Does WHK Horwath tell third parties they should seek independent advice on reports?
|
WHK Horwath, which Andrew Robb this morning declared was “as good as Treasury” routinely warns third parties not to rely on its reports provided to clients and recommends they obtain independent advice, according to sources associated with the firm. The firm provided a report on the Coalition’s costings, declaring that it was “satisfied based on the assumptions provided, costed commitments and savings have been accurately prepared in all material respects.” The Coalition released its costings, and Horwath’s report, 48 hours before the election. Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has repeatedly referred to the WHK Horwath report as an “audit” of the Coalition’s costings, despite the firm making clear it examined the Coalition’s commitments without testing any of the assumptions built into them. As Peter Martin has reported, the firm faces scrutiny from the Institute of Chartered Accountants over the matter. Tony Abbott until this morning refused to provide the Coalition’s election commitments to Treasury for independent costing, despite the three independents calling for a Treasury assessment of the costs and savings each side took to the election. Abbott initially said this was because the Public Service “couldn’t understand” the Coalition’s policies, but has since said it was because there was a leaker in Treasury. The Coalition benefited from extensive leaking by a Treasury official prior to the Godwin Grech affair blowing up in 2009. Instead, Abbott had proposed that the Coalition’s shadow ministers, assisted by WHK Horwath, explain the Coalition’s policies and their costs to the independents. However, a short time ago at a press conference the Prime Minister appeared to confirm that the Coalition would provide its commitments for costings to Treasury on the basis that the Government did not see them, and they were not released publicly, when they were provided to the independents. WHK Horwath, one of the country’s biggest accounting firms outside the big four, tightly guards the confidentiality of its reports to clients, and declined to discuss the matter with Crikey, referring us instead to the Liberal Party. However, sources linked to the firm told Crikey that it has a routine disclaimer about the basis for, and use of, its reports to clients. The disclaimer explicitly warns that its reports are not to be used for purposes other than those for which they were commissioned and should not be relied on by parties other than clients. Third parties are explicitly warned to seek independent advice on the contents of reports affecting them, and the firm disclaims any liability for third parties relying on their reports. If the same disclaimer was used for the Coalition’s costings, it would appear to be a strong basis for the independents seeking external scrutiny of the Coalition’s costings. A Liberal Party spokesman told Crikey that while there a disclaimer from WHK Horwath in its letter to the Liberal Party indicating that its report should not be used by other parties without the firm’s authorisation, “Howarths have authorised the use of their report in the way it has been used (i.e. publicly appended to the Coalition’s costings document) and this is the same process adopted by Labor in successive state elections (in particular the 2002 Vic State election) and a far more exhaustive process than that adopted by federal Labor at the 2007 and 2010 elections. In addition, the company has also availed itself to discuss the Coalition’s costings with the Independents, including the assumptions behind them.” |
|
|
|
16 Comments
Now we get down to it: Abbott’s requirement that Treasury’s analysis of the Coalition’s election promises be secret from the public is a fine demonstration of his commitment to openness and accountability. Obviously just what the rural independents are seeking.
The Coalition strikes another blow for a notional charter of intellectual honesty to complement its charter of budget honesty.
“Instead, Abbott had proposed that the Coalition’s shadow ministers, assisted by WHK Horwath, explain the Coalition’s policies and their costs to the independents.”
Jeepers, if Joe Hockey tries to explain anything the independents will emerge from the meeting well and truly bemused. I’m basing my comment on the aftermath of the Coalition Budget reply when Hockey had a similar effect on those gathered at the National Press Club.
The Coalition are behaving like boofheads.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Great info BK, thanks.
Assuming the roll of a competent police detective investigating ‘the leak’ at the request of the Liberal Party I would agree with them that the Treasurer and or his office and the Australian Treasury are possible sources of the leak especially as RS Tony Abbott says they are the only ones with the information to be able to leak it. But as a competent detective I would check to see that was so and no one else had the information then if I was a little bit smarter than the average detective I would suddenly realize that the Liberal Party and RS Tony Abbott also had the information. As the investigation is still on going as a smart detective I would be noticing now that ‘the leak’ is becoming an asset for RS Tony Abbott and that he is coming to rely on it.
I would now be visiting my commissioner and suggesting that the most likely leaker is probably RS Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party
Not released publicly.
The new Dishonesty In Accountability Policy replaces the old one.
Hockey, Robb and phoney were ducking costings scrutiny from as far back as the budget reply speeches.
How many times were we told that the ‘next bloke was going to tell us’ in this domino reply.
OBVIOUSLY they daren’t let someone lift the rock off them so Australian people can see them for the cockroaches they are.
A few of us have lived long enough to see Howard’s tricks in the past. In an election held in December the OZ and all media were filled with open hand one side Labor, fist full of dollars Liberal the other spruiking a 1.6% tax cut.
It got him elected but he imposed a tax of 1.6% retrospective to the previous July (making everyone pay double).
Remember the expensive referendum on the republic where he skewed the questions, small wonder he’s now thought so poorly of ie ICC chairman.
I think Howard is a bit puffed up about himself and believing the MSM biased praising.
He’s royalty in the social group he frequents and doesn’t realise he was loathed enough to be the only PM to get slogged out of the ballpark by the voters in his seat.
I loathe him as much as Virginia Trioli’s sad and offensive white cleavage she insists on showing us each morning. Mrs Mutton should get a tan as should Vanessa O’Halloran, they both look a very unhealthily white.
Irregardless of what it said by the Coalition about the figures provided by HWK, the disclaimer and its wording is a standard disclaimer used by thousands of accounting firms around Australia to basically say that in accordance with APES 315 they have compiled the financial information that was provided to them by the client but they have conducted no audit and therefore they cannot provide any verification of the figures.
This is usual practice and quite normal. There is no way HWK or indeed the Treasury or ANAO could “audit” the policy costings for either the Coalition or Labor and state that they are materially (basically with an error of less than 10%) correct as the costings are affected by too many variables. Even the costings provided by Treasury are estimates!! So too are these provided by HWK.
I for one am actually heartily sick of economists arguing over ‘estimates’ and who is correct or not. Few, if any predicted the GFC, there are plenty who say the stimulus worked and plenty (including the ones on 4 corners on Monday - including former US comptroller general) that say it didn’t and it will do more harm than good. All of them apparently speak with righteous authority - when they are really given us their best ‘estimate’.
@MACK THE KNIFE - Didn’t you see any of the informative ads about melanomas? Australia has the highest stats in the world re skin cancers? I’ve had one myself - very scary indeed!
There’s nothing ‘healthy’ about a tan? If your fair skin is coloured, it’s a sure indication of skin damage, which equals the possiblity of a future skin cancer?
You were doing OK up until your sexist musings? What cleavage has to do with journalistic skills is beyond me!
Incidently, Howard was the second PM to lose his seat - the other one(whose name escapes me) lost his for his anti-worker stance also! You’re right about Howard’s ego - he’s a legend in his own lunchbox! I’m glad he didn’t get the ICC job, he didn’t deserve it. Why? He’s a racist and been that way all his life!
Abbott and his mates are hiding something, a lot of ‘somethings’ in my view. We should use the same argument they’ve used when compiling their anti- terrorism legislation - if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to hide! Let’s all see! It’s our money after all! Perhaps somebody will tell them that!
Stanley Bruce was the previous PM who lost his seat in 1929. His wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Bruce describes the politics of the time.
No independent accounting firm could make a reliable judgement on the actual impact of spending commitments without having access to any of the information on which budget projections are made. What we (and the independents) need to know is whether the broad-bush promises of spending cuts are realistic or not. This cannot be done without knowledge of the financial drivers of the various government programs concerned and the actual costs of delivering the government services that will continue to need to be delivered.
As the opposition’s spending promises far outweigh Labour’s, it all hangs on whether their cuts are credible. If not, the net outcome will be way different from the surpoluses they have promised.
@Liz45 - “What cleavage has to do with journalistic skills is beyond me!”. …. and me but you have to wonder why 9 out of 10 female ‘journo presenters’ are blonde, attractive and more than happy titillate their viewers?
… and Abbott et al are beyond ridiculous in their idiotic attempts to hide the numbers.
Apologies, I was distracted by a half naked ‘journo’ on Fox (female funnily enough!).
@TOM - It has everything to do with who employed them? Probably blokes? Doesn’t mean that we have to go along with it! I recall Eddie McGuire and his “boning” of a female presenter? Let’s not get down to that level here! Please! We could have an idepth debate about sexism, how it works, who promotes it etc, but not now!
I’d have thought that you’d be too intelligent to watch Fox? Wrong again! I’m not surprised that they have “half naked journos”? Fits in with their overall image! I wouldn’t watch them, and I’d be telling all who advertise on Fox why I’m not buying those products! Fox is sexist, racist, homophobic and in most areas, down right disgusting in their so-called reporting! You should raise your standards!
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
I think RS Tony Abbott read my previous posting and ran off to sort out the leak issue (we don’t have to wait anymore - we will trust the public service).
Liz45 - the other PM to lose his seat was Robert Stanley Bruce in 1929.
Liz45,
I know I wasn’t politically correct, but today trioli had her biggest yet plunged neckline that just looked foul and old.
People still need to soak up some vitamin A sunshine. Virginia’s dolly bird days are well behind her.
@MALCOLM STREET - Thank you!
@MACK THE KNIFE - We only need 15-30 mins sunshine per day though! I don’t watch TV in the morning! What do you call old? Are you trying to make me feel depressed? Like Julia Gillard, Virginia has fair skin - not quite as fair but she does need to be careful.
I didn’t wear ‘lunging plecklines’ when I was her age - I’m not much of an exhibitionist!
Being politically correct is not the same as not being sexist!
@HARVEY - Didn’t Abbott say he’d do whatever it takes? He’s changing his mind to suit the day - hardly statesmanlike is it? I think he made himself look worse now, if that’s possible!