ASIC - Investigation coverage of auditors and companies

Question

Senator McKIM: Just a few further follow-ups. Firstly, have you been able to source any information about- Ms O'Rourke: I have asked for the report and the complaint to be sent to me, but I have not yet received it. Senator McKIM: If you could just provide that on notice, if you're able- Ms O'Rourke: I will. Senator McKIM: Also whether you are investigating the complaint from the Wilderness Society, and whether the scope of your investigation would catch the auditors as well as the particular companies, Beach and Amplitude. On that, can I just point that the auditors of both of those companies were EY, and the audit sector has been engulfed in rolling scandals for a couple of years now. The PricewaterhouseCoopers matter or matters were exposed at length, including by the great work done by my colleague Senator Pocock. We've got KPMG currently embroiled in an absolute scandal. Now we've got EY signing off on clearly dodgy financial reports from Beach and Amplitude. I do note that EY are also the auditors for Santos, and that you've also received a complaint about the way that they are reporting their offshore decommissioning liabilities. Woodside, who, as we've already discussed, had to readjust their balance sheet, of course, uses PwC. Ms O'Rourke: I'd be happy to take that aspect on notice as well. Senator McKIM: If you could, on notice, come back on whether any work that you're doing would be broad enough in scope to catch the auditors. I do note that that was part of the request that was made of you. Ms O'Rourke: Thank you. Senator McKIM: I dealt with Amplitude's claims in my previous questions. Beach has made similar claims but in a slightly different way, and I wanted to ask you about those. Beach notes that some infrastructure can be left in place, or in situ, post the decommissioning process. That assumption is based on 'existing guidelines' that 'provide options other than complete removal'. Is ASIC aware of any guidelines that provide options other than complete removal? The base assumption is very clear in the act, and the government has actually put out a discussion paper on these matters that reiterates that the base assumption is contained in the act, and that discussion paper does not propose in any way to water down that base assumption. Is ASIC aware of anywhere in whatever 'existing guidelines' there might be-they're the words Beach has used in its 2025 annual report-that provide options other than complete removal? Ms O'Rourke: Based on the information I have with me here, I'm not aware of any such guidelines. But, of course, if anything is within ASIC's knowledge, we'll correct that on notice. Senator McKIM: Thanks. In regard to EY, could you on notice specifically respond to this question: are you investigating, as a result of the Wilderness Society's complaint, whether EY are in breach of sections 307 and 307A of the Corporations Act, and also whether Amplitude are in breach of the relevant sections of the act? Ms O'Rourke: Will do.

Answer

See attached response.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000472 ASIC - Investigation coverage of auditors and companies.pdf (opens in a new tab)