KPMG audit contracts with Macquarie and Westpac face parliamentary scrutiny

KPMG auditors working on Macquarie and Westpac were handed a blunt signal in April 2026, when the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services wrote to Macquarie chief executive Shemara Wikramanayake and Westpac board audit committee chair Peter Nash over allegations including audit independence, misuse of confidential information and tender integrity failures. For people inside KPMG’s audit practice, the practical question is whether that means tougher controls, more file work and higher client-account risk on major financial-services engagements.

The committee’s letters sat inside its broader oversight of ASIC, the Takeovers Panel and the Corporations Legislation inquiry, and the Westpac correspondence went further by raising allegations of misleading Parliament, examination misconduct and governance failures. The committee set a public hearing for 19 June 2026, a sign that the issue had moved into formal parliamentary scrutiny rather than remaining an internal dispute between auditor and client.

Parliamentary documents also show a public hearing on 6 March 2026, followed by a correction to ASIC executive director Chris Savundra’s evidence that was received on 2 April 2026. A protected disclosure titled Response to KPMG’s Parliamentary Submission was dated 30 May 2026 and was filed in response to KPMG’s 30 April 2026 submission. Taken together, those documents show a widening paper trail around KPMG’s position, the regulator’s evidence and the committee’s questions.

The stakes are high because Macquarie Group describes itself as a global financial services organisation with Australian heritage operating in 30 markets, while Westpac says it is Australia’s oldest bank and has been supporting customers for more than 200 years. When audit work on clients that visible comes under parliamentary attention, firms usually tighten independence checks, increase partner review and put more pressure on documentation and communication discipline. That tends to spill into daily life for managers and senior managers on the job: more sign-offs, more review notes and less room for loose judgment on sensitive engagements.

This latest scrutiny sits on top of an earlier parliamentary hearing in Canberra, ACT, on 6 October 2023, which examined ethics and professional structural challenges in the audit, assurance and consulting sector. Inside KPMG, that history matters because the issue is no longer just whether an engagement is profitable or strategically important. It also affects which teams get the most sensitive bank work, how much risk senior leaders are willing to carry and how audit quality plays into promotion, partner-track and reputation.