WEBVTT - Professional Conduct Framework Review 0:00:08.230 --> 0:00:13.090 Hello, I'm Gillian Bowen, Public Affairs Manager at Chartered Accountants ANZ, 0:00:13.119 --> 0:00:17.410 or CA ANZ. This is Small Firm, Big Impact. 0:00:22.989 --> 0:00:24.369 Well, it'd be fair to say that none of our 0:00:24.370 --> 0:00:28.750 members would be enjoying the headlines of recent weeks, especially 0:00:28.750 --> 0:00:31.870 especially the overwhelming majority who live up to the charge 0:00:31.870 --> 0:00:34.839 every day and do the right thing. And so what 0:00:34.840 --> 0:00:37.180 I will say is there is never an excuse for 0:00:37.180 --> 0:00:40.659 unethical behavior. And you're right, there is a spotlight on 0:00:40.659 --> 0:00:43.690 the accounting profession right now, how it carries out its 0:00:43.690 --> 0:00:46.630 work and the role of professional bodies to hold to 0:00:46.630 --> 0:00:49.030 account those who breached the code of ethics. 0:00:54.870 --> 0:00:57.360 It's the podcast giving you and your clients the up 0:00:57.360 --> 0:01:00.270 to date information you need to do your jobs. Each 0:01:00.270 --> 0:01:04.709 fortnight I share resources, tools and expert advice provided by CA ANZ 0:01:04.709 --> 0:01:07.830 and a range of people across our profession. So make 0:01:07.830 --> 0:01:10.470 sure you're following the pod in your favourite pod app. 0:01:10.470 --> 0:01:13.080 And if you've got an idea for the show email 0:01:13.080 --> 0:01:25.600 podcast@charteredaccountantsanz.com This episode, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand CEO 0:01:25.600 --> 0:01:28.950 Ainslie van Onselen is back on the podcast. The topic: 0:01:28.959 --> 0:01:33.130 the Professional Conduct Framework Review. Ainslie, welcome back to Small Firm, 0:01:33.130 --> 0:01:34.060 Big Impact. 0:01:34.810 --> 0:01:36.250 Hi Gill. Great to be here. 0:01:36.910 --> 0:01:41.620 Okay, so on June 7th, 2023, CA ANZ released what is 0:01:41.620 --> 0:01:44.770 a pretty comprehensive piece of work, the results of the 0:01:44.770 --> 0:01:49.060 Professional Conduct Framework Review. Now, before I dive into the 0:01:49.060 --> 0:01:51.460 nitty gritty of what's in it with Ainslie, I just 0:01:51.460 --> 0:01:54.580 want to set up this situation for our members and 0:01:54.580 --> 0:01:57.940 for anyone else listening along to the episode. The Professional 0:01:57.940 --> 0:02:02.230 Conduct Framework Review was announced in July 2022. In August 0:02:02.230 --> 0:02:05.140 last year, the Terms of Reference were released. It was 0:02:05.140 --> 0:02:08.079 also confirmed at that time, former Federal Court Justice the 0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:11.830 Honorable Dennis Cowdroy AO KC, would be involved - in that - he 0:02:11.830 --> 0:02:17.230 would carry out an independent review of the recommendations. Submissions 0:02:17.230 --> 0:02:20.530 by members who wanted to provide feedback on the professional 0:02:20.530 --> 0:02:24.880 conduct review closed in November last year. The reviews committee 0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:30.220 then spent months going through the submissions, benchmarking CA ANZ and 0:02:30.220 --> 0:02:34.780 NZICA's framework against other leading accounting bodies and other professional 0:02:34.780 --> 0:02:38.290 associations and doing a range of other work related to 0:02:38.290 --> 0:02:41.650 the review. Mr. Cowdroy then played his part before all 0:02:41.650 --> 0:02:44.110 the work was collated and finalised and handed to the 0:02:44.530 --> 0:02:48.400 CA ANZ board by May 31st as per the Terms of Reference. 0:02:48.400 --> 0:02:53.260 And then here we are now. So that's the timeline sorted. 0:02:53.260 --> 0:02:57.160 Ainslie let's look at some headline points of the review 0:02:57.160 --> 0:03:01.300 first and then dive deeper. What are the headlines? 0:03:02.260 --> 0:03:03.400 Well, Gill I'd say there would be about 0:03:03.730 --> 0:03:07.270 Three main key parts of the headline. The first is 0:03:07.270 --> 0:03:10.899 that the review was extensive. It was thorough. It's about 0:03:10.900 --> 0:03:15.190 ensuring ethics and integrity remain the cornerstone for our profession 0:03:15.190 --> 0:03:19.389 under a framework that's robust, independent and fair. The second 0:03:19.389 --> 0:03:24.010 key takeaway is that the recommendations extend the existing disciplinary 0:03:24.010 --> 0:03:27.340 framework to deal with firm events so that we can 0:03:27.340 --> 0:03:30.640 better address some of the systemic and cultural issues that 0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:35.440 we see today. And thirdly, there's some key recommendations, and 0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:38.950 these include, for example, a five fold increase in the 0:03:38.950 --> 0:03:43.450 maximum fines for events involving firms, which shows how we 0:03:43.450 --> 0:03:46.660 use this process to test the limits of our framework 0:03:46.660 --> 0:03:50.980 in the public interest and in line with community expectations. 0:03:51.370 --> 0:03:54.850 Another key recommendation is reinforcing with our members what their 0:03:54.850 --> 0:03:59.470 ethical and self-disclosure obligations are. And the third was the 0:03:59.470 --> 0:04:03.610 ability for our independent disciplinary bodies to investigate former members 0:04:03.610 --> 0:04:07.150 in Australia, noting that this is already able to happen 0:04:07.150 --> 0:04:08.200 in New Zealand. 0:04:08.860 --> 0:04:12.250 Okay, so firm events that stood out for me and 0:04:12.250 --> 0:04:15.460 former members, that's also a recommendation I want to ask 0:04:15.460 --> 0:04:19.510 more about. So looking at the list of consolidated recommendations 0:04:19.510 --> 0:04:22.930 on the website, it's a dropdown menu for those listening along. 0:04:22.930 --> 0:04:26.800 Under recommendation two is the information you mentioned about firm events. 0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:31.390 So it details increasing the maximum fine that may apply 0:04:31.390 --> 0:04:34.450 collectively to the members who are partners principals in relation 0:04:34.450 --> 0:04:38.169 to firm events. So at the PCC level it would 0:04:38.170 --> 0:04:42.400 become $100,000 under a consent agreement and at the disciplinary 0:04:42.400 --> 0:04:46.690 tribunal level it would be a max of $250,000, a 0:04:46.690 --> 0:04:51.700 $250,000 fine for a firm event. The big four, for example. 0:04:51.700 --> 0:04:53.890 They make a lot of money each year and the 0:04:53.890 --> 0:04:57.909 big firms have a lot of partners. Will a fine 0:04:57.910 --> 0:05:00.549 this size even have an impact? 0:05:01.300 --> 0:05:04.060 Look, I understand why you could think that and why 0:05:04.060 --> 0:05:06.789 some of our members might think that, but it is 0:05:06.790 --> 0:05:10.480 important to understand that we are a membership organisation and 0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:13.930 we are required to work within our charter and its limits. 0:05:13.930 --> 0:05:17.590 So these maximum fines are actually quite significant for an 0:05:17.589 --> 0:05:21.880 organisation like ours. And what is a significant change is 0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:25.930 that poor behaviour of individuals used to be highlighted and examined. 0:05:25.930 --> 0:05:30.280 Now firms are also liable for that behaviour if it's 0:05:30.279 --> 0:05:33.159 deemed to be a firm event. And in fact our 0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:37.000 global benchmarking exercise found Gill that this recommendation is either 0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:39.520 in line with and in some cases it's stronger than 0:05:39.520 --> 0:05:43.390 organisations similar to ours. And you'll also note in that 0:05:43.390 --> 0:05:47.260 consolidated recommendations box Gill, that it says sanctions and fines 0:05:47.260 --> 0:05:50.470 for an individual member who is involved in a firm 0:05:50.470 --> 0:05:53.680 event and whose involvement conduct may have breached the code 0:05:53.680 --> 0:05:57.190 of ethics or the bylaws or the rules, remain at 0:05:57.190 --> 0:06:01.090 current levels. And so that may apply in addition to 0:06:01.089 --> 0:06:03.790 any sanctions that apply to the firm event. 0:06:04.450 --> 0:06:08.920 Okay. So the recommendations from this review extend, as you say, 0:06:08.920 --> 0:06:12.580 the existing features of the disciplinary framework to address events 0:06:12.580 --> 0:06:16.330 involving firms and the systemic and cultural issues underpinning them. 0:06:16.330 --> 0:06:18.850 There is a spotlight on the profession right now, on 0:06:18.850 --> 0:06:22.299 the culture within the profession. What's the problem and what 0:06:22.300 --> 0:06:24.190 is CA ANZ doing about it? 0:06:24.910 --> 0:06:26.260 Well, it'd be fair to say that none of our 0:06:26.260 --> 0:06:30.640 members would be enjoying the headlines of recent weeks, especially 0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:33.760 especially the overwhelming majority who live up to the charge 0:06:33.760 --> 0:06:36.729 every day and do the right thing. And so what 0:06:36.730 --> 0:06:40.660 I'll say is there is never an excuse for unethical behavior. 0:06:40.900 --> 0:06:43.060 And you're right, there is a spotlight on the accounting 0:06:43.060 --> 0:06:46.210 profession right now, how it carries out its work and 0:06:46.210 --> 0:06:49.330 the role of professional bodies to hold to account those 0:06:49.330 --> 0:06:53.890 who breached the code of ethics. So extending our disciplinary 0:06:53.890 --> 0:06:58.690 framework through the recommendations we've released are about ensuring that 0:06:58.690 --> 0:07:03.640 ethics and integrity remain the cornerstone of our profession. And specifically, 0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:08.020 as I mentioned, there are recommendations to deal with firm events. Now. 0:07:08.020 --> 0:07:11.230 The review itself was started many months ago and it's 0:07:11.230 --> 0:07:14.680 come at the right time. And in addition, we offer 0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:16.929 services to our members. So some include, for example, the 0:07:16.930 --> 0:07:20.740 Mentor Exchange program, but there's also the advisory group, which 0:07:20.740 --> 0:07:24.190 is a counselling and support service for our members. It's confidential. 0:07:24.190 --> 0:07:27.070 Members ring up and speak to very senior members of 0:07:27.070 --> 0:07:30.820 the profession and get assistance on things like ethical challenges 0:07:30.820 --> 0:07:34.450 that they may be facing or where they need professional support. 0:07:35.580 --> 0:07:37.440 And of course, there's also work for the firms to 0:07:37.440 --> 0:07:40.470 do in this space regarding their culture within their firms 0:07:40.470 --> 0:07:44.460 to make it productive, ethical and fair for employees. And 0:07:44.460 --> 0:07:47.760 we will work with them on that. We've also taken 0:07:47.760 --> 0:07:50.340 a number of steps recently to ease the pressure on 0:07:50.340 --> 0:07:54.660 auditors in particular and chartered accountants, including, for example, asking 0:07:54.660 --> 0:07:58.200 for an increase in the skilled migration cap. And because 0:07:58.200 --> 0:08:00.480 we know we've got a talent shortage right now, and 0:08:00.480 --> 0:08:03.240 then also making it easier, not harder to do accounting 0:08:03.240 --> 0:08:07.170 and finance degrees, we've seen the number of finance accounting graduates, 0:08:07.170 --> 0:08:13.230 almost half in Australia alone from 2018 to 2021. So 0:08:13.230 --> 0:08:15.900 we must address that. It's a great profession to be 0:08:15.900 --> 0:08:18.810 involved on and so we really need to continue to 0:08:18.810 --> 0:08:21.360 put a spotlight on the attractiveness of the profession. 0:08:22.410 --> 0:08:25.560 Have you reached out personally to executive management of the 0:08:25.560 --> 0:08:28.560 big firms about behaviour and ethics in recent times? 0:08:29.070 --> 0:08:32.670 Look, I talk regularly to members right across the profession, 0:08:32.670 --> 0:08:36.660 and in fact I've written to all 135,000 members about 0:08:36.660 --> 0:08:41.550 this review, the recommendations and its findings. And I've also 0:08:41.550 --> 0:08:44.400 reached out to the leadership of the Big Six, and 0:08:44.400 --> 0:08:48.210 I expect to have continued discussions with members from across 0:08:48.210 --> 0:08:51.720 the profession about this review. And I'm really looking forward 0:08:51.720 --> 0:08:55.920 to everyone's feedback to the report and future engagement of 0:08:55.920 --> 0:08:57.180 this vital issue. 0:08:58.530 --> 0:09:01.530 Look, the recommendations relating to former members. Let's talk about 0:09:01.530 --> 0:09:04.530 that now. What can you tell me more about that recommendation? 0:09:04.980 --> 0:09:08.429 Well, we're proposing to change the current situation in Australia 0:09:08.429 --> 0:09:13.170 where CA ANZ can't undertake an investigation into the conduct of 0:09:13.170 --> 0:09:16.530 former Australian members, noting, of course, that this is not 0:09:16.530 --> 0:09:18.750 the case in New Zealand, and New Zealand we can. 0:09:18.960 --> 0:09:21.540 What this will do is allow the disciplinary bodies to 0:09:21.540 --> 0:09:25.320 investigate regardless of membership status. So, for example, this would 0:09:25.320 --> 0:09:28.740 close a loophole that allows members to avoid disciplinary action 0:09:28.740 --> 0:09:30.480 by terminating their membership. 0:09:31.200 --> 0:09:34.230 So then are there former members from the past that 0:09:34.470 --> 0:09:38.160 CA ANZ would go after if that recommendation was endorsed? 0:09:38.790 --> 0:09:42.210 Well, this isn't about going after anyone in particular. This 0:09:42.210 --> 0:09:45.780 change is about bringing us in line and aligning ourselves 0:09:45.780 --> 0:09:48.839 with our framework in New Zealand. The details of how 0:09:48.840 --> 0:09:51.900 this will be implemented requires some further work, but this 0:09:51.900 --> 0:09:55.020 particular recommendation will go to a member vote later in 0:09:55.020 --> 0:09:57.600 the year and we will spend the time in the 0:09:57.600 --> 0:09:59.520 lead up to that vote looking at how best those 0:09:59.520 --> 0:10:01.410 powers will work in practice. 0:10:02.220 --> 0:10:07.170 Okay. So the review found that the disciplinary framework meets 0:10:07.170 --> 0:10:10.770 or exceeds standards set by IFAC and meets or exceeds 0:10:10.770 --> 0:10:14.730 peer and international benchmarks, and that it responds appropriately and 0:10:14.730 --> 0:10:19.320 proportionately to proven academic misconduct by provisional members in relation 0:10:19.320 --> 0:10:22.950 to assessments and exams undertaken for the conferral of the 0:10:23.429 --> 0:10:27.300 TESQA accredited CA Program. Did the review go far enough? 0:10:28.050 --> 0:10:33.210 Well, IFAC requires CA ANZ to conduct periodic reviews of the 0:10:33.210 --> 0:10:36.360 system and we continue to do so as part of 0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:41.190 our commitment to continuous improvement. So this review included an 0:10:41.190 --> 0:10:46.380 extensive external benchmarking exercise. We looked at other PIOs around 0:10:46.380 --> 0:10:48.810 the world and we also looked at other professional membership 0:10:48.809 --> 0:10:51.089 bodies such as the Law Society of New South Wales 0:10:51.090 --> 0:10:54.689 and the Law Society of New Zealand, Engineers, Australia and Engineers, 0:10:54.690 --> 0:10:58.800 New Zealand. It was a really extensive comprehensive benchmarking exercise. 0:10:58.950 --> 0:11:04.140 We also looked of course at IFAC requirements and examined those and then finally 0:11:04.260 --> 0:11:07.980 there was significant engagement with stakeholders. So we invited submissions 0:11:07.980 --> 0:11:11.729 from all CA ANZ members and members of the disciplinary bodies 0:11:11.730 --> 0:11:15.960 as well. And then of course we had the independent 0:11:15.960 --> 0:11:20.430 review of our recommendations by the Honorable Dennis Cowdroy AO KC. 0:11:21.020 --> 0:11:23.030 So the upshot of that is, I believe it was 0:11:23.030 --> 0:11:27.290 an extensive and thorough process. And it's through this process 0:11:27.290 --> 0:11:30.319 that recommendations have been able to be developed that will 0:11:30.320 --> 0:11:35.330 extend the existing features of the disciplinary framework to address events, 0:11:35.330 --> 0:11:40.760 for example, involving firms and the systemic cultural issues underpinning them, 0:11:40.910 --> 0:11:44.300 as well as recommending a range of procedural and efficiency 0:11:44.300 --> 0:11:45.830 improvements in the process. 0:11:46.550 --> 0:11:51.349 So on transparency, there's also a recommendation on that. It's 0:11:51.350 --> 0:11:55.610 included in item six of the consolidated recommendations for those 0:11:55.610 --> 0:11:58.939 listening along and perhaps taking some notes as we discuss this, 0:11:58.940 --> 0:12:05.000 on fairer and clearer publication and confidentiality requirements. What should 0:12:05.000 --> 0:12:06.230 we point out there? 0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:11.270 Well, Gill, among the opportunities is a recommendation to consolidate 0:12:11.270 --> 0:12:16.250 the disciplinary decisions into a single online public register, which 0:12:16.250 --> 0:12:19.179 will display all the disciplinary decisions made at all the 0:12:19.190 --> 0:12:25.260 levels so PCC, DT, AT, in addition to the annual report, 0:12:25.260 --> 0:12:29.580 the register will also include statistics and data about complaints 0:12:29.580 --> 0:12:33.390 dismissed and grounds for dismissal. This one stop shop, if 0:12:33.390 --> 0:12:38.070 you like, will increase transparency and accountability. And the purpose 0:12:38.070 --> 0:12:41.309 of the register is to centralise and streamline how this 0:12:41.309 --> 0:12:45.300 information is captured and shared. So again, it's about increasing 0:12:45.300 --> 0:12:47.820 transparency and continuous improvement. 0:12:48.570 --> 0:12:51.329 I want to ask about the KPMG matter which occurred 0:12:51.720 --> 0:12:55.830 prior to the Professional Conduct Framework review starting last year. 0:12:55.860 --> 0:12:59.550 Let's assume the recommendations are endorsed by members. If a 0:12:59.550 --> 0:13:03.689 firm event like that happened again, would the firm be fined? 0:13:04.570 --> 0:13:09.219 Potentially it could. This review has really honed in on 0:13:09.220 --> 0:13:11.980 firm events, and you'll see in the report that we're 0:13:11.980 --> 0:13:15.310 broadening our focus to ensure we can deal with them 0:13:15.309 --> 0:13:18.700 more effectively. So what I will say is, yes, you 0:13:18.700 --> 0:13:21.640 could potentially see a different response to firm events moving 0:13:21.640 --> 0:13:25.929 forward to address systemic and cultural issues. 0:13:26.350 --> 0:13:28.810 What about the names of those involved? If a similar 0:13:28.809 --> 0:13:31.270 situation happened again, would they be published? 0:13:32.070 --> 0:13:36.690 If a similar situation happened, potentially it could look different. 0:13:37.140 --> 0:13:40.800 As I said, the review has identified a number of opportunities 0:13:40.800 --> 0:13:44.819 to enhance the conduct and disciplinary framework and its processes 0:13:44.820 --> 0:13:48.000 and procedures, and we're broadening our focus to ensure we 0:13:48.000 --> 0:13:51.630 can deal with firms effectively. And that could mean a 0:13:51.630 --> 0:13:52.560 different response. 0:13:54.230 --> 0:13:56.840 What are the key changes for New Zealand members? 0:13:57.710 --> 0:14:00.950 Well, in addition to the ones I've already mentioned, there 0:14:00.950 --> 0:14:04.040 are a range of other recommendations, including for New Zealand 0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:07.880 optional firm membership as well as the power of the 0:14:07.880 --> 0:14:12.110 PCC to engage a panel of experts in appropriate cases 0:14:12.110 --> 0:14:16.250 and to allow those experts to confer throughout the process 0:14:16.250 --> 0:14:19.310 and the use in New Zealand of a conciliation process. 0:14:20.170 --> 0:14:22.720 Okay, so let's whip through some questions members might be 0:14:22.720 --> 0:14:26.680 thinking about. What's the process and timeline now, for example, 0:14:26.680 --> 0:14:27.970 for implementation? 0:14:28.540 --> 0:14:31.450 Well, some of the recommendations can and have been actioned 0:14:31.450 --> 0:14:34.960 as a matter of course, but others will require amendments 0:14:34.960 --> 0:14:38.980 to the CA ANZ bylaws or the NZICA rules and therefore 0:14:38.980 --> 0:14:42.130 a member vote. Members will hear more about the voting 0:14:42.130 --> 0:14:44.350 process in the lead up to our AGM in October 0:14:44.350 --> 0:14:45.010 this year. 0:14:45.460 --> 0:14:49.120 Okay. So on that, what recommendations require a vote? 0:14:49.750 --> 0:14:52.300 Okay. Well, some of the recommendations that require a vote 0:14:52.300 --> 0:14:57.370 include a five fold increase in maximum fines for events 0:14:57.370 --> 0:15:02.440 involving firms, introducing voluntary firm membership in New Zealand, which 0:15:02.440 --> 0:15:08.290 then will align with the Australian approach and enabling investigations 0:15:08.290 --> 0:15:10.870 into former Australia members, which will then align with the 0:15:10.870 --> 0:15:12.070 New Zealand approach. 0:15:12.610 --> 0:15:14.740 So why don't they all require a vote? 0:15:15.580 --> 0:15:18.850 Because not all the recommendations Gill, require an amendment to 0:15:18.850 --> 0:15:25.270 the CA ANZ bylaws or the NZICA rules. So for example, recommendations 0:15:25.270 --> 0:15:30.580 3, 6.1 and 6.2. And then also some of the elements 0:15:30.580 --> 0:15:35.950 of recommendation five, which are around procedural enhancements. They don't 0:15:35.950 --> 0:15:38.620 require any change to the bylaws or the NZICA rules, so 0:15:38.620 --> 0:15:40.989 no requirement for member approval. We will get on with 0:15:40.990 --> 0:15:42.550 that as business as usual. 0:15:43.210 --> 0:15:45.760 So if you're following along at home, you can find 0:15:45.760 --> 0:15:48.880 all the consolidated recommendations - so that's a combination of the 0:15:48.880 --> 0:15:52.960 review's recommendations and Mr. Cowdroy's feedback laid out for you. 0:15:52.960 --> 0:15:56.680 On the CA ANZ website. There's a tile to the review 0:15:56.680 --> 0:15:59.020 on the home page, but there is also a link 0:15:59.020 --> 0:16:01.270 to the direct page in the email Ainslie sent to 0:16:01.270 --> 0:16:04.180 members early on the morning of June 7th. And we've 0:16:04.180 --> 0:16:06.940 also shared that link on social media if you follow 0:16:06.940 --> 0:16:10.210 the CA ANZ accounts, you can find that there. So why 0:16:10.210 --> 0:16:11.440 can't members vote now? 0:16:12.160 --> 0:16:15.790 Well that work to draw up the bylaw changes and 0:16:15.790 --> 0:16:19.690 the NZICA rule changes is underway now. We'll communicate that 0:16:19.690 --> 0:16:23.380 to our members and information on how to vote in 0:16:23.380 --> 0:16:25.570 the lead up to the AGM in October. 0:16:26.410 --> 0:16:29.530 Well, on that, what's your message to members listening along? 0:16:29.800 --> 0:16:32.530 Well, I'd invite them, Gill, to take the time to 0:16:32.530 --> 0:16:35.920 read the material. There is a lot of it and 0:16:35.920 --> 0:16:38.290 we've tried to make it as easy to digest on 0:16:38.290 --> 0:16:41.530 the website as we can with the consolidated recommendations. And 0:16:41.530 --> 0:16:44.020 there's a good executive summary as well in the in 0:16:44.020 --> 0:16:48.010 the final report. And if you've got questions, ask us, 0:16:48.400 --> 0:16:49.990 you know, I'm sure there's going to be a wide 0:16:49.990 --> 0:16:52.630 range of views. There always is when you've got a 0:16:52.630 --> 0:16:57.700 professional membership body of 135,000 people. So keep an eye 0:16:57.700 --> 0:16:59.230 out in your inbox in the lead up to the 0:16:59.230 --> 0:17:02.550 AGM in October for the information on how to vote. 0:17:02.560 --> 0:17:05.500 There'll be a range of recommendations and as I've mentioned, 0:17:05.500 --> 0:17:07.420 that require members to have their say. 0:17:08.410 --> 0:17:11.230 Now, I just want to say members have been inquiring 0:17:11.230 --> 0:17:15.090 with the CA ANZ about the PwC Tax Practitioners Board matter. 0:17:15.100 --> 0:17:17.800 There is a statement on that on our website confirming 0:17:17.800 --> 0:17:21.189 the Professional Conduct Committee investigation. And given that there is 0:17:21.190 --> 0:17:25.150 now an Australian Federal Police investigation underway, it's not wise 0:17:25.150 --> 0:17:27.880 for us to comment on that matter in this podcast. 0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:31.780 Nobody wants to prejudice the confidential Professional Conduct Committee investigation 0:17:31.780 --> 0:17:35.800 or the AFP investigation. That is all we have time for. 0:17:35.800 --> 0:17:37.960 If you want to find out more, if you're a Member, 0:17:37.960 --> 0:17:41.740 check your inbox for an email from Ainslie and our 0:17:41.740 --> 0:17:45.400 board chair, John Palermo. Of course, everything is on the website, 0:17:45.400 --> 0:17:49.540 including the Professional Conduct Framework Review final report, the independent 0:17:49.540 --> 0:17:53.230 review by Mr. Cowdroy of the recommendations and the committee's 0:17:53.230 --> 0:17:57.129 response to the independent review and some FAQ's. There is 0:17:57.130 --> 0:17:59.199 a lot of reading. I'll put a link to the 0:17:59.200 --> 0:18:01.330 website in the show notes as well so you can 0:18:01.330 --> 0:18:03.639 find it there if you want to. Thank you Ainslie 0:18:03.640 --> 0:18:06.370 van Onselen for joining me on Small Firm, Big Impact. 0:18:06.820 --> 0:18:08.140 Thanks Gill. Always a pleasure. 0:18:08.530 --> 0:18:09.430 Bye bye.