Long experience of appearing before Australian government inquiries has taught some "to have low expectations of inquiries. Recommendations often expire with the report. Words are cheap; outcomes are more expensive". Statistics substantiate this view. The published inquiry reports, however, often bring new information to light and may eventually influence future Government decisions. All three reports discussed here are available online. ^{i ii iii}

Unsettling information about consultants' behaviour and business structures that emerged during recent Government inquiries should be noted in other countries besides Australia. The Australian government's inquiries initially into PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) but subsequently extended to encompass the wider consulting industry issued informative reports. It would be unrealistic though to hope for immediate change in Australia that achieves a fully effective response to the issues raised. Most action to date seems to be tinkering around the margins while business as usual continues.

Playing For Both Sides

The initial inquiry resulted from public revelations that highlighted the classic example of how consultants can boost their profits by playing for both sides. A former partner of PwC had signed a confidentiality agreement with the Australian Tax Office (ATO) before his engagement by the ATO to advise on new laws to tax transnational companies operating within Australia. That former partner also shared the confidential information obtained with others within PwC both locally and internationally.

In more official language that former PwC partner had used and circulated confidential Australian government information about tax legislation under development "to market PwC ... and influence the structures of existing (PwC) clients in a manner that may be perceived to circumvent the intent of the proposed legislation". ^iv This behaviour came to light in a newspaper report that Australia's Tax Practitioners' Board (TPB) had imposed a two-year ban on that former partner and required PwC to reform its arrangements to manage conflicts of interest relating to tax agent activities.

Throughout the subsequent Government inquiries into PwC itself, and into structural challenges in the consulting industry, PwC tried to prevent further damaging revelations, hence the titles of the PwC inquiry reports of that investigation: "PwC: A Calculated Breach Of Trust" in 2023; and in 2024 PwC: "The Cover-Up Worsens The Crime".

PwC Unwilling To Provide Information

The final report of the investigation into structural challenges in the industry published in late 2024 says that inquiry was also "impeded by PwC's unwillingness to provide information about the PwC breach of confidentiality obligations and subsequent events", that unwillingness apparent from the obstructive behaviour of both PwC Australia and PwC International (PwCIL) which is based in London. Both PwC entities claimed legal privilege and withheld information from all Australian authorities including the Tax Office, the Tax Practitioners' Board and the Parliamentary committees. In doing so, they undermined their own credibility.

Having been unable to extract from either PwC Australia or PwCIL information about the nature of the relationship between them, the final report contained a key recommendation that the "Australian Government not permit PwC [Australia] or any of its related entities to tender for Government work until completion of all ongoing investigations ... Prior to PwC being eligible to tender for Government work PwC must demonstrate it has taken all appropriate remedial action in response to the outcomes of the investigations". The report's reference to PwC Australia's related entities reflected the committee's concerns about the interactions between PwCIL and PwC Australia.

In 2025, just eight months after the recommendations to ban PwC, the Department of Finance recommended the ban on PwC be lifted. It reported that PwC had "implemented and/or revised its policies and process to meet the ethical standards of governance, culture and accountability to support PwC Australia's re-engagement with the Australian Government". ^v This recommendation proceeded against the objections of Senators involved in that final report who warned that the ongoing investigations into PwC remain incomplete, and the conditions specified in the key recommendation have not been met in full.

However, the Department of Finance rationalised its recommendation to lift the ban by ignoring the close interaction between PwC Australia and PwCIL to argue that "the failure of PwCIL to provide documentation to relevant Senate committees, while grave, does not impact Finance's assessment of PwC Australia". It noted that "PwC Australia is a separate legal entity within the PwCIL network" and that "of the information we are aware of in relation to the AFP (Australian Federal Police) and TPB (Tax Practitioners Board) investigations, they apply to former partners of PwC Australia, not current partners or employees". ^vi

Shortly after the ban was lifted news emerged that the TPB had made findings against two current PwC partners as well as two former partners in its tax leaks inquiry and that it has since launched new investigations of current and former PwC partners, as well as investigations of senior personnel in other major firms. The Federal Police investigation into criminal charges from PwC's tax leaks continues.

Sending The Wrong Message To The Industry

The three Senators who had led the committee inquiry, disagreed with the Department of Finance's view that PwC Australia and PwC International should be viewed separately: "The Australian entity remains under the administrative control of the global firm" and, they warned that the decision to lift the ban on PwC before the investigations were completed and the conditions specified were met in full, sent "the wrong message to the industry".

It is not just to the industry that the wrong message has been sent; that message has also been sent to those conducting inquiries and to observers about the behaviour, power, and influence and of some players in the consulting industry. To be fair, some changes have been made in the processes required of consultants and in the current Government's use of consultants. The Government has established an in-house consulting agency and has sought to restore some core functions by hiring staff where previously numbers had been so reduced that significant capability was lost.

The almost three years since the PwC scandal flared has also allowed observers to realise that despite Government trumpeting about reducing the use of external consultants, especially in core public service areas, the Government's overall use of those consultants seems to be increasing rather than reducing. These long running investigations did bring to light a good deal of new information and might eventually influence future Government decisions. But for now, the outcomes of these inquiries reinforce the wisdom of others' advice to have low expectations that effective action might result. And the consulting industry, it seems, can continue with business as usual.

Endnotes:

1. The Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, 2023, "PwC: A Calculated Breach Of Trust", June 2023.
2. The Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, March 2024, "PWC: The Cover-Up Worsens The Crime".
3. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, 2024. "Ethics And Professional Accountability: Structural Challenges In The Audit, Assurance And Consultancy Industry".
4. Chenoweth, N. 2023. "The Tax Practitioner Board Investigation Into PwC Over Tax Leaks", Australian Financial Review, 30/1/23.
5. Australian Government Department of Finance, 2025, "Procurement Policy Note - Conclusion Of Review Into PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia"
6. Australian Government Department of Finance, 2025., "Examination 0f The Ethical Soundness Of PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia", p.7.

Watchdog - 170 December 2025