Sleeping with the enemy: More pork to PwC amid inquiry fallout

July 9, 2024
Issue 
Price Waterhouse Coopers, in February, gave the Senate inquiry the finger, using their own forced sell-off to dodge accountability. Image: Ā鶹“«Ć½

The fallout from theĀ Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) government-secrets-for-sale scandalĀ continues, the recent release of the final report from theĀ Ā doing little to hose down the smouldering carcass ofĀ PwCā€™s reputation.

Amid excoriating publicity and relentless pressure from the Greens, on March 9 last year theĀ Ā was announced.

It uncovered a catastrophic public integrity fail with PwC caught selling government tax-law secrets to private clients.

In May last year the GreensĀ Ā if it would refer PwC to the freshly-mintedĀ ĢżĢż

In an astonishing abrogation of hisĀ Ā Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declined, saying the Australian Federal Police (AFP) was already investigating.

Ā labelled Albaneseā€™s response ā€œa cop outā€, with inquiry member South Australian Greens Senator Barbara Pocock noting that the AFP first saw the PwC matter ā€œfive years agoā€ and still had no result.

Itā€™s a bad look when the AFP haveĀ about conflicts of interest with PwC and, last week, raided and suspended a veteran AFP Commander over separate contracts-for-mates allegations.ĢżĢż

Pork rorts reports

The first report into PwC,Ā in June last year, titledĀ Ā gave aĀ stretching back to PwCā€™s original 2013 contract.

It included PwCā€™sĀ Ā to Questions on Notice that sought the name, rank and serial number of all those partners, executives and employees knowingly involved.Ā  PwC refused to provide them.

By February, PwC was a dumpster fire.Ā 

While Labor scrambled for cover, PwC came up with a plan and agreed to sell off its government consultancy business for $1 toĀ 

Allegro FundsĀ Ā to take over PwCā€™s government consulting business.

The board and leadership of Scyne Advisory includesĀ Ā and executives. But, with no list of names, there is no way of knowing who is compromised.

On January 11, the Senate inquiry sought details of all public sector contracts PwC held with the APS and state and territory public sector from 2013ā€“2023.

In its Ā PwC gave the inquiry the finger,Ā usingĀ its own forced sell-off to dodge accountability and the Senateā€™s question.

It said: ā€œIn November 2023, PwC Australia divested its federal and state government consulting business to Allegro Funds. As a result of this transaction, much of the information requested either relates to individuals no longer with PwC Australia, or is confidential and commercially sensitive information.ā€

The second interim report from March,Ā ,Ā noted PwCā€™s leaking of new tax-law start dates to private clients.Ā This time PwC gave the finger to both the committee and the taxpayer, again refusing to provide the names of the compromised.

New revelations overshadow final report

Ā on May 6,Ā the ā€œgravy trainā€ had refuelled and again left the station, with a $700,000 contract toĀ .ĢżĢż

Then on May 30,Ā investigation revealed PwC and Scyne Advisory are currently undertaking 46 federal government contracts, valued at $138 million, noting that figure only included contracts listed on the AusTender website, meaning the total is likely much higher.

Finally, on June 12, after 14 months, over 60 submissions and 10 days of hearings, theĀ final report of the Ā inquiryĀ was released.

It madeĀ starting with: ā€œPwC publish accurate and detailed information about the involvement of PwC partners and personnel (including names and positions) in breach of confidential government information.ā€

Others include better disclosure data on consultancy spending, new rules about acting in the public interest and updating training and contract management manuals: presumably to include that treason is bad and how to not lie about an already lucrative public contract.

Not good enough

The report has been labeled a ,Ā and there isĀ speculation PwC may have consulted on the recommendations.

±Ź“Ē³¦“Ē³¦°ģĢżĀ she remains disappointed the recommendations donā€™t go far enough. ā€œThey do not address the magnitude and scope of the problems this inquiry has uncoveredĀ ā€¦ they do not address the issue of political donations by big consultants, the revolving door ā€¦ inadequacy of penalties for PwC, the pressing need for structural reform to cap big partnershipsā€™ size, and to address conflicts of interest and the opaque nature of big partnerships.ā€

As partnerships, they are andĀ with theĀ corporateĀ cop Ā it might not have helped if they were.

The government is now stuck in a toxic relationship with PwC, unable to extract even a basic list of names of significantly compromised people who may still be working directly for the government.

What happened at PwC is the entirely predictable result of theĀ once-proudĀ Ā being sacrificed at the altar of theĀ Ā for the politically expedient, but false, economy ofĀ .

With PwC back on the public payroll there seems little hope of real reform, and the government finds itself sleeping with the enemy with nowhere else to go.

[Suzanne James has a background in writing policy, governance, risk management and regulatory compliance frameworks and in legislative compliance application.]

You need Ā鶹“«Ć½, and we need you!

Ā鶹“«Ć½ is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.