"We have embedded an additional compliance check with the Statement of Ministerial Standards into our recruitment acceptance processes. Transparency and values are fundamental to the way we work, and we fully support the committee’s efforts," Deloitte CEO Richard Deutsch said.

Deloitte's enhanced employment process comes as the firm, and Mr Deutsch, were revealed to have unsuccessfully lobbied the corporate regulator over the planned audit quality disclosures of rival PwC.

Spokeswomen for KPMG and PwC both said their firms already had processes in place to check a candidate complied with the code.

The KPMG spokeswoman said: "KPMG has robust recruitment processes that include stringent checks for regulatory, ethics and independence-related matters, including relevant Ministerial Codes of Conduct."

This was echoed by the PwC spokeswoman: "PwC has an established policy in place which addresses cooling in and out periods for government roles/assignments. This mitigates potential conflicts of interest for former ministers and senior public servants and we have always respected and complied with the Statement of Ministerial Standards."

An EY spokeswoman said the firm had a "similar check in our engagement process" but was unable to say when this had been put in place and if it had been used with the hiring of Mr Pyne.

Clare Payne, EY's Fellow for Trust and Ethics, defended the hiring of Mr Pyne in a letter to The Australian Financial Review published on Wednesday.


She wrote that not allowing Mr Pyne to work for the firm "could act to discourage people from seeking a role in political life."

"We rightfully expect Pyne to respect the rules by which he is bound and to ensure the public interest prevails," she said.

In a separate submission, think tank the Grattan Institute said the current restrictions were unenforceable because the prime minister retains the discretion to determine a breach and there were no practical sanctions.

It said: "Parliament should fix the revolving-door rules so the Statement of Ministerial Standards serves its purpose."

Potential breaches of the Ministerial Standards, and the Lobbying Code of Conduct, should be independently investigated, and the findings published.

"Such arms-length administration of the rules is necessary to build public confidence that codes of conduct are respected and adhered to," it said.

"If a breach is determined, then the relevant political party should encourage the former minister to resign from the new role or defer taking on the new role. If the individual refuses, then their access to Parliament House and to all government officials should be restricted; they should be required to report any contact with government officials; and they should be subject to penalties imposed by the Parliament, at levels that apply for contempt of Parliament.


"They should not be allowed to attend political party functions – another critical avenue of influence – and political parties that fail to enforce this sanction could be subject to fines."

Grattan told the committee that organisations employing any former minister in breach of the code could also be penalised, with their access to Parliament and government officials limited and bars on government tenders implement.

"Effective revolving-door restrictions would help to reduce the likelihood (both actual and perceived) of ‘buying’ influence in Australian politics. And they should be supported by broader integrity reforms to improve transparency and accountability in policy making and reduce undue influence over public policy."