tax leaks, to complain about questions to the firm.

PwC chief executive Kevin Burrowes with chief risk and ethics leader Jan McCahey before a Senate inquiry into consultancy services. Picture: Martin Ollman

PwC Australia’s lawyers were warned they risked “self-incrimination” after the firm’s boss Kevin Burrowes sparked a war of words by contacting the head of a parliamentary committee and firing off a series of legal letters in response to further questioning.

Senators investigating the firm have issued warnings about the potential of intimidation.

Mr Burrowes personally called Liberal Senator and chair of the Finance and Public Administration committee Richard Colbeck to complain after he was sent six questions in the wake of his appearance before the Senate.

Mr Burrowes, who took on the top job at PwC after the firm tipped out its two former chief executives Tom Seymour and Kristin Stubbins, complained to Senator Colbeck over the questions claiming they had been concocted by high-profile Sydney lawyer Rebekah Giles.

But Mr Burrowes’ call sparked a war of letters between the Senate and the audit and consulting giant, including warnings to PwC it may be in breach of laws aimed at protecting the Senate committee process.

Ms Giles has repeatedly skirmished with PwC after the firm attempted to remove Richard Gregg from the partnership, initially claiming he had been linked to the tax scandal that has torched the audit and consulting giant’s reputation.

PwC has faced public condemnation after it was revealed the firm’s former head of international tax Peter Collins used confidential government briefings to front run new tax laws and create strategies for the firm’s clients.

Ms Giles succeeded in the NSW Supreme Court in blocking PwC’s attempts to remove Mr Gregg from the firm, with the court finding the firm had failed to detail the allegations against him.

In a letter to Ms Giles, PwC warned the lawyer she was “the author of the notice” to the firm, demanding to know if she or her client had instructed the Senate committee to fire off the questions.

Corrs Chambers Westgarth partner Chris Pagent, on behalf of PwC, demanded to know if Ms Giles had written a question asking Mr Burrowes if he had “read the press statements issued by your predecessor”.

Former PwC partner Richard Gregg leaves the Supreme Court in Sydney with his lawyer, Rebekah Giles. Picture: Britta Campion

These questions sought to determine if Mr Burrowes knew how the questions had been drafted and if he agreed “that they were a misleading attempt to deflect interest in the global firm and criticism of the leadership of the partnership”. Letters seen by The Australian show Senator Barbara Pocock told Senator Colbeck the six questions asked of PwC were “important” and “relevant to our inquiry”.

“I sincerely hope that PwC’s contact with you as Chair of the Committee is not intended to intimidate or threaten any witnesses or interfere in my work as a diligent member of this committee,” she said.

In response to PwC’s letters Ms Giles warned the firm may be in breach of laws aimed at protecting the Senate process.

“Acts which have a tendency – whether directly or indirectly – of obstructing or impeding Parliament or its committees in the performance of their duties may constitute a contempt of Parliament,” Ms Giles told PwC. “No legitimate purpose for the inquiries contained in Your Letter is apparent, nor has any such purpose been explained.”

A PwC spokesman said the firm “will continue to be transparent” noting it had already answered “dozens of questions”.

“Last week, PwC Australia wrote to the Committee, answering another series of questions, but politely declined to answer a small number of questions from senator Barbara Pocock in a document that showed it had been authored by the lawyer of an individual who is in a legal dispute with PwC,” he said. “The questions were seeking specific details relating only to that legal issue which is ongoing, so it was not appropriate to answer the partner’s lawyer’s questions.”