Deloitte Australia admits misuse of information as PwC scandal widens

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Deloitte Australia admits misuse of information as PwC scandal widens

Gdansk, Poland - May 8, 2022: Logo and sign of Deloitte, multina

Another ‘big four’ firm has been dragged into claims of impropriety as a Senate inquiry into consulting services continues.

Deloitte Australia has told the Senate it misused information from the Australian government last year, but the firm refused to provide more details owing to concerns over client confidentiality.

The firm maintained, however, that the confidential information was not misused for commercial gain.

“Any matters in relation to the misuse of confidential government information would be investigated in line with our normal processes,” said Deloitte in the Friday, July 14, Senate hearing on consulting services.

“Consequences would vary depending on the findings of our internal investigations and, as with any misconduct, these consequences include disciplinary actions in accordance with our policies, which apply to both partners and employees,” the firm told the Senate committee.

The Senate investigation into consulting services comes amid the ongoing PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, in which former partner Peter-John Collins was found to have shared confidential government information with colleagues and clients.

Deloitte Australia also confirmed there was misuse of confidential or proprietary information on nine occasions in FY2021/22, but that this was down from 18 times the previous financial year.

At the hearing, Deloitte Australia also provided the Senate with details about two cases of conflicts of interests involving government contracts. This included work with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Home Affairs Department.

“It was identified in August 2022 that Deloitte had not sought pre-approval from the ANAO to provide the service, as required under their independence and conflicts management policies,” the firm told the Senate.

Deloitte acknowledged that the Home Affairs Department terminated a contract with the firm over an undisclosed conflict of interest. However, the firm told the Senate it was not aware of any other “significant conflict-of-interest matters relating to government work”.

The Senate inquiry will hear from consultancy Accenture and big four firm EY Australia next as the two-day hearing continues until tomorrow, July 18. Meanwhile, management consultancy firm McKinsey has declined to appear before the committee.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Long-running, high-value and complex enquiries are a significant reason for HM Revenue and Customs’s increased TP yield, experts suggest
Landmark legal updates in India have led companies to prioritise specialised tax advisers over accountants, ITR has found
Brazil’s shift to a nationwide consumption tax is more than conceptual; it fundamentally transforms municipal revenue, enforcement, and administrative disputes
While some advisers praised the ruling’s definition of a ‘voucher’ for VAT purposes, a UK partner said the case left unanswered questions
While pillar two has been enacted on paper in Brazil, companies are encountering a range of practical compliance issues, ITR has heard
Moore, founding partner of the Chicago tax boutique which bears her name, shares her career wisdom for ITR’s new Women in Tax interview series
But partners at the firm admit that jumping ship to the US would not be as easy as some believe
Governments are rewriting tax policy for the AI era, deploying digital taxes, tailored incentives and algorithmic enforcement that redefine where value is created
Wingrove will succeed Bill Thomas, who has served in the role since 2017; in other news, Andersen unveiled a sharp increase in revenues for 2025
Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
Gift this article