Crankyhawk
Hall of Famer
time for a change in the rules to bin commercial confidence shit.
The PwC Tax Scandal
- Thread starter Gavin Excell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,551
- 24,452
- AFL Club
- Sydney
In what world should a government be using a major accounting firm to advise on tax policy?
We don’t ask the Hells Angels to write bikie laws
In a world where most of the higher-ups in the ATO came directly from the major accounting firms.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
1/3 of the Advisory Panel come from the major accounting firms.
Last edited:
Closed shop, like the legal fraternity. They're all so enmeshed in the system they can't see how corrupt it is.
And if somebody from the outside points out the problems, they just assume that the people on the outside are wrong because they don't understand how it works on the inside.
Not Important
never test the depth of water with both feet.
- Oct 4, 2016
- 9,549
- 15,353
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
yes, but not only pwc. the use of contractors generally needs examination.
www.themandarin.com.au
PwC’s reputational fallout hurts with new polling about government contracts
Four in five Australians say PwC does not deserve to win new government work, according to a new survey.
www.themandarin.com.au
- Jul 5, 2012
- 26,704
- 44,381
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
Editorial in today’s TSP.
Scathing and every word true.
“PwC has no regard for confidentiality. It has no regard for the public interest. Its desire to make money is aggressive and all consuming. Its misuse of protected government information earned the consultancy $2.5 million, with the expectation of more.
“It is clear that the desire for personal gain trumped any obligations that PwC had to the Commonwealth of Australia and its citizens,” a senate committee found this week. “This was a calculated breach of trust by PwC.”
The finance and public administration references committee found PwC “supported and condoned” the misuse of government information by former partner Peter-John Collins. It stonewalled the tax office, misusing and misapplying legal privilege to hide thousands of documents. “It seems clear,” the committee wrote, “that PwC’s use of this tactic is not restricted to the Collins matter.”
The committee notes PwC had a legal obligation to report Collins’s actions but did not. It failed to make other disclosures that were also required by law.
“Taken together, the committee concludes that PwC engaged in a deliberate strategy over many years to cover up the breach of confidentiality and the plan by PwC personnel to monetise it.”
The report goes on to say PwC has a history of cover-ups. It says the conflicts of interest inherent in PwC’s operations were structural and dishonest in nature. It criticises the Tax Office and the Tax Practitioners Board for their slow and inadequate investigations. It says PwC is fundamentally conflicted. The company did not understand proper process and did not see the need for transparency or accountability.
“The question therefore arises: given the extent of the breach and subsequent cover-up now revealed on the public record, when is PwC going to come clean and begin to do the right thing?” the committee report asks.
“This leaves a further question unanswered: is PwC’s internal culture so poor that its senior leadership does not recognise right from wrong, and lacks the capacity to act in an honest, open, and straightforward manner?”
It is rare for a senate committee to be so direct but it is rare also for a company to be so brazen and opportunistic. The culture sketched in the report’s pages is ruthless and parasitic. The company is wantonly exploitative. Profit drives all. Ethics are nowhere.
This is the business, along with the rest of the Big Four, to which the proper functions of the public service have been outsourced. This gang of suckering management consultants have slowly taken over. To anyone watching, it is no surprise. Of course these Excel spivs are after only money. Of course their advice is rigged and loaded with every angle and edge of advantage.
There is an old joke about the management consultant who counts a farmer’s sheep and tries to leave with his dog. The punchline is that he arrived uninvited and told a man something he already knew. The image is almost quaint against the reality.
Here is a group of people who would charge the government for advice and then on-sell secrets they stole in the process. It is a kind of double robbery from the blue-suited chisellers, a shameless assault on propriety.
Anthony Albanese has promised to end the government’s dependence on consultants and rebuild the public service. On the strength of this report, it could not happen soon enough.”
Scathing and every word true.
“PwC has no regard for confidentiality. It has no regard for the public interest. Its desire to make money is aggressive and all consuming. Its misuse of protected government information earned the consultancy $2.5 million, with the expectation of more.
“It is clear that the desire for personal gain trumped any obligations that PwC had to the Commonwealth of Australia and its citizens,” a senate committee found this week. “This was a calculated breach of trust by PwC.”
The finance and public administration references committee found PwC “supported and condoned” the misuse of government information by former partner Peter-John Collins. It stonewalled the tax office, misusing and misapplying legal privilege to hide thousands of documents. “It seems clear,” the committee wrote, “that PwC’s use of this tactic is not restricted to the Collins matter.”
The committee notes PwC had a legal obligation to report Collins’s actions but did not. It failed to make other disclosures that were also required by law.
“Taken together, the committee concludes that PwC engaged in a deliberate strategy over many years to cover up the breach of confidentiality and the plan by PwC personnel to monetise it.”
The report goes on to say PwC has a history of cover-ups. It says the conflicts of interest inherent in PwC’s operations were structural and dishonest in nature. It criticises the Tax Office and the Tax Practitioners Board for their slow and inadequate investigations. It says PwC is fundamentally conflicted. The company did not understand proper process and did not see the need for transparency or accountability.
“The question therefore arises: given the extent of the breach and subsequent cover-up now revealed on the public record, when is PwC going to come clean and begin to do the right thing?” the committee report asks.
“This leaves a further question unanswered: is PwC’s internal culture so poor that its senior leadership does not recognise right from wrong, and lacks the capacity to act in an honest, open, and straightforward manner?”
It is rare for a senate committee to be so direct but it is rare also for a company to be so brazen and opportunistic. The culture sketched in the report’s pages is ruthless and parasitic. The company is wantonly exploitative. Profit drives all. Ethics are nowhere.
This is the business, along with the rest of the Big Four, to which the proper functions of the public service have been outsourced. This gang of suckering management consultants have slowly taken over. To anyone watching, it is no surprise. Of course these Excel spivs are after only money. Of course their advice is rigged and loaded with every angle and edge of advantage.
There is an old joke about the management consultant who counts a farmer’s sheep and tries to leave with his dog. The punchline is that he arrived uninvited and told a man something he already knew. The image is almost quaint against the reality.
Here is a group of people who would charge the government for advice and then on-sell secrets they stole in the process. It is a kind of double robbery from the blue-suited chisellers, a shameless assault on propriety.
Anthony Albanese has promised to end the government’s dependence on consultants and rebuild the public service. On the strength of this report, it could not happen soon enough.”
PwC global seizes control of Australia firm, replaces CEO
PwC’s global leaders parachuted in the network’s global clients and industries leader Kevin Burrowes to take over from Kristin Stubbins after selling its government operations for $1.
Crankyhawk
Hall of Famer
a family member was applying for a big 4 (entry level job) out of uni about 20 years ago
the one who rejected her was PwC
because "she doesn't share enough with team members"
the one who rejected her was PwC
because "she doesn't share enough with team members"
- Sep 22, 2011
- 42,171
- 92,183
- AFL Club
- Essendon
The sale of PwC’s government contracts to Allegro, expected to be finalised by the end of next month will protect 1700 jobs, PwC Australia board chair Justin Carroll said.
“This transaction will result in the first pure play, at scale, government business in the market,” he said.
——
Spinning off the government work into its own business.
What this corporate rot means is we now officially have a large business in Australia whose sole activity is government.
So we’ve gotten rid of the public service in favour of giving their work to business to do at profit.
“This transaction will result in the first pure play, at scale, government business in the market,” he said.
——
Spinning off the government work into its own business.
What this corporate rot means is we now officially have a large business in Australia whose sole activity is government.
So we’ve gotten rid of the public service in favour of giving their work to business to do at profit.
They bought it for a dollar for a reason.
The Partners will be able to get out of their non-compete clauses they signed with PWC and move to the other big 3 almost instantly.
Any who get named will not be sought after for the switch, they'll sue PWC for damages and go consult in some associated area (i.e. do the same thing for NGOs or LGAs instead of the Feds for smaller companies).
Allegro's company will last about as long as it takes for all the sought after partners to be snapped up by the other 3 or maybe just join the ATO or companies they've consulted to.
Unless there's criminal charges, they'll all get on with life and endure about 3-6 months of bad reputations.
The only ones who might lose out are underlings who move to the Allegra mob and get left in the lurch when all the partners leave.
My guess is that many will be re-housed in other departments of PWC, except they'll take the chance to make the rubbish ones redundant (or move to the new entity)
Imagine how different things would be if all you could get after this was a minimum wage job
You know, like how we make it difficult for criminals out of jail to get all but basic work
Not to forget Partner Shane West who appeared before the Robodebt Royal Commission and couldn't remember how they agreed not to deliver their final report (which the Govt didn't want to receive), but delivered their final invoice anyway.
He was still Partner there (because nobody else would touch him). He might be one of the few partners left who is moved to the new entity.
If I was a Director or below at PWC in that Department, I'd flat out refuse to leave my original contract with PWC.
Better to take the redundancy and move than move to the new entity and eventually have to quit the rotten ship.
According to this partner, they don't even know if they make money from Govt contracts with DHS anyway.
So what is his job again and what does it involve? What does his company do?
Remind me again?
Something mathsy i believe….
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 69,701
- 205,598
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Moderator
- #63
Allegro won't get any contact continuances. TBH it sounds like they're pissing money up the wall and the PwC partners who get picked up by the other auditing firms will be the big winners here.
Can't see how those partners will be big winners. Their value will have significantly diminished. If they weren't involved and they had value, they would have organised to leave already.
I also cannot see how the new entity would work. These people come from a partnership, they're not about to take a pay cut so that Allegro can turn a profit at their expense. Instead they'll just leave to another Big 4 or start their own thing like most other retiring partners do.
I am struggling to see what's in it for Allegro, but they did only spend $1, so perhaps investing some time into it is worth the risk.
- Thread starter
- #65
Nobody in Aust government is going to be giving this new PwC offshoot any work soon
they have bought the right to bill whatever is left on the existing contracts for a dollar
It’s just a transitional arrangement to allow continuity of work whilst at the same time letting government departments say that they have completely cut ties with PwC
likely Allegro will milk whatever they can then in 12 months sell it off for parts to some other consulting firm
its all about public perceptions, much better to sub the work out to a private entity for x dollars (who care is the public purse) and then cover how the contract was awarded than have it on the public record. than have it on record that Knackers the public servant who does the job that has been subbed out, is on 3 x what the PM is.
Not Important
never test the depth of water with both feet.
- Oct 4, 2016
- 9,549
- 15,353
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
capitalism is great init?
i’m for both. of course, one might lead to the other.
theklaxon.com.au
i’m for both. of course, one might lead to the other.
"Launch a Royal Commission" - Ex-KPMG partner - The Klaxon
A former KPMG partner has joined widespread calls for a Royal Commission into the "Big Four" consultancies.
theklaxon.com.au
capitalism is great init?
i’m for both. of course, one might lead to the other.
"Launch a Royal Commission" - Ex-KPMG partner - The Klaxon
A former KPMG partner has joined widespread calls for a Royal Commission into the "Big Four" consultancies.
How these Big 4 fraudsters are not facing serious criminal charges shows that an urgent reform of corporate regulations is desperately needed..
Ex-Deloitte partner used confidential Defence documents to win work for his new business
Controversial consultant David Milo used material he obtained as a partner at Deloitte to further his private interests after he left the firm.
And yes a Royal Commission is what it is going to take to make it happen.
Crankyhawk
Hall of Famer
I suppose at least Deloitte were not the ones misusing the information (could blame rogue person).. small mercies I knowHow these Big 4 fraudsters are not facing serious criminal charges shows that an urgent reform of corporate regulations is desperately needed..
View attachment 1744884
Ex-Deloitte partner used confidential Defence documents to win work for his new business
Controversial consultant David Milo used material he obtained as a partner at Deloitte to further his private interests after he left the firm.www.theage.com.au
And yes a Royal Commission is what it is going to take to make it happen.
Similar threads
