Merry Christmas to Peter Wilson. When it was suggested that Peter Wilson should be independent of the old board so that we can have a fresh start Peter responded with "That's your issue". Summary of the meeting here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=594
A good summary of where we are up to by Joe Aston of the AFR, linked to from here: viewtopic.php?f=5&p=4137#p4137
If you are new to this website read the story so far: viewtopic.php?t=321#p1793
Check out some of the AFR articles, too many to list and check out some of the ABC reports: http://www.afr.com/business/accounting/ ... 215-h055ej http://www.afr.com/business/accounting/ ... 211-h02x1d http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/the ... s,/8626662
Please join this website to participate in discussions. Also join our email list at http://eepurl.com/cWsgfb
Image

15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

AHRI seems to have similar problems to us. If there are any members of AHRI who want to compare notes please post a message here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by Brett Stevenson » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:56 am

We have recently ‘discovered’ that the new Chairman of CPA Australia (Peter Wilson) and another director (Jon Scriven) who were both appointed on 1st October 2017 also happen to be on the board of AHRI (where Peter Wilson is also Chairman) and that the AHRI has had a close working relationship/partnership with CPA Australia from at least 2015 through to 2017.

Coincidence? Conflict of interest? Just the way things go?

Given all the publicity and media/member attention to corporate governance and other issues at CPA Australia one would have thought that at least with a newly appointed board of directors care would have been taken to avoid both the perception and reality of conflicted interests.
The close relationship/partnership/arrangement (call it what you will) is beyond dispute. The AHRI monthly magazine in October 2016 (seven months after Joe Aston from the AFR stated exposing many of the problems at CPA Australia) featured an interview with Alex Malley along with publicity of the relationship. Peter Wilson acknowledged in a recent letter to the AFR (13th Dec 2017) the relationship continued until early 2017.
Yet when the possibility of this being a conflict of interest was raised Peter Wilson angrily downplayed the connection saying he hardly knew Alex Malley. To emphasise his annoyance that such a relationship was spoken of in this way he said that those members who inferred any conflict of interest or lack of independence were wanting to “keep CPA Australia in a permanent state of destabilisation” by focusing on “little pieces of minutiae”.

Well, you decide for yourself.

Here we have two new directors on the board of CPA Australia who just happen to also be on the board of AHRI which also just happens to have a had a close working relationship with CPA Australia between 2015 and 2017. Add to that the fact (and it is fact, let there be no mistaking) that the whole new board of CPA Australia was appointed (on 1st October 2017) under a far from perfect governance process openly acknowledged by even the Independent Review Panel let alone the wider CPA membership, and you have a ‘cocktail’ of legitimate concerns.


What is also amazing about this CPA connection with AHRI, quite apart from the above, is the similarities such that it has a deja vu feel about it. So much so that we are going to provide a forum on our website (www.cpamembers.org) for AHRI members to not only discuss in an anonymous way concerns and issues they have at AHRI but also to see how we have had to battle and fight all the way to expose really blatant failures.

Lets look at some of these similarities (and also some dissimilarities which are concerning).

1. Peter Wilson said yesterday in the AFR that his term as Chairman of the AHRI has been extended because no suitable replacements could be found after a three year search. Wow, can you believe that. In 2014 the terms of three directors (Graeme Wade, Richard Petty and Kerry Ryan) were extended beyond the then constitutional limit because no suitable replacements could be found. Well we all know what that meant for CPA Australia. Fair enough, that’s a matter for the AHRI. But isn’t it amazing how these leaders can sprook about how good their organisations are but when it comes time for them to be replaced all of a sudden no suitable candidates can be found. That is a big waving red flag. For CPA Australia it proved to be a fateful extension.

2. Peter Wilson criticises CPA members who expose significant problems at CPA Australia as wanting to “keep CPA Australia in a permanent state of destabilisation” by focusing on “little pieces of minutiae”. Sounds very similar to our now sacked CEO Alex Malley’s description of the members who exposed major failures at CPA Australia - a minority of rogue members. That was echoed by most of the leadership at CPA Australia. It seems that the way to deal with any member raising legitimate concerns is to castigate and ridicule them. That is a similarity neither organisation should be proud of. Forget the red flag, this is an amber light that has changed to red very quickly.

3. AHRI also adopts the minimum but legal disclosure mentality with its financial reporting. Crikey and they saw fit to appoint two directors from AHRI to the CPA board and to make one of them our Chairman. Just check out their disclosure of executive and board remuneration. Yes, just the same one line total as with CPA Australia until we forced them to fully disclose. The red flag is waving furiously.

4. But this perhaps points to a dissimilarity that is concerning. AHRI is a registered charity. Think about that a bit. I’ll leave it for readers to have a look at their annual report and financial statements to appreciate why the definition of charity certainly cuts a very wide berth with organisations like AHRI. Little wonder there are concerns being raised about the use of charitable status by organisations. But of course this striking dissimilarity did not even raise its head with the people who appointed Peter Wilson and Jon Scriven to the CPA Australia board. The red light is staying on.

5. Isn’t it amazing that Jon Scriven is a CA (not a CPA) yet he has been appointed to the CPA Australia board as an independent non-member. The whole rationale for having two non-members on the board is to provide an external ‘non -accounting’ perspective to the board, and here they are appointing a Chartered Accountant who is a director of an organisation (AHRI) officially registered as charity but has such striking similarities to CPA Australia that a partnership has existed between the two for a couple of years. A partnership or relationship downplayed now for obvious reasons. The red flag is virtually blowing off the pole.

You couldn't dream this up

But of course all of this means nothing to the CPA Australia board and divisional councillors and divisional presidents who have perfected the art of remaining silent when the storm clouds gather. Actually what they are now planning to do is develop a code of conduct to silence members such as myself who raise these matters - a sort of anti-whistleblower code. You couldn't dream up some of the things that are occurring at CPA Australia. We have had to force the organisation to establish a supposedly Independent Review which while corroborating the shenanigans we have exposed managed to amazingly hold no-one responsible and recommended that a code of conduct be developed to especially silence members who expose these matters 'in an unprofessional way' (my words but you will catch the drift). The Independent Review also managed to give much thanks and credit to the divisional presidents and leaders of the organisation who have been pretty much silent for well over a decade on these matters. I have called it a professional whitewash, and for good reason.
If the readers think I am exaggerating can I suggest you go the CPA Australia website and have a look at the Final Report of the Independent Review Panel which has corroborated much of what has been exposed over the last ten months. Keep in mind that it is a very soft report because after exposing and corroborating all these failures they made 29 recommendations (which I’m sure the new board will implement fully) which held no-one responsible. It makes CPA Australia a unique beast because it adopts what I call a unique leadership style that entitles the leaders (board and management) to many benefits and entitlements (and crikey they certainly knew how to milk these over the last decade) but no responsibility or accountability.

I call it Corporate Governance CPA Style, and would not recommend any organisation consider it.

Lets be good citizens and members

Thus in the interest of being good citizen we are offering a forum (on our website www.cpamembers.org) for AHRI members to discuss and share their concerns as we would really be disappointed if the CPA governance approach cross fertilised to your organisation.    
Also in the interests of being not only a good citizen but also a CPA member I suggest to the CPA Australia board that the way to breakout of this saga/nightmare and to show you are really serious about rebuilding CPA Australia so that it can be restored to be an organisation with integrity is to make four very quick decisions (and please do not engage another consulting firm to draw out the process and be soft). These four things will indicate to us that you are fair dinkum.

i. Take legal action to hold accountable the people who made the decision to increase the CEO’s termination pay in 2016 from an already ‘over the top’ two years annual salary (which external advisers had already told the board) to three years with no notes or discussion papers from that meeting held ‘in-camera’. To provide context it is worth noting that public listed companies cannot pay more than one years salary without shareholder approval. This really was an appalling decision (as one member recently expressed it) that surely we cannot just ignore.

ii. Take legal action to hold accountable the directors who approved the already scandalously remunerated directors and senior management of CPA Australia to receive additional remuneration from a fully owned subsidiary (CPA Australia Advice) of close to $1,500,000 in 19 months when the total revenue was under $50,000 and its loss was $7,200,000. This is just one of the many concerns involving this subsidiary but to ignore it while still continuing to pay directors fees to some of the very same people who received this scandalous largesse in 2016 is disgraceful.

iii. Ask in an open letter to the CPA membership that the directors of CPA Australia over the last nine years apologise for spending millions of dollars promoting the personal brand of the CEO Alex Malley (Naked CEO, TV show, billboards etc) rather than promoting CPA Australia and the profession. I’m sure those directors will decline but it will be a strong statement from the current board that it was a poor and misguided strategy.
   If the board want support for these suggestions can I suggest they just need refer to the Final   Report of the Independent Review Panel (30th November 2017) available on the CPA Australia website. Actions speak much louder than words.

iv. And of course it goes without saying that Peter Wilson and Jon Scriven need to step down from their positions on the board of CPA Australia immediately pending a review of how they could have been appointed in the first place.

Two obvious questions to ask are

a. ‘What will be the response of the current board?’, and

b. ‘Will the previously silent divisional presidents and councillors find voice?’

Will they see these matters as ‘minutiae’ and ‘permanently destabilising CPA’ (as the current Chairman Peter Wilson does) or will they address these matters as being of the serious concern that they are. CPA Australia cannot keep retreating into disinterest and apathy while these sorts of behaviour are going on within our leadership.

The professional problem is that unless the media and some members ‘kick up a fuss’ about these concerns then nothing happens. The one big lesson learned over the last ten months in particular is that members retreat into a sort of ‘professional silence’ which effectively condones behaviour because to speak out and expose these matters is seen as being so unprofessional and/or bringing down the reputation of CPA Australia.
It is discouraging and quite frankly a major hassle to have to be drawn back into talking about these matters in the public arena but we know the price of not doing so.
We at CPA Australia have paid a very high price for our silence over the last ten years.
Let’s not repeat it. This saga/nightmare needs to finish.
If we cannot resolve it ourselves I suggest either the regulator and or government will need to step in. That hardly bodes well for an organisation which trumpets the word integrity on its logo.

User avatar
jendalitz
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:20 pm

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by jendalitz » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:17 pm

I understand that AHRI employs a staff of only 30; at this scale would you not expect the chairman and directors to be closely involved in decision making and board initiatives like alliance agreements? In that case would it not be likely that the board of directors knew the key executive at CPA Australia to form an opinion about whether they wanted to enter into such an alliance?

User avatar
nakedadmin
Site Admin
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by nakedadmin » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:23 pm

Well they talked him up a bit here:

https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/media/m ... ember-2017
Peter Wilson is Chairman of the Australian Human Resources Institute Limited; and has two honorary chair roles with the Australian Network on Disability Limited; and the World Federation of People Management Associations (WFPMA), as its World President until June 2018. The WFPMA is the peak world body for the human resources profession across 700,000 professionals in 95 countries, and is based in Washington DC.
but they don't say AHRI has 50 employees and WFPMA would seem to have about 95 members.
He is currently a non-executive director of the Victoria Teachers Mutual Bank, and also Vision Super, where he chairs its Audit Risk & Compliance Committee.
Where have I seen that Teachers Mutual Bank reference before Tyrone?
Peter is an Adjunct Professor in Management at the Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne. He is also Chairman of the Advisory Council of the Victorian Institute of Strategic Economic Studies at Victoria University, and an accredited PhD Supervisor at the Latrobe Business School, Latrobe University.
but he does not have a PhD.
Peter held senior executive roles in the Commonwealth and Victorian Treasuries, and group executive roles at ANZ Bank, Amcor Limited, and as CEO of Energy 21. He has held non-executive director appointments on Boards of Dalgety Farmers, Kimberly Clark, and the Commonwealth Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission as Chairman.

Peter Wilson was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2005 for services to workplace relations and safety, and community service, and was awarded a Centenary Medal in 2004.
Sounds like a resume builder.
The Naked Webmaster

User avatar
GenYCPA
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 11:19 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by GenYCPA » Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:48 am

I thought I would take stock today and look back over the last few months. I found an old document that had been collaborated on by a number of members from cpamembers.org which provided a concise summary of the issues being raised then suggested some aims and objectives for the short, medium and long term.

Whilst it was never published in the end the headline of the document was "Our aim is to restore trust, accountability and public confidence in CPA Australia through the adoption of an effective and transparent governance structure." The key issues identified were: transparency and disclosure; corporate governance structure; organisational performance; remuneration; directors terms; CPAA Advice; professional standards scheme; constitutional and legislative breaches (including remuneration, disclosures, members registers and directors duties). It also raised a whole range of other matters of questionable effectiveness or ethics that you will be fully aware of.

If for a moment you take away the question of whether the review panel was sufficiently independent or the fact that it did not hold any individuals to account, it did complete a deep review of CPA Australia and the key issues that had been raised by members. I believe there is still a time and place to hold past directors and/or executives to account pending a proper investigation but my immediate concern is addressing the corporate governance and strategy of CPA Australia.

I would like to note that you, like myself and many other members, believe that actions speak louder than words. I hope all members take the time to compare the months leading up to the dismissal of Alex Malley and the mass resignation of the board to the last few months.

Previously (starting 1st May where I first became aware of the member movement to enact change):
  • Denial of the genuine issues raised and concerns of members
  • Special announcements from the board of directors warning against yours truly and cpamembers.org
  • A 32-page compendium of statements which designed to either mislead or misrepresent important issues
  • Removal of details for councillors and committee members & Find a CPA
  • Announcements regarding “false assertations” in relation to our professional standards scheme
  • Forced S202b disclosures
  • Terminating contract rather than standing down the CEO pending investigation
  • + everything else already on the record
Since 23rd June announcement of the CEO termination:
  • Return of councillor and committee details as well as Find a CPA
  • Complete refresh of the board (pending final two in a fortnights time)
  • Change to Nominations and Remuneration Committee
  • Changes to the Rep Council (within the limits allowed by the constitution)
  • Ongoing updates from the IRP including preliminary and final reports
  • Monthly updates from the new board of directors
  • Over 100 meetings and discussions with members including with board spillers, past presidents, TST members, all divisional councils etc
  • Member survey with options for freeform response to issues
  • Commitments to improved disclosures, member driven strategy review, engaging with members to propose constitutional amendments etc
I have witnessed a dramatic change because of pressure from members (and internal pressure from some staff and managers) but since taken up by many more staff, management and the new board. It is imperative that members continue to hold the new board and executive to account but I believe we must also work constructively with them and give them a chance to enact change.

I would rather judge the actions I see then continue to look for reasons to distrust the process – if I judge the actions to have failed or not be in the best interest of members then I will continue to say so. Members will have their say at the AGM – later then we wanted but our chance none the less.

Our constitution is our contract between members, the board and the staff of CPA Australia Limited. My view is this is the most important issue at hand and where most energy should be focused leading up to the 2018 AGM. Once we have a constitution that provides the right balance and protections for members – then I would be happy to pursue the remaining issues.
Robert McDowall CPA | Partner | Arabon Accountants
CPA Australia Queensland Divisional Councillor

https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-mcdowall/
Join the conversation on the CPA Members Group on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/groups/103561

User avatar
jendalitz
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:20 pm

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by jendalitz » Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:13 pm

GenYCPA wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:48 am
I would rather judge the actions I see then continue to look for reasons to distrust the process – if I judge the actions to have failed or not be in the best interest of members then I will continue to say so.
Yes GenYCPA I agree

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by Brett Stevenson » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:22 am

Just read your post Robert and two quintessential Australian sayings come to mind.
Darryl Kerrigan's "Tell him he's dreamin'" when reading your assessment
"I believe there is still a time and place to hold past directors and/or executives to account pending a proper investigation..."
Wow for someone who purports the high ground of
"I would rather judge the actions I see.." and the "imperative that members continue to hold the new board and executives to account.."
you sure do retreat pretty quickly on the need to hold past board board and executives to account and naively think that they will be pursued later on.
I think Darryl sums it up pretty well "Tell him he's dreamin'"
The other one is "come in spinner". I think the new board, the IRP but especially the old board and old/current management, will be proud of you as representing the response they wanted.
I would suggest four things:

1. you have a read of Prof Stephen Taylors opinion pieces in the AFR;

2. read the IRP Final Report without the rose coloured glasses asking why did they not recommend any actions against the people who were responsible for the 'catalogue of wrongs';

3. Tell some non-CPA friends and acquaintances of the $4.9 million termination payment and the CPAA Advice $1.5 million, and ask them what they think of CPA Australia when the new board, the IRP and of course the old board and current management (and by default you if your comment is any indication) are saying 'we need to just write it off and regard it as a lesson for the future;

4. have a read of the new Chairman Peter Wilsons comments from the article in Saturdays AFR by Edmund Tadros saying he wants to toughen up the member code of conduct and ask yourself who do you think he is taking aim at here?

I'll answer that last one for you Robert and say it is akin to an 'anti-whistleblowers code' and he (and the new board and the old board and the current management) do not want members exposing wrongdoings as has been done currently but would rather the professional route of the pre 2017 years where everyone is just so nice and professional, they comment in private about not liking what's going on, but remain silent in public. I am sure your comment is just the sort of response Peter Wilson and the new board regard as music to their ears.

Eric Nacpa
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:21 am

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by Eric Nacpa » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:46 am

An interesting case (from an AICD update)

Shareholder ratification obtained after full disclosure may provide a defence to directors’ breach of general law duties, but not their statutory duties.
FAL Healthy Beverages Pty Ltd (FAL HB) and its subsidiary successfully claimed that Timothy Xenos, a former director and CEO of both companies, had breached his statutory and general law duties by causing those companies to make various payments that benefitted him.
The Court rejected Mr Xenos’ claim that the transactions had been approved by the majority shareholder of FAL HB and himself in his capacity as a minority shareholder. In any event, Mr Xenos’ conflicts and the nature of the particular transactions had not been adequately disclosed to FAL HB’s major shareholder or its chairman so as to permit effective ratification of the transactions. Mr Xenos was therefore unable to avoid liability to FAL HB and its subsidiary on the basis of shareholder ratification or acquiescence.
In handing down its judgment, the Court confirmed that:
Shareholders cannot release directors from their statutory duties. However, their acquiescence in a course of conduct might affect the practical content of those duties and be relevant to whether the impropriety necessary to establish a breach in fact existed. To the extent that ratification may narrow a duty owed by shareholders, so as to be relevant to determining whether a breach of a statutory duty is established, that will at least be limited by a requirement of disclosure, and may also be limited by public interest considerations; and
To constitute a defence to directors’ breaches of general law duties, the prior approval or subsequent ratification of, or acquiescence in, the relevant transactions by shareholders must occur after full disclosure to them of all the material circumstances, including the character of the transactions and the nature of the relevant conflict.
Mr Xenos was ordered to pay just over $1 million to FAL HB and FAL Retail.


The same could be argued of the Boards actions in relation to their statutory duties.
The new Board would need to undertake their duties AKA do their job however.

User avatar
nakedadmin
Site Admin
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:38 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by nakedadmin » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:11 pm

Brett Stevenson wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:22 am
it is akin to an 'anti-whistleblowers code' and he (and the new board and the old board and the current management) do not want members exposing wrongdoings as has been done currently but would rather the professional route of the pre 2017 years where everyone is just so nice and professional, they comment in private about not liking what's going on, but remain silent in public.
Correct! Whilst it's universally agreed that change is necessary they condemn the actions that gave rise to the change. It's just trying to make sure it's not possible in future. In fact they've not proposed anything that would enable change to happen in a more orderly way. If they had proposed such a thing then there would not be a need for these anti whistle blower provisions.

I think the rebels and this website has been very professional and constructive. In my opinion the unprofessional conduct was mainly from CPA Australia. If they want to raise the standard of the debate they should just stop calling people rebels. Peter Wilson is now calling us "destabilisers". They should start listening to the concerns instead of targeting people.

So what kind of code of conduct are they going to propose that allows the chair to call some members destabilisers but members to not demand a properly completed s202B or members register? It will be interesting to see.
The Naked Webmaster

User avatar
GenYCPA
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 11:19 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by GenYCPA » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:50 am

Hi Brett,

To respond:
  1. I have not read Prof Stephen Taylors opinion pieces in the AFR. The only AFR articles I read these days are those written by Edmund Tadros.
  2. I have read the IRP but I am not so mistrusting as some others. I recognise the limit of their scope, their resources and their powers. The review was not a forensic review and was not intended to provide legal advice or develop evidence for the purposes of any legal action. Read the final paragraph of 4.3 on page 18 carefully for more detail.
  3. My comments do not imply that we need to write off the termination payment and regard it as a lesson for the future. I was as shocked and angry as anyone when the termination was announced as I had always been advocating a suspension pending an investigation. I strongly believe there is a case here to investigate, even if only for the lack of minutes and records supporting the chance in contract.
  4. I have already provided my opinion on Peter Wilson's comments in the AFR and the proposal for a members code of conduct. As I have stated previously I do not believe this is an "anti-whistle blower code" designed to stop the type of commentary and debate that has exposed serious issues and led to this reform but rather aimed at preventing the personal attacks and disrespectful behaviour exhibited by both sides (see my comments on Glen Hassleman's LinkedIn post Is there a dilemma between freedom of speech and professional standards of conduct?)
I'm not sure why my suggestions and opinions are incompatible with your own. I would like to categorically state that I am not "retreating" nor being "silent" on my views regarding the accountability of past directors, staff and/or members that have caused the sorry state of affairs we found ourselves in. Any suggestion otherwise would indicate you have not followed my public posts and LinkedIn discussions nor been aware of the other actions I have pursued. It is not reasonable to expect anyone to publish a full record of every single phone call, e-mail, instant message or meeting online for all to read. I do not expect this of you, the Spill Team, the TST, the past presidents or anybody else. This does not mean action is not taking place.

I also offer no apologise if the language I use is not as strong or forceful as you would prefer. I am conciliatory by nature (perhaps a result of growing up in a family of 7 children) and prefer to focus on analysing and solving problems.

What you call retreat and naivety is merely my opinion on a different set of priorities to your own.

My first priority is continuing to engage members, inform them of the issues still at play, encourage them to participate in the debate and to get involved in the change taking place. I believe we need to build long term, sustainable and meaningful engagement not simply anger, frustration and mistrust which whilst a powerful catalyst can be short lived and counter productive.

My second priority is reforming the contract between members, our board of directors and staff. Without this - how do you expect to regain the level of control required by members to enable all the other actions that you seek. The most resounding silence I have witnessed in this whole saga is that of the regulators who have left it to members to fix our own mess.

My third priority is for the culture within CPA Australia to change. The lack of transparency and integrity, the misrepresentations, the oppressive conduct, the focus on sales and growth at the expense of existing members all stems from a weak and insidious culture. Instead I believe staff should be focused on supporting members by providing access to tools and knowledge, genuine professional development, effective advocacy and improving our business and career opportunities through brand recognition/value and networking. Any "business" activities should be in the pursuit of providing members without sacrificing financial sustainability.

My fourth priority is to address the debacle that is CPA Australia Advice (fourth in priority only due to my perception of importance - I imagine it could be addressed quite quickly).

My final priority in all this is to investigate and identify any cases of malfeasance, fraud, breaches of duties or other legislative instruments. I leave this last because past directors will be indemnified against liability or legal costs per our constitution. Because any investigation is likely to involve lawyers and forensic accountants and will take considerable more time and money then the scope of the Independent Review. Lastly because I believe we will need the support and backing of the board, executive and staff at CPA Australia to truly hold those responsible to account. Continued alienation will only lead to stonewalling and mistrust.

I am fully aware how much time and energy has been invested by members, staff, journalists & politicians in bringing about the change and reform we have seen so far. I know first hand the emotional and physical strain this places on individuals, their families, their businesses and careers. Forgive me for hoping that we can start building back up our professional body, which has already been torn asunder, for the benefit of current and future members who take pride in, and rely on, the designation of CPA Australia.

I will continue to voice my support to hold people accountable - but I will not be willing to leave CPA Australia in a continued state of limbo, causing harm and detriment to members, whilst the investigations and legal action takes place.
Robert McDowall CPA | Partner | Arabon Accountants
CPA Australia Queensland Divisional Councillor

https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-mcdowall/
Join the conversation on the CPA Members Group on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/groups/103561

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: 15th Dec 2017 The Saga/Nightmare Continues at CPA Australia

Post by Brett Stevenson » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:40 am

Fair enough Robert but I still think
"Tell him he's dreamin'",
"Come in spinner" and
"viewing through rose coloured glasses"
best summarises my response.

Post Reply