this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
66 points (97.1% liked)

Australia

3611 readers
230 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Consultants don't advise, they find 'evidence' to justify policy positions. They're also not subject to FOI requests and don't have to follow the same codes that public servants do. Governments love consultants because they usually don't actually want good evidence-based advice, they just want to tick the box that says they did 'research'.

I say this as a phd student who wants to go into academia but will probably end up working for one of these consultants because the government would rather give them money than fund actual research.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A government agency allegedly censored a major study that was critical of the big four consultancy firms because their partners sat on its board, according to the academic who wrote the report.

The allegation, made during a parliamentary inquiry into the ethics and professional standards of the consulting industry, has led to questions about potential “regulatory capture” and possible undue influence.

The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB), which provides oversight of how companies are audited, commissioned Peter Carey and George Tanewski from Deakin University to study the quality of financial reports.

After more than a decade of research, Carey and Tanewski told the inquiry they believed some of the audits performed by the so-called big four – KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PwC – “did not uphold quality”.

Despite agreeing with O’Neill’s characterisation of “regulatory capture”, Carey praised the AASB for taking the issue of auditing standards seriously and said “they were so worried about the quality they wanted to make it public”.

“Businesses, investors and stakeholders will benefit from engaging with a single entity responsible for corporate reporting … that will deliver collaborative and effective standards and avoid unnecessary costs,” he said.


The original article contains 616 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!