PwC is going through a “once-in-a-generation brand disaster”, an expert says, as a new survey shows four in five people want the consultancy to be banned from any new government contracts.
Progressive think tank the Australia Institute asked respondents whether the consultancy — which is in crisis mode after a former top executive leaked government tax briefings — should be banned from getting more taxpayer-funded work. The survey found 79% of the 1002 respondents wanted the ban, and nearly half wanted the ban to be permanent.
The institute’s democracy and accountability program director Bill Browne said there needed to be “long-lasting” consequences for PwC’s “abuse of public trust”.
“There is overwhelming public support for PwC to face serious consequences for its gross breach of integrity and trust … The consulting firm has shown it cannot be trusted to continue receiving government work that can and should be performed by public servants,” he said.
The survey, conducted between June 6 and 9, found just 2% of respondents thought PwC should be allowed to get new government contracts. Nearly 20% weren’t sure.
The desire for a permanent ban cut through political divisions: 59% of One Nation voters; 55% of Greens voters; 55% of independents; 43% of Coalition voters; 39% of Labor voters.
Tim Riches, group strategy director at the brand consultancy firm Principals, said it would take a long time for PwC to repair its brand.
“It’s a once-in-a-generation brand and reputation disaster,” Riches told Crikey. “It’s entirely understandable that people responded to the survey in that way, when people in the community are kind of feeling very squeezed in terms of their own cost-of-living situation.
“These sorts of stories are particularly triggering for people because they shine a light into a world which most people aren’t a part of, a world that seems kind of cosy, protected, privileged. That’s why you get such a visceral response to these stories.”
PwC doesn’t have to imagine what it would be like to be banned from government contracts. Last week the NSW government temporarily suspended it from working on tax projects. The ban was announced at the same time as MPs launched an inquiry into the state government’s use of consultants.
PwC’s public relations nightmare began in January when the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) issued a media release revealing PwC’s former tax partner Peter-John Collins had been deregistered as a tax agent for integrity breaches. The TPB said Collins had made “unauthorised disclosures” relating to proposed tax laws with PwC colleagues. Acting chief executive Kristin Stubbins has since apologised for “betraying the trust” placed in PwC.
Nine partners have been placed on leave, and the Australian Federal Police has confirmed it’s investigating a report of “crime relating to the alleged misuse of confidential government information”.
PwC was contacted for comment.
In her public apology last month, Stubbins said PwC had “ringfenced” its Commonwealth business “to minimise conflicts of interest and enhance governance”, made plans to appoint two independent directors to its governance board, and vowed to publish an independent review report in full once it’s finished.
“Although investigations are still underway, we know enough about what went wrong to acknowledge that this situation was completely unacceptable,” Stubbins said in an earlier statement.
“No amount of words can make it right. But I am fully committed to taking all necessary actions to re-earn the trust of our stakeholders. And as we work through this process, I am committed to being fully transparent.”
If you were asked, would you say ban PwC from all future contracts? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Correction: A previous version of this story said Tim Riches was a PR expert and that Principals was a public relations firm. In fact, Riches is a branding expert and Principals is a brand consultancy firm.
Try googling the PwC-Brookfield Asset Management (‘BAM’) associations.
BAM owns the so-called ‘Western Australian’ construction company, Multiplex.
BAM was one of PwC’s clients in the 2014 Luxembourg PwC whistle-blower tax scandal.
BAM has been named in a recent international corporate tax report as an aggressive tax avoider. Many of BAM’s enterprises, including Healthscopel, and those of BGIS, are run out of thr Cayman Islands tax haven.
PwC is BAM’s tenant in Perth, London, New York, to name three cities.
PwC and BAM are opposite each other on many major government health and infrastructure projects with PwC as the ‘project manager’ and Multiplex as the builder.
PwC had the covid consultancy contract for the National Resilience Centres. All built by Multiplex.
PwC and BAM are each NDIS ‘partners’.
PwC ‘partners’ with indigenous Australians 51:49 shareholdings so it can enjoy the 3% Federal procurement expenditure allocation to indigenous businesses. PwC consults on indigenous matters to government.
Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions (BGIS) is one of three only foreign international contractors which undertake facilities management for the whole of the Australian defence estate.
BAM’s growth model open admits it leverages of its associations.
These are but a few examples. The list is long….
great work ! Exactly – one voter does basic due dilligence and we find these outrageous conflicts of interest clearly in black and white – vote independants who can clean out these public funding scams and wasteful cartel type investor enclaves
I think both States and the Federal Government need to beef up their public services and encourage the best minds to join. What is happening all too often is that the big four either poach the best talent from the public service or induce the brightest straight out of Uni. They can do this because they win so many Government contracts. No contracts, less jobs available which may then entice them to join the public service. In return, the best have to be appropriately rewarded. Mind you, after the Robodebt scandal, there are several at the top I can think of who could be shown the door.
THey have been following imported US modus operandi of quasi ‘libertarian’ & ‘free market’ ideology (authoritarian socialism & eugenics for the <1%), hollowing out the public sector and expertise under guise of cutting red tape, budgets, govt. and taxes; ‘The Wrecking Crew’ (Thomas Franks).
Give it a cycle and new partners will be lobbying and subcontracting for ‘business as usual’….
To ban PwC from all future contracts would be a pointless gesture. It would only shift contracts from PwC to a competitor who is just as dirty and unscrupulous, but not yet caught out. Nothing would change.
To fix what has gone wrong requires far more substantial action including an end of outsourcing functions that are properly the business of the APS. That will mean more public servants and enough pay to attract the right talent. It cannot be done over night, but it must be done. There must also be a comprehensive ban on anyone who provides statutory audits of company accounts having any other interest in that compnay, such as providing consultancy or advice.
Presumably PwC will just rebrand like Arthur Andersen did, to Accenture, and government will go back to employing them for all the wrong reasons it has up until now. As you imply, those wrong reasons won’t have gone away, they are too useful.
I am proud that I sacked AA before they imploded. It was obvious that they were not worth the money that they cost.
Banning PwC would only be a first step, albeit a necessary one. We also need to phase out other consultancy contracts and rebuild the public service. It may take a generation, but a generation of neoliberalism has got us to this situation.
It’s not even a necessary first step. It is only a gesture that inconveniences one of the Big Four to the advantage of the other three. All the actions that are necessary can be taken whether or not PwC is banned from government work for a while. It might even be counter-productive to ban PwC, because the government would then be using resources to find replacement contractors for all those contractors when those resources would be much better used to find ways to not use contractors at all.
All of these should be severely restricted in work with government – all 4
Too slow ; the cost and loss due to out sourced “service”and poor value in return makes the exorbitant fees immoral and negligent governance of our democracy is seen in the figures and lack of social servicein action
PwC – Partners with Criminals.
P*ss Weak Command
“We’re PwC – and we’re here to help”?
If they’ve been working hand-in-glove here with our governments, for these sort of ‘outcomes’ : what’s been happening in other countries where they’ve been ‘helping’/’themselves(?)’ out too?
Why did they have to go through all this to be brought to where they are now – ethically?
How much longer would it have gone on the way they were, if it hadn’t come to light now?
One more “Most humble day of my life…. Being caught…. I thought we were smarter than that”?
“You get what you pay for” – so we got an awful lot of monkey’s business for that mountain of peanuts “we” paid.