Luke Sayers - PWC Scandal

[nut]

How?

The intent was about collecting overpaid welfare. What am I missing?

Execution was terrible that’s agreed. But intent?

Are you serious?

 

[Belnakor]

Federal Police are investigating, let's see what they come up with.

Reputational damage will be interesting.

They’ll come up with nothing unless they go collins. The rest of them will just play dumb. the way these places work the partners basically all run their own fiefdoms with a loose structure above. Would be very surprised if anyone else gets done.

 

[Forever North]

Robodebt averaged out your yearly earnings for the purposes of welfare payments when it shouldn’t have had. This was the flaw in the system. Eg, First 6 months on unemployment benefits then next 6 months earning $50k meant when Centrlink did end of financial year reconciliation it assumed the 50k was earnt over 12 months and you were thus not entitled to full/partial benefits when unemployed during the first 6 months. You were sent a bill requiring you to pay back a certain amount. Frightened and unaware people did just that. A lot of casual and seasonal workers got caught out when they shouldn’t have. The system was very very sneaky, confusing and deceptive.
The real ‘welfare bums’ nowdays like Sayers wear suits, sit in each others boardrooms jerking each other and drink $500 bottles of wine at ’business lunches’. **** them.

 

[demondavey]

Mate it was just about trying to recover over payment of welfare from people who weren’t otherwise providing information for them to make an assessment. The intent was fine. The execution was terrible.

Right, recover payments from people disadvantaged and on benefits who hadn’t provided information correctly, but let negative gearing and franking credit cash refunds slide.

Got you.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

How?

The intent was about collecting overpaid welfare. What am I missing?

Execution was terrible that’s agreed. But intent?

I would certainly say the whole reason it was even conceived at all was as a “crackdown on welfare cheats”, which is a very tired right-wing trope.

Major conservative parties in the western world (including the LNP) have lurched further right in recent years and have began to embrace the thinking about poverty and financial dependency essentially being a character flaw. They’re careful in how they talk but their actions tell a story.

The targeting of welfare recipients by conservatives is increasingly a values decision driven by belief rather than one based on financial impact relative to other budget measures.

This is where Robodebt was born.

 

[Warhorse]

Sayers would suck up to anyone to get government contracts.
That was his job.
Doubt he cares which side they are on.
Just get the juicy government contracts for providing crap advice.
That's how it works for the so called and self labelled "big 4".

It's not even providing advice. Government knows what they are going to do and the consultants will agree with the government. Consultants earn a bucket of money. Government can hide behind 'expert advice' when things go wrong or to justify a decision.

I have only seen consultants hired when a decision has already been made. Massive scam

 

[demondavey]

It's not even providing advice. Government knows what they are going to do and the consultants will agree with the government. Consultants earn a bucket of money. Government can hide behind 'expert advice' when things go wrong or to justify a decision.

I have only seen consultants hired when a decision has already been made. Massive scam

So who consults in the planning phases?

 

[apollo_creed]

Calling gutless people in the football media who proudly fondle AFL balls/suckle the boobies.. prepared to actually be a journalist? Or continue being a little bitch?

 

[RichLeMonde]

How?

The intent was about collecting overpaid welfare. What am I missing?

Execution was terrible that’s agreed. But intent?

The intent was to create a punitive and draconian system that knowingly hurt deserving welfare recipients so as to create a larger structural disincentive to the broader population to falling on hard times and needing welfare.

It’s what 19th century Dickensian capitalists would have created as a welfare policy if they were forced to

 

[demondavey]

You never really bail on Big 4 firms. Partners are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year even after they retire. A sort of pension.

Are they?

 

[demondavey]

How?

The intent was about collecting overpaid welfare. What am I missing?

Execution was terrible that’s agreed. But intent?

You’re asking people with nothing to give back what they’ve spent to stay alive?

Yet you’ll let franking credit cash refunds slide for wealthy retirees who get rewarded because they chose to run an SMSF?

Get real.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

You’re asking people with nothing to give back what they’ve spent to stay alive?

Yet you’ll let franking credit cash refunds slide for wealthy retirees who get rewarded because they chose to run an SMSF?

Get real.

Imagine if a company did that. Invented debts then took the money from people's bank accounts, without any notice... how would that go down?

 

[Beerfish]

Can we change the thread title to 'Luke Sayers and Co should be in jail - PWC Scandal'?

 

[demondavey]

Imagine if a company did that. Invented debts then took the money from people's bank accounts, without any notice... how would that go down?

Not just anyone either, people already relying on that to get through each day. It was a disgusting indictment on our government.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Can we change the thread title to 'Luke Sayers and Co should be in jail - PWC Scandal'?

Ah well, hard to imagine Carlton having a president who WASN'T being investigated by various government bodies.

 

[big_e]

Are they?

"The range of payments is broad but the average payment to retired equity partners who meet the eligibility criteria is $140,384 per annum," the firm said in response to a question on notice from the parliamentary inquiry into audit quality by Labor senator Deborah O'Neill.

The payments have raised conflict of interest concerns about former PwC partners who go on to other corporate roles because it means they retain a link to the financial health of the firm

.https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/partners-paid-140-000-every-year-after-they-leave-pwc-20200131-p53wj1

 

[Mofra]

Right, recover payments from people disadvantaged and on benefits who hadn’t provided information correctly, but let negative gearing and franking credit cash refunds slide.

Got you.

In the early 2000s there was an analysis on dollar for dollar ROI for government investigations.
For Centrelink/Services Australia, the recovery rate was about 70c in the dollar
Most regulators actually met the $1 recovered per $1 cost of investigation.
The ATO returned over $6 per $1 pent on investigation costs

it's not Johnny Jobseeker that is ripping off the public purse.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

No surprises here

 

[StillAtLarge]

'Mens Sana In Copore Sano'

Latin translation: 'When it all gets too much for me I'll jet off to Tuscany'

 

[HTPunter]

Does anyone have any confidence that any real scalps will be taken?

I don’t know enough about it but it’s hard to see the utmost senior people (like Sayers) face any real repercussions. Perhaps a ban from directors roles when they’ve already made millions, perhaps a parking fine (by their standards).

For people in the business world, is there any thought at all that this will result in genuine outcomes or is it likely to be some scapegoats ?

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Does anyone have any confidence that any real scalps will be taken?

I don’t know enough about it but it’s hard to see the utmost senior people (like Sayers) face any real repercussions. Perhaps a ban from directors roles when they’ve already made millions, perhaps a parking fine (by their standards).

For people in the business world, is there any thought at all that this will result in genuine outcomes or is it likely to be some scapegoats ?

No way

This is Australia, the $ rules

 

[Gavin Excell]

Does anyone have any confidence that any real scalps will be taken?

I don’t know enough about it but it’s hard to see the utmost senior people (like Sayers) face any real repercussions. Perhaps a ban from directors roles when they’ve already made millions, perhaps a parking fine (by their standards).

For people in the business world, is there any thought at all that this will result in genuine outcomes or is it likely to be some scapegoats ?

A directors ban can have genuine consequences.

From PwCs perspective, the edict from the Dept of Finance last week to the Aust Public Service to ensure they consider whom the enter into contracts with need to be "ethically" sound, is effectively a ban on engaging with them in the immediate future. That's a big customer they have lost

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Does anyone have any confidence that any real scalps will be taken?

I don’t know enough about it but it’s hard to see the utmost senior people (like Sayers) face any real repercussions. Perhaps a ban from directors roles when they’ve already made millions, perhaps a parking fine (by their standards).

For people in the business world, is there any thought at all that this will result in genuine outcomes or is it likely to be some scapegoats ?

You seen The Big Short?

 

[Gavin Excell]

Official apology

Redirect Notice

 

[Gavin Excell]

Imagine if a company did that. Invented debts then took the money from people's bank accounts, without any notice... how would that go down?

Careful
Gerry Harvey may get some ideas