The deceptively simple question at the heart of the KPMG audit scandal
The whistleblower at the centre of the audit scandal might not actually be a whistleblower, in the strict legal sense. It’s concerning, and not just for the individual himself.
What makes a whistleblower a whistleblower? In the legal sense, it’s not as simple as someone coming forward with allegations of wrongdoing inside an organisation. In fact, its far more complex than that.
So complex that whistleblower at the centre of KPMG’s audit leaks scandal might not actually be a “whistleblower”. This was a point of concern during last week’s parliamentary joint committee into the scandal, as well as a big source of anxiety for the individual himself.
KPMG has described the individual a ‘whistleblower’ many times and said during the parliamentary hearing last week that he is “undoubtedly one”. But the firm has also notably refused to confirm that he has protected status, due to complex laws, which the whistleblower argued “creates an intentional state of paralysis”.
The whistleblower said he had requested KPMG to confirm that he was protected under the Corporations Act or the Taxation Administration Act.
