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: ... 215-h055ej ... 211-h02x1d ... s,/8626662
Please join this website to participate in discussions. Also join our email list at

Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

This covers the board and management of CPA Australia
Post Reply
User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by Brett Stevenson » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:26 pm

Senate Hearing with the CPA Board in Canberra 5th September 2017

They need to go, and the sooner the better. It was a disgrace. And that is the current leadership of CPA Australia!

Well members the Senate Hearing where the CPA board were asked to attend was held yesterday in Canberra, and I’m not too sure if any of you were able to watch it (as it was televised) but it was terrible.
I attended in person, and I would have to say if this is what the leadership of CPA Australia has descended to then what hope do we have.
As another person who attended said it was ‘excruciating to watch’.
My son and three of his fellow students from ANU attended, and I can pretty safely say from their responses that if this is what the accounting profession offers to young people in terms of leadership of one of its purportedly leadership organisations, then what hope do we have.

Radical surgery is needed.
And soon.
It was disgraceful.

I am writing this email not just as an update but also as a letter to the Independent Review Panel. Something needs to be done quickly and it cannot be just an overview of the problems. Action, and mainly of the legal type, is required to not only sharpen up this current board but also to hold accountable all those who have allowed this disgraceful chapter in the history of CPA to occur.

Brief Introductory Comments

The whole board were asked to attend but in reality only three of the six did (J Dickson, G Wade, T Youngberry) with R Petty a no-show, and S Portelli and M Dolin by telephone (which in reality meant not there).
J Dickson tried his hardest not to answer every question with “can we take that on notice, or we complied with the law” but pretty much failed.
Tim Youngberry was there and that's about the best I can say - I can see why he was selected as a recent ring-in to the board to make up the numbers. Wow.
Graeme Wade you needed to be there to see his performance. He conveyed exactly why we have had to fight hard to expose all the failings at CPA Australia. It was just awful.

Felt like a parallel universe

It was an experience where I felt I was living on a different planet.
The only problem the board saw in all the failings exposed at CPA was that they could have improved the communication!
Wow, can you believe that.
  • The only real problem was poor communication.

    The marketing strategy focussed on Alex Malley and The Naked CEO, and the TV program was an outstanding success. But as soon as he left they removed it.

    Alex Malley was an outstanding leader, but they forced him to resign.

    CPA Australia Advice was a long game initiative and they had no regrets despite losing over $7 million in 19 months with an income of only $47,000, and with the directors and senior management of CPA Australia managing to pay themselves over $1.5 million in the process, and with a potential loss of $20 million looming.

    The Singapore AGM was the best attended of all AGM’s and it was to show our loyalty to our Singapore members even though everyone except the board acknowledged that it was moved to Singapore to avoid difficult questions if held in Australia.

    The remuneration of Alex Malley of $1.8 million was fine, and the termination payment of $4.9 million was subject to confidentiality and was okay, even though everyone knows it was way over the top.

    The governance at CPA Australia was okay after undergoing a major review back in 2007, and the board do not appoint directors despite the fact that they have approved half of the Representative Council and it comprises many friendlies to maintain a gerrymander

    Graeme Wade did not even know the details of the sponsorship with the NBL gift of $756,000 (if you believe that then you had best check to see if there are any fairies in the garden) even though Chairman of both CPA and the NBL at the time because he managed the conflict of interest to avoid it. Well what can I say to that one. The pub test might be good place to start.

    Graeme Wade did not even know how many years he has served on the board (you are in your 12th year Graeme as everyone including you knows). Please Graeme the fairies in the garden are running amok trying to escape the pigs flying past.

    On and on it went.
I daresay the Hansard report of the proceedings will soon be available and I think also the visual recording. It is worth adding that Nick Xenophon has been excellent in his support on this Corporations Act amendment, and also his attention to detail and his great questions in the senate hearings.
And sitting there listening to it one just felt anger and shame and how pathetic is CPA Australia if this is what our leadership is.

So my response is to address this email to the Independent Review Panel.

Email to the Independent Review Panel

Dear Ian, Su, Maryjane, and Bob,

We eagerly await your draft report on 15th September but can we say that after watching the board before the Senate Hearing yesterday we trust it is more than a summary of the issues.
They were pathetic and if this draft report does not give us cause for encouragement (see below for a few things I shall be looking for) then you will have failed us badly.

This is not trying to pre-empt your report. But it is in recognition of the fact that you have had privileged access to information and material at CPA Australia which we haven't, and that we expect something a little more hard-hitting than just a summary of the issues.
After watching our current board, we expect some firm remedial action.
And by that we want to see some legal remedies to redress these shortcomings.

It was absolutely painful to watch.

This current board showed no signs of any remorse or regret or responsibility or even recognition of the wrongs done.
Quite the contrary they actually were actively non-apologetic and defensive on many of the issues.

The example of CPA Australia Advice

Let me just take one example (but you could multiply this by 20, and there would still be more).
  • In the 19 months to 31st December 2016 it had a total revenue of just $47,000 while incurring losses of $7,404,000. Yes read that again to believe it.

    In just the 12 months to 31st December 2016 Graeme Wade paid himself $100,000 in directors fees from CPA Australia Advice. The three CPA senior managers (Malley, Awty, Hughes) and three other directors of CPA Australia (Carlin, Dolin, Petty) plus one other (Haddan) managed to pay themselves $1,000,000 from CPA Australia Advice. Keep in mind a new subsidiary with a total revenue of just $$46,000 in that year. What a gravy train. And the current board at the Senate Hearing said they were in this for the long haul.

    The rest of the 14 staff managed to extract over $2,500,000 for themselves in that year. And remember this subsidiary had a total revenue of just $46,000 in that year.

    IRP this needs immediate legal action. This needs urgent attention. It is a rort of the highest order. And to think that Tyrone Carlin and Richard Petty (two of the directors who managed to extract $70,000 each in directors fees from it) have high level positions at their universities (Sydney University and Macquarie University).

    CPA Australia has given them ‘an overdraft’ of $20 million to finance this, and to Feb 2017 over $12 million had already been drawn down.

    The auditor did not see any of this of material significance to make any comment in the CPA Australia accounts, and of course consolidated accounting rules were used to hide both the liability and the assets in the respective accounts so that nothing was shown in our annual report because it al just ‘contra’d out’.

    To cap it off some of the directors managed to get paid over the CPA Australia constitutional limits because they said it was a separate fully owned subsidiary and thus those caps did not apply. Crikey the only test that would pass would be the Enron one. Just create as many subsidiaries as you like and the constitutional limits of CPA Australia become meaningless.
We want legal redress and action

This is why Ian, we expect real action and legal action at that to redress these wrongs.
We know Maryjane you are a litigation lawyer (and a good one at that from what we have heard) so we would like to imagine that you will be looking closely at many of these matters to ensure appropriate legal action and redress is taken.

Surely we cannot allow them to get away with this. Forget what your divisional presidents consultative group say (they can be rightly adjudged as being the ‘silent ones’ - they certainly should not be able to command any more respect now).

We have a very big bank balance at CPA Australia and we can afford to take legal action against these officers, directors and the auditor. We expect that to be looked at very closely on many of the issues.
After watching the Senate hearing yesterday and seeing the almost arrogant way they refused to take any responsibility and were almost dismissive of there being any issue with these matters, we expect redress.

Just take CPA Australia Advice as a case study to how you need to look at all the issues. I mean even Tyrone Carlin managed to pay himself $70,000 in 2016 in directors fees which is almost double the total revenue for the year, along with his handsome Chairmans fees from CPA Australia and of course his full time salary as Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University.
Where does this stop and someone says enough is enough. We need to hold some people accountable here.
Who on the board and on the executive at CPA Australia or the subsidiary said anything about this? It seems it was total silence and they just quietly accepted these massive payments.
Breach of directors duties is on area to seriously look at.

This has to be addressed in your draft report.

My response to members regarding the IRP report has been to just hold fire, that they have promised to deal with the issues, and we need to give them a chance. Lets just wait for the interim report to see.

Well after watching the current board in action yesterday I will be quite upfront and say I shall be looking for some quite specific items to be addressed to know whether you are fair dinkum. Please do not say it is all up to the new board which was pretty much the standard response yesterday from the current board when a difficult question was asked.

This IRP Report will be the plan of action for the new board so let’s be realistic here Ian, and not play these games of ‘passing the buck’. You know we all have major reservations and hesitations with the board selection process currently, and that includes the divisional representatives and presidents who you are using as a consultative group (the great silent ones). I would suggest you use their consultative advice sparingly and rather look at the real issues.

But Ian I have taken you and the other members on face value and based on what you have told us that you will ‘dig deep’ and not ‘leave any stone unturned’ (my words but I think that captures your assurances to us pretty fairly).

Litmus Tests of the Draft Independent Report

These are the things I will be looking for. My little litmus tests (so to speak).
  • Major governance review with a view to a new constitution, and members directly voting for directors. This is why I see this new board as just an interim board until a new fully and properly elected board can be in place once we have the governance review and a new constitution.

    Salaries of Board, Senior and Middle management at CPA Australia to be reduced immediately by 50%.

    Legal action to recoup the $4.9 million termination payment to Alex Malley, and for those responsible to be held legally accountable.

    Legal action to look at oppression of minority shareholders by the board in relation to disabling the Find A CPA function, removing contact details of members from the website, and generally doing what they could to prevent the issues being raised with the wider membership.

    Legal action to look at the directors breaching their legal duties and responsibilities, especially in relation to CPA Australia Advice where the board and senior managers were able to pay themselves in excess of $1.5 million over a 19 month period when the total revenue was only $47,000. Also in relation to the financial viability of the model and their gross incompetence to allow this to ever develop.

    Legal action to recover the directors fees paid in excess of the CPA Australia constitution by establishing a fully owned subsidiary to avoid them (the Enronisation factor). They could create as many fully owned subsidiaries as they like to avoid their constitutional obligations. We do not accept that as passing the ‘pub test’ and expect legal action to redress it.

    Legal action against the auditor for failure in his duties to provide a true and fair view opinion on CPA Australia especially in relation to CPA Australia Advice, and over the constitutional payments of directors fees, and in relation to the s202B statement.
Well there are a whole raft of other matters that many of the members will be looking for in addition to these. As you can very quickly see from my perspective I expect legal action to be taken to redress the clear wrongs that have taken place.
CPA Australia has plenty of money in the bank to take legal action and we expect it to be done.

CPA Australia can be restored but only if radical action is taken, and I believe that requires legal action against the directors and officers of CPA Australia, and the auditor. If there is even a whiff of success then so we should act. The benefits are not just in terms of the actual decision or verdict but the process itself will provide the main benefit.

CPA Australia has become the laughing stock to so many people in the marketplace and the pathetic performance of the board yesterday at the the Senate Hearing just confirmed that. We need urgent and radical action.

I write this before your report because we are looking to this report to provide the catalyst for CPA Australia to be restored. We do not want a softly spoken healing professional report which just lists all the issues.

We expect (and not unreasonably so I would suggest) that you will make some very definite proposals for action and recommendations that reflect your privileged access.
What we uncovered was funded on the ‘smell of an oily rag’, and with little access to the real data. That is not the case with the Panel, and we expect much more.


Last edited by Brett Stevenson on Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by nakedadmin » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:04 pm

I guess you noticed the bit where Dickson was unable to say that it was a preexisting contractual agreement that obligated them to pay out Malley $4.9m. It's not credible to think that he would not know. So why could he not simply say it was a preexisting contractual agreement. Perhaps there was not preexisting contractual agreement and it was an agreed gift/payout.

I agree that we will know quite easily from reading the IRP report if it is a whitewash.
The Naked Webmaster

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

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by Eric Nacpa » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:58 pm

in its full glory ... e=parlview

Witnesses can only ask to provide answers in confidence, but not deny to provide them. This is contempt of Parliament.

Not answering the question about the terms of employment contract display either contempt or incompetence.
I doubt the IRP are privy to the terms of the financial settlement as its confidential to the Board.

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

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by Brett Stevenson » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:53 pm

Yes, Dicksons answer to the termination payout was interesting for the delay and unwillingness at the start to say it was contractual. I think he eventually did say it was but I agree it was worth noting.
My automatic thought was that needs to be investigated much more closely.
They are not allowed to lie to the Senate Hearing so it will be good to see exactly what he specifically said on that one.

Did you just love the reason why Andre Rieu was chosen was because he did go bankrupt and the lessons in how he picked himself up from that. I reckon Graeme Wade is starting to believe some of the stuff and sales talk he feeds us.

Posts: 376
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by JWheldon » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:11 pm

It does appear that Graeme Wade is the key to all the answers, yet Graeme Wade does not like to answer questions, except to tell the members and the Senate Committee that due to contractual obligations, that it would inappropriate to disclosure.

It does seem inappropriate for the members of CPA Australia to be told how much remunerations were or are being paid to the board members, the management team or even Alex Malley. It does seem inappropriate for the members of CPA Australia to be told how much the sponsorship of the NBL, the Australia Open and the Naked CEO costs, the "In Conversation" TV Show cost, or CPA Australia Advice or about the financial accounts of CPA Australia or how much the CPA board authorised on the paying for Alex Malley accommodation and travel costs associated with his interstate and international junkets, or even Alex Malley's contract or termination payout. It does appear inappropriate for the members, the state presidents, well just about any general members of the NOT-FOR Profit association to question Graeme Wade or the other members of the CPA Australia board, about how, the CEO, the CFO, the COOs and the management team are spending the members funds or even to question the auditor of CPA Australia. Is CPA Australia a NOT-FOR PROFIT Association, or is it a business with a motive to generate profits for the board members, the CEO, the COOs and the management team???? Who are the shareholders of CPA Australia????? Who has the right to ask very important questions???? It doesn't appear to be the members of CPA Australia, then maybe the external stakeholders of CPA Australia???

If CPA Australia is not a Not-For Profit Association, as changed by the board in 2010, then maybe the Australia Taxation Office will need to investigate, ASIC will need to open another avenue of investigation, or even the Australian Charities Not-For Profits Commission will need to take a closer look at the status of CPA Australia???

Well Mr Wade, your were the President of CPA Australia, the Chairman of CPA Australia, Chairman of the remuneration committee, plus other board duties, on the board since 2006, a friend of Alex Malley, and apart of the team that authorised the appointment of Alex Malley, and the signoff of the contract of engagement of Alex Malley. It would appear that you would have clear knowledge of the information for which the membership of CPA Australia want answered, yet you continually decline to provide clear answers, except to say it was the board decision and that information could not be disclosed due to the agreements in place. Again you and board disclosed the costs of the NBL to the members after much concern about a perceived problem of you having a conflict of interest. It would certainly appear that it would not be a problem for the CPA Australia board to disclose the terms of the NBL arrangements, for the board to disclose the cost of Australian Open Sponsorship and what the CPA Australia board obtained from this sponsorship and all the other hundreds of questions that a lot of general members like Brett Stevenson want answered.

Graeme Wade, Richard Petty, Michele Dolin, etc etc etc have forgotten what the past CPA Australia boards of the eighties tried to achieve with having the status of CPA and FCPA. The board could have then kept the status of ASA and not aimed to raise the status of all accountants with the status of CPA/FCPA, and try to match it against the Institute of Chartered Accountants. They have forgotten what being a CPA is and what the title of CPA aims to stand for, except to reduce a CPA to an education business, fronted by an individual with confused personal goals, which strongly diminished the status of being a CPA.

So Mr Dickson as CPA President/Chairman, stop all this cloak and dagger stuff, and be honest with the members and provide details answers to all the members questions. Be proud to be a CPA, try to uplift the status of being a CPA President once again. Show your previous past 16 presidents that the role of being a CPA Australia President is a very important role, for which the youngest members can be proud off and not reduced, to just a title on a website or a name tag or reduced to a joke role, which members have no confidence in.
Last edited by JWheldon on Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by nakedadmin » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:24 am

They wrote the agreements with the confidentiality clauses themselves.

Same as they wrote the CPAA Advice constitution. I mean if you have a contract that says you can pay yourself $X just pay a third party $Y under an agreement that they will forward $Z (or some other benefit) to you and whack a confidentiality clause in it. Then sign on behalf of yourself and the third party!
The Naked Webmaster

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

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by Eric Nacpa » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:33 am

I think its really much simpler.
Final comment on this was that the Board met its obligations to the CEO

- Board was 100% behind CEO (performance appraisals, KPI's etc etc)
- they decide to terminate CEO after the Divisions weighed in (It was their decision not the divisions. They are the Board after all)
- Board was in no position to negotiate or stand CEO down temporarily
- they faced either 100% payout of contract or litigation (Continue to back me or see you in Court)
- Board bailed themselves out with members funds.

This is how Boards tend to act when the get themselves into this type of trouble with a CEO (or resign leaving a mess).

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

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by Brett Stevenson » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:41 am

It seems even simpler Eric I reckon. They should just take the 'see you in court' route.
But of course the CPA Boatd didn't and that's why I think the board is complicit and this termination payment stinks to high heaven.
One of the big lessons from the debacles around the Enron era is that the board and management bluffs and legal complicity arguments did not stand up under the scrutiny of the courts and public scrutiny.
Get them into court I reckon. Let's see how they can justify some of these outrageous decisions. I think worth it just to take the almost smug looks and arrogant attitudes some of these directors and senior management have displayed over the last decade.

Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:58 am

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by chuck_meister » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:00 pm

I can see the PR machine is still in full gear. This message is doing the rounds of the Victorian Government CPAs.
For those who don't haven't followed or studied of how gerimandered/stacked the process really is, you could
be fooled into think that it looks solid (not).

Hi everyone,

I hope that you are all well, and have seen today’s CPA Update which had the following link to our website: ... ion-update

This is a great message to put out to your CPA networks and highlights that we have a robust process for appointing the new Board members.

Best regards,

Marc Hudec | Member Services Lead - Victoria | CPA Australia


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

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by Brett Stevenson » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:36 pm

Yes, I agree Chuck, it is the sort of spin the CPA PR machine put on obvious failings and why people such as Marc Hudec need to think about what they actually say. It is an improvement but to suggest that this needs to be communicated to members as a robust system is sheer bombastic nonsense.
This is why I reckon there needs to be a cleanout at middle management level at CPA as well.
They just continue on as if the Malley era were still in place with all its sales talk.
This is a very far from strong governance framework to appoint directors, and for Mark Hudec to send out this sort of communication shows why the Interim CEO Adam Awty should not be in that position. He clearly approves such communications, and he of all people should be aware that he was one of the primary beneficiaries of the excessive remuneration from both CPA Australia and CPA Australia Advice. And it does not need saying (but I will anyway) that Adam just went along with this without a word of complaint or questioning, and seemingly in complete agreement.
Please. Save us from this sort of double talk.
The divisional representatives are very far from being good representatives, and the below chart will give you a pretty good idea why.
If I were a swearing person I would swear at this point.
You just need to look more closely at some of these divisional representatives and their backgrounds and their decisions over the last decade to get a feel for why they are not members who I have a lot of confidence in. Certainly it is better to have the Rep Council without the board appointed group representatives, but this is stil far from being a good process to appoint new directors. So lets not kid ourselves. I would imagine one of the first 'cabs off the rank' will be a totally new governance system for CPAA, and for the Representative Council to be cast into the sea of oblivion never to rise again for being a complete contradiction in terms.
This is not a robust process Mark, and you should know better. I would suggest you need to think a wee bit before putting out such PR rubbish.

Have a look at the attached chart, and the below copy of my posting on this on 22nd July (with a few revisions).
I have attached a schedule in both PDF and excel format (so members can refine it as they wish) of an analysis I did of the current divisions and their roots in the Malley decade. My comments are at the bottom of the spreadsheet. I limited it to just the 2013 to now years but its good enough to get a feel for the deep roots and why I do not have a lot of confidence in the current Divisional Presidents in particular. Remember these are the people Mr McPhee is calling on the use as a Consultative Panel for the Independent review.
One group is suggesting that we use the current Divisional Presidents to form a Interim Board.
Well I suggest you have a read of the attached analysis and I would think that is a bad idea.
Most of our current Divisional Presidents have long roots going back before 2013 (where I started the analysis from) in the Malley decade, and I cannot recall hearing peeky boo from any of them about many of the tings that have been exposed over the last 6 months prior to now.
To me they have shown the same disregard and convenient silence that has allowed many of the things being exposed to have gone on. They were in positions to know a lot more and to ask questions and raise these matters well before now.
There may be some fine people amongst them but they sure did not do what they should have on these matters.
Also in the excel spreadsheet is an analysis of the current Representative Council, and also a summary of the Board Committees over the years. I have commented on these before but sometimes it is worth reminding ourselves what a gerrymandered board we have had for so long.
Divisions Malley Decade Roots.pdf
(38.42 KiB) Downloaded 97 times

Posts: 376
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by JWheldon » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:21 pm

Is this problem with the rep council etc because of the lack of members that wish to nominate for positions?

Is the problem the lack of information provided to members about the individuals who nominate, for elections?

Jeff Hughes overlooks member services, yet which organisation provided the information relating to the nomination and election of representatives? It was from a third party. The emails about the elections of representatives were sent via a third party organisation. Now who is going to trust emails from sources not CPA Australia about voting for council elections? Not sure Jeff Hughes is really doing such a great job in his position. Jeff Hughes has been with CPA Australia all through the Alex Malley years and at the beginning with Graeme Wade etc. Yet, what are his achievements?? The State Presidents need to take back ownership of their state run organisation and start arranging a better plan for the CPA HQ has done a terrible job.

The other questions is that most of the individuals on the councils and in positions of authority, continue in those positions due to the lack of members that get involved and want to take up those positions. Even Graeme Wade, highlighted the issue of poor member involvement with CPA and poor attendance at the CPA Australia AGM at the Senate Committee. Again l suggest that it was the fault of the board and management team, as the drivers of the organisation. Maybe they were too concerned about how they were going to spend all the millions on TV shows, NBL sponsorship, Tennis Centre advertising, and other silly strategies.

Now the individuals on councils etc only get paid a reasonable reimbursement for travel and not a directors fee or large payments for the free time that they put in. If you look at some of the other committees etc, like the Public Practice Committee, there are individuals on these committees who have been there for many years. Now again not making any personal attack on those individuals, but to suggest that Jeff Hughes the individual who is supposed to be running the membership site of the so called not-for profit, has failed to improve membership involvement. Maybe on the other hand the board didn't want the wrong individuals to get appointed?

Why would individuals waste their own time, to work for free in an organisation, where it clearly says we pay large directors fees to get the best, and we pay large remunerations and rewards to those who run, manage the business, yet take advantage of volunteers who spend lots of their own time and money to give back. There is a clear divide and substantial movement in the ethics and behaviour since the board changed the constitution and the payment of remunerations. It sends a message like GREED IS GOOD and SELL SELL SELL to get those sale targets and membership numbers up so that we can be paid huge benefits. What a terrible culture, especially for a not-for profit.

Have you noticed how most, if not all CPA Australia activities take place in the central HQ offices in the relevant states or near the HQ offices. This is besides the discussion groups, run by the hundreds of volunteers, who provide avenues for members to interact. Yet funds appear to be spent on functions, breakfasts etc, which are in the big capital city areas, and cater for only a few city accountants who have the time to waste on some of these silly functions. Do these functions break even or do they continually lose money.

Now for those of you still reading, lets look at the how Peter Docherty encourages members to volunteer services on a pro-bono for small not-profit or small entities. Again, given the example set Graeme Wade with the way he run CPA Australia Advice, a start-up, which is 100% owned by a not-for profit, why would anyone want to work pro-bono? Graeme Wade and the other directors of CPA Australia Advice paid themselves large directors fees for a poorly run, poorly management and poorly thought out venture, but did they really care when they got paid those large directors fees?

Look at this from CPA Australia , ... nteer-role.

Again l ask the members, would you waste your time, given the behaviour and examples set by Graeme Wade, Richard Petty, Michele Dolin, Alex Malley, Adam Awty, Jeff Hughes and many many others, to volunteer or even seek an unpaid position on a CPA Australia committee or council? The board and management team have set the bar, and therefore are telling the members to be commercial about the way they interact with CPA Australia. Yet this is not what a not-for profit organisation should be encouraging.

Again it goes back the management of CPA Australia. Spending too much time, money on a silly marketing strategy and not where the funds were needed.

Yet getting back to the members on the council, the problem with those in those position is on going to get worse, now that the highly paid board, and highly paid management team have set the example for the rest of the professional accountants in the industry. Why would a highly experienced university professor, or highly paid government accountant or auditor or any other well experienced professional waste her or his time to work for free at CPA Australia committee or council???

The board has a big problem. Jeff Hughes has a really big problem and so does the whole of CPA Australia. What a sad waste of the last ten years.

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

Re: Brett's Report on the Senate Hearing 5th Sept 2017

Post by nakedadmin » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:57 am

I'd say they didn't want to engage the members. In fact I think it was a systematic disenfranchising. If someone complained they'd say your complaint is not valid you need to join a committee. They'd stonewall people until they give up.

The Divisional election is completely unengaging. You'd be lucky to notice it was happening. I myself was only told by someone that Divisional nominations were closing a couple days before they closed and I have no idea where the call for nominations is.

If you did make it onto a Divisional council you have to then get nominated to Representative council. Until recently about half of the Representative council is appointed by the board. In any case you can only appoint a board member cannot remove one. There are so many stages in this process that a person can be prevented from making a difference. I'd have to ask the question how would someone effect change through this process. Also the Divisional appointment is for 2 years, 4 if you get elected President.

Divisional council is just a placebo for people who complain there is no voting. Perhaps someone can tell me what power a Division has to do anything.
The Naked Webmaster

Post Reply