Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the matter of these incredible consultancy companies that are consuming so much of our time and energy in this place. These are companies with their names written in bright lights across the skylines of major cities around the world. It's certainly a very big feature in Sydney, on some of the best property landings in the country. Amongst them are the familiar letters: PwC, EY, KPMG and Deloitte.

I could have told EY some of the results that they have now had delivered to them by the very esteemed Elizabeth Broderick, because I have been reporting in this chamber. We have been hearing evidence and receiving information from whistleblowers about the appalling and toxic work culture in these big consultancy firms, particularly for new starters.

I want to acknowledge the importance of the fourth estate in getting this information out to the public, particularly the work of Neil Chenoweth, who really cracked the story about what was actually going on inside PwC and gave us the story of Peter-John Collins, which we've then been able to follow up here through the Senate.

The story of what's going on in these companies needs to be told in the public place so young people who are considering a career in one of these esteemed places know what they're getting themselves in for. Staff 'churn and burn' is one of the things that's been described. We know, from the evidence that we've received over many years and, again, in recent times, that there is an incredibly high level of turnover of staff—that is, of the lower level staff. Partners, on the other hand, seem to have cottoned on quite early that if they do a few really hard years and they accede to the incredibly blokey dominated culture, with most of the leadership being men at the senior level—if they can endure it long enough—then they can buy in and give themselves very, very, very large salaries.

In fact, it was put in this way in an article by Edmond Tadros recently. In his contribution on this matter in the public place on 1 August he said that EY, in response to the Broderick report for EY on the failings of their workplace and the 27 recommendations of the report:

… will run pilot programs aimed at improving the working conditions—but these programs will all cost money.

Partners will have to decide how much of their super-profits—average partner income is about $950,000—

And that is a figure that was put on the record here, in this parliament—

they will sacrifice to ensure more workers are put on projects. This compares with staff pay at the firm which begins at roughly $66,000 …

That is $66,000 for highly skilled, highly intelligent, really capable young Australians who've managed to get themselves through university and find themselves in a workplace where their skills are being put out for sale. I've heard figures of $1,500 to $2,000 a day. That's what these young graduates are bringing in. But they're so 'churned and burned' that they simply can't continue in the workplace. They're just fodder. Meanwhile, the partners above them are taking home an absolute fortune.

The article by Mr Tadros also states:

To achieve the massive annual recruitment requirement of bringing in thousands of new workers, the firm's marketing for potential employees makes no mention of a working week that regularly exceeds 61 hours for 11 per cent of workers and routinely tops 51 hours for 31 per cent of staff.

Listen to those numbers. My goodness! It's a wonder it's taken them until this year to get somebody in to do a report into the cultural problems at EY.

The good thing is that they did the report and they've accepted the 27 recommendations. Now, will they actually change the business model that is driving incredible profits for an insatiable model of doing business that they share with the other big accounting companies?

Senate adjourned at 19:54