CA ANZ's Purpose

CA ANZ has two equal main purposes driving its activities. First is to serve its members as a membership body. Second is to promote the accounting profession.

The following are examples of dozens of issues raised by members since the amalgamation which raise questions around whether CA ANZ is truly fulfilling its purpose.

As noted on the Home page of this site, readers can form their own view on whether CA ANZ is justified in "considering that due process has been followed in connection with all of CA ANZ's conduct and operations; that all the allegations made are baseless; and CA ANZ denies the conduct alleged."

Public inquiries

Some matters listed further below were also raised in the course of public inquiries, which begs the question of why CA ANZ chose not to set the record straight during those inquiries - how can the public be expected to place trust in CAs when their leaders do not impartially address serious conduct issues, or uphold the core tenants of the accounting profession?

Examples include:

Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017 - Submission #13 and CAANZ response https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/MembersRegistrationBill/Submissions

2020 PJC Regulation of Auditing - Submission #111 and CAANZ response https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Corporations_and_Financial_Services/RegulationofAuditing

2024 PJC Ethics and Professional Accountability (ie PwC inquiry) - Submission #63 and CA ANZ response https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Corporations_and_Financial_Services/ConsultancyFirms

Flagged results

As part of releasing the results for the 2022 and 2023 years which revealed operating losses before tax of around $7.8 million and $8.8 million, CA ANZ asserted that these losses had been flagged to members. This raises two questions. Firstly, what was actually revealed in advance to members which would have alerted them to expect two of the largest losses in CA ANZ's history? Secondly, if CA ANZ was committed to diminishing its resources to the extent of around $16 million, how could the 2021 Annual Report have given a true and fair view of the then financial position?

Budgets not shared with members

Unlike many organisations of similar size (eg municipal councils), CA ANZ does not share its future budgets with its members. Why would CA ANZ wish to hide such information?

Also see examples mentioned on the Financial security page.

No activity based reporting

Despite CA ANZ being expected to uphold the highest standards of transparency and accountability, it does not provide activity based reports or information which would allow members to meaningfully evaluate management performance. 

For example, the national media reported that CA ANZ had lost around $1.6 million in a failed IT project ('Kairos') while no details were reported by CA ANZ [see https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/chartered-accountants-anz-spent-16m-on-kairos-data-platform-20180730-h13brt]

Expenses portrayed as 'investments'

In recent annual reports, CA ANZ has portrayed significant expenses as being "investments". For example, the Letter from Leadership in 2025 states that CA ANZ increased its "operating investment in strategic initiatives such as digital transformation to $8.2m (FY24 $7.0m)." 

This raises the question of how the accounting profession is promoted by CA ANZ leaders characterising expenses as being "investments"?

Questions around appropriateness of president

Despite complaints being raised, CA ANZ maintained a president who is a partner in a firm engaged in conduct which the Full Federal Court described as being not much better than contumacious and bordering on contempt [Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (A Firm) v Sadie Ville Pty Ltd (As Trustee for Sadie Ville Superannuation Fund [2020] FCAFC 23]. How can the public have confidence that complaints raised against the president's firm could be properly reviewed?

Governance review portrayed as 'independent'

CA ANZ portrayed its governance review as being independent when it was led by CA ANZ leaders - the persons responsible for governance.

An external reviewer was engaged, however when challenged on his findings, he stated that: "The Board of CAANZ are our client and we don't discuss assignments unless we have some authority from the client to do so."

The review gave rise to 'streamlining' proposals, such as increasing director terms from 6 to 9 years, and promoting vice-presidents to director positions to 'increase flexibility and inclusion'. The 'streamline' changes also enabled the then Chair to later receive a life membership.

Many changes arising from the governance review had significant disenfranchising effects on members.

The premise of the review was also fundamentally flawed. The governance framework on amalgamation was implemented on the assumption that a subsequent review would confirm it was fit for purpose, thus not recognising that a structure which was not sound would by definition not allow an unconflicted review.

A group of seven FCAs publicly expressed concerns around CA ANZ which were reported in the national media yet ignored by CA ANZ: "The standout principle from the ASX document is to: 'instil a culture of acting lawfully, ethically and responsibly' and as behaving ethically and responsibly is embedded in the DNA of Chartered Accountants, that is also the standard we should expect from the CAANZ Board.".