This paper examines the 2001 collapse of HIH Insurance — Australia's largest corporate failure — with a focus on auditor negligence and the independence of auditors. Beginning with the AWA case as a precedent for auditor liability, the paper reviews the pre-collapse regulatory framework recommended by the MINCO Working Party and traces how the HIH disaster exposed chronic failures in board oversight and auditing practice. It then surveys the legislative and regulatory responses introduced by the Australian Parliament, including the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004 and the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Audit Enhancement) Bill 2012, assessing how these reforms strengthened auditor independence requirements within Australia's co-regulatory model.
The paper demonstrates sustained use of primary legislative and regulatory sources alongside secondary commentary to trace policy evolution. Rather than relying solely on academic opinion, it quotes directly from parliamentary bills, working party reports, and commission findings, anchoring its analysis in the documentary record. This technique is well-suited to legal and regulatory research papers where precision of language matters.
The paper is divided into two main parts preceded by an introduction. Part One covers the pre-HIH environment: auditor negligence case law (AWA) and the state of auditor regulation. Part Two addresses the HIH collapse itself, the regulatory response (CLERP reforms, AUASB establishment), and a review of the 2012 Audit Enhancement Bill. A brief conclusion ties the reforms to improved public confidence in auditor independence. Each section builds on the last, making the overall argument cumulative and easy to follow.
This paper considers the statement that "unquestionably, the HIH story is also one of auditor failure" and researches the background of the HIH collapse in Australia insofar as it relates to the role of auditors and their liability. The paper summarizes the most important documents concerning auditor independence after the HIH collapse, the regulatory and legislative response, and a review of that legislative response.
Ray Williams founded HIH in 1968. A British company, CE Health PLC, acquired HIH in 1971. Prior to its collapse, HIH was the second largest Australian insurance company, covering several segments of the insurance market, and had expanded globally into both the UK and US markets. On 15 March 2001, HIH entered into provisional liquidation, with the liquidator estimating that HIH's total loss equaled approximately A$5.3 billion, resulting from over-optimistic asset valuations and greatly under-estimated liabilities. HIH's failure represents the largest corporate collapse in Australian history. It was reported that the failure of HIH could be attributed to: (1) rapid expansion; (2) poor business strategy; (3) unsupervised delegation of authority; (4) underpricing; (5) reserve problems; (6) false reports; (7) reckless management; (8) fraud; (9) greed; and (10) self-dealing (Causal Actuarial Society, n.d., p. 2).
AWA was a long-established Australian company engaged in the import and export of electronic equipment. The company decided it would "hedge against currency fluctuations by engaging in forward purchases of foreign currency against contracts for imported goods" (Flynt, 1997). An employee named Koval conducted dealings that resulted in the company incurring losses of approximately $50 million, and these losses were kept concealed by Koval. Two audits were conducted by Deloitte Haskins & Sells during Koval's employment. While the auditor noted deficiencies in the company's internal control system, the failure of AWA to put adequate internal controls, record-keeping, and accounting controls in place meant the losses went unnoticed.
AWA subsequently sued the auditor for negligence, alleging a failure to draw attention to the deficiencies and a failure to qualify the audit reports. The auditor denied a breach of duty to AWA and filed a cross-claim against AWA and, among others, the non-executive directors for contributory negligence (Flynt, 1997). The court found that non-executive directors were expected to take reasonable steps to place themselves in a position to guide and monitor the management of the company, to obtain a general understanding of the business and the effect that a changing economy may have on it, and to bring an informed and independent judgment to bear on matters that come before the board for decision (Flynt, 1997).
The case was appealed, and the joint judgment of Clarke and Sheller JJA relied heavily on the opinion of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Francis v. United Jersey Bank, holding that the judgment "exposed what is generally expected of directors not only in the United States but in Australia" (Flynt, 1997). The court specifically stated that a director, as a general rule, "should acquire at least a rudimentary understanding of the business of the corporation" and "should become familiar with the fundamentals of the business in which the corporation is engaged." The court continued: "Directors are under a continuing obligation to keep informed about the activities of the corporation … Directorial management does not require a detailed inspection of day-to-day activities, but rather a general monitoring of corporate affairs and policies … While directors are not required to audit corporate books, they should maintain familiarity with the financial status of the corporation by a regular review of the financial statements" (Flynt, 1997).
The working party on the state of regulation of auditors recommended that competency standards be adopted as the primary basis for determining whether an individual has sufficient practical experience in company auditing techniques to be registered as a company auditor. The working party additionally concluded that "an hours-based regime should continue to be used pending the introduction of competency standards by the authorized accounting bodies" (Report of a Working Party of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, 1997).
The following recommendations were made concerning the level of practice required for auditor registration: (1) where an authorized accounting body has an approved competency standard in auditing, an applicant must satisfy the audit component of that standard in order to be registered; (2) the ASC must be satisfied about the appropriateness and workability of the audit component of a competency standard before it may be approved; and (3) where an authorized accounting body does not have an approved competency standard in auditing, the level of practical experience required for registration as a company auditor should be at least 2,000 hours of auditing work over five years under the supervision of a Registered Company Auditor (RCA), with a minimum of 500 hours spent on work involving a senior level of responsibility for audit (Report of a Working Party of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, 1997).
The 1993 report of the MINCO Working Party recommended a review be conducted based on the need for institutional arrangements to "ensure that only adequately qualified and experienced accountants are registered as company auditors; and auditors are genuinely independent of the companies they audit" (Report of a Working Party of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, 1997).
The Working Party's recommendations included the following: (1) the work of all RCAs should be subject to periodic quality reviews conducted by authorized accounting bodies; and (2) subject to privacy considerations, the law should provide that all files in respect of audits undertaken by an RCA must be available for inspection as part of a quality review (Report of a Working Party of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, 1997, p. 17).
The Working Party also identified the procedures for appointment of auditors by companies and measures to ensure auditor independence as important issues requiring consideration. It noted that auditor independence cannot be clearly defined as it is a "state of mind and that no specific restrictions or requirements can achieve independence" (Report of a Working Party of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, 1997, p. 18). However, certain specifications were identified as contributing toward this independence and toward its appearance. These include an appropriate level of indebtedness of an auditor to a client and a prohibition on the company's debt to its auditor. The Working Party also recommended mandatory rotation of the audit partner responsible for the audit of listed companies, in accordance with the principles stated in the Statement of Auditing Practice AUP 32 on Audit Independence.
The Working Party additionally recommended that "the Law should not place any restrictions on an auditor or his or her firm performing non-auditing services for an audit client. However, in the current review of ethical requirements by the accounting bodies, it is recommended that attention be directed toward the provision of additional procedures — including allocation of responsibility for the additional services to a partner other than the external audit partner — for application in the more contentious areas of accounting services, internal audit, and specific and separate internal control reviews to strengthen independence in these areas" (Report of a Working Party of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, 1997, pp. 18–19).
Current disclosure requirements were stated to need expansion to require a breakdown of the nature of non-audit services and to include services provided by entities whose beneficial ownership is substantially the same as that of the auditor's firm. The Working Party further recommended that non-audit services be reviewed on an annual basis by the company's audit committee, that the method of auditor selection not be restricted, and that the company's auditor be given notice of meetings where issues relevant to the audit will be discussed. The Working Party additionally recommended that a Financial Reporting Review Board be established (Report of a Working Party of the Ministerial Council for Corporations, 1997, p. 19).
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.