《澳大利亚金融评论报》2023年6月23日报道称，
普华永道澳大利亚可能正在与私募股权进行谈判，以出售其陷入旋涡的政府、教育和医疗健康业务板块。报道中提到的私募股权公司是Allegro Funds。
据了解，已经起草了一份关于潜在交易的条款清单，概述了交易的细节。但是，关于任何新的独立公司的职权范围以及它是否只为公共部门工作或也接受私营企业客户的讨论仍在进行中。
AFR Weekend被告知，
潜在的交易可能包括100名合伙人和1000名员工，约占现有公司的10%。这意味着该业务理论上将产生约200亿至250亿左右美元的收入。
参与这笔交易的合伙人认为，此举将使他们独立于普华永道，并允许他们再次竞标政府业务合同。
普华永道发言人告诉AFR，他们不会对“市场猜测发表评论”。
几个月来，普华永道一直在处理公关风暴、关键客户的流失以及与前合伙人彼得·柯林斯（Peter Collins）泄露机密政府税务机密信息直接相关的政府调查。这一税务丑闻摧毁了该公司现有的业务，并将政府过度依赖外部顾问的问题带入人们的视野。
澳大利亚参议院财政和公共行政参考委员会本周早些时候发布了一份谴责报告（附后），发布在他们的网站上，名为PwC: A calculated breach of trust.pdf LOL），其中概述了柯林斯发生的事情，以及该公司如何使用数千项法律专业特权向澳大利亚税务局隐瞒其内部文件。“普华永道内部谁参与了滥用机密信息的问题仍未得到解答，”报告称。
由于税务从业者委员会（TPB）发现普华永道未能作出适当安排来管理与其作为注册税务代理人的活动有关的利益冲突，并违反了《职业行为守则》第30-10（5）条，因此普华永道必须采取某些步骤来管理利益冲突。
这些步骤包括：
确保对员工进行利益冲突教育;
确保协调冲突登记;
在公司内部引入更好的治理和报告系统;和
普华永道每年需要两次向TPB报告他们所做的更改的进度。
普华永道对通知问题的回答如下：
英文原文报道如下：
Australian Financial Review is reporting today that PwC Australia may be in talks with private equity to sell off its poisoned government, education and healthcare practice. The private equity firm named in the report is Allegro Funds.
It is understood a term sheet about a potential deal has been drawn up outlining details of the deal. But there are ongoing discussions about the remit of any new independent firm and whether it will work only for the public sector or also take on private sector clients.
AFR Weekend has been told that the potential deal could include 100 partners and 1000 staff, or roughly 10 per cent of the existing firm. That means the business would theoretically generate about $200 million to $250 million in billings.
The partners that would be part of this deal believe that the move will provide them with independence from PwC and allow them to again bid for government contracts.
A PwC spokesman told AFR they would not “comment on market speculation”.
For months now PwC has been dealing with a PR storm, the loss of critical clients, and government inquiries directly related to the leak of confidential government tax information by ex-partner Peter Collins, information that was then leveraged to hatch tax avoidance schemes to sell to clients. The tax scandal has destroyed the firm’s existing engagements and brought the issue of government overreliance on outside consultants to the mainstream. Labor senator Deborah O’Neill, who has been verbally handing PwC their ass since this started, is not impressed by this plan. “If this potential deal is to be believed, it indicates that, yet again, PwC is putting its reputation and profit ahead of truth-telling,” Senator O’Neill said.
The Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee released a damning report earlier this week (embedded below, published to their website as PwCAcalculatedbreachoftrust.pdf LOL) that outlines exactly what happened with Collins and how the firm used thousands of claims of legal professional privilege to conceal its internal documents from the Australian Tax Office. “The question of who inside PwC was involved in the misuse of confidential information remains unanswered,” reads the report.
Because the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) found that PwC had failed to have adequate arrangements in place to manage conflicts of interest that arose in relation to its activities as a registered tax agent and breached subsection 30-10(5) of the Code of Professional Conduct, PwC is required to take certain steps to manage conflicts of interest.
These steps include:
ensuring the education of its staff about conflicts of interest;
ensuring the coordination of registration of conflicts;
introducing a better governance and reporting system within the firm; and
Twice a year, PwC will be required to report to the TPB on the progress of the changes they are making.
Nowhere does it say “sell off the cursed business and resume as usual.”
A recent survey by public policy think-tank The Australia Institute found that four-in-five Australians (79%) want PwC banned from receiving new government work, nearly half of those surveyed think the ban should be permanent. Just 2% did not think PwC should be banned from government work, while 19% did not know or were not sure.
45% thought the ban should be permanent while the remainder supported a ban for at least some period of time, either less than two years (5%), between two and five years (12%), or between five and 10 years (16%).
